intercultural friendship

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research Vol. 40, No. 2, July 2011, pp. 153–171 Intercultural Friendship: Linking Communication Variables and Friendship Success Elisabeth Gareis, Rebecca Merkin, & Jeffrey Goldman International students often complain about the lack of friendships with host nationals.

This study explores the relationship between communication variables, number of friendships, and friendship satisfaction. International students at a large urban university in the United States completed a survey on willingness to communicate, communicative adaptability, English language proficiency, loneliness, and friendship with the Americans. Results show that international students rated their American friendships lower than their home- or other-culture friendships. Friendship numbers and satisfaction were significantly related to communicative adaptability, language profi- ciency, and loneliness. There was no significant correlation between friendship success and willingness to communicate or length of stay.

Keywords: Intercultural Friendship; International Students; Nonnative Speakers; Willingness To Communicate; Communicative Adaptability; English Language Proficiency; Loneliness Students worldwide increasingly add study-abroad sojourns to their course of studies (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009, 2010). During these sojourns, a majority of international students expect and desire friendships with host nationals (Burns, 1991; Mills, 1997; Ward & Masgoret, 2004). Benefits associated with such friendships include better academic performance and life satisfaction (Rohrlich & Martin, 1991; Searle & Ward, 1990; Ward & Masgoret, 2004), lower levels of stress (Redmond & Bunyi, 1993), positive mood (Furnham & Erdmann, 1994), Elisabeth Gareis (EdD, University of Georgia, 1992) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication, Baruch College/CUNY. Rebecca Merkin (PhD, Kent State University, 2000), is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies, Baruch College/CUNY. Jeffrey Goldman (MS in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Baruch College, 2007), has applied for doctoral studies in psychology.

Correspondence to Elisabeth Gareis, Department of Communication Studies, B8-240, Baruch College/CUNY, 55 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10010. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1747-5759 (print)/ISSN 1747-5767 (online) 2011 World Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/17475759.2011.581034 and enhanced perception of the host culture (Dziegielewska, 1988; Furnham & Alibhai, 1985; Morgan & Arasaratnam, 2003; Yum, 1988). In contrast, international students whose social support consists largely of contact with compatriots and students from other countries (including internet-mediated contact with friends and family at home) tend to exhibit weaker language skills and poorer adjustment (Pruitt, 1978; Ward & Masgoret, 2004). Intercultural friendships with host nationals therefore have a significant positive effect on students’ general sojourn satisfaction, academic success, and intercultural as well as foreign-language growth.

Unfortunately, the potential of host-national friendships is often not realized.

One of the uppermost complaints of study-abroad students remains the lack of meaningful contact with host nationals (e.g., Gareis, 1995; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Marginson, Nyland, Sawir, & Forbes-Mewett, 2010; Ward & Masgoret, 2004; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004). International students consistently report having developed fewer friends with host nationals than with sojourners from their own or other countries while studying abroad. Ward and Masgoret (2004), for instance, asked international students in New Zealand whether they had no, one, a few, some, or many friends from each of the three groups of host nationals, compatriots, and other internationals. In the category ‘‘many,’’ the students’ friends consisted of 6% host nationals, 12% other internationals, and 37% compatriots.

Most disturbing is that a sizable number of international students report having no host-national friends at all. Percentages of international students with no host- national friends ranged from 17% in a study conducted in Hawaii (Bochner, McLeod, & Lin, 1977), to 35% in a study in New Zealand (Ward & Masgoret, 2004), 56% in a study conducted in London (Furnham & Alibhai, 1985), and 70% in a study in Oxford (Bochner, Hutnik, & Furnham, 1985).

International students generally face obstacles that are of no or little concern to domestic students. Navigating immigration bureaucracy, adjusting to a new culture, and establishing networks far from home, all require tremendous effort. In some cases, students also report having to deal with negative host-national attitudes or prejudice. In research on international student security in Australia, Marginson et al. (2010) found that half of the students had encountered hostility or prejudice.

Overall, more than half had experienced significant barriers in making friends with local students, and two-thirds felt lonely at some point. Although loneliness problems diminished with time, some felt ongoing isolation.

Fostering the well-being of students studying abroad is not only in the best interest of the students themselves, but also advantageous for the host community.

International students constitute economic as well as intellectual resources for their host environments. They expose local students to other cultures and offer them networking and travel opportunities. If they remain in the country after their studies, they often become highly valuable members of the workforce. If they return home, they tend to fill positions of influence and can become advocates for the former host country. As a result of these benefits, competition to attract international students is high worldwide; and countries that have conducted large-scale studies on international student issues (e.g., New Zealand) have made the integration of these 154E. Gareiset al. students (including their friendships with host nationals) a priority (Ward & Masgoret, 2004).

A number of factors have been found to influence intercultural friendship formation, including communicative competence, culture compatibility, sojourn expectations, degree of cultural identification, level of cross-cultural adjustment, friendship conceptualizations, frequency of contact, host-national receptivity, and institutional support (Arasaratnam & Banerjee, 2007; Gareis, 1995, 1999; Kudo & Simkin, 2003; Lee & Rice, 2004; Massengill & Nash, 2009; Pitts, 2009; Ujitani, 2006; Ward, 1996; Ying, 2002). Communicative competence in the intercultural context is generally seen as a combination of verbal proficiency in the host country’s language, nonverbal appropriateness, and effectiveness in a number of other communication aspects (including levels of verbality and topic selection) (Barnlund, 1979; Chen & Starosta, 1996). Although existing research and theory show that communication creates and sustains relationships (Bruess & Pearson, 1997), the specific commu- nicative competencies for making and keeping friends have not been explored sufficiently. Before intervention measures can be identified that assist international students in their quest for host-culture friendship, it is crucial that we determine which facets of communicative competence most foster intercultural friendship formation. The goal of this study therefore is to examine selected communication variables and their relationship with intercultural friendship.

