intercultural friendship

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research Vol. 35, No. 1, March 2006, pp. 3–22 Bridging Cultures: Understanding the Construction of Relational Identity in Intercultural Friendship Pei-Wen Lee This research aims to uncover the strategies/activities that shape the construction of relational identity through analyzing the turning points occurring during the process of intercultural friendship. Forty-five interviews were conducted with members in 15 intercultural friendship dyads. The results reveal that seven types of activities were identified: (1) positivities/providing assistance; (2) rituals, activities, rules, and roles; (3) self-disclosure; (4) networking; (5) exploring cultures and languages; (6) emphasizing similarities and exploring differences; and (7) conflict/conflict management. The strategies of exploring cultures and languages and of conflict/conflict management were thoroughly discussed to advance our understanding of the development and maintenance in intercultural friendship.

Keywords: Intercultural Friendship; Relational Identity; Third-culture I am one of the many sojourners in the US. Six years ago, I left Taiwan, for New York City to pursue my Master’s degree. Living in one of the most diverse places in the world, for the first time, I realized the homogeneous nature of the Taiwanese population in comparison to that of the US. Being away from my family members, my intercultural friends, whether they are from the US or other countries around the world, have naturally become my primary source of emotional and professional support. My intercultural friendships with Americans play an important role in Pei-Wen Lee (PhD, Ohio University, 2004) is currently an Assistant Professor at LaGuardia Community College, The City University of New York (CUNY). The author wishes to express her gratitude to Dr. Claudia Hale at Ohio University for her precious advice and comments on the final drafts of this paper. Correspondence to: Pei-Wen Lee, Humanities Department Room E202 LaGuardia Community College, CUNY, 31-10 Thomson Avenue, Long Island City, NY 11101, USA. Tel: (718) 482-6025; Email: [email protected] ISSN 1747-5759 (print)/ISSN 1747-5767 (online) 2006 World Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/17475740600739156 helping me to adapt to the mainstream culture in the US. With my other intercultural friends from countries such as Japan, Korea, France, Argentina, etc., we share our experiences and struggles in terms of living as members of co-cultural groups in a foreign country. Most importantly, having intercultural friendships is an eye-opening experience for me. Interacting with people from multiple cultural backgrounds truly widens my worldview and challenges some previously held prejudices concerning people from other cultures. Indeed, intercultural friendships contribute to my life in both professional and personal contexts.

As illustrated through my personal experiences, the outcome of globalization leads us generally to believe that opportunities to meet others from a variety of national cultures have increased (Leeds-Hurtwiz, 2002). The truth is that we live in a global village where our neighbors, friends, and co-workers will not necessarily share the same values or speak the same native language as we do. As Hall (1990) stated, ‘‘[W]e must be willing to admit that the people of this planet don’t just live in one world [culture] but in many worlds and some of these worlds, if not properly understood, can and do annihilate the others’’ (p. 201). To succeed in both our personal and professional lives, we must learn how to relate, in face-to-face contexts, with people from other cultures. As a consequence, the topic of culture is becoming one of the central areas receiving increased attention from communication scholars.

Surprisingly, examination of extant literature reveals that intercultural relation- ships—intercultural marriage and intercultural friendship—have remained largely unexplored, despite the fact that it is more prevalent and influential today in an individual’s life (Chen, 2002; Dainton, Zelley, & Langan, 2003; Gaines & Liu, 2000; Gareis, 1995).

Although intercultural friendships can benefit our lives in a wide variety of ways, there are many negative stereotypes associated with this type of relationship. Gaines and Liu (2000) have argued that the reason why an intercultural relationship is more likely to be vulnerable is because the dyad’s relational identity is not well developed, resulting in the relationship being influenced by self-serving biases and group-serving biases.Relational identity(also termed ‘‘relational culture’’ or ‘‘third-culture’’) is an abstract concept that might best be defined as a reality or culture that reflects the values, the rules, and the processes of the friendship and helps the dyad to maintain their relationship (Casmir, 1993; Wood, 2000). Just as the culture of a particular country influences the definition and enactment of appropriate behavior within that country, relational identity guides behavior within a relationship. According to Gaines and Liu, if the dyad’s relational identity is strong, the relationship tends to last longer. In this sense, relational identity seems to be a critical component in determining the success of an intercultural friendship. Unfortunately, researchers have paid scant attention to the development of relational identity by members in intercultural friendships (Gaines & Brennan, 2001). While Cupach and Imahori’s (1993) Identity Management Theory (IMT) and Casmir’s (1999) Third-Culture Building Model were developed in an effort to describe the phases of relational identity construction between members of intercultural relationships, as Gudykunst (2002) noted, very little research has sought to further explore these two theories.

4P.-W. Lee To fill the knowledge gap created by this situation, this study explores the development of relational identity in intercultural friendship. Specifically, this research investigates the activities, behaviors, or influences that shape the construction of relational identity.

Review of Literature While the topic of friendship has been studied since the late 1970s, the extant research has focused primarily on intracultural relationships and adopted a noncomparative perspective. According to Cargile (1998) and Gareis (1995), the focus has mostly been on middle-class European Americans’ friendships and the differences that occur during the development of friendships across stages or a lifetime (e.g., Rawlins, 1992). Fehr (2000) reviewed the available friendship research, focusing on the processes by which people develop, maintain, terminate, or restore friendships, and concluded that typical friendship studies have usually selected one factor (or a few factors) and examined the influence of that factor at a particular stage of friendship development. Friendship maintenance strategies have also served as a popular topic (Duck, 1994).

Friendship research as it intersects with other cultural contexts has been largely neglected. Chen (2002) noted: Research on intercultural relationship communication is still in its infancy, with limited studies on intercultural communication in interpersonal relationships such as intercultural marriage, dating, and friendship. Interest in intercultural marriages arises mainly from a practical need to understand marriages between partners of different cultural backgrounds as a social phenomenon. Research on other intercultural relationships including friendship grows out of interests in intercultural communication as a whole. (p. 241) There is, then, a need to expand our understanding both of the communication dynamics involved in intercultural friendships and of cross-cultural similarities/ differences in the expectations associated with the concept of friendship.

