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.