Communication and Friendship At first glance, close friendships in Western as well as non-Western cultures seem to share a core of valued traits (e.g., mutual affection, trustworthiness in sharing confidences, approval, and support) (Argyle, Henderson, Bond, Iizuka, & Contarello, 1986; Gareis, 1995). A closer look at individual traits and related communicative competencies, however, often reveals that cultures—even if they share general notions—differ in the manifestations of these traits and the degree of their importance. For example, although self-disclosure is a common characteristic of friendship around the globe, its rate and amount tends to be more modest in Japan than in the United States (Barnlund, 1989). Another study found that self-disclosure is more important for Brazilians than Australians (Morse, 1983).

Similarly, the importance placed on emotion-focused forms of communication differs across cultures. For example, Mortenson (2005) showed that instrumental forms of communication (e.g., persuasion, referential clarity) are more important for Chinese than U.S. Americans. Similarly, Gareis and Wilkins (2011) found that love expression in friendship is more direct and widespread in the United States than in Germany—even though a change toward more direct love expression can be observed in both cultures. This confirms Wierzbicka’s (1997) warning that, even intraculturally, the meaning of friendship and related terminology vary over time.

The aforementioned examples are representative in that research on communica- tion aspects related to friendship often focuses on cross-cultural differences. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research155 Equally important, however, are intercultural communicative competencies, particularly those that assist interactants in reaching the affective and stable stages of interpersonal involvement. Gudykunst, Nishida, and Chua (1987) purport that, of the four stages of social penetration (orientation, exploratory, affective, and stable exchange), the orientation and exploratory stages are most affected by problematic intercultural complexities. At the latter affective and stable stages, by contrast, intercultural interactions have a personalistic focus and resemble intracultural friendship; that is, each person is treated uniquely, and cultural dissimilarities retreat into the background (Gudykunst, 1985). Communicative competencies related to the initiation of interaction and strengthening of nascent relationships therefore seem to be a particularly promising focal point for empirical inquiry. As a result, this study concentrates on three such communicative competencies—willingness to communicate, communicative adaptability, and language proficiency—and explores the relationship of these variables with friendship numbers, satisfaction levels, and degrees of loneliness.

Willingness to Communicate Willingness to communicate (WTC) has been defined as the predisposition to talk in various situations (MacIntyre, Do¨ rnyei, Cle´ ment, & Noels, 1998; McCroskey, 1992, 2007). It is part trait and part state attribute, composed of the interlocutor’s personality and situational factors (Kang, 2005). McCroskey’s (1992, 2007) WTC scale focuses on communication with strangers, acquaintances, and friends, thus making WTC an interesting variable with respect to the orientation and exploratory stage of friendship development.

A few studies have looked at WTC in foreign-language and intercultural contexts.

With respect to WTC and foreign-language use, for example, MacIntyre, Baker, Cle´ ment, and Donovan (2003) found that WTC in a person’s native language does not correlate with WTC in a person’s second language. Research on the relationship between WTC and intercultural friendship formation is inconsistent. Using a WTC scale altered to highlight intercultural communication issues, Kassing (1997) found that U.S. students with high intercultural willingness to communicate (IWTC) scores had significantly more friends from foreign countries than those with low scores. The relationship, however, could not be confirmed in a similar study, also with U.S.

students, by Massengill and Nash (2009).

Communicative Adaptability The second communication factor of interest, communicative adaptability, is a mixture of communication (or message) skills and personal attributes. High scores in communicative adaptability describe a person who is witty, supportive, and relaxed; enjoys meeting and engaging with others; is self-aware concerning appropriate self-disclosure; and possesses excellent verbal skills (Duran, 1992).

These skills and attributes contributing to communicative adaptability have 156E. Gareiset al. been found relevant for intracultural friendship formation in the United States (Samter, 2003), therefore inviting examination in the intercultural context.

No studies thus far have explored the specific role of communicative adaptability in intercultural friendship formation. In related research, however, Chen (1992) found that a significant relationship exists between communicative adaptability, interaction involvement, and a sojourner’s ability to cope with social difficulties in the host culture.

Language Proficiency The third of the communication variables under study, language proficiency, consists of linguistic competence in four basic skill areas: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Some models of language proficiency differentiate further between discourse, sociocultural, and strategic competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Celce-Murcia, Do¨ rnyei, & Thurrell, 1995).

Successful relationship initiation and development in the U.S. intracultural context has been linked to adept gauging of self-disclosure, tactful emotional support, responsiveness in conversation, entertaining storytelling, and competent conflict management (Samter, 2003)—all requiring sophisticated language skills, especially in oral communication. Even so, research on the impact of language proficiency on intercultural friendship is generally inconclusive.

In Ward and Masgoret’s (2004) large-scale study of international students in New Zealand, for example, a third of the students believed that they were hindered by their English ability in making friends with host nationals. Students who had lived in New Zealand longer and who had better English proficiency also had greater contact with New Zealanders. By contrast, Sias et al. (2008) found that low language proficiency of international students in the United States did not necessarily have a detrimental effect on intercultural friendship development. American respondents, for example, noted that, although broken English made communication difficult at first, the friendships succeeded anyway. In some cases, language proficiency issues even enabled communication. Problems were seen as ‘‘challenging, rather than forbidding’’ or a ‘‘source of humor and play for the partners’’ (p. 10). Sias et al.

theorized that ‘‘difficult mechanics of communication such as language proficiency and accent do not unduly hinder friendship development’’ (p. 10).

Hypotheses and Research Questions Previous research has shown that international students’ friendships with host nationals are lower in number than friendships with fellow home- or other-culture students. It has also been established that students are dissatisfied with these numbers. We have therefore formulated the following hypotheses: H1: International students have fewer American friends than home- or other- culture friends.

