cultural adaptation of international students: … · study examines how stereotypes and...
TRANSCRIPT
CULTURAL ADAPTATION OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS:
STEREOTYPES AND INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE
_______________
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
San Diego State University
_______________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
in
Communication
_______________
by
Ariel D. Baumbaugh
Summer 2015
iii
Copyright © 2015
by
Ariel D. Baumbaugh
All Rights Reserved
iv
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this to my family and friends. First, my mom and dad, who
have always supported me in everything and anything I have done. Not to mention the
countless hours they have both put in helping me proofread and edit. Without them, I most
likely would not have gotten to where I am today. Next, my friends, who have been there for
me when I needed them the most and have continued to encourage me throughout this
process. Last, I would also like to dedicate this to my dog, Lacey. Without her and the
abundance of dog therapy she has provided, I would probably not be sane.
v
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS
Cultural Adaption of International Students: Stereotypes and
Intercultural Communication Competence
by
Ariel D. Baumbaugh
Master of Arts in Communication
San Diego State University, 2015
The trend of studying abroad is rapidly expanding worldwide. Even though research
has examined the impact of studying abroad, the effects of stereotypes on students’ overall
cultural adaptation into the new culture has not been notably assessed. The present study
examines the stereotypes of warmth and competence that international students attribute to
U.S. Americans and the effect these stereotypes have on these students’ preparedness for
change, intercultural communication competence, and overall cultural adaptation to
American society. Utilizing Kim’s (2001) Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory as a framework,
this study investigates the process of cultural adaptation by including preparedness for
change, stereotypes warmth and competence, and intercultural communication competence.
A cross-sectional study was conducted on 218 international students at a large southwestern
university. First it was shown that preparedness for change positively affects intercultural
communication competence. However, it was then illustrated that preparedness for change
did not relate to international students’ adaptation into the American culture. International
students’ perceived perception of U.S. Americans was then tested. Through this, it was found
that U.S. Americans are considered to be more competent than warm. From this finding, the
relationship between the two stereotype dimensions proved to correlate. This indicates that if
Americans are perceived as warm, that will positively associate that with perceptions of
competence. Next, stereotypes warmth and competence were shown to relate to preparedness
for change. The more prepared for change an international student was, the more warmth and
competence toward U.S. Americans was felt. When examining the relationship between
intercultural communication competence and the two stereotype dimensions, only stereotype
competence was shown to fully relate. The warmth dimension was only partially related to
intercultural communication competence. Following, only stereotype warmth was shown to
be a predictor for cultural adaptation. Stereotype competence was not positively related to an
international student’s cultural adaptation. Last, intercultural communication competence
positively related to an international students’ cultural adaptation into the American culture.
Through gaining this knowledge, researchers can benefit by having a better understanding of
the implications that preparedness for change, stereotypes, and intercultural communication
competence can have on international students’ overall adaptation into the American society.
Keywords: stereotypes, intercultural communication competence, cultural adaptation,
and international students
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................x
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
Literature Review.....................................................................................................2
Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory ...........................................................................3
Preparedness for Change....................................................................................6
Preparedness for Change and Intercultural Communication
Competence..................................................................................................6
Preparedness for Change and Cultural Adaptation ......................................9
Stereotypes .......................................................................................................10
Stereotype Content Model .........................................................................11
Stereotypes and Preparedness for Change .................................................16
Stereotypes and Intercultural Communication Competence......................17
Stereotypes and Cultural Adaptation .........................................................20
Intercultural Communication Competence and Cultural Adaptation ........23
2 METHOD ....................................................................................................................25
Procedures ..............................................................................................................25
Participants .............................................................................................................25
Measures ................................................................................................................27
Demographics ..................................................................................................27
Preparedness for Change..................................................................................28
Cultural Adaptation ..........................................................................................28
Stereotype Content Model ...............................................................................28
vii
Intercultural Communication Competence ......................................................29
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................30
3 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................33
Hypothesis 1...........................................................................................................33
Hypothesis 2...........................................................................................................33
Research Question 1 ..............................................................................................33
Research Question 2 ..............................................................................................34
Research Question 3 ..............................................................................................34
Hypothesis 3...........................................................................................................34
Hypothesis 4...........................................................................................................35
Hypothesis 5...........................................................................................................35
4 DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................36
Implications............................................................................................................42
Limitations and Future Research ...........................................................................44
Conclusion .............................................................................................................45
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................46
APPENDIX
SURVEY......................................................................................................................54
viii
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1. Participants’ Characteristics: Sex, Age, Nationality, and Class Standing .................26
Table 2. Intercorrelation Matrix of All Constructed Variables................................................31
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1. Structural model of cross-cultural adaptation. ............................................................4
Figure 2. Model of proposed hypotheses and research questions ..............................................6
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I want to give a huge thank you to the wonderful committee I had.
Thank you Dr. Spitzberg for giving me the assistance and support needed to complete this
project. Without your guidance and helpfulness, this thesis would not be as accomplished as
it is now. You are truly a profound educator and I am thrilled I got the chance to work and
learn from you. Next, I would also like to thank Dr. Snavely. Thank you for being a part of
my committee and leading me through the process of acquiring a master degree here at San
Diego State University. The journey has been intense but needless to say amazing and worth
every drop of sweat. I would also like to thank Dr. Devos, for your contribution and great
ideas with making this the best thesis it possibly could be. Last, I would like to thank Dr.
Lee, her help was crucial in the execution of this thesis.
Next, I would like to thank my fellow communication master students. Our cohort is
so close and everyone really has been such a huge support system to me. Specifically,
Jazmyne for always being there to answer my many quantitative methods questions. Ari, for
working many days and nights with me on our theses, inspiring each other to keep going!
And last Madison, who since day one has been my person in the program. Without her
constant support, work ethic, and encouragement, this program would have been way more
difficult to complete. I am happy to say that not only have I gained so much knowledge from
this program, but I have also gained a life-long friend. Thank you to an amazing cohort.
Last, I would like to thank my family. They have always pushed me to do what I am
passionate about, while still encouraging me to be my very best. First, my dad who since day
one has instilled in me the importance of getting a high-level education. If he could get two
masters, then I can at least get one! Thank you for always being there for me and being my
motivation. Last my mom, who has watched me struggle and thrive throughout these two
years. With her endless advice and support, she has helped me more than anyone I know.
