







































Running head: BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS 68 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benefits of Developing Friendships with International Partner Students 

in a Global Understanding Course 

Marion A. Eppler 

Fiona Scott 

East Carolina University, USA 

 

 

 

Author Note 

 

Marion A. Eppler, Department of Psychology, East Carolina University. 

Fiona Scott 

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marion A. Eppler, 

Department of Psychology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, 27858, USA. 

Contact: epplerm@ecu.edu 



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  69 
 

 

Abstract 

This study used assessment data from a Global Understanding (GU) course to examine the 

impact of intercultural interaction when students feel that they have developed close friendships. 

The GU course follows empirically-based guidelines for reducing prejudice, and even though it 

provides students with a unique opportunity to interact with different cultural groups, this contact 

does not automatically benefit all students. However, when students develop close friendships 

with their international partners during the GU course, as many of these students do, then they 

reap the benefits described in the research literature as important for reducing prejudice—

increased knowledge about outgroups, decreased communication anxiety, and increased 

perspective taking. 

 

  



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  70 
 

Benefits of Developing Friendships with International Partner Students 

in a Global Understanding Course 

 The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes for students participating in a Global 

Understanding (GU) course. This course was designed to provide college students with 

international experiences while they remained on their home campuses (Chia, Poe, & Yang, 

2011) and it presently involves the collaboration of faculty, administrators, and technology 

personnel from more than 60 institutions in 30 countries—a group called Global Partners in 

Education. Each GU class is scheduled to work with two or three partner countries in blocks of 

six to nine linking days per country. During a block of linking days, students communicate with 

international partners in real-time small discussion groups via videoconferencing (Figure 1) and 

also in individual chat rooms. Topics for discussion are designed to progress from easy “safe”  

 

  

HHN students with their ECU partners 

(Germany) 

ECU students with their HHN partners 

(USA) 

 

Figure 1. Students who participated in videoconference discussions from HHN and ECU. 

 

 

topics (e.g., personal introductions, college life, family structure, holidays, and cultural 

traditions) to more challenging “controversial” topics (e.g., meaning of life, religion, stereotypes 

and prejudice). Students are assigned to work with one or two partner students from each of the 



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  71 
 

partner countries in a given semester. In addition to in-class interactions, students are required to 

engage in email (or other social media) exchanges with their assigned partners, and to complete a 

small collaborative project that is jointly presented on the final linking day. 

Intercultural Interactions Are Not Automatically Beneficial 

 Opportunities to interact with partner students from multiple countries presumably 

increases knowledge and understanding of cultural differences. However, intercultural 

interactions are not always beneficial and sometimes attitudes may become more negative after 

interactions (Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern, 2002). For example, our GU students sometimes 

initially assume that intercultural communication will be easy but then they experience 

communication challenges which increases their uncertainty and anxiety. Or sometimes they 

begin with such a high level of communication anxiety that discussions remain on a superficial 

level and they only feel comfortable interacting with international peers when they are discussing 

cultural similarities or safe topics. 

 Learning to engage in meaningful intercultural interactions is a developmental process 

and students’ level of intercultural maturity plays an important role (King & Baxter Magolda, 

2005). The development of intercultural maturity has both cognitive and emotional components. 

The cognitive components include developing a more complex understanding of cultural 

differences, an ability to change perspectives, and a desire to understand challenges to one’s 

personal beliefs. The emotional components include being able to accept cultural differences 

without feeling threatened by them. Research suggests that people who are less interculturally 

mature react to anxiety and discomfort in interactions by disengaging and avoiding (King, Baxter 

Magolda, & Masse, 2011). In contrast, people who are more interculturally mature use anxiety 

and discomfort as a cue to explore, which leads to increased engagement and greater 



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  72 
 

appreciation for other perspectives. Thus, with increased intercultural experience, students’ 

progress from assuming that knowledge is either right or wrong to an increasing acceptance of 

uncertainty and awareness of multiple perspectives. The highest level of intercultural maturity is 

reflected by the ability to not only consider alternative cultural viewpoints, but to consciously 

shift from one perspective to another.  

Intergroup Contact Theory and Reducing Prejudice 

 Racial conflict in the USA has prompted decades of research by American social 

psychologists on the causes and cures for prejudice (Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner, & Christ, 2011). 