H2: International students are less satisfied with the number of their American friends than with the number of home- or other-culture friends. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research157 It is not clear from previous research, whether students are only disappointed with the dearth or also with the quality of their host-national friendships. To our knowledge, only one study (Trice & Elliott, 1993) isolates international students’ satisfaction with the quality of their friendships. In this study, students in the United States saw friendships with Americans as more superficial and pragmatic (e.g., centered around academic matters and activities) than intimate and personal.

A distinction between satisfaction with number of friends versus satisfaction with quality of friendships is relevant when it comes to determine measures for addressing the problem. A deficit in quantity of friendships would call for measures, such as increased proximity or exposure; a deficit in quality would call for a causal analysis and tailored approaches to address the causes. We therefore asked the following research question: RQ1: Are international students less satisfied with the quality of their American friendships than with the quality of home- or other-culture friendships? Given the importance of demographic factors in intracultural friendship develop- ment (Samter, 2003), we also investigated the question of whether demographic factors (gender, age, and length of stay) influence international students’ friendship numbers and satisfaction levels. In the context of friendship and communication, the potential impact of gender centers around the amount and type of talk. In past reports on intracultural friendship within the United States, the genders were likened to distinct cultures, with females preferring intimate talk and spending time in conversation, and males preferring instrumental talk and spending time with activities, such as sports (Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Williams, 1985). More recently, the degree of difference has been called into question. In a study by Burleson, Kunkel, Samter, and Werking (1996), for example, both genders rated affectively oriented communication skills as more important than instrumental skills—although females still engaged more in intimate talk than men.

Concerning age, intracultural research suggests that older adults not only place less emphasis on similarity, but also value uniqueness in friends more than adolescents and young adults (Tesch & Martin, 1983; Weiss & Lowenthal, 1975). A decrease in selectivity coupled with appreciation for uniqueness could have positive effects on intercultural friendship formation.

Finally, length of stay is of interest in determining how much of international students’ dissatisfaction is due to a predictable dearth of friends at the outset of their sojourns. Although it seems commonsensical that friendship numbers and satisfaction would increase with length of stay, Marginson et al. (2010) found that some student felt ongoing isolation, even after some time in the host environment.

We thus formulated the following research question: RQ2: How do the demographic factors of gender, age, and length of stay affect the international students’ number of American friends and friendship satisfaction? 158E. Gareiset al. Previous studies have identified communicative competence as a factor in intercultural friendship formation, but conclusive research on the impact of specific communication variables is still outstanding. As a first step toward identifying individual communication skills, we selected three communication variables (willingness to communicate, communicative adaptability, and language proficiency) with potential relevance for friendship initiation and development. To examine the relationship between these variables and intercultural friendship, we formulated the following research question: RQ3: What is the relationship of willingness to communicate in English, communicative adaptability in English, and English language proficiency with the number American friends and friendship satisfaction? Finally, we wanted to determine whether the lack of American friendships affected the students’ perception of loneliness. To our knowledge, the study by Marginson et al. (2010) on the loneliness and isolation of international students is the only study on this topic to date. Thus, we asked the following research question: RQ4: How are loneliness levels related to the number of American friends and friendship satisfaction? Method After indicating informed consent, participants voluntarily filled out an online questionnaire. The survey elicited information on friendship variables, demo- graphics, willingness to communicate, communication adaptability, language proficiency, and loneliness. Hypotheses and research questions were examined usingt-tests and Pearson correlation coefficients.

Participants The participants were 127 undergraduate students at a large urban university in New York City. All participants were nonnative speakers of English who had been born and raised outside the United States and had resided in the United States for 10 years or less.

Initial respondents were students in communication classes. Following this first round of recruitment, a snowball method was employed; students from the initial pool were asked to forward the announcement of the survey to other international students (study-abroad students and recent immigrants) at the college.

Of the 127 participants, 29.9% (n¼38) were male and 70.1% (n¼89) female.

Their ages ranged from 18 to 50, with 66.9% being between 18 and 24, 20.5% being between 25 and 29, and 12.6% being 30 years of age or above.

Most participants were from countries in the Caribbean (21.3%), followed by East Asia (18.1%), Southeast Asia (15.8%), Russia/Central Asia (15%), Latin America (13.4%), Europe (7.9%), the Middle East/North Africa (5.5%), and Sub-Saharan Journal of Intercultural Communication Research159 Africa (3.2%). The participants indicated the following lengths of stay in the United States: 0–1 year (1.6%), 1–2 years (6.3%), 2–3 years (15%), 3–5 years (25.2%), and 5–10 years (52%).

Instrumentation Instrumentation consisted of five different scales. Two of the scales focused on social interaction (friendship and loneliness). The remaining three scales measured communication variables (willingness to communicate, communicative adaptability, and English language proficiency).

Friendship Participants were asked to provide information on a number of friendship variables concerning three types of friendship: (1) friendships with people who were born and raised in the United States (American friends); (2) friendships with people from the students’ home culture (home-culture friends); and (3) friendships with people from other cultures (other-culture friends). Questions elicited the number of friendships, the participants’ satisfaction with said number, and their satisfaction with the quality of their best and second-best friendships in each type. Except for the question on the number of friends, all questions had 5-point Likert-type scale response options. For the purpose of the survey, participants were asked to consider only close friendships, defined as personal relationships marked by mutual affection, trust, approval, and support—with people usually having fewer than 10 such close friends. A sample item rated reads, ‘‘How satisfied are you with the number of your close American friends?’’ The coefficient alpha of friendship was .91 (M¼3.90,SD¼0.08).