Intercultural Friendship or Cross-cultural Comparison Friendship Research Research suggests that our understanding of the concept of friendship varies as a result of age, gender, region, and cultural background (Adams, Blieszner, & de Vries, 2000; Mirny, 2001; Patterson, Bettini, & Nussbaum, 1993). Since perceptions of friendship diverge across culture (Barnlund, 1989; Cargile, 1998; Krumrey-Fulks, 2001), it seems logical that forming intercultural relationships should be a challenging task. As such, the factors that influence the formation and maintenance of intercultural friendships serve as important areas for research.

Scholars have found that members involved in intercultural friendships have to deal not only with the challenges that exist with intracultural friendships (e.g., values, interests, personality traits, and changes), but also the problems emerging from internal and external relational dialectics, cultural differences, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research5 and possible language barriers between the interactants (Chen, 2002; Gareis, 1995; Javidi & Javidi, 1991; Martin & Nakayama, 1997). Clearly, positive facilitation of intercultural friendships requires more than simply increasing the possibilities for contact or interaction. We, as relationship scholars, need to concentrate on how to enhance the quality of intercultural friendships and how to make such relationships work.

Fortunately, research has indicated that stereotypes, dissimilarities, and insufficient cultural understandings in a relationship can be constructively addressed through communicative activities, such as, value sharing and culture learning (Monsour, 1994). Even though intercultural friendships might seem difficult or anxiety provoking in the beginning stages, little research suggests that intercultural relationships fail more easily than intracultural relationships. In effect, if the dyad knows how to patiently embrace differences and identify their shared similarities, intercultural friendships can be as strong and last as long as intracultural friendships (Gaines & Agnew, 2003).

Relational Identity and Friendship Research Co-constructing a relational identity within an intercultural friendship is the core of such a relationship. Wood (1982) defined the term ‘‘relational identity/culture’’ as ‘‘a privately transacted system of understandings that coordinate attitudes, actions, and identities of participants in a relationship’’ (p. 76). A relational identity ‘‘arises out of communication and becomes an increasingly central influence on individual partners’ ways of knowing, being, and acting in relation to each other and the outside world’’ (p. 75). Relational identity is essential, particularly in an intercultural friendship because such identity is like a ‘‘mini-culture’’ (Baxter, 1987) co-created by the members, and based on this culture, the members know how to behave and interact appropriately, as well as effectively within their friendship. As Wood clearly suggested, a relational identity is not simply objects or places, such as a birthday gift or the restaurant at which the dyad first met. Instead, a relational identity refers to the interpretations or meanings attached to the specific objects, places, events, or popular songs (Gaines & Brennan, 2001) that make up the relationship.

Baxter (1987) postulated that relationships possess their own unique culture.

A dyad co-creates meaning systems in a number of ways, including shared stories, ritual enactments, and symbols. Baxter examined the content characteristics and functions of the symbols which relational dyads use to identify their romantic relationships and friendships. Five classes of relational symbols were identified:

behavioral actions, prior events/times, physical objects, special places, and cultural artifacts (e.g., a movie). In Baxter’s research, participants reported nine substantive functions with respect to their relational symbols. The most frequently identified functions were prompting recollection, indicating intimacy, promoting communion, providing stimulation/fun, and affording seclusion from others. Participants in romantic relationships tended to have physical object symbols, whereas members of 6P.-W. Lee friendships disclosed that they tended to have behavioral action and event/time symbols. Most importantly, Baxter’s study demonstrated that relationship closeness has a positive association with symbol valence and functional richness. In other words, relational symbols, a mode of relational identity, function to facilitate relational intimacy.

Bell and Healey (1992) examined idiomatic communication in friends’ relational identities. Personal idioms, as defined by Bell and Healey, refer to a specific type of relationship symbol, which can be words, phrases, or gestures that represent specific meanings within a relationship. Bell and Healey held the position that idiomatic communication can positively contribute to individuals’ relational identities. Their findings supported their argument, suggesting that idiomatic communication is common in friendship and appears to correspond with the development of relational intimacy.

Identity Management Theory and Third-Culture Building Model Cupach and Imahori’s (1993) Identity Management Theory (IMT) seeks to explain the process of developing relational identity between members in an intercultural friendship. Cupach and Imahori argued that individuals develop their identities and relationships through interacting with their relational partners. That is, individuals’ self-identifications are shaped throughout their relationship. A relational identity is critical in shaping the interactions of members of the relationship and in maintaining the relationship. Cupach and Imahori also noted that an intercultural relationship can be ‘‘interpersonal’’ if the members can co-form a relational identity. The participants can focus on their interpersonal interaction by sharing this relational identity temporarily allowing their cultural differences to recede into the background.

The relational process emphasized in IMT is close to the Third-Culture Building Model advanced by Casmir (1978, 1993, 1999). The focus of the current research, relational identity, to some extent, can be seen as a third-culture. The central assumption of the third-culture approach, according to Casmir (1999), is that members in intercultural relationships have a need to engage in a process of understanding and negotiating differences. This process involves adapting and converging different cultural values and identities. The activity of third-culture building allows all participants to gain an appreciation for and an understanding of others through negotiating standards, goals, and satisfaction in a conversational process. The third-culture represents a mutuality, which is understood and supported by people who are involved in its development (Casmir, 1999).