Much of this research has been guided by Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact theory. Allport 

outlined four necessary conditions for contact between groups to result in decreased prejudice: 

(1) the groups must have equal status during the contact, (2) the groups must share common 

goals, (3) the contact must involve cooperation rather than competition, and (4) the contact must 

be sanctioned by authorities or law. Although Allport’s four conditions do enhance the positive 

effects of contact between groups, they are not necessary conditions for reducing prejudice 

(Pettigrew et al., 2011). Instead, the primary factors that mediate the effects of intergroup contact 

on prejudice are reduced anxiety and increased empathy (Pettigrew et al., 2011).  

 How does contact between groups help to reduce prejudice? Intergroup contact increases 

knowledge about other groups, decreases anxiety about interactions, and increases empathy and 

perspective taking (Pettigrew et al., 2011). Increasing one’s knowledge about other groups helps 

to challenge ethnocentrism. People learn to understand reasons for different norms and customs, 

so they are less likely to believe that their own norms and customs are the natural way that 

everyone should behave. Negative assumptions about outgroups can be corrected when new 

information arises which contradicts those assumptions. We feel uncomfortable when we hold 



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  73 
 

conflicting views (cognitive dissonance) and we are motivated to restore internal consistency by 

resolving the conflicting attitudes (Gawronski, 2012). Intergroup contact also helps to decrease 

communication anxiety by reducing uncertainty (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997). In unfamiliar 

situations, it can be difficult to predict how the interaction will proceed and how best to respond. 

This, in turn, decreases motivation to interact and acts as a barrier to effective communication 

and cultural understanding. Intergroup contact helps people to understand other points of view 

(cognitive component) and to feel empathy (emotional component). Both facilitate increased 

motivation for interaction, tolerance, conflict resolution, and decreased ethnocentrism and 

prejudiced attitudes.  

Cross-group friendships are particularly important, and they have greater impact on 

reducing prejudice when they are of longer duration and more intimate (sharing personal 

information) (Pettigrew et al., 2011). Friendship creates many of the conditions that make 

intergroup contact effective. For example, friendship usually involves equal status interactions 

and cooperation in working toward shared goals, three of Allport’s (1954) conditions. And 

positive feelings toward a single friend improves attitudes toward the entire group (Pettigrew et 

al., 2011). Even indirect contact may reduce prejudice, such as having a friend who has a close 

outgroup friend (Pettigrew et al., 2011). 

 The purpose of this study was to use the GU assessment data to test whether changes in 

intercultural competence, communication anxiety, and perspective taking were greater for 

students who developed stronger friendships with their international partners during the GU 

course. 

  



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  74 
 

Methods 

Participants 

 During the Spring 2016 and Fall 2016 semesters, 1244 students from 38 universities in 22 

countries took the assessment survey for the GU course. Participants for this study were 576 

students who completed both the pretest and posttest surveys. These students ranged in age from 

16 to 23 (91% were 18-23) and 67% were women. This was the first time taking a GU course for 

95% of the participants, 88% had never studied abroad, and 46% had never traveled outside their 

home country. 

Materials 

 The GU assessment survey included measures of communication anxiety, perspective 

taking, and other items created for the purposes of assessing intercultural competence and course 

satisfaction. The item used to establish the groups for comparison was: “I feel that during this 

Global Understanding course I have developed a close friendship with at least one student from 

another country.” Students responded by choosing either yes or no. 

 The intercultural communication apprehension scale (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997) is a 

self-report measure of the level of anxiety that people experience when communicating with 

people from different cultures. The scale consists of 14 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale with 

1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Half of the items were reverse scored so that a 

higher average score indicates greater levels of anxiety. This measure was used on both the 

pretest and posttest surveys. 

 The social perspective taking motivation scale (Gehlback et al., 2008) is a self-report 

measure of how often people attempt to understand the thoughts and feelings of others. The scale 

consists of 7 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = almost never to 5 = almost all 



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  75 
 

of the time. Higher average scores indicate greater perspective taking motivation. This measure 

was used on both the pretest and posttest surveys. 