Thank you.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The trend of studying abroad is expanding globally and continuing to rise in the
United States. From 2012 to 2013 there was a 7% increase of students studying abroad within
the U.S., resulting in an overall total of 819,644 international students (Institute of
International Education [IIE], 2013). Within the U.S., the states of California, Texas, and
New York encompass the majority of students who study abroad (IIE, 2013). These three
states have up to an estimated 112,000 international students (IIE, 2013). Moreover, the U.S.
Department of Commerce claimed that in 2012 international students provided about 24
billion dollars to the U.S. economy (IIE, 2013). Such data illustrates some of the tangible
impacts that studying abroad programs have on the United States.
There is considerable research examining the process of adapting to a new
environment while studying abroad. Prior research has mainly focused on specific variables
that influence international students’ adaptation such as second language acquisition skills
(Isabelli-García, 2006; Sablina & Kopiatina, 2013; Segalowitz et al., 2004; Yu & Shen,
2012), conflict management (Adrian-Taylor, Noels, & Tischler, 2007; Oommen, 2013;
Shupe, 2007), expectations (Martin, Bradford, & Rohrlich, 1995; Pitts, 2009), culture shock
(Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004; Edwards-Joseph & Baker, 2012; Lin, 2006; Zhou, Jindai-
Snape, Topping, & Todman, 2008) and re-entry culture shock (Arthur, 2003; Gaw, 2000;
Rohrlich & Martin, 1991; Sussman, 2002). Even with this extensive research on all the
factors found to influence international students’ adaptation into the new culture, there are
additional factors to be explored that might influence the adaptation process.
By investigating how specific factors such as stereotypes and intercultural
communication competence influence international students’ cultural adaptation, we can gain
a better understanding of the trials international students go through. Specifically, examining
stereotypes associated with U.S. Americans, international students’ cultural adaptation can be
2
assessed through the pre-dispositional views they have before their travel even begins. By
examining intercultural communication competence, the progression of cultural adaptation
can be evaluated through successful interactions with U.S. Americans. Therefore, the present
study examines how stereotypes and intercultural communication competence relate to
international students’ adaptation to the United States culture.
Utilizing Kim’s (2001) Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory as a framework, this study
will examine the effects international students’ predispositions and perceived stereotypes of
U.S. Americans have on their communication competence and cultural adaptation to U.S.
culture. International students’ predispositions will be considered in relation to their
preparedness for change. Specifically, it is argued that international students’ preparedness
for change affects their intercultural communication competence and cultural adaptation. To
obtain the necessary data for perceived stereotypes, the dimensions of warmth and
competence found in Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, and Xu’s (2002) stereotype content model will be
assessed. The degree that the stereotypes are associated to U.S. Americans will be discussed
and the connection between both dimensions of warmth and competence will be evaluated.
From this assessment, the link between the stereotypes warmth and competence will be
explored. Then it will be illustrated how the two stereotypes positively influence
international students’ preparedness for change and cultural adaptation. Last, the relationship
between intercultural communication competence and cultural adaptation will be
demonstrated.
LITERATURE REVIEW
With the popularity of study abroad programs in the U.S., researchers indicate that
international students are faced with a variety of factors that affect their adaptation process,
such as interaction (or lack thereof) with the host culture, a different educational system,
living arrangements (on or off campus), financial stresses, and length of stay (Mustaffa &
Ilias, 2013; Selltiz, Christ, Havel, & Cook, 1963). Even with all these factors influencing
cultural adaptation, stereotypes are also instrumental in international students’ adaptation to
the American culture. Stereotypes are attitudes that are thought to stem from predispositions
(Gertsen, 1990) that are likely held by international students before their travels begin. The
extent to which stereotypes distort or interfere with accurate interpretations of intercultural
3
and intergroup interactions will probably effect if international students engage in less
competent communication and cultural adaptation. Thus, an international student’s
predisposition of preparedness for change, stereotypes of warmth and competence, and
intercultural communication competence are expected to influence foreign students’ cultural
adaptation. One way to explore the affects of these concepts is through Kim’s (2001)
theoretical model, which is detailed below.
CROSS-CULTURAL ADAPTATION THEORY
Kim’s (2001) Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory attempts to bridge the gap between
the individual and the environment in the adaptation process through three overall
assumptions. First, humans appear to have an instinctive need to adapt to the environment
surrounding them (Kim, 1995, 2001). Second, adapting to the new environment is achieved
through communication (Kim, 1995, 2001). Third, through this multifaceted process of
adaptation, the individual is transformed (Kim, 1995, 2001). Based on these assumptions, the
individual may have the opportunity to achieve cross-cultural adaptation. Cross-cultural
adaptation is “the dynamic process by which individuals, upon relocating to new, unfamiliar,
or changed cultural environments, establish (or reestablish) and maintain relatively stable,
reciprocal, and functional relationships with those environments” (Kim, 2001, p. 31).
This theory is an appropriate framework for understanding what might enable an
effective adaptation. Kim’s (2001) structural model is utilized, which indicates specific
elements that impact cross-cultural adaptation (see Figure 1). The model can illustrate
systematically how preparedness for change, perceived U.S. American stereotypes, and
intercultural communication competence are all interconnected and influence cultural
adaptation.
Kim’s (2001) structural model is based on many different core dynamics and
conditions. A variety of the dimensions are external, establishing restrictions on the adaptive
conduct of the individual, while others are internal and found within the individual’s actions
(Kim, 2005). These differences enable adaptations to be interactive processes between the
dimensions, the individual, and the environment (Kim, 2005). The dynamics shown
(predisposition, environment, host communication competence, and intercultural
transformation) shape the ability to culturally adapt to a new environment (Kim, 2001). The
4
Figure 1. Structural model of cross-cultural adaptation. Source: Kim, Y. Y.
(2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and
cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
variables represented in Kim’s (2001) model that are discussed in this study are
predispositions, host communication competence, and cultural adaptation. Host
communication competence will be use interchangeably throughout with intercultural
communication competence. Thus, some predispositions and intercultural communication
competence are examined in regard to international students who come to study aboard
within the U.S. culture.