Willingness to communicate McCroskey’s (1992, 2007) instrument was used to measure students’ willingness to communicate. This instrument consists of 12 items on a 10-point scale, measuring the percentage of a person’s willingness to communicate with strangers, acquaintances, and friends in a variety of situations. A sample item reads, ‘‘[How willing are you to] talk with an acquaintance while standing in line.’’ The participants completed the scale twice: once on their willingness to communicate in English ( ¼.93;M¼7.16,SD¼0.97) and once on their willingness to communicate in their native language ( ¼.96;M¼6.97,SD¼1.02).

Communicative adaptability We measured communicative adaptability using the 30-item Communicative Adaptability Scale developed by Duran (1983). This instrument used 5-point Likert-type scale response options on issues related to social relaxation, supportive- ness, active engagement, awareness of self-disclosure, speech proficiency (grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation), and wit. A sample item reads, ‘‘I am verbally and nonverbally supportive of other people.’’ The coefficient alpha of communicative adaptability was .85. The participants completed the scale twice: once on their 160E. Gareiset al. communicative adaptability in English ( ¼.82;M¼3.35,SD¼0.49) and once on their communicative adaptability in their native language ( ¼.87;M¼3.41, SD¼0.51).

English language proficiency A self-rating scale was employed to determine participants’ language proficiency.

Educated adult speakers of a nonnative language have been found to rate their own level of proficiency in research contexts with a significant degree of validity. Thus, an Educational Testing Service (ETS) study comparing norm-referenced and self-rated language proficiency scores found that interrater reliability was .70 or higher on 19 of 36 coefficients, .60 or higher on 34 of 36 coefficients, and below .60 on only 2 of 36 items (Wilson, 1999). Our self-assessment scale was nominally parallel (in types of linguistic behavior in listening comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, and pronun- ciation) to the well-known language proficiency interview scale used by the Foreign Service Institute (Clark & Swinton, 1979) and the aforementioned ETS research. The scale consisted of short paragraphs describing five proficiency levels (beginning/ intermediate Level 1 through native-like Level 5) in spoken English (M¼3.36, SD¼1.12).

Loneliness The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3) (Russell, 1996) was used to measure loneliness. The scale (with questions, such as ‘‘How often do you feel alone?’’) consists of 20 items with 5-point Likert-type scale response options. The Cronbach’s alpha for the current study was .80 (M¼2.84,SD¼0.25).

Results Post-Hoc Analysis To explore whether our non-significant correlations were due to a lack of statistical power, we conducted post-hoc power analyses using GPower (Faul & Erdfelder, 1992). With ¼.05, all power estimates (1- ) ranged from .81 to .83. Hence it is unlikely that a limited sample size contributed to our insignificant results.

Hypothesis Testing Number of friendships Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results showed that there was a significant main effect for the number of friendships when comparing types of friends (American, home- culture, and other-culture),F(3, 138)¼400.07,p¼.0001, partial 2¼.90. This substantiates Hypothesis 1. International students had significantly fewer American friends (M¼3.25,SD¼2.14) than home-culture (M¼5.15,SD¼1.97) or other- culture friends (M¼4.16,SD¼2.29). Journal of Intercultural Communication Research161 ANOVA resultsF(3, 110)¼615.74,p¼.0001, partial 2¼.94 also showed support for Hypothesis 2. In particular, Hypothesis 2 predicted that international students would be less satisfied with the number of their American friends than with the number of their home- or other-culture friends. International students were less satisfied with the number of their American friends (M¼2.91,SD¼1.59) than the number of home-culture (M¼4.19,SD¼1.09) or other-culture friends (M¼3.72, SD¼1.24).

Research Questions Research Question 1 was studied with a single samplet-test. Research Questions 2 through 4 were tested via Pearson correlation coefficients (seeTable 1).

Quality of friendships Research Question 1 asked whether international students are less satisfied with the quality of their American friendships than with the quality of their home- or other- culture friendships. A single samplet-test showed that international students were not only less satisfied with the quality of their best American friendship (M¼3.21, SD¼1.53,r¼.90),t(112)¼22.20,p¼.0001 as opposed to the quality of their best home-culture friendship (M¼4.32,SD¼.945,r¼.96),t(116)¼49.48,p¼.0001 or best other-culture friendship (M¼3.84,SD¼1.22,r¼.95),t(116)¼34.04, p¼.0001, but were also less satisfied with the quality of their second-best American friendship (M¼3.00,SD¼1.51,r¼.89),t(112)¼21.09,p¼ .0001, compared to the quality of their second-best home-culture (M¼4.10,SD¼1.08, r¼.95),t(117)¼40.91,p¼.0001 or second-best other-culture friendship (M¼3.74, SD¼1.25,r¼.95),t(114)¼32.02,p¼.0001. Table 1Correlations Between Number of American Friends, Satisfaction with American Friendships, and Communication Variables. NAF SAF GEN AGE LEN WCE CAE ELP LON NAF – .647** .033 .166 .052 .125 .199* .216* .201* SAF – .030 .009 .063 .143 .302* .196* .312** GEN – .178* .071 .148 .118 .099 .087 AGE – .160 .107 .016 .022 .088 LEN – .324** .034 .357** .017 WCE – .201* .412** .126 CAE – .139 .405** ELP – .191* LON– Notes.*p5.05 Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **p5.01 Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). NAF¼Number of American Friends; SAF¼Satisfaction with American Friendships (including satisfaction with number of friends and satisfaction with the quality of the best and second-best friendship); GEN¼Gender; AGE¼Age; LEN¼Length of Stay; WCE¼Willingness to Communicate in English; CAE¼Communicative Adaptability in English; ELP¼English Language Proficiency; LON¼Loneliness.