 Additional items were created to assess intercultural competence, as well as students’ 

satisfaction with interactions with their international partners and with the GU course. A few of 

the items were used on both the pretest and posttest surveys, but most were used only on the 

posttest survey. Participants indicated strength of agreement with the items using 7-point Likert 

scales ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree (with the exception of a few 

items, as indicated in the tables). Relevant items are included in the Results section along with 

the corresponding analyses. 

Procedure 

 The GU assessment was administered in English as an online survey. It was taken by 

students as close as possible to the first and last days of the GU course (before interactions with 

any international partners and after the conclusion of all interactions with international partners. 

Analyses included only students who completed both the pretest and posttest surveys. 

Results 

 For all analyses, students were divided into two groups, those who responded yes (64%) 

versus no (36%) to the item concerning whether or not they developed a close friendship with at 

least one student from another country during the GU course. For measures that were included 

on only the posttest survey, data were analyzed with t-tests comparing the two friendship groups. 

For measures that were included on both the pretest and posttest surveys, data were analyzed 

with 2 (pretest vs posttest) x 2 (close friend group vs no friend group) mixed factorial ANOVAs. 

Means, standard deviations, and results of the statistical tests are presented in Table 1 for the t-

tests and Table 2 for the ANOVAs. 



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  76 
 

Increased Knowledge 

 On the posttest, students indicated strength of agreement with the statement, “I have 

learned a great deal about other countries and their cultures during this Global Understanding 

course.” The close friend group expressed stronger agreement with this statement than the no 

friend group. Also on the posttest, students were asked, “Compared to the beginning of the class, 

how interested are you now in reading about or listening to international news?” and “…, how 

interested are you now in traveling to different countries?” These items used a 5-point Likert 

scale ranging from 1 = much less to 5 = much more. After completing the GU course, the close 

friend group was more interested in international news and traveling to different countries than 

the no friend group. 

 On both the pretest and the posttest, students rated the statement, “I make extra effort to 

learn about other countries and cultures during my free time.” This item was rated on a 5-point 

Likert scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = all of the time. There was a significant increase in how 

often students engaged in learning about other countries from pretest to posttest for the close 

friend group, but no change for the no friend group. 

Decreased Anxiety 

 Intercultural communication anxiety decreased after taking the GU course. Both 

friendship groups showed a significant decrease in communication anxiety. The two groups did 

not differ on the pretest, but the close friend group showed lower communication anxiety on the 

posttest than the no friend group. 

Making international friends during the GU course also benefitted students who are 

anxious or uncomfortable interacting with local peers or speaking during class. This was 

assessed with two items on both the pretest and posttest surveys: “I feel anxious or 



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  77 
 

uncomfortable interacting with other students in my classes when I do not know them.” and 

“Often I feel anxious or uncomfortable speaking up during class time.” There was a significant 

decrease in anxiety after taking the GU course for both items for the close friend group, but no 

change for the no friend group. 

Increased Perspective Taking 

 Perspective taking increased after taking the GU course for all students, although this 

finding was relatively weak. However, several items on the posttest supplemented this finding. 

Students were asked, “How often did you and this partner [the one with whom they felt they had 

developed the closest friendship] talk about topics where you had different opinions or 

disagreed?” The choices were never (1), rarely (2), sometimes (3), or often (4). Students in the 

close friend group were more likely than the no friend group to have discussed topics where they 

disagreed. Students rated strength of agreement (7-point scale) with, “The Global Understanding 

class helped me to understand different perspectives.” They were also asked, “Compared to the 

beginning of the semester, my overall view of this partner’s country:” and the choices ranged 

from 1 = became much more negative to 5 = became much more positive. Compared to the no 

friend group, the close friend group felt more strongly that the GU class helped them to 

understand different perspectives, and they reported more positive views of their partners’ 

countries. 

Enjoyment of the GU Experience 

 All course satisfaction measures were higher for the close friend group than for the no 

friend group, including quality of interaction with partners, amount of written communication 

outside of class time, real-time discussions (both videoconferencing and chatrooms), email 

contact, desire to continue interaction with partners, overall satisfaction with the course, interest 



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  78 
 

in taking more GU courses, and number of times they have recommended the GU course to 

others. 