Taken as a whole, IMT and the Third-Culture Building Model contribute to our understanding of relational identity development in the context of intercultural friendships. Nonetheless, as Belay (1993), Gudykunst (2002), and Shuter (1993) have found, little research has applied or expanded our understanding of either IMT or the Third-Culture Building Model in relation to intercultural friendship. Furthermore, a significant knowledge gap exists concerning the strategies employed to develop relational identity within an intercultural friendship. Given this knowledge-void in Journal of Intercultural Communication Research7 the extant intercultural friendship literature, the need for research in this area comes into focus. At this point, the following research question emerges as a guide for the present study. What are the communicative activities, behaviors, or influences that contribute to (or shape) the construction of relational identity in intercultural friendship? Method The research question guiding this study seeks to understand how individuals make sense of their experiences in intercultural friendships and how they construct shared meanings with their intercultural friends. As such, a qualitative research method is appropriate because its goal is to understand how people co-create meanings and how they live with those co-created meanings in their relationships (Bogdan & Bilken, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Lindlof, 1995). Furthermore, qualitative studies are evident in interpersonal communication research (Lindlof, 1995) because such research examines the forms of social interaction, such as family and friendship (e.g., Jorgenson, 1989; Rawlins, 1983, 1989).

Among the qualitative research methods, grounded theory emerged as a suitable methodological orientation for this research. Charmaz (2000) described grounded theory as ‘‘the study of experience from the standpoint of those who live it’’ (p. 522) and explained that the aim of a grounded theory study is to generate substantive theories from collected data. Strauss and Corbin (1998) argued that ‘‘the data do not lie’’ (p. 85); the data are reconstructions of participants’ lived experiences.

The data for many grounded theory studies come from interviews (Charmaz, 2000). Interviewing is the most widely employed technique for data collection in social inquiry (Holstein & Gubrium, 2002). Kvale (1996) defines the research interview as ‘‘an interview whose purpose is to obtain descriptions of the life world of the interviewee with respect to interpreting the meaning of the described phenomenon’’ (pp. 5–6). The research interview is based on a conversation with the interviewee about the meanings of his/her life experiences.

Qualitative interviewing assists us to explore research participants’ points of view and to obtain descriptions of their social lives that are not available for observation, representing the world from their own perspectives (Lindlof, 1995). As Silverman (1997) noted, ‘‘interview subjects construct not just narratives, but social worlds’’ (p. 100). The interviewer’s job is to share the participant’s subjective view, describing that view with depth and representing it fairly and consistently with the participant’s meanings (Charmaz, 1995). Furthermore, research suggests that interviews can yield benefits to the interviewees in the form of life management. As Kvale (1996) suggested, ‘‘The sensitivity of the interview and its closeness to the subjects’ lived world can lead to knowledge that can be used to enhance the human condition’’ (p. 11).

In sum, through the conversation in an interview, researchers can better understand their participants’ life experiences. During the interview process, 8P.-W. Lee interviewees can review/reconsider their lived world and possibly improve their lives.

Thus, the interviewing technique is appropriate for the present study because this study aims to capture participants’ views toward their intercultural friendships and, at the same time, this study could help them to reflect on their relationships and enhance their skills in maintaining intercultural friendships.

Participant Recruitment Participants were recruited on the campus of a Midwestern university. A university campus serves as an excellent site for research of this nature because an individual’s first intercultural friendship is often formed in college. Participants were required to meet the following criteria to be included in the study. First, each participant had to possess at least one close friend from another culture. ‘‘Different culture’’ was operationalized to mean having a different native language and a different nationality from each other. Although individuals might share the same native language (e.g., Spanish) and yet come from different cultures (e.g., Mexico versus Spain versus Cuba), the language criterion was invoked, in part, in order to maximize the challenging characteristics rooted in the nature of intercultural friendships. Relatives or romantic partners were excluded from the concept of close friend. As a second criterion, both the primary participant and his/her intercultural friend needed to be accessible to participate in an individual interview and a conjoint interview through face to face meetings, telephone, or email. This criterion was established in the hope that a more complex, multifaceted picture of the relationship might emerge through the conjoint interview.

Third, an interviewee had to be involved in the selected friendship for at least one year and had to regularly meet with his/her intercultural friend outside the setting where the relationship started (for example, classmates had to meet outside the classroom). The ‘‘one year’’ criterion was set based on the belief that it was less likely for participants to give numerous meaningful examples to help us understand the development of the friendship if that relationship had been in existence for less than one year. On the other hand, if the criterion was established to be longer than one year, some potential participants in one-year Master’s programs on the selected campus would be automatically excluded. Participants were recruited through an online newsletter, advertisements/fliers, and network sampling. As an inducement, the advertisement informed individuals that participants in the research would receive a five-dollar certificate that could be used at a local coffee shop.

Description of Participants Overall, 17 intercultural friendship dyads agreed to participate in the research.

Unfortunately, among these 17 dyads, two were eventually not included because one dyad did not meet the criteria just outlined, and both members of the other dyad were not able to complete the interviews during the data collection period. Thus, 15 intercultural friendships were examined, resulting in a total of 30 participants and 45 interviews. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research9 A majority of the participants were obtained through networking with individuals interested in intercultural or cultural issues. Ten of the intercultural friendship dyads involved an American (i.e., African American or European American) with an international friend. The remaining five friendships were international and international dyads. The mean length of the 15 friendships was 2.6 years, ranging in years from 1 to 9 (1–3 years:n¼11; 4–9 years:n¼4). Among the 30 interviewees, 23 were females and 7 were males; their average age was 28.5 years, ranging in age from 21 to 41. Twenty-four participants were graduate students; six were undergraduate students. In addition to the United States, participants were from Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, India, China, Taiwan, Japan, Trinidad and Tobago, the Dominican Republic, Canada, Macedonia, Argentina, and Botswana.

Interview Procedures The participants were asked to schedule two meetings with me so that we could conduct one individual interview and one conjoint interview with their intercultural friend. Prior to each interview, participants were informed of the purpose of the study, assured of the confidential nature of their participation, and asked for permission to audiotape the interview. On average, the individual interviews lasted approximately one hour, whereas the conjoint interviews were shorter, lasting around 45 minutes. The interviews were in-depth, semistructured, and open-ended, and took place in locations chosen by the participants.