162E. Gareiset al. In sum, combined satisfaction items (satisfaction with number of American friends and satisfaction with quality of best and second-best American friendship) show that overall, international students were most satisfied with their home-culture friendships (M¼4.21,SD¼0.96), followed by other-culture friendships (M¼3.78, SD¼1.17) and American friendships (M¼3.02,SD¼1.45). In general, the average satisfaction level for American friendships can be described as neutral, with best friendship slightly above the midpoint (M¼3.21,SD¼1.53,r¼.90),t(117)¼22.20, p¼.0001, second-best friendships exactly neutral (M¼3.00,SD¼1.51,r¼.89), t(117)¼21.09.,p¼.0001, and satisfaction with number of friends slightly below the midpoint (M¼2.91,SD¼1.59).

Friendship and demographics (gender, age, length of stay) Research Question 2 focused on the effect of demographic factors on the international students’ number of and satisfaction with American friends. Findings show a strong positive correlation exists between the students’ number of American friends (NAF) and their satisfaction with these American friendships (SAF¼combined satisfaction with numberandquality of friendships), r(117)¼.65,p¼.0001. Neither NAF nor SAF differ significantly across gender, age, or length of stay. In particular, NAF did not correlate significantly with gender, r(120)¼.03,p¼.718; age,r(120)¼ .17,p¼.070; or length of stay,r(119)¼ .05, p¼.575. Additionally, SAF did not correlate significantly with gender,r(118)¼.38, p¼.082; age,r(118)¼.009,p¼.921; or length of stay,r(117)¼ .06,p¼.502.

Findings did indicate that there are strong positive correlations, however, between length of stay and willingness to communicate in English,r(122)¼.32,p¼.0001 as well as between length of stay and English language proficiency,r(116)¼.36, p¼.0001. The additional correlation between gender and age,r(123)¼ .18, p¼.049 is due to the larger number of males in this population at older age levels.

Friendship and communication variables Research Question 3 examined the relationship of three communication variables, the students’ number of American friendships, and their friendship satisfaction. No significant association was found between willingness to communicate in English and NAF,r(120)¼.13,p¼.174 or SAF,r(118)¼.12,p¼.143. NAF and SAF have strong relationships, however, with communicative adaptability in English,r(113)¼.20, p¼.035 for NAF;r(111)¼.30,p¼.001 for SAF, and with English language proficiency,r(116)¼.22,p¼.020 for NAF;r(114)¼.20,p¼.036 for SAF. Within the communication variables, willingness to communicate in English is significantly correlated with communicative adaptability in English,r(116)¼.20,p¼.031 and English language proficiency,r(117) ¼.41,p¼.0001.

In order to establish that willingness to communicate in English and willingness to communicate in one’s native language are indeed distinct constructs, we also conducted secondary tests on the correlation of willingness to communicate in English versus native language. No correlation was found between willingness to communicate in English and willingness to communicate in native language, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research163 r(108)¼.17,p¼.083. This result lends some support to MacIntyre et al.’s (2003) finding that willingness to communicate does not transfer from first to second language. By contrast, communicative adaptability in English and communicative adaptability in native language have a strong positive associationr(64)¼.69;p5.01).

Friendship and loneliness Research Question 4 asked how loneliness levels are related to the international students’ number of American friends and their satisfaction with these friendships.

Both NAF and SAF have strong negative associations with loneliness,r(114)¼ .20, p¼.032 for NAF;r(112)¼ .31,p¼.001 for SAF. The data further demonstrate a negative correlation between loneliness and two of the three communication variables: communicative adaptability in English,r(114)¼ .41,p¼.0001 and English language proficiency,r(111)¼ .19,p¼.04. No relationship was found between loneliness and willingness to communicate in English,r(116)¼ .13, p¼.177.

Discussion The international students in this study had significantly fewer American friends than home- or other-culture friends and were less satisfied with the number and quality of these friendships than with the number and quality of their home- or other-culture friends. These findings confirm previous research reports of international students’ less than positive friendship experiences in the United States and other countries (Bochner et al., 1977; Bochner et al., 1985; Furnham & Alibhai, 1985; Ward & Masgoret, 2004). One common explanation for the predominance of home- and other-culture friendships over American friendships lies in the ability of international students to find solidarity within the community of compatriots and other international students. While fellow sojourners can provide important social support, concurrent dissatisfaction with host-national relationships may result in the creation of a minority group identity that is based on perceptions of shared rejection and therefore curtails further integration initiatives (Schmitt, Spears, & Branscombe, 2003). Of the participants in this study, 24% indicated that they have no American friends at all. This compares with previous studies in the United States and other countries, where 17% to 70% of international students had no host- national friends.

No correlations were found between NAF or SAF and gender or age, reinforcing the notion of gender similarity in friendship communication (Burleson et al., 1996) but not the effect of age (Tesch & Martin, 1983; Weiss & Lowenthal, 1975). It should be noted, however, that the number of older individuals in the study was very limited (87.4% of the participants were under 30 years of age); future studies should investigate age issues in more detail.

As with gender and age, no correlation was found between NAF or SAF and length of stay; that is, friendship numbers and satisfaction levels did not change significantly 164E. Gareiset al. across the 0–10-year sojourn range. This surprising result gives credence to Marginson et al.’s (2010) finding that some international students have lasting difficulties in making host-national friends. The lack of correlation also lends itself to a number of alternative explanations: (1) over 90% of the respondents in this study had lengths of stay of two or more years. The relative paucity of data in the 0–1 and 1–2-year intervals may have impacted the results in that participants for whom the adjustment process was complete and whose relationship networks had reached a relative state of stability had greater representation; (2) research on local environments as a variable in friendship formation is sparse, but there are some indications that micro-culture and urbanization influence intercultural friendship prospects (Ward & Masgoret, 2004). The exceptionally urban and diverse research location in this study may have allowed participants to make many home- and other- culture friends, which in turn diminished the motivation to expand friendship networks with Americans over time; and (3) the insignificant relationship between length of stay and intercultural friendship success may be due to other dynamics that remain to be fully investigated. In our study, numbers and satisfaction levels concerning host-national friendships remained low, even for long-term residents.