 

Table 1 

Results for Comparison of the Two Friendship Groups on Posttest Items 

 

 

Survey Item 

 

 

 

Close Friendship 

Group (M & SD) 

 

No Friendship 

Group (M & SD) 

 

t 

 

df 

 

p 

 

Learned a great deal about 

other countries & cultures 

(scale 1-7) 

 

 

6.02 (.91) 

 

5.78 (1.05) 

 

2.89 

 

563 

 

.004 

Interest in international 

news (scale 1-5) 

 

3.98 (.93) 3.71 (.87) 3.38 553 .001 

Interest in travel to other 

countries (scale 1-5) 

 

4.35 (.89) 4.17 (.97) 2.29 557 .022 

Discussed topics where 

opinions disagreed (scale 

1-4) 

 

2.88 (.80) 2.65 (.78) 3.30 565 .001 

Understand different 

perspectives (scale 1-7) 

 

6.03 (.88) 5.70 (1.13) 3.92 564 .000 

View of partner’s country 

(scale 1-5) 

 

4.30 (.73) 4.01 (.78) 4.44 567 .000 

Quality of interaction with 

partners (scale 1-7) 

 

5.85 (1.18) 5.30 (1.32) 5.11 568 .000 

Amount of written 

communication (scale 1-7) 

 

5.68 (1.26) 4.92 (1.45) 6.53 567 .000 

Real time discussion via 

videoconferencing (scale 

1-7) 

 

6.09 (1.08) 5.81 (1.16) 2.87 566 .004 

Real time discussion via 

chat room (scale 1-7) 

 

5.84 (1.25) 5.43 (1.37) 3.59 564 .000 



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  79 
 

Email contact (scale 1-7) 

 

5.51 (1.48) 4.55 (1.54) 7.34 567 .000 

Desire to continue 

interaction with partner 

(scale 1-7) 

 

5.95 (1.08) 4.53 (1.31) 13.94 566 .000 

Overall satisfaction with 

course (scale 1-7) 

 

6.20 (.86) 5.66 (1.25) 6.09 562 .000 

Interest in taking more GU 

courses (scale 1-7) 

 

6.19 (.91) 5.57 (1.40) 6.31 562 .000 

How often recommended 

GU course (never, once, a 

few times) 

 

2.72 (.52) 2.34 (.77) 6.85 562 .000 

 

 

Table 2 

Results for 2 (Pre-Post) x 2 (Friendship Groups) ANOVAs 

Survey Item = Make extra effort to learn about countries and cultures (scale 1-5) 

Close Friend Group No Friend Group 

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest 

3.14 (.91) 3.37 (.87) 2.85 (1.00) 2.90 (.92) 

 

• Pre-post main effect significant, F(1,560) = 12.10, p = .001. 

• Friendship group main effect significant, F(1,560) = 29.16, p = .000. 

• Interaction significant, F(1,560) = 5.46, p = .02. 

• Pre-post difference not significant for no friend group, but significant for close friend 

group. 

• The two friendship groups were significantly different on both the pretest and posttest. 

 

 



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  80 
 

Intercultural Communication Anxiety Measure (scale 1-5) 

Close Friend Group No Friend Group 

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest 

2.19 (.64) 2.00 (.61) 2.27 (.65) 2.14 (.60) 

 

• Pre-post main effect significant, F(1,541) = 44.17, p = .000. 

• Friendship group main effect significant, F(1,541) = 5.03, p = .025. 

• Interaction not significant, F(1,541) = 1.54, p = .214. 

• Pre-post difference significant for both friendship groups. 

• The two friendship groups were not significantly different on pretest, but were 

significantly different on posttest. 

 

Survey Item = Feel anxious interacting with local peers (scale 1-7) 

Close Friend Group No Friend Group 

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest 

3.48 (1.56) 3.00 (1.60) 3.82 (1.82) 3.53 (.92) 

 

• Pre-post main effect significant, F(1,287) = 12.62, p = .000. 

• Friendship group main effect significant, F(1,287) = 6.21, p = .013. 

• Interaction not significant, F < 1. 

• Pre-post difference not significant for no friend group, but significant for close friend group. 