Predispositions are internal conditions, that are characteristics or beliefs individuals
have before their travels (Kim, 1995). These predispositions illustrate the degree to which
individuals differ because of diverse backgrounds, which establish limits to their overall
internal adaptive ability (Kim, 2005). By coming into contact with certain elements of the
environment, an individual’s internal dynamic changes, bringing the person closer to
incorporating new cultural aspects of behavior (Kim, 2005). According to Kim (2001), an
individual’s internal condition is based on their preparedness for change, ethnic proximity,
and adaptive personality. Even though all three components are significant, the present study
will focus on preparedness for change because preparedness for change is the perceptual and
mental readiness an individual has to grasp new cultural aspects (Kim, 2005). Since this
propensity stems from previous background knowledge, some individuals will be able to
overcome challenges found in the new culture (Kim, 2001, 2005). Thus, due to the many
5
challenges international students face when studying abroad (Mustaffa & Ilias, 2013), it can
be suggested that preparedness for change has an impact on international students’ cultural
adaptation into the U.S. culture.
The next and core internal condition to this model is host communication
competence, which refers to an individual’s ability to analyze and collect knowledge through
cognitive, behavioral, and affective means (Kim, 2001, 2005). This ability is dependent on
interactions between individuals and locals of the new culture (Kim, 1995, 2001).
Furthermore, successful adaptation to a new culture can only occur when communication
style is congruent with the locals’ style (Kim, 2001, 2005). Through this, it is thought that by
effectively interacting with American citizens, international students will be able to adapt
more quickly to the U.S. culture.
The internal conditions listed above influence the last condition, intercultural
transformation (also known as cultural adaptation). Through experiencing internal
transformations due to the new environment, individuals’ mental, emotional, and behavioral
reactions start to become routine (Kim, 2005). Intercultural transformation is made up of
three components (i.e., function fitness, psychological health, and intercultural identity) that
bring all the necessary aspects of adaptation together (Kim, 2003). Cross-cultural adaptation
is a continuous and developing process, dependent on these varying levels that make up
one’s intercultural transformation (Kim, 2001). Therefore, the present study will focus on the
overall combination of these three aspects (functional fitness, psychological health,
intercultural identity) that Kim (2001) indicates influences and could bring about
international students’ cultural adaptation.
By utilizing Kim’s (2001) cross-cultural adaptation theory, and more specifically her
structural model, as the theoretical framework to this present study, we can start to
understand how international students’ perceived stereotypes of warmth and competence and
intercultural communication competence affect their cultural adaptation into the American
society (See Figure 2).
6
Figure 2. Model of proposed hypotheses and research questions.
Preparedness for Change
Preparedness for change refers to the level of readiness or willingness individuals
have prior to coming into contact with a new culture (Kim, 1995, 2001). Individuals who
lack this readiness will struggle to adapt because they do not understand the social rules and
behaviors associated with the new culture (Furnham & Bochner, 1982). Preparedness for
change provides awareness of the differences between the new culture and the individual’s
home culture, making them more prepared for better adaptation into the new culture
(Kitsantas, 2004). Overall preparedness for change involves several different factors such as
formal education received, prior training in the new culture’s language and overall culture,
previous cross-cultural experiences, and if the travel was voluntary (Kim, 1995, 2001). These
factors seem to be the foundation needed in order to establish how prepared international
students are to study abroad and have a successful cross-cultural experience.
PREPAREDNESS FOR CHANGE AND
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION
COMPETENCE
According to Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory, preparedness for change influences
intercultural communication competence (Kim, 2001). Spitzberg and Changnon (2009)
define intercultural communication competence as “the appropriate and effective
management of interaction between people who, to some degree or another, represent
different or divergent affective, cognitive, and behavioral orientations to the world” (p. 7). In
7
other words, interaction between culturally diverse individuals is most likely to be competent
to the extent such behavior fits positively valence expectancies associated with each culture
(Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). More specifically, intercultural communication competence
is focused around attributes of “motivation, knowledge, and skills” (Spitzberg & Changnon,
2009, p. 35). From these attributes, individuals seem to have the power to create their own
experience through successful interactions, facilitating a quicker adjustment into the new
environment.
Previous research has connected intercultural communication competence to factors
such as willingness to communicate (Hamad & Lee, 2013; MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, &
Conrod, 2001; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004), cultural sensitivity (Ellenwood
& Snyders, 2010; Knutson, Komolsevin, Chatiketu, & Smith, 2003; Liu, 2014; Williams,
2005) and empathy (Arasaratnam, 2006; Gertsen, 1990; Herfst, van Oudenhoven, &
Timmerman, 2008). Prior research, however, does not appear to have assessed Kim’s (2001)
proposed relationship between intercultural communication competence and preparedness for
change.
Even though research has indicated that there are specific concepts that separately
affect an individual’s level of preparedness for change and intercultural communication
competence, it seems to not visibly have illustrated how together they influence one’s overall
preparedness for change and their intercultural communication competence. For example,
Belz (2003) conducted a study that illustrated the influence formal education has on
competent communication with locals of the new culture. It was shown that the more cultural
education individuals had, the less cultural misinterpretations occurred (Belz, 2003). It is
expected that those individuals with fewer cultural misunderstandings would be better
communicators because of the perceived fluidity they would have while conversing with the
locals by already knowing the new culture’s social norms (Kim, 2001). Also, since formal
schooling is known to enable a higher level of intellectual capability, this higher academic
ability aids individuals in educating themselves in the new aspects of the culture (Kim,
2001).
The more knowledge individuals have about a culture prior to traveling, the more
successful their communication with the locals might be. De Verthelyi (1995) conducted a
study on the challenges that international students’ spouses have when their significant other
8
comes to study abroad in the United States. From this study, it was suggested that there was
less cultural understanding if the individuals in the new culture did not learn about the
American culture and language before their travels (De Verthelyi, 1995). Further, from this
lack of prior knowledge and cultural understanding, individuals were then missing the
communication skills needed to bridge that gap between their home culture and the new one
(De Verthelyi, 1995). This gap could also be expanded due to language barriers because
training in the new culture’s language prior to travel was not completed (De Verthelyi, 1995).
Ultimately, it appears that the more equipped individuals are about the culture they are
visiting; the more successful their communication will be with the host culture (Kim, 2001).