Individual interview In the first part of the individual interview, participants were encouraged to talk about how close friendship is viewed within their own culture and then to share any stories concerning their intercultural friendships. The second part of the individual interview entailed use of the Retrospective Interview Technique (RIT), a methodological strategy employed to acquire turning point data (Baxter & Bullis, 1986). Based on the RIT, each interviewee identified all of the turning points that had played a significant role in his/her intercultural friendship since their first meeting.

The turning points identified by the interviewees represented specific activities that gave meaning to the friendship, helping to construct the relational identity for the intercultural friends. At the end of the individual interviews, participants were asked whether there was any information they revealed that they preferred not to be brought up in the conjoint interview. I recorded those topics and promised to respect their desire for confidentiality.

Conjoint interview The purpose for conducting a conjoint interview was to allow me to ask follow-up questions with respect to the previous individual interview and to encourage participants to reveal more details regarding the history of their friendship by having a conversation with their intercultural friend. Conjoint interviewing permitted me to 10P.-W. Lee witness how the relational partners talked with each other, how they influenced or were influenced by the other party, and how they managed any disagreements that occurred during the interview process (Sandelowski, Holditch-Davis, & Harris, 1992). Field notes were taken to reflect on my observations or feelings about the interview process and the interactions between the intercultural friends.

Data Analysis To identify the communicative activities and influences that helped shape the construction of relational identity within the respondents’ intercultural friendship, thematic analysis (Owen, 1984) was applied to the interview data. Themes are defined as ‘‘a limited range of interpretations used to conceive of and constitute relationships’’ (Owen, 1984, p. 274). The thematic analysis employed in the current research included three steps. During the first step, broad themes were identified. The ideas that were repeated, recurrent, and forceful in a majority of the data were counted as a theme. In the second step, more specific subthemes were located when more than one related insight was present. This allowed me to distinguish among those highly related, but different, ideas and to categorize themes that were more in-depth and complex. The final step was to choose a label for each theme to represent meanings that attach to the activities in relation to the development of relational identity in intercultural friendship (Krusiewicz & Wood, 2001).

Results Unlike how previous research has suggested (Barnlund, 1989; Cargile, 1998; Krumrey-Fulks, 2001), the ways in which the participants defined ‘‘close friendship’’ were very similar across cultures. The most frequently mentioned definitions of close friendship in the interviews included: a close friend is someone who helps, who does not judge you, who does not need to be physically with you all the time, who knows how to keep in touch, who is like your family, whom you can share with or talk to, whom you can trust, whom you want to spend time with, who shares your interests, who knows/understands you, who is always honest with you or truthful to you, who shares the same sense of humor or laughs together with you, who is always supportive, who can accept changes through life or grow together with you, and finally, a close friend is someone who has a similar personality to you.

In terms of defining what a close friend is, interestingly enough, most of the interviewees shared the same view with their intercultural friends. For example, Marian (all names used in this report are pseudonyms) revealed that a close friend should be someone whom she can share everything with, someone whom she can talk a lot to, and someone who can understand her. Marian’s intercultural friend, Renee, described her view of ‘‘close friend’’ in a very similar way—that a close friend is someone whom she can share life and problems with, someone whom she can trust, and someone who will never betray her. Perceiving a similar sense of Journal of Intercultural Communication Research11 ‘‘close friendship’’ with their intercultural friends, to a certain extent explains why the members in an intercultural friendship are attracted to each other and become close intercultural friends, disregarding their different cultural backgrounds.

In addition, the research question seeks an understanding of the behaviors or activities engaged in by intercultural friends that contribute to the building of their relational identity. A total of seven major themes emerged throughout the interviews.

These seven themes are: (1) positivities/providing assistance; (2) rituals, activities, rules, and roles; (3) self-disclosure; (4) networking; (5) exploring cultures and languages; (6) emphasizing similarities and exploring differences; and (7) conflict/ conflict management.

Positivities/Providing Assistance Positivity refers to constructive behaviors enacted by interviewees in their intercultural friendships. Participants described their intercultural friends by using the following words: helpful, trust, respectful, patient, nonjudgmental, encouraging, positive attitude, tolerant, open-minded, and truthful. These terms represent the positive characteristics that intercultural friends demonstrated in their friendships.

Particularly, all of the participants reported that giving help, doing favors, and providing support and advice is a primary strategy that was positively employed to confirm their mutual interest in the friendship. For example, in Tina’s interview, she described her experience of picking up Elaine at the airport and how this act was, in fact, symbolic to their friendship. As Tina stated: I picked up [Elaine] at the airport a couple times. There was one time that her flight was delayed so I had to stay at the airport. I thought she would get in at 9 but she didn’t get in until almost 12. They lost her luggage so we were at the airport ’til almost 2 and waiting and talking and waiting for them to find her luggage. So that was another turning point. I mean I wouldn’t wait around for three hours for just anybody, but she is a good friend. By providing assistance, whether tangible or intangible, interviewees expressed that they were needed by their friends and that they could be of help to them.

Rituals, Activities, Rules, and Roles Participants indicated that, just as other modes of friends, they enjoyed joint activities. In the American culture, this type of social behavior is generally termed ‘‘hanging-out,’’ whereas in Trinidad and Tobago, people call it ‘‘liming;’’ in Chinese culture, it is common to hear friends invite each other to ‘‘waste time’’ together. Participants reported that hanging out with friends was not only fun but also beneficial for the friendship in terms of having opportunities to update each other about their lives, personally and culturally. After continually engaging in certain activities, as the participants indicated, it was likely that those activities (e.g., traveling) would become rituals within their friendship, representing particular meanings for the intercultural friendship. For example, Ben, a 12P.-W. Lee European American graduate student, described how smoking gradually became a unique ritual between him and his Argentinean friend, Beth. As Ben stated: We like to drink beer, but we smoke cigarettes a lot. I mean not all the time or anything but that’s one. So we would just sit outside in the middle of the day which is always a nice thing. It is not really the time for smoke. It is just the time to just process the day and get a hand on it. So, instead of saying ‘‘oh I gotta go smoke a cigarette,’’ I think more is just like to talk. Additionally, participants reported that rules were often developed implicitly through activities they engaged in with their friends, for example, ‘‘no probing about intimate relationships’’, ‘‘no picking on language,’’ ‘‘mutuality,’’ and ‘‘confidenti- ality.’’ However, there were also explicit rules created to prevent the other party from bad influences (e.g., a former boyfriend who is a player). Roles, similar to rules, were mutually defined through the interactions between the members in intercultural friendships. As interviewees described, roles could be as simple as who was the devil’s advocate, who was the teaser, or who was the peace maker. As such, the friendship members gradually developed tacit agreement between themselves in terms of knowing who they are and what they should or should not enact in their friendships.