Ward and Masgoret (2004) offer a related observation and interesting theory. They found that some students who had lived in New Zealand for a long period of time believed that New Zealanders had negative attitudes—a fact which presumably affects friendship formation and satisfaction. An explanation may be that those who have less direct experience with host nationals also have poorer language skills and less frequent voluntary contact—a vicious cycle that can lead to isolation and the perception of negative attitudes.

It was similarly surprising that willingness to communicate in English had no association with NAF or SAF. Referring to the IWTC scale, Massengill and Nash (2009) theorize that ‘‘persons might be quite willing to interact with members of some cultures even as they are reluctant to fraternize with persons from other cultures’’ (p. 23). Another key to understanding the role of willingness to communicate in intercultural friendship formation may be in the related variable of language proficiency. Previous research on the relationship of language proficiency and intercultural friendship produced contradictory results. In our study, a positive relationship between NAF, SAF, and English language proficiency could be determined. Interestingly, the two foundational components of WTC are (1) perceived competence and (2) communication apprehension (MacIntyre, 1994). In our study, perceived competence is equivalent to English language proficiency, which was measured via a self-perception scale. English language proficiency was associated with both willingness to communicate and the friendship variables, NAF and SAF. It is therefore possible that perceived competence (i.e., English language proficiency) is the dominant element of WTC, not communication apprehension—at least in regard to intercultural friendship formation. Such a weighted view would also explain the correlation of willingness to communicate in English and length of stay, assuming that English language proficiency improves with time. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research165 As was the case with language proficiency, communicative adaptability consistently predicted positive NAF and SAF results. It should be noted that the communicative adaptability scale (Duran, 1983) is fairly broad and includes items related to personality (social relaxation, supportiveness, and enjoyment of social engagement), cross-cultural competence (appropriate self-disclosure), and language proficiency, with the item of ‘‘wit’’ spanning several categories. Each of these aspects invites further intercultural inquiry. Research on Asian Indian self-disclosure patterns illustrates the point. Hastings (2000) found that Asian Indians exhibit patterns of disclosure avoidance (or self-suppression) in their friend relationships. Participants in the study viewed the American traits of extensive talk and expression of direct and extreme viewpoints unfavorably. Hastings concluded that ‘‘whereas American friendship is enacted through expressing oneself, Indian friendship is enacted through suppressing oneself’’ (p. 107). In a study by Chen and Nakazawa (2009), on the other hand, self-reported self-disclosure mirrored perceived friends’ self- disclosure in intercultural friendship pairs. The conclusion that relational intimacy has greater influence than cultural variance on close intercultural friendships confirms research findings that, while self-disclosure patterns might differ during the acquaintance stages of contact, they tend to be comparable in the stable stages of close relationships (Gudykunst et al., 1987). Duran’s scale (1983) is calibrated to test communicative adaptability in U.S. culture. Data in our study show that sojourners whose communicative adaptability scores are high have more American friends and are more satisfied with these friendships. Whether particular elements of communicative adaptability are more instrumental than others requires more research.

Finally, loneliness had strong associations with most variables, only not with demographics and willingness to communicate in English. Somewhat unsettling is the finding that loneliness had no correlation with length of stay. This supports Marginson et al.’s (2010) finding that some sojourners remain isolated, irrespective of time spent abroad.

Limitations Results from this study are an exploratory first step in determining the relationship between communication variables and international student integration. The study, however, also has some limitations: (1) correlations show relationships not cause.

Future research should test cause and effect concerning communication variables and friendship formation; (2) the study relied on convenience sampling and employed self-report methods to collect data; and (3) the participant population is somewhat imbalanced with respect to biological sex (70.1% of the respondents were female) and age (87.4% were younger than 30).

Implications and Future Research A theory on communication and intercultural friendship development is still outstanding, although some existing intercultural-communication theories are 166E. Gareiset al. applicable to some extent. Both, uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Gudykunst, 1985) and social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973) contain elements relevant to the understanding of communication variables in intercultural friendship formation and maintenance. Uncertainty reduction theory posits that strangers go through certain steps to reduce uncertainty about each other and to decide whether one likes or dislikes the other. These steps include eliciting and providing self-disclosure. Similarly, social penetration theory describes stages that lead to relational closeness via increasing amounts of self-disclosure. In accord with these two models, data from this study suggest that communicative adaptability and English language proficiency help sojourners reduce uncertainty and move from orientation to the exploratory, affective, and stable stages of relationship development. Hence, both of these frameworks might shed some light on delineating the theoretical underpinnings of communication and intercultural friendship development, which can provide an empirical base for future research.

The findings have a number of practical applications. Host university instructors, administrators, study-abroad personnel, and counselors need to be aware of the difficulties of international students’ making friends and their, at times, ongoing isolation. On an individual level, for example, instructors should foster the social integration of international students in their classes by designing collaborative group activities that maximize domestic/international student contact. On an institutional level, more universities should offer events and programs to foster interaction, including socializing opportunities, buddy systems, and residential programs.

There is also a need for further scholarship, however, that tests the effectiveness of programs and brings communication aspects contributing to their success into sharper focus.

International students should receive targeted language instruction and inter- cultural training. Such training can be provided in orientation sessions, language programs, or training workshops, as well as through coaching or software programs.

With language proficiency and communicative adaptability playing a significant role in international students’ friendship satisfaction levels, instruction should focus on the specific competencies needed for friendship development. More research is needed, however, to establish which communication elements are most relevant.

In particular, the elements of communicative adaptability (social relaxation, supportiveness, social engagement, self-disclosure, and wit) should be examined in more detail to determine whether they differ in individual impact and how they can be addressed most effectively. Similarly, future studies should investigate which aspects of linguistic proficiency have the greatest bearing on friendship formation (including vocabulary, accent, register, and language pertinent for functions, such as texting or phoning). As part of this research, an assessment of the international as well as American students’ perceptions of their training needs would be beneficial.