Prior training programs for international students could enable them to have a higher
level of preparedness for change and better intercultural communication competence. For
example, Kitsantas (2004) suggests that the training study abroad programs offer before
travel are too short, making them ineffective learning tools for international students. By
being prepared in the general expectations and communicative behaviors of the new culture,
the individuals will be able to progress faster to cultural understanding (Brislin & Kim,
2003). This is because most individuals are experts at interacting in their own culture
(Furnham & Bochner, 1982), but lack the knowledge of proper communicative behaviors to
with members of different cultures (Mizera, Tulviste, Konstabel, & Lausa, 2013). To
illustrate, individuals who are new to a culture are usually untrained at interacting with the
locals (Furnham & Bochner, 1982). This is because they are expected to learn the new
accepted behaviors informally through trial and error; they are rarely clarified through
training courses prior to travel (Furnham & Bochner, 1982). With a training program,
individuals could be given the necessary skills to become competent communicators in the
new environment (Furnham & Bochner, 1982; Shackleford, 2011). Due to this, many
intercultural studies have suggested a need for prior culture training before traveling begins
in order to become more competent communicators (Brislin & Kim, 2003; Furnham &
Bochner, 1982; Kim, 2001, 2003, 2005; Kitsantas, 2004). Even though there are many
aspects of preparedness for change, together those aspects seem to have the power to create
successful interactions between international students and locals of the host culture. Thus,
international students’ overall level of preparedness for change could affect their
9
communication competency in the new culture. From this, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
H1: Preparedness for change is positively related to intercultural communication
competence.
PREPAREDNESS FOR CHANGE AND
CULTURAL ADAPTATION
Preparedness for change has the power to affect international students’ adaptation
into American culture. Previous researchers have examined how preparedness for change
affects cultural adaptation (De Verthelyi, 1995; Goldstein & Kim, 2006; Harris & Moran,
1987; Tomich, McWhirter, & King, 2000). When studying abroad in a foreign country, it is
apparent there are many different aspects individuals could prepare for that might influence
their adaptation into the new culture (Mustaffa & Ilias, 2013). Those aspects would include,
but are not limited to: new obligations, new environmental settings, different native
languages, and different cultural norms (Mustaffa & Ilias, 2013; Selltiz et al., 1963). Not to
mention that each university around the world has its own organization, expectations,
workload, and staff-student relations to which the international students are expected to adapt
(Klineberg & Hull, 1979). Nevertheless, the more prepared an international student is with
knowledge of these new aspects before travel, the easier their understanding and adaptation
into the new culture will be (Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Selltiz et al., 1963). Tomich et al.
(2000) indicates that prior education of the new culture before traveling begins would be
beneficial and speed along the adaptation development. This is because knowledge before
travel enables the individual to have an early start at confronting and understanding the new
environment’s expectations (Tomich et al., 2000). De Verthelyi (1995) also suggests that an
individual’s motivation or readiness for facing aspects of a new culture is contingent on the
way prior cultural experiences have shaped them to have an adaptable approach to new
cultures. Simply, the more cultural experience an individual has had prior to travel, the more
flexible their personality will be to adapting to a new culture (De Verthelyi, 1995). Through
this, individual can begin to gain understanding of the host intentions and actions, making for
an easier adaptation to occur (Tomich et al., 2000).
Preparedness for change can specifically affect adaptation to the American culture.
Chen (2000) conducted a study by examining the ways preparedness for change impacts
10
international students’ cultural adaptation into the American culture. She investigated three
aspects (cultural knowledge, language proficiency, and self-confidence), which are aspects of
preparedness for change thought to impact cultural adaptation (Chen, 2000). All three factors
were shown to significantly affect cultural adaptation (Chen, 2000). International students
felt that without speaking English fluently, without knowing the American culture, and
without having the confidence to do so, it was harder for them to adapt, especially if their
culture was very distinct from the United States’ culture (Chen, 2000). Another study also
illustrates how international students, especially those from diverse cultural backgrounds like
Asian countries, struggle to adapt due to the lack of preparedness for change (Lin & Yi,
1997). It was found that the international students find it difficult to understand their
professors and fellow students’ accents (Lin & Yi, 1997). This then makes them disinclined
to interact with locals from the host culture (Lin & Yi, 1997). According to Kim (2001), to
have successful adaptation, individuals need to interact with the locals of the host culture.
Thus, if international students do not feel generally prepared before travel, it appears they
will not adapt as quickly or easily to the new culture. Since the international students
struggled to adapt because they lacked this aspect of preparedness for change, Lin and Yi
(1997) suggest that training prior to studying abroad should take place. Brislin and Kim
(2003) also recommend that the most successful abroad experience would include in-depth
cross-cultural training regarding the new culture the individuals are going to visit. It is
proposed that individuals would then know the differences of the new culture compared to
their own before their traveling took place (Brislin & Kim, 2003). Ultimately, it seems
apparent that some general level of preparedness for change is important for individuals to
have before their travels begin in order to have a smoother adaptation into the new culture
(Church, 1982; Kim 2001, 2005; Rawlings & Sue, 2013). Therefore, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Preparedness for change is positively related to cultural adaptation.
Stereotypes
Each culture around the world has its own perceived ideas of people in other societies
(Cuddy et al., 2009). These perceived ideas are otherwise known as stereotypes, embellished
assumptions about specific groups or people (Gertsen, 1990). Vast cultural and social
disparities enable such universal stereotypes to occur (Cuddy et al., 2009; Glock & Krolack-
11
Schwerdt, 2013). This means that individuals from certain countries have specific worldwide
stereotypes associated to them just because they originate from that country (Lee & Fiske,
2006). These global perceptions become even more solidified because people tend to view
individuals that are not members of their group as dissimilar to their particular group, with
more stereotypical characteristics associated to them (Park, Ryan, & Judd, 1992; Ryan &
Bogart, 1997). Due to this, national stereotypes seem to be a common occurrence (Bender,
Gidlow, & Fisher, 2013), making it probable that international students studying in the U.S.
will have prominent stereotypical views towards the U.S. and U.S. Americans which in turn
could affect their experience.
Positive or negative stereotypes international students have associated to the country
they are visiting are thought to affect their study abroad experience. It was been assessed that
the more positive the expectation of studying abroad programs are, the more individuals
would want to participate (Goldstein & Kim, 2006). This is consistent with other research
indicating that positive expectations are anticipated when an individual interacts with other
individuals who they perceive to be fellow group members (Hoyle, Pinkley, & Insko, 1989;
Park et al., 1992). Likely stemming from those expectations are stereotypes, which also seem
to influence an individual’s behavior and experience. Many studies suggest that stereotypes
have the power to influence an individual’s behavior (Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick, & Esses,
2010; Fiske, 1998; Krings, Sczesny, & Kluge, 2011). Thus, it is expected in this present
study that the stereotypes of warmth and competence might have positive or negative aspects
associated to them that could have the power to influence an international students’ behavior
and overall adaptation into the American culture.