Self-disclosure Sharing, whether regarding present or past life, work or personal relationships, was reported as a dominant theme. Participants noted that they would constantly disclose to each other about issues occurring in their lives for the purposes of seeking advice, support, or sometimes as a channel to express thoughts. Because of the sharing, interviewees reported feeling more important and more mutually included in each other’s life. Particularly, secret sharing often brought two friends much closer because the act demonstrated that the message receiver was trustworthy, nonjudgmental, and capable of keeping a confidence although it needed to be cautiously employed with appropriate timing and in the correct context.

During the participants’ sharing process, they often referred to their past personal or cultural experiences. Through sharing past experiences, respondents were able to identify more similarities and obtain a better sense of their friend’s background. For instance, according to Monique, she and Vivian clicked so well because Vivian could completely relate to Monique’s past cultural and personal experiences. As Monique noted: I can relate to her as well because she was an Indian descent Malaysian. And my boyfriend I had just broken up with was Indian Malaysian. And she knew him. She actually knew who he was. So I think that might have come into it more than I actually realized at the time—that she can relate in that cultural way to the guy I had been dating. That said, disclosing past personal or cultural experiences can contribute to the construction of relational identity in that intercultural friends learn about each other in a more complete sense. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research13 Networking Meeting their intercultural friends’ family members, significant others, or good friends was indicated by respondents as a way to show their friendship closeness and to include their friends in their personal life. Becky described her experiences of communicating with Joyce’s boyfriend: Her boyfriend is in France, so I have never met him, but every time [he] calls, [Joyce] gives me the phone. So I kind of like know him through our conversation on the phone. And even [he] speaks to me as if he knows me. But we have never met. And every time [Joyce] talks about him, well she tells me everything about him and everything in her life. Becky was shown the very personal side of Joyce, and this act implicitly confirmed the intimacy of their friendship. Furthermore, respondents reported that, when they found their intercultural friend was willing to meet their family members and friends, this conveyed to them the message that he or she truly valued the friendship.

Exploring Cultures and Languages Culture was reported by the intercultural friendship dyads as a popular topic.

Participants would exchange information with respect to languages, food, cultural values, and/or beliefs. Because the subject of culture naturally flowed in their conversations, respondents often took the chance to educate each other by introducing their cultures or eradicating previous stereotypes. A good example was illuminated through Becky’s comments: [Joyce] teaches me about her history...I feel like I am learning about some stuff she teaches me. What makes it interesting is that it is not like a one way thing. She is also learning about my culture. She lived in this country, South Africa, which is close to my culture. Lived with my people for two years. I think that’s one of the reasons that interests me. But with those things she teaches me I have learned so much in terms of knowing who African Americans are. Where do they come from.

And I am also being able to understand it and appreciate it. As reported, intercultural friends helped each other to learn their cultures through story telling as well as comparing and contrasting how things were in each other’s culture. Participants indicated that it was entertaining to talk about the differences or similarities in their cultures. As Jeff stated: ‘‘so cultural differences to me kind of brings us closer because we talk about these weird jokes about weird things about Turkey and weird things happened in India.’’ In relation to cultural differences, respondents, during their interactions, would more or less encounter situations where they did not know how to interpret the other’s message or behavior. Some participants reported that, in those circumstances, they would ask direct questions to clarify. As an African American, Bianca has a tendency to change her hair style every once in a short while. She was asked once by her Taiwanese friend, Ralph, about her hair style and she gladly explained to him 14P.-W. Lee without feeling offended or uncomfortable. As Bianca described: I don’t think [culture] is a barrier for either one of us. Because we feel comfortable in asking questions about one another’s culture. Because we just genuinely want to know so that we can understand. Not just asking because it sounds like a good conversation. Emerging from the interviews, language and food were central subjects in the cultural talk. Learning the other’s language not only enhanced participants’ language skills, but also, on a certain level showed respect for the culture. Discussing food or experiencing different types of food were indicated by respondents as a fun, easy step to approach the other’s culture. In Rick’s example, language and food were two key elements that added fun to his interactions with Linda. Rick noted: I guess one of the turning points I consider is when we got into the game and I was trying to teach her a different colloquium or slang and she was trying to teach me some other phrases in Chinese. That was when we started to know each other a lot more...we’ve gone shopping together before and we’ve had dinner with each other before. So I would cook something American and she would cook something Chinese. Later in the interview, Rick revealed that he was going to take Chinese language class next year. Although Linda spoke very fluent English, according to Rick, she was one of the persons who inspired and motivated him to learn Mandarin.

While participants reported that their cultural explorations focused primarily on their national cultures, interestingly, some respondents disclosed that the discussion about a third culture, American culture or organizational culture, would often come into play as well. Nathan, an undergraduate from the Dominican Republic answered my question: ‘‘what do you and Ken (Nathan’s Japanese friend) often talk about?’’ by replying: We talk about how Japanese people are shyer or how they care more about what other people might think about them. But [Ken] is not that way. And we also talk about how group is more important in Japanese culture like compared to other cultures. Like American culture. That’s one of the topics that we discuss the most. It was also noticeable in Nathan’s response, as well as in other interviews, that his cultural talk with Ken primarily centered on the Japanese culture or the US culture, but rarely touched on the culture of the Dominican Republic. It, again, implied that cultural discussion between intercultural friends can be one sided.