Finally, scholarship should focus on the causes of lasting isolation in some students. Although the students’ communicative competence may be partially responsible, other factors should be considered, including personality factors Journal of Intercultural Communication Research167 (e.g., shyness) and factors focusing on host-national receptivity. Such research may lead to training models, addressing social relaxation and prejudice reduction.

Conclusion For international students, increased friendship with host nationals means more opportunities to learn about host culture and language, better social integration, greater sojourn satisfaction, and more positive views of the host country. For the host community, the benefits include exposure to other cultures, networking and travel opportunities for local students, and an enhanced international image abroad (Mak & Buckingham, 2007; Ward & Masgoret, 2004). The world’s universities are a prime location for intercultural contact and, as such, an ideal laboratory for larger integration issues in the world. Maximizing intercultural contact in these institutions constitutes an important step toward advancing international goodwill and furthering the success of international as well as domestic students.

References Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973).Social penetration. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Arasaratnam, L. A., & Banerjee, S. C. (2007). Ethnocentrism and sensation seeking as variables that influence intercultural contact-seeking behavior: A path analysis.Communication Research Reports,24, 303–310, doi: 10.1080/08824090701624197.

Argyle, M., Henderson, M., Bond, M., Iizuka, Y., & Contarello, A. (1986). Cross-cultural variations in relationship rules.International Journal of Psychology,21, 287–315, doi: 10.1080/ 00207598608247591.

Barnlund, D. C. (1979). Verbal self-disclosure: Topics, targets, depths. In E. C. Smith & L. F. Luce (Eds.),Toward internationalism: Readings in cross-cultural communication(pp. 83–101).

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Barnlund, D. C. (1989).Communicative styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and realities.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some exploration in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of communication.Human Communication 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 and host students in an Oxford University residence.Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 689–694.

Bochner, S., McLeod, B. M., & Lin, A. (1977). Friendship patterns of overseas students: A functional model.International Journal of Psychology,12, 277–294.

Bruess, C. J. S., & Pearson, J. C. (1997). Interpersonal rituals in marriage and adult friendship.

Communication Monographs,64, 25–46, doi: 10.1080/03637759709376403.

Burleson, B. R., Kunkel, A. W., Samter, W., & Werking, K. J. (1996). Men’s and women’s evaluations of communication skills in personal relationships: When sex differences make a difference—and when they don’t.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,13, 201–224, doi: 10.1177/0265407596132003.

Burns, R. D. (1991). Study and stress among first year overseas students in an Australian university.

Higher Education Research and Development,10, 61–76.

Caldwell, M., & Peplau, L. (1982). Sex differences in same-sex friendship.Sex Roles,8, 721–732, doi:

10.1007/BF00287568.

168E. Gareiset al. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing.Applied Linguistics,1, 1–47, doi: 10.1093/applin/1.1.1.

Celce-Murcia, M., Do¨ rnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications.Issues in Applied Linguistics,6, 5–35.

Chen, G. M. (1992). Communication adaptability and interaction involvement as predictors of cross-cultural adjustment.Communication Research Reports,9, 33–41, doi: 10.1080/ 08824099209359895.

Chen, Y.-W., & Nakazawa, M. (2009). Influences of culture on self-disclosure as relationally situated in intercultural and interracial friendships from a social penetration perspective.

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,38(2), 77–98.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis.

Communication Yearbook,19, 353–383.

Clark, J. L. D., & Swinton, S. S. (1979).An exploration of speaking proficiency in the TOEFL context (Research Report RR-79-8). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Duran, R. L. (1983). Communicative adaptability: A measure of social communicative competence.

Communication Quarterly,31, 320–326.

Duran, R. L. (1992). Communicative adaptability: A review of conceptualization and measurement.

Communication Quarterly,40, 253–268.

Dziegielewska, J. (1988). The intercultural dimension of friendship: A study in the phenomenology of communication.Dissertation Abstracts International,50, 301A.

Faul, F., & Erdfelder, E. (1992). GPower: A priori, post-hoc, and compromise power analyses for MS-DOS [Computer software]. Bonn, Germany: Bonn University, Department of Psychology.

Furnham, A., & Alibhai, N. (1985). The friendship networks of foreign students: A replication and extension of the functional model.International Journal of Psychology,20, 709–722, doi:

10.1080/00207598508247565.

Furnham, A., & Erdmann, S. (1995). Psychological and socio-cultural variables as predictors of adjustment in cross-cultural transitions.Psychologia,38, 238–251.

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

Gareis, E. (1999). Rhetoric and intercultural friendship formation.International and Intercultural Communication Annual: Rhetoric in Intercultural Contexts,22, 91–117.

Gareis, E., & Wilkins, R. (2011). Love expression in the United States and Germany.International Journal of Intercultural Relations,35, 307–319, doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.06.006.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). A model of uncertainty reduction in intercultural encounters.Journal of Language and Social Psychology,4, 79–98, doi: 10.1177/0261927X8500400201.

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.

Hastings, S. O. (2000). Asian Indian ‘‘self-suppression’’ and self-disclosure enactment and adaptation of cultural identity.Journal of Language and Social Psychology,19 , 85–109, doi:

10.1177/0261927X00019001005.

Kang, S.-J. (2004). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language.System,33, 277–292, doi: 10.1016/j.system.2004.10.004.

Kassing, J. W. (1997). Development of the intercultural willingness to communication scale.

Communication Research Reports,14, 299–407.

Klineberg, O., & Hull, W. K. (1979).At a foreign university: An international study of adaptation and coping. New York, NY: Praeger.