STEREOTYPE CONTENT MODEL
Although a considerable amount of research assessing stereotypes has examined
overall stereotyping behavior, scholars have also considered the multi-dimensional aspects of
stereotypes. Those dimensions include how individuals utilize stereotypes in their social
exchanges (stereotype processes) and the stereotypes that individuals make on specific
groups or people (stereotype content; Ruble & Zhang, 2013). This present research will be
implementing both of these aspects, which illustrate stereotypes as an individual’s perceived
opinion or belief (good or bad) of another group (Cuddy et al., 2009). More specifically, this
12
study will be utilizing the stereotype content model (SCM) that implements both aspects and
has been proven to be a systematic structure (Cuddy et al., 2009; Fiske et al., 2002).
The contents and processes of stereotypes are created and further adjusted through
social stresses that individuals are faced with in everyday life (Fiske et al., 2002). In other
words, the foundations of stereotypes are shaped through daily experiences (Fiske et al.,
2002). For example, since international students in study abroad programs at universities are
constantly tackling new cultural differences and behavioral norms (Mustaffa & Ilias, 2013), it
can be assumed that those studying in the U.S. would have the same problems when
communicating with U.S. Americans. Analyzing the processes and content of stereotypes
allows for definite examination and widespread comparison of certain groups (Cuddy, Fiske
& Glick, 2008; Cuddy et al., 2009; Eckes, 2002; Fiske et al., 2002), such as international
students and U.S. Americans. Since this present study is not focusing on international
students from one distinct culture, examining general stereotype processes and content might
allow for a more generalized approach to understanding stereotypes of U.S. Americans.
The stereotypes of warmth and competence are components of an individual’s every
day life (Fiske et al., 2002). When individuals encounter another person or group of people,
they will internally ask themselves two questions: What is the other person’s reason for
conversing with me?; and are they qualified to follow through with their reason for
conversing with me? (Cuddy et al., 2008; Cuddy et al., 2009; Fiske, 2012; Fiske, Cuddy, &
Glick, 2007). Specifically, when coming into contact with someone new, one wants to know
the other’s intent (warmth) and their ability to carry out this intent (competence; Binggeli,
Krings, & Sczesny, 2014; Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2002). Individuals will be
perceived as warm if they are friendly, sympathetic, and appear dependable throughout a
conversation (Abele, Cuddy, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2008; Fiske et al., 2002). Individuals will be
perceived as competent if they are smart, skillful, and effectual in keeping the conversation
going throughout an interaction (Abele et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2002). Additionally, through
the order of these questions, warmth seems to be considered the primary of the two because
of the importance initial perceptions (warmth) have on an individual, when compared to the
ability the individual has to act out their intentions (competence; Cuddy et al., 2008).
Demonstrating how the warmth stereotype tends to dominate over one’s perceived level of
competence (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2007), which seems to create an inverse
13
relationship between the two. Nevertheless, these two dimensions seem to be an essential
foundation for an individual’s social interactions (Fiske et al., 2007), which makes them
valuable aspects to examine.
These two universal dimensions of warmth and competence seem to have the power
to influence the way individuals of the host culture are perceived, which could affect
adaptation into a new culture. SCM predicts that groups that have high status and are
competitive with other groups will be perceived as competent but not warm (Glick et al.,
2006). This is because other groups view competitive groups with resentment due to their
aggressive nature (Fiske et al., 2007; Glick et al., 2006). The stereotype content model also
predicts that if groups are thought to be powerful but cooperate with others, they will be
perceived as both competent and warm (Glick et al., 2006). This is because a high status
group like this illustrates how they cooperate with other groups, enabling the other groups to
have a sense of admiration or respect towards them (Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999; Glick
et al., 2006). To test this, Glick et al. (2006) and Trifiletti, Andrighetto, Rattazzi, Visintin,
and Falvo (2011) conducted studies that examined how the stereotypes of warmth and
competence are associated with the United States. The findings from both of these studies
correspond with the above predictions of SCM, which indicate that many think of the United
States as being competent but cold (Glick et al., 2006; Trifiletti et al., 2011). However, since
most international students chose to study abroad in the U.S., it is thought that the stereotypes
of warmth and competence associated to U.S. Americans might be different. Therefore, the
following research question is proposed:
RQ1: To what degree are U.S. Americans perceived as (a) warm and (b)
competent?
Past research has examined the dimensions of warmth and competence in terms of
four mixed stereotypes (i.e., typologies) that exhibit high and low socially desired traits:
paternalistic, envious, contemptuous, and admiration (Fiske et al., 2002). Although the four
mixed stereotypes are not the main focus of this present study, they are an important aspect
to stereotype content and processes and are therefore briefly discussed below.
The first of the four mixed stereotypes are paternalistic stereotypes, which occur
when individuals are perceived as having low-competence and high-warmth (Fiske et al.,
2002; Glick & Fiske, 2001). In the U.S. paternalistic stereotypes are related to an individual’s
gender, age, language, and ethnic group (Fiske et al., 2002). This is because certain
14
individuals within these groups (elderly individuals, underprivileged African Americans,
traditional women, and non-native English speakers) tend to not be respected and thus,
overlooked by society (Fiske et al., 2002). Due to the tendencies to overlook individuals
typically associated to this stereotype, are feelings of kindness, which enable onlookers to
have a sense of warmth linked to individual within this category (Fiske et al., 2002). In sharp
contrast is the second mixed stereotype known as envious. The envious stereotype results
from a perception of high-competence but low-warmth (Fiske et al., 2002; Glick & Fiske,
2001). In the U.S., this stereotype is applicable to men, nontraditional women (e.g., working
women, athletes, etc.), wealthy individuals, minority authorities, Jews, and Asians (Fiske et
al., 2007; Fiske et al., 2002; Glick & Fiske, 2001). It seems that individuals within this
category are seen as too industrious, self-interested, and only task proficient (Fiske et al.,
2002). Ultimately, they are more skillful with work than they are with interpersonal
relationships (Fiske et al., 2002).