Whereas through information exchange, some respondents chose to adapt to or adjust their values/beliefs closer to those of their friend, other respondents, in some circumstances, chose to deal with cultural differences in alternative ways. To Rick and Linda, the key to facing cultural differences was to accept them, respect them, and value them. And that was the strategy that they both agreed upon. As Rick and Linda noted: Rick: I have an awareness whether it is conscious or unconscious, all the time about there is a difference in values and opinions and desires between us, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research15 but we have been able to overcome any difference by our mutual interests to develop our friendship or get to know each other or value each other’s culture and way of life.

Linda: I think the most important thing is for us to respect each other and trust each other so that’s the base for the relationship. If you don’t respect each other, you will just hey I don’t care about you I will just go with my way, you know. You also gotta trust each other. Overall, most participants expressed that cultural learning was the best part of their intercultural friendship. As Sally enthusiastically described, ‘‘I don’t know, anytime you learn about other cultures in a sense that you learn about yourself. So you just kind of exploring new things. Coming to new understandings of things.’’ ‘‘Exploring culture,’’ through Sally’s words, did not only imply advancing an understanding of the other’s culture, but also one’s own culture.

Emphasizing Similarities and Exploring Differences The participants emphasized in their interviews that they bonded with their intercultural friends because of their shared similarities with respect to many aspects of themselves, such as personalities, interests, religion, values, and identities. Through identifying their similarities, participants believed that they were close to their intercultural friends because their intercultural friends could understand them in that particular area. To give an example, sharing work ethics and family values was considered by Ralph, a Taiwanese, as the center connection between himself and Bianca, an African American. Ralph commented that: I mentioned we share a set of core values. Work and study, a sense of fun and humor, working attitude. We work very hard and we try to do more. We try to make progress. I like the way [Bianca] treats her students. She treats student workers like our staff members. [We] share the same philosophy. We don’t work our students; we work our students as colleagues. And we encourage them to take responsibilities....

I think African Americans’ set of values are quite close to Taiwanese values. It was seen that African Americans, they respect their parents a lot just like Taiwanese. They exercise loyalty to their friends—which is the same culture. Frankly, between intercultural friends, differences could be identified just as much as similarities. However, according to the participants, they often chose to emphasize their shared similarities rather than be concerned about their differences. For example, when asked about how culture influences her friendship with Rick, Linda responded: I think I am unconscious about the cultural differences....I would say, when you get too close with a friend and you, probably, the daily interaction won’t make the boundary so clear that there is a cultural difference between us....I think I don’t keep [those differences] in mind, but sometimes we will see the differences, and it is very clear. But sometimes, you know, even though that’s a cultural difference, that doesn’t, you know, influence our friendship or anything or stop the friendship. In other words, encountering cultural differences was not unusual in Linda’s intercultural friendship with Rick. However, once they were used to each other in 16P.-W. Lee their daily interactions, she tended to overlook those differences. Similarly, other participants emphasized that they did not view the discussion of their differences as a negative influence in their friendship; rather, it was beneficial for them to compare different points of view with respect to the same issue.

Conflict/Conflict Management This theme refers to the nature of the conflicts that several participants had faced in their friendships, and the strategies they employed to cope with those conflicts. The types of conflict reported by the intercultural friendship dyads were: missing meetings, tensions with a third party, language, roommate issues, communication problems, romantic tensions, and adjusting to life changes. Not only did the nature of the conflict allow respondents to understand each other’s interests and personalities better, but also their conflict management styles often determined how successful they were in sustaining their friendships after the conflict occurred. Some intercultural friendships actually ‘‘backwarded’’ (cf. Knapp & Vangelisti, 2000) to earlier stages of their relationship because the members did not manage the conflict in an effective manner. For other friendship dyads, the conflicts finally turned into rules of their friendships. In Cindy’s interview, she recalled a conflict experience in her friendship with Sherry. At the end, she admitted that the conflict eventually became one of the taboo topics that she and Sherry never touched on. As Cindy described: She was telling me a story and she said something wrong, incorrect English, you know something that was bad English. I was like correcting her English and she was like okay, fine. And she didn’t say anything. After I reacted that way, she didn’t even tell me what she wanted to explain. She’s decided that she is not gonna say anything or speak to me because of that. I thought that was a bit not good because even if I have reacted in a way that she didn’t appreciate then why don’t you say well I didn’t appreciate what you have said or how you treated me by that reaction.

But she said nothing. I realized that the way she dealt with conflict is to avoid the conflict. So I sent her an email and I apologized for correcting her English and I said I will never say anything about your English. And then she was like okay fine, let’s don’t worry about it. Let’s not make it a big deal. That’s how she avoided conflicts. Because of this conflict, Sherry revealed that the progression of their friendship was impeded in the sense that, even though the conflict was ‘‘solved,’’ she did not feel close to Cindy for a long while.

On the other hand, the conflict management style can facilitate the development of an intercultural friendship if that style is employed constructively. In Yoshiko and Jasmine’s case, conflict helped Jasmine to see the straightforwardness and honesty in Yoshiko’s personality. As Jasmine described: Since we lived together, I just noticed that we have different ways of dealing with conflicts. For example, I noticed the kitchen is very very dirty, so I was very upset.

But I clean up everything that I can. Then I kept silence. Probably it is me because I don’t want to knock on the other roommates’ door and say ‘‘hey, clean up Journal of Intercultural Communication Research17 your mess.’’ For me it is very difficult to say. But when [Yoshiko] saw the kitchen was dirty and she was upset and then she went to me and said ‘‘we need to have a meeting.’’ So, and then we had a meeting. She complained and laid out certain rules with the roommates....So I really like her directness, forwardness. I think I learn from her. Given this example, conflict should not always be associated with negative connotations. Instead, as another interviewee, Becky, disclosed, she knew more about her friend, Joyce, after each conflict. In fact, she felt even closer to Joyce because they always managed their conflict in an effective manner (by discussing their differences in an open and respectful manner), and Joyce was willing to reaccept her (Becky), no matter what had happened between them.