Kudo, K., & Simkin, K. A. (2003). Intercultural friendship formation: The case of Japanese students at an Australian university.Journal of Intercultural Studies,24(2), 91–114, doi: 10.1080/ 0725686032000165351. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research169 Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination.Higher Education,53, 381–409, doi: 10.1007/s10734-005-4508-3.

MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal analysis.

Communication Research Reports,11, 135–142, doi: 10.1080/08824099409359951.

MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Cle´ ment, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2003). Talking in order to learn:

Willingness to communicate in intensive language programs.The Canadian Modern Language Review,59, 589–607, doi: 10.3138/cmlr.59.4.589.

MacIntyre, P. D., Do¨ rnyei, Z., Cle´ ment, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation.The Modern Language Journal,82, 545–562, doi: 10.2307/330224.

Mak, A. S., & Buckingham, K. (2007). Beyond communication courses: Are there benefits in adding skills-based Excell TM sociocultural training?International Journal of Intercultural Relations,31, 277–291, doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.02.002.

Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Sawir, E., & Forbes-Mewett, H. (2010).International student security.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Massengill, J., & Nash, M. (2009, May).Ethnocentrism, intercultural willingness to communicate, and international interaction among U.S. college students.Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale.

Communication Quarterly,40, 16–25.

McCroskey, J. C. (2007).Willingness to communicate (WTC). Retrieved May 7, 2011, from http:// www.jamescmccroskey.com/measures/WTC.htm Mills, C. (1997). Interaction in classes at a New Zealand university: Some international students’ experiences.New Zealand Journal of Adult Learning,25, 54–71.

Morgan, S. E., & Arasaratnam, L. (2003). Intercultural friendships as social excitation: Sensation seeking as a predictor of intercultural friendship seeking behavior.Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,32(3), 175–186.

Morse, S. J. (1983). Requirements for love and friendship in Australia and Brazil.Australian Journal of Psychology,35, 469–476, doi: 10.1080/00049538308258758.

Mortenson, S. T. (2005). Toward communication values in friendship: Self-construal and mediated differences in sex and culture.Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,34(2), 88–107.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009).International students in the United States.

Retrieved May 7, 2011, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2009/section5/indicator39.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2010).U.S. students studying abroad.Retrieved May 7, 2011, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section5/indicator40.asp Pitts, M. J. (2009). Identity and the role of expectations, stress, and talk in short-term student sojourner adjustment: An application of the integrative theory of communication and cross- cultural adaptation.International Journal of Intercultural Relations,33, 450–462, doi: 10.1016/ j.ijintrel.2009.07.002.

Pruitt, F. J. (1978). The adaptation of African students to American society.International Journal of Intercultural Relations,21, 90–118.

Redmond, M. V., & Bunyi, J. M. (1993). The relationship of intercultural communication competence with stress and the handling of stress as reported by international students.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations,17, 235–254.

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.

Russell, D. (1996). The UCLA loneliness scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure.

Journal of Personality Assessment,66, 20–40, doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2. 170E. Gareiset al. Samter, W. (2003). Friendship interaction skills across the life span. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.),Handbook of communication and social interaction skills(pp. 637–684).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schmitt, M. T., Spears, R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Constructing a minority group identity out of shared rejection: The case of international students.European Journal of Social Psychology,33, 1–12, doi: 10.1002/ejsp.131.

Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions.International Journal of Intercultural Relations,14, 449–464, doi:

10.1016/0147-1767(90)90030-Z.

Sias, P. M., Drzewiecka, J. A., Meares, M., Bent, R., Konomi, Y., Ortega, M., et al. (2008).

Intercultural friendship development.Communication Reports,21, 1–13, doi: 10.1080/ 08934210701643750.

Tesch, S. A., & Martin, R. R. (1983). Friendship conceptions of young adults in two age groups.

The Journal of Psychology,115, 7–12, doi: 10.1080/00223980.1983.9923591.

Trice, A. D., & Elliott, J. (1993). Japanese students in America: College friendship patterns.

Journal of Instructional Psychology,20, 262–264.

Ujitani, E. (2006). Intercultural relational development between Australian students and host Japanese students: A longitudinal study of students’ socio-emotional experiences and interpretations. (Doctoral dissertation, Murdoch University, 2006). Retrieved May 7, 2011, from http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/375 Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.),Handbook of intercultural training(pp. 124–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ward, C., & Masgoret, A. M. (2004).The experiences of international students in New Zealand:

Report on the results of the national survey.New Zealand: International Policy and Development Unit, Ministry of Education.

Weiss, L., & Lowenthal, M. F. (1975). Life course perspectives on friendship. In M. F. Lowenthal, M. Turner, D. Chiriboga, & Associates (Eds.),Four stages of life(pp. 48–61). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Wierzbicka, A. (1997).Understanding cultures through their key words. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

William, T. R. (2005). Exploring the impact of study abroad on students’ intercultural communication skills: Adaptability and sensitivity.Journal of Studies in International Education,9, 356–371, doi: 10.1177/1028315305277681.

Williams, D. G. (1985). Gender, masculinity-femininity, and emotional intimacy in same-sex friendship.Sex Roles,12, 56–78, doi: 10.1007/BF00288179.

Wilson, K. M. (1999). Validity of global self-ratings of ESL speaking proficiency based on an FSI/ILR-referenced scale (Research Report RR-99-13). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication.Language Learning,54, 119–152, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00250.x.

Ying, Y. W. (2002). Formation of cross-cultural relationships of Taiwanese international students in the United States.Journal of Community Psychology,30(1), 45–55, doi: 10.1002/jcop.1049.

Yum, J. O. (1988). Multidimensional analysis of international images among college students in Japan, Hong Kong, and the United States.Journal of Social Psychology,128, 765–777. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research171 Copyright of Journal of Intercultural Communication Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.