The third mixed stereotype, contemptuous, is perceived when members have low-
competence and low-warmth (Fiske et al., 2002). Individuals that are perceived to hold this
stereotype are considered to be scrounging individuals who do not add or contribute to
society (Fiske et al., 2002). In the U.S., groups such as these would contain underprivileged
white and black individuals, those on welfare, the disabled, and immigrants (Fiske et al.,
2002; Glick & Fiske, 2001). Since it is believed that individuals in this category do not
enhance society, feelings of anger, disapproval, revulsion, and antipathy are attached to them
(Fiske et al., 2002; Glick & Fiske, 2001). The last type of mixed stereotype is admiration,
which occurs when members are perceived as having high-competence and high-warmth
(Fiske et al., 2002). Admiration can bring about feelings of pride and positive attitudes
towards individuals within this group (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2002). Specifically in
the U.S., Christian individuals, U.S. citizens (middle class), and white individuals are
considered to be within this group (Fiske et al., 2007; Fiske et al., 2002). This group has
close ties with other members of society and is thought to be a communal group (Fiske et al.,
2002). Due to being such a collective group, many individuals communicate aspects of
satisfaction and admiration towards members of it (Cuddy et al., 2008). These four
stereotypes seem to be influential in cross-cultural experiences and enable a variety of
perceptions on specific groups of people.
15
The extent to which these typologies can be assessed within the present study greatly
depend on the dimensional aspects of the responses. Moreover, typologies (which are
categorical) restrict our understanding of the relationship between stereotypes and other
factors. Therefore, the present study will assess the dimensional aspects of warmth and
competence. Yet previous research seems to not have fully assessed how these dimensional
aspects relate to one another.
There seem to be a unique relationship between the dimensions warmth and
competence. Research recently has suggested that the relationship between the two as either a
halo effect or a compensation effect (Kervyn, Yzerbyt, Judd, & Nunes, 2009; Yzerbyt,
Kervyn, & Judd, 2008). When examining individuals, the halo effect seems to come into
play, which illustrates a positive relationship between the two stereotype dimensions
(Yzerbyt et al., 2008). So, if individuals are perceived as friendly (i.e., warm), then they will
most likely also be perceived as intelligent (i.e., competent; Yzerbyt et al., 2008). However,
when examining the social perceptions of groups, there seems to be a compensation effect,
which results in perceiving some out-group members as positive on one dimension but the
negative on the other dimension (Fiske et al., 2002; Kervyn et al., 2009; Yzerbyt et al.,
2008). For example, if someone is perceived as friendly (warm), they are less likely to be
perceived as intelligent (competent).
These contradictory views illustrate a need for a closer examination of the
complicated relationship between the dimension warmth and competence. Yzerbyt et al.
(2008) conducted a study examining the relationship between the two dimensions. The
resulting association illustrated a compensation effect with participants tending to favor one
group over the other on both of the dimensions (Yzerbyt et al., 2008). It was illustrated that
the relationship between the dimensions warmth and competence is unlike any other
stereotype grouping (Yzerbyt et al., 2008). It appears that the dimensions of warmth and
competence are both significant and independent to each other (Yzerbyt et al., 2008). For
example, if a country’s culture is observed as warm, that will impact its observed competence
and vice versa (Kervyn et al., 2009). Further, there appears to be a distinction between the
two dimensions in their predominance and the consequence of this primacy (Kervyn et al.,
2009). Research has indicated the warmth dimension is often more important than the
competence dimension, especially when examining social perceptions (Cuddy et al., 2008).
16
Even in gender related stereotypes, women are viewed as more warm, whereas men are
viewed as more competent (Ebert, Steffens, & Kroth, 2014). Given this, knowledge on the
warmth stereotype, or perceived constraints of this stereotype, enables deductions to occur on
individuals’ degree of competence (Yzerbyt et al., 2008). This complex relationship between
the two dimensions is important to interpret because of how fundamental the stereotype
dimensions are to understanding the intricate nature of social perceptions (Kervyn, Dolderer
Mahieu, & Yzerbyt, 2010; Kervyn, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2013). Therefore, the following
research question is proposed:
RQ2: What is the relationship between the stereotypes of warmth and
competence?
STEREOTYPES AND PREPAREDNESS FOR
CHANGE
The stereotype content model could enable for a structural way to interpret the effects
preparedness for change have on individuals traveling. Prior research has examined
expectations (Hoyle et al., 1989), stereotypes (Cuddy et al., 2009; Fiske et al., 2007), and
aspects of preparedness for change (Chen, 2000; Goldstein & Kim, 2006; Kim, 2001; Lin &
Yi, 1997), but has not fully assessed how these aspects affect one another. Most stereotypes
do hold some valence, but habitually stunt the potential cognitive growth of individuals
(Beamer, 1992) before their travel even begins. This is because individuals seem to create
expectations of interactions based on these stereotypes, even though these views only
represent part of the culture (Beamer, 1992). However, through the readiness and motivation
associated with preparedness for change, accurate expectations or stereotypes are more likely
to be formed of the new culture (Black & Gregersen, 1990; Kim, 2001). These stereotypes
could have the power to create an optimistic or sanguine study abroad experience for
international students in the United States. Conversely, if individuals are not prepared or
have improper knowledge of the country they are planning to visit, the perceived stereotypes
might hinder their intercultural interactions (Gertsen, 1990). This makes the relationship
between preparedness for change and perceived stereotypes unclear.
This contends that stereotypes might be related to preparedness for change, but there
seems to be a lack of research directly examining this. Nevertheless, related studies do help
in the understanding of the relationship between the two. For example, Ruble and Zhang
17
(2013) examined the stereotypes associated to Chinese students by Americans. From their
study, it was apparent that there were generational and national stereotypes about the Chinese
population that made Americans expect certain behaviors (Ruble & Zhang, 2013). It was
suggested that if Americans were more prepared and had more experience with the Chinese
culture, their stereotypes might be more realistic and not as detrimental to the interaction
process (Ruble & Zhang, 2013). This seems to illustrate how the lack of preparedness or
knowledge of another culture enables stereotypes to take over and influence an individual’s
behaviors. Other work also demonstrates this occurrence but through the stereotypes of
warmth and competence. Cuddy et al. (2008) investigated and reviewed the universal effects
the stereotypes of warmth and competence have on social interactions. In their chapter, they
suggest that the stereotypes of warmth and competence create emotions, which are associated
to individuals and specific groups (Cuddy et al., 2008). These emotional associations could
then have the power to affect an individual’s cognition, which in turn is thought to influence
their preparedness for change (Cuddy et al., 2008). This is because the stereotypes of warmth
and competence influence various configurations of predispositions to occur emotionally,
rationally, and behaviorally (Cuddy et al., 2008). So the more preparedness for change an
individual has, the less impactful the effects of the stereotypes warmth and competence could
have, making the individual better suited for experiencing and adapting to the new
environment. However, to what extent these universal stereotypes could affect one’s
preparedness is unclear. Thus, the following research question is proposed:
RQ3: What is the relationship between stereotype (a) warmth and (b) competence
and preparedness for change?