Discussion The themes emerging from this research suggest that relational identity is developed through information exchange and interactions between members in an intercultural friendship. A relational identity is a mixture of intercultural interactants’ current and past, personal and cultural experiences and values. Third parties (e.g., family, friends) and the third cultural context (e.g., the host culture) both play a crucial role in shaping relational identity development. Furthermore, relational identity is built upon interactants’ shared similarities, interests, and identities. Relational identity is a very unique entity which includes a system of rules, roles, and communication styles, coordinating the intercultural friendship dyad’s behaviors and actions.

Although these strategies were primarily employed indevelopingan intercultural friendship, to a certain extent they are related to the relationshipmaintenance strategies identified by previous intracultural friendship research. According to Dainton et al.’s (2003) summary of extant friendship literature, four broad types of maintenance strategies—time together, openness, social support, and avoidance— have consistently emerged across relationship maintenance studies and echo several strategies found in this research (i.e., (1) positivities/providing assistance; (2) rituals, activities, and roles; (3) self-disclosure; (4) networking; (6) emphasizing similarities and exploring differences).

What has not been discussed in the previous relationship research are the strategies of (5) exploring cultures and languages, part of (6) emphasizing similarities and exploring differences, and (7) conflict/conflict management found in this study.

Culture and language exploration is the activity that makes intercultural friendship so unique and exciting. As the interviews revealed, members in intercultural friendships are given chances to learn about, not only their own culture, but also that of their friend’s through constant inquiring and comparing. This cultural exploration process makes the members in intercultural friendships feel rewarded in such a relationship because they are allowed to frequently exchange new sets of ideas or perspectives with their friends, broadening their scope of views. Engaging in culture and language exploration is also a positive way to show respect, sincerity, and interest to one’s intercultural friend. Most importantly, learning about foreign cultures and languages 18P.-W. Lee helps the members in intercultural friendships to eradicate stereotypes and avoid prejudice, hopefully, in a way, minimizing the potentials of forming conflicts between certain cultural groups.

Certainly, cultural differences would emerge when intercultural friends compare their cultural values, beliefs, or ways of using languages. It is often argued that the ‘‘non-native’’ members in intercultural relationships are more likely to adapt their own values to those of the host culture—engaging in a constantcompromising process in order to ‘‘fit in’’ the social life in the host cultural environment (Kim, 2002). In some cases, the ‘‘native’’ members in intercultural friendships tend to be eager to educate their intercultural friends about the host culture in an effort to help their friends to become more mainstreamed or Americanized. For example, some participants in this study were more interested in disclosing information about their own culture, usually the host culture (except when the members in an intercultural friendship are both from outside of the host culture), instead of paying mutual attention to learning each other’s culture. However, in other cases, it is evident that some interviewees would try to accept, understand, and respect their ‘‘non-native’’ intercultural friend’s world views—that is, to respect who they are—but not necessarily attempt to change their friend’s different sets of cultural values or beliefs.

Accordingly, to some respondents, identifying cultural difference is not the focus during their interactions; emphasizing their shared similarities is rather one of the main activities often done by them.

To my surprise, conflict/conflict management is a strategy that in effect, positively contributes to the development of relational identity in an intercultural friendship.

The result implies that how a conflict was handled often determines whether a friendship can last or not. We often presume that it is more likely for members in intercultural friendships to encounter conflicts, given the differences between two cultures. This might be true. Yet, as the result indicates, it is unfeasible to build a positive link between the chances of a failing intercultural friendship with the possibilities of encountering conflicts because it is the conflict management that matters, rather than the frequency of encountering conflicts. In other words, if members in intercultural friendships can manage their conflicts in a constructive manner, the friendship tends to sustain.

On the one hand, conflicts can be seen as positive contributions to the relational identity. Through various conflicts experienced by the members in intercultural friendships, they are given opportunities to learn about each other’s personalities and ways of viewing this world. Even though in a conflict, the intercultural friends often do not agree with each other at the first place, an openly discussed conflict helps the members to see where their friends’ points of views come from. On the other hand, a conflict or an issue that is avoided purposely or is left unresolved would impede the progression of the intercultural friendship; reverse the friendship to an earlier phase; or in the worst case, result in failure of the friendship. As shown in Cindy and Sherry’s case (bad English), because the two of them had different expectations toward the ways of solving a conflict—that Sherry preferred the avoiding style, whereas Cindy was more confrontational, although Cindy did apologize for her Journal of Intercultural Communication Research19 inappropriate comment, the friendship was, for a while, not moving forward. Taken as a whole, members in intercultural friendships should not be afraid of encountering conflicts. Instead, the key to maintain an intercultural friendship is that the dyads must learn to cope with conflicts in an open, inoffensive, and effective approach.

My purpose in engaging in this research was to begin the journey of filling in a significant gap in our knowledge base concerning intercultural friendships. This knowledge gap has been produced because intercultural friendship has not, to date, received the same amount of attention from communication scholars as has been true of intracultural friendship. Accordingly, this particular mode of relationship is an inviting area worthy of being explored by researchers who are interested in intercultural communication competence and intercultural relationship maintenance.

As is the case when one is interested in studying the process of relationship development, future research needs to adopt methods, such as ethnography or diary recording, that permit a longitudinal examination of the issues in question. Yet, because conducting such longitudinal research is very time consuming, it is more challenging to recruit participants who are willing to devote their time and energy, especially students. Thus, future studies might try better strategies to recruit participants from different contexts other than college campuses or providing attractive compensations to induce more volunteers to take on and complete these challenging activities.