• The two friendship groups were not significantly different on pretest, but were significantly 

different on posttest. 

Survey Item = Feel anxious speaking up in class (scale 1-7) 

Close Friend Group No Friend Group 

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest 

3.44 (1.67) 2.87 (1.64) 3.67 (1.78) 3.40 (1.77) 

 



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  81 
 

• Pre-post main effect significant, F(1,287) = 16.17, p = .000. 

• Friendship group main effect significant, F(1,287) = 4.29, p = .039. 

• Interaction not significant, F(1,287) = 2.14, p = .144. 

• Pre-post difference not significant for no friend group, but significant for close friend group. 

• The two friendship groups were not significantly different on pretest, but were significantly 

different on posttest. 

 

Perspective Taking Measure (scale 1-5) 

Close Friend Group No Friend Group 

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest 

3.81 (.67) 3.86 (.70) 3.70 (.70) 3.75 (.72) 

 

• re-post main effect significant, F(1,551) = 3.90, p = .049. 

• Friendship group main effect marginally significant, F(1,551) = 3.79, p = .052. 

• Interaction not significant, F < 1. 

 

Discussion 

 Although the GU course provided students with a unique opportunity to develop firsthand 

knowledge about cultural differences without leaving campus, previous research and anecdotal 

observations make it clear that these interactions are not always beneficial. The main findings of 

the present study, based on the GU assessment data, are that the GU experience is significantly 

more beneficial when students develop close friendships with international peers. Students who 

reported that yes, they did have a close friendship with at least one of their GU partners, also 

self-reported that they learned more, had stronger interest in continuing to learn more, were able 



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  82 
 

to consider different viewpoints, and felt less anxious during intercultural interactions than 

students who said that they did not form any close friendships during the GU course. 

 The GU course is structured to follow empirically-based guidelines for reducing 

prejudice (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew et al., 2011). It is designed to encourage the development of 

intercultural friendships. Students engage in multiple live small group discussions and they are 

assigned to continue and expand their discussions with specific individuals. Early discussions 

focus on topics that are relatively easy and safe as students first get to know each other. This 

should help students cope with the many uncertainties present in intercultural interactions, thus 

reducing anxiety. As students become more comfortable in their interactions, the door opens for 

exchanging knowledge and personal experiences. This helps students to begin considering 

different viewpoints, particularly when discussing topics on which they have differing opinions. 

Students have equal status throughout their interactions and they work together toward common 

goals. Cooperation and deeper perspective taking are encouraged via the assignment of a 

collaborative project. These features of the GU course helped students to reap the benefits 

described in the research literature as important for reducing prejudice—increasing knowledge 

about other cultures, increasing the ability to consider different viewpoints, and decreasing 

intercultural communication anxiety. One ongoing challenge for the GU program is finding ways 

to foster the development of intercultural maturity by helping students cope with the discomfort 

of cognitive dissonance so that it promotes growth rather than inhibition and avoidance. 

 

 

  



BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS  83 
 

References 

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 

Chia, R., Poe, E., & Yang, B. (2011). History of global partners in education. Global Partners in 

Education Journal, 1, 3-7. 

Gawronski, B. (2012). Back to the future of dissonance theory: Cognitive consistency as a core 

motive. Social Cognition, 30, 652-668. 

Gehlbach, H., Brown, S. W., Ioannou, A., Boyer, M. A., Hudson, N., Niv-Solomon, A., 

Maneggia, D., & Janik, L. (2008). Increasing interest in social studies: Social perspective 

taking and self-efficacy in stimulating simulations. Contemporary Educational 

Psychology, 33, 894-914. 

King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. 

Journal of College Student Development, 46, 571-592. 

King, P. M., Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Masse, J. C. (2011). Maximizing learning from engaging 

across difference: The role of anxiety and meaning making. Equity & Excellence in 

Education, 44, 468-487. 

Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The development of intercultural and interethnic 

communication apprehension scales. Communication Research Reports, 14, 145-156. 

Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup 

contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271-280. 

Spencer-Rodgers, J., & McGovern, T. (2002). Attitudes toward the culturally different: The role 

of intercultural communication barriers, affective responses, consensual stereotypes, and 

perceived threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 609-631. 

 