STEREOTYPES AND INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE
The stereotypes of warmth and competence are connected to an individual’s
intercultural communication competence, making these concepts important to examine.
Stereotypes can influence successful intercultural communication exchanges (Dovidio et al.,
2010; Fiske, 1998). This is because categorizing individuals into groups enables stereotypical
behaviors to be associated to them (Dovidio et al., 2010; Fiske et al., 2002), which seems to
influence effective communication between groups. For instance, in order for individuals to
be interculturally competent, they must be able to manage the social interaction in
18
appropriate and effective ways (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). In order to do this, the
individual needs to have the necessary set of skills to successfully implement the correct
cultural behaviors into the interaction (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). Some of those
competent abilities would include the individual’s view of how similar their culture is to the
new one, language skills, mindfulness, prior knowledge about the new culture, and
motivation to have a successful interaction (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). Since most
groups determine the stereotype (warm and/or competent) of another group by their
relationship with each other (Lin, Kwan, Cheung, & Fiske, 2005), perceptions of
communication competence might fluctuate depending on the new culture. This is because
these abilities may be perceived as competent in one culture while not competent in another
(Spitzberg, 2007). Through the anticipation of these stereotypical behaviors in interactions
(Dovidio et al., 2010) it can be proposed that if those expectancies are not met, social or
communication difficulties might arise that could affect the competency of the interaction.
Stereotypes can adversely affect intercultural communication competence in a variety
of ways. For example, Olaniran (1996) conducted a study that investigated the problems
international students face and how those problems affect their competence when
communicating with locals of a host culture. Some of those difficulties included the
language, age, and dissimilarities between the international students’ home culture and the
new culture (Olaniran, 1996). It was found that regardless of the difficulties felt, the more the
international students interacted with locals of the host culture, the more apt both parties
were at understanding the dissimilarities of each other’s culture (Olaniran, 1996). More
specifically, the more similar the cultures were, the less difficulty was felt in the interaction
(Olaniran, 1996). This could be due to that fact that stereotypes are not only limited to the
dimensions of warmth and competence; beliefs and morals also seem to influence one’s
attitudes towards other groups (Guan, Deng, & Bond, 2010). Thus, parallel to Spitzberg and
Changnon (2009) from Olaniran’s (1996) study, it appears that the more similar the new
culture is to the individual, the more competent the individual will be when communicating.
From these similarities, it is speculated that the two dimensions of warmth and competence
would have a positive outcome in comparable cultures, making for a prosperous intercultural
communication exchange to occur.
19
Countries all around the world are starting to socialize their citizens to other cultures
(Beamer, 1992), which could help to eliminate stereotypes and enable more successful
intercultural communicators. Stereotypical difference associated to other cultures restricts the
travelers’ perceptions and ultimate understanding of the culture (Beamer, 1992). By being
mindful of differences, individuals could strengthen their intercultural communication
competence (Chang, 2013). In order to do this, universities are now creating more classes
directed towards building students’ intercultural communication competence (Beamer, 1992).
In these classes, students progress towards intercultural competence by moving past the
preconceived stereotypes, and test their own meanings of interaction through asking
questions about the other culture to gain more knowledge (Beamer, 1992). One way they are
specifically doing this is through teaching the students English, which is considered the
universal language (Alptekin, 2002; Rawlings & Sue, 2013). By learning such a versatile
language, the students will be more prepared when interacting with individuals from a variety
of cultures (Alptekin, 2002). After all, language proficiency was illustrated to be one of the
most important traits to conversing successfully with individuals from other cultures (Chen,
2000). Also, when the individuals arrive to the new culture, by interacting with the locals,
they can further their progress of becoming competent communicators (Lee & Chen, 2000).
This is because constant interaction and communication with the locals of the new culture
allows for faster cultural learning and skills to be acquired (Lee & Chen, 2000). Through
being motivated to recognize and understand the vast differences each culture around the
world has to offer, it is hoped that international students will acknowledge the cultural
stereotypes and develop the tools to become successful intercultural communicators
(Beamer, 1992).
Although there are communication difficulties that make intercultural communication
competence difficult to achieve (Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern, 2002), this present study
speculates that the more friendly (warm) and skillful (competent) the individual is, the more
successful their intercultural exchange would be. A seemingly easy way to gain these
objectives would be through interacting with individuals from the host culture. An
individual’s degree of warmth will be perceived if they are friendly or appear trustworthy
throughout the conversation (Abele et al., 2008). The more warmth felt towards an
individual, the more likely the other individual would be motivated to have a conversation or
20
interact with them (Cuddy et al., 2008). Thus, the warmth stereotype seems to be crucial for
the initial stage of interaction, illustrating that without the desire to initially converse, the
later skill of competence might not be obtained. Individuals’ competence will be derived
from how skillful they are at keeping the conversation going throughout the interaction
(Abele et al., 2008). So where it seems the warmth stereotype draws individuals together to
have an interaction, the competence stereotype furthers the process of communication along
(Cuddy et al., 2008). Thus, it can be assumed that if individuals are lacking the friendliness
or skill level to keep the conversation going and maintain their goal, they will not have a
successful intercultural interaction. Based on this, the stereotypes of warmth and competence
seem to have a significant relation to whether or not an individual is a competent
communicator in cross-cultural settings. From this, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3a: Stereotype warmth is positively related to intercultural communication
competence.
H3b: Stereotype competence is positively related to intercultural communication
competence.
STEREOTYPES AND CULTURAL ADAPTATION
Just as preconceived social perceptions affect intercultural communication
competence (Fiske, 1998), they could also affect international students’ cultural adaptation to
the American culture. This is because the dimensions of warmth and competence offer
information about certain stereotypical characteristics associated to individuals and groups
(Fiske et al., 2007; Fiske et al., 1999). Since stereotypes associated to individuals outside of
one’s social group have the power to influence that individual’s expectations and behavior
(Hoyle et al., 1989), social biases could be created (Dovidio et al., 2010) which could affect
cultural adaptation. Through affecting an individual’s behavioral outcome, the adaptation
process could become jeopardized depending on the stereotype associated. This problem of
adaptation not being obtained makes it is important to narrow down and analyze how
stereotypes affect this process.