Finally, communication scholars should continue studying the construct of relational identity/third-culture, especially with a critical lens, so as to widen our knowledge of the nature of third-culture and the communication processes that contribute to the formation of a third-culture. The objective of research in this area would be to expand our understanding of intercultural competence and the skills required for effective identity negotiation. In essence, the scholarship of intercultural friendship is still an on-going journey, deserving researchers’ endeavors and dedication.

References Adams, R., Blieszner, R., & de Vries, B. (2000). Definition of friendship in the third age: Age, gender, and study location effects.Journal of Aging Studies,14, 117–134.

Barnlund, D. (1989).Communication styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and reality. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baxter, L. A. (1987). Symbols of relationship identity in relationship cultures.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,4, 261–280.

Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships.Human Communication Research,12, 469–493.

Belay, G. (1993). Toward a paradigm shift for intercultural and international communication:

New research directions. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.),Communication yearbook 16(pp. 437–457).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bell, R. A., & Healey, J. G. (1992). Idiomatic communication and interpersonal solidarity in friends’ relational cultures.Human Communication Research,18, 307–335.

20P.-W. Lee Bogdan, R., & Bilken, S. (1998).Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cargile, A. C. (1998). Meanings and modes of friendship: Verbal descriptions by native Japanese.

Howard Journal of Communication,9, 347–370.

Casmir, F. L. (1978).Intercultural and international communication. Washington, DC: University Press of America.

Casmir, F. L. (1993). Third-culture building: A paradigm shift for international and intercultural communication. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.),Communication yearbook 16(pp. 407–428). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Casmir, F. L. (1999). Foundations for the study of intercultural communication based on a third-culture building model.International Journal of Intercultural Relations,23, 91–116.

Charmaz, K. (1995). Between positivism and postmodernism: Implications for methods.Studies in Symbolic Interaction,17, 43–72.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research(pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chen, L. (2002). Communication in intercultural relationships. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.),Handbook of international and intercultural communication(2nd ed., pp. 241–258).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cupach, W. R., & Imahori, T. T. (1993). Identity management theory: Communication competence in intercultural episodes and relationships. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.),Intercultural communication competence(pp. 112–131). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dainton, M., Zelley, E., & Langan, E. (2003). Maintaining friendships throughout the life span.

In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.),Maintaining relationships through communication:

Relational, contextual, and cultural variations(pp. 79–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research(pp. 1–25).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duck, S. (1994). Steady as (s)he goes: Relational maintenance as a shared meaning system.

In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.),Communication and relational maintenance(pp. 45–60).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Fehr, B. (2000). The life cycle of friendship. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.),Close relationships(pp. 71–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gaines, S. O., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Relationship maintenance in intercultural couples: An interdependence analysis. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.),Maintaining relationships through communication(pp. 231–253). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Gaines, S. O., & Brennan, K. A. (2001). Establishing and maintaining satisfaction in multicultural relationships. In J. H. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.),Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement(pp. 237–253). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Gaines, S. O., & Liu, J. H. (2000). Multicultural/multiracial relationships. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.),Close relationships(pp. 97–110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gareis, E. (1995).Intercultural friendship: A qualitative study. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2002). Intercultural communication theories. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.),Handbook of international and intercultural communication(pp. 183–205). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hall, E. T. (1990).The dance of life. New York: Anchor Books.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2002). Active interviewing. In D. Weinberg (Ed.),Qualitative research methods(pp. 112–126). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Javidi, A., & Javidi, M. (1991). Cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal bonding: A look at East and West.Howard Journal of Communication,3, 129–138. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research21 Jorgenson, J. (1989). Where is the ‘‘family’’ in family communication? Exploring families’ self-definitions.Journal of Applied Communication Research,17, 27–41.

Kim, Y. Y. (2002). Adapting to an unfamiliar culture: An interdisciplinary overview.

In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.),Handbook of international and intercultural communication(pp. 259–274). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2000).Interpersonal communication and human relationships, (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Krumrey-Fulks, K. S. (2001).At the margins of culture: Intercultural friendship between Americans and Chinese in an academic setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

Krusiewicz, E. S., & Wood, J. T. (2001). ‘‘He was our child from the moment we walked in that room’’: Entrance stories of adoptive parents.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,18, 785–803.

Kvale, S. (1996).Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2002).Wedding as text: Communicating cultural identities through rituals.

Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lindlof, T. R. (1995).Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Martin, I. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (1997).Intercultural communication in contexts. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Mirny, A. I. (2001).Meaning of the group: Diverging perspectives of the early adolescent boys and girls on their peer groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Monsour, M. (1994). Similarities and dissimilarities in personal relationship: Constructing meaning and building intimacy through communication. In S. Duck (Ed.),Dynamics of relationships (pp. 112–134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication.Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 274–287.

Patterson, B. R., Bettini, L., & Nussbaum, F. (1993). The meaning of friendship across the life-span:

Two studies.Communication Quarterly,41, 145–160.

Rawlins, W. K. (1983). Openness as problematic in ongoing friendships: Two conversational dilemmas.Communication Monographs,50, 1–13.

Rawlins, W. K. (1989). A dialectical analysis of the tensions, functions, and strategic challenges of communication in young adult friendships. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.),Communication yearbook 12(pp. 157–189). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rawlins, W. K. (1992).Friendships matters. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Sandelowski, M., Holditch-Davis, D., & Harris, B. G. (1992). Using qualitative and quantitative methods: The transition to parenthood of infertile couples. In J. F. Gilgun, K. Daly & G. Handel (Eds.),Qualitative methods in family research(pp. 301–322). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Shuter, R. (1993). On third-culture building. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.),Communication yearbook 16 (pp. 429–436). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Silverman, D. (1997).Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998).Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wood, J. T. (1982). Communication and relational culture: Bases for the study of human relationships.Communication Quarterly,30, 75–83.

Wood, J. T. (2000).Relational communication: Continuity and change in personal relationships, (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

22P.-W. Lee