There are many ways that perceptions of groups can be formed based on the two
dimensions of warmth and competence (Fiske et al., 2007) that might affect international
students’ adaptation development. For example, Klineberg and Hull (1979) conducted a
study that suggested U.S. Americans were able to form relationships with individuals but that
those relationships were perceived as superficial. Since Kim (2005) suggests that in order to
21
culturally adapt, individuals need to be able to develop deeper relationships, it appears that
even though U.S. Americans were perceived as friendly, they were not competent enough at
developing agreeable or satisfactory relationships with the other students. This illustrates that
the dimensions of warmth and competence can affect an individual’s adaptation into a new
environment. Additionally, Bond (1986) conducted a study that examined the stereotypes
between Americans and Chinese exchange students that interacted regularly. The stereotypes
were shown to be consistent with Americans both maintaining the interaction (warm) and
controlling its direction (competent), whereas the Chinese students were viewed as more
compliant and less assertive (Bond, 1986). Through this, it was apparent that the stereotypes
seemed to regulate the interaction (Bond, 1986), which might influence the adaptation
process. This is because stereotypes such as these may enable for levels of discrimination to
take place, affecting individuals’ attitudes and behaviors (Dovidio et al., 2010), impeding
their ability to adapt (Jung, Hecht, & Wadsworth, 2007). These findings seem to illustrate
how the warmth and competence of U.S. Americans regarded by other cultures are influential
in the adaptation process.
Coinciding with behavioral implications of these stereotypes are emotional effects
that also are thought influence cultural adaptation. These emotions are based on stereotypes
that most international students connect to the U.S. culture through American television and
movies (Chen, 2000). However, it seems that the stereotypical representation of the U.S. and
U.S. Americans portrayed to other countries end up giving international students a false
sense of American culture, ultimately affecting their adaptation (Rawlings & Sue, 2013).
Even though familiarity with American culture enables easier communication and adaptation
(Jung et al., 2007), the falsification the media portrays seems to create an incorrect reality for
international students to base their attitudes and emotions on. Through this misrepresentation,
the stereotypes of warmth and competence the media portrays could make it more difficult
for international students to adapt to the American culture.
Most individuals then might feel a sense of ineptness when communicating with
others of diverse cultural backgrounds because of the difficulties they encounter throughout
the interaction (Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern, 2002). For example, Spencer-Rodgers and
McGovern (2002) conducted a study that analyzed U.S. Americans’ mindsets toward
international students and how those attitudes affected the foreigner’s intercultural
22
communication competence and adaptation. From this, it was suggested that many U.S.
Americans felt irritated or awkward when communicating with international students
(Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern, 2002). It is suggested that international students can identify
the attitudes Americans have toward them and that it might have the power to impact their
communication (Jung et al., 2007). If this is the case and the international students feel
negative emotions radiating from U.S. Americans, it is speculated that they will not feel as
inclined to interact with them. This is due in part to emotions being the clearest analyst for
behaviors and attitudes associated to international students (Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern,
2002). This illustrates that the emotions attached to the stereotypes of warmth and
competence could be very influential to the behaviors that affect the adaptation process.
Affecting cultural adaptation and emerging from these behavioral and emotional
outcomes of the stereotype’s warmth and competence, is the degree to which an individual is
perceived to fit these stereotypes. The relationship between groups creates a social structure
upon which to base the interaction (Cuddy et al., 2008). To analyze this though, it is essential
to examine the degree to which the members are thought to fit the assumed stereotype (Park
& Judd, 1990). Since the dimensions of warmth and competence are considered universal,
they help to account for the basic differences stereotypes create in groups (Cuddy et al.,
2008). For instance, Kim (2001) suggests that interaction with locals of the host culture is the
first step towards adapting. Therefore, if U.S. Americans are perceived as friendly (warm) or
skillful (competent), it can be speculated that international students would go out of their way
to interact and begin the process of adaptation. However, the reverse scenario might also hold
validity. This reasoning stems from out-group members being more likely to obey and adapt
to the new norms than members of the in-group (Park & Judd, 1990). Meaning that it seems
more probable for international students to adapt their behaviors to those of U.S. Americans
than the other way around. Moreover, this adaptation might be easier if the two groups have
similar characteristics of warmth and competence. This is because if the stereotypes between
groups are not distinctively different, then the groups regard themselves as less stereotypical
(Park & Judd, 1990) and then might adapt more easily. From this, it is suggested that the
more warmth and competence felt towards the host culture, the more likely international
students will change their behavior and culturally adapt. Based on the above reasoning, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
23
H4a: Stereotype warmth is positively related to cultural adaptation.
H4b: Stereotype competence is positively related to cultural adaptation.
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION
COMPETENCE AND CULTURAL ADAPTATION
As alluded to, intercultural communication competence is closely linked to
individuals’ intercultural transformation or more specifically, their cultural adaptation (Kim,
1988, 2005). When individuals arrive to a new environment, they immediately begin the
procedure of cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 2001). This adaptation thrives and expands
through their interactions with the locals of the host culture (Kim, 2001, 2005). Although
cross-cultural adaptation is the process of adjustment into a new culture, conflicts might
occur between individuals due to differences between the new culture and their accustomed
culture (Koskinen & Tossavainen, 2004; Lee & Chen, 2000). Nevertheless, even if one group
feels threatened by the other, it appears that this threat can disappear if there are enough
successful interactions between the individuals (McLaren, 2003). If that threat can dissolve
through the willingness and ability to interact (McLaren, 2003), it seems that the capacity to
adapt is greatly associated with competent interactions between the locals of the host culture
and the individuals traveling to the new culture.
With the importance of intercultural communication competence in the adaptation
process, many studies have looked at the effects of interacting with the host culture has
(Carlson & Widaman, 1988; Lin & Yi, 1997; Mckay-Semmler & Kim, 2014; Redmond &
Bunyi, 1993; Sawyer & Chen, 2012). One analysis suggested that interactions with the host
culture are imperative because it builds the foreigner’s experience and overall
communication competence (Andrews & Henze, 2009). Without this experience, their
adaptation might never be complete (Andrews & Henze, 2009). Another study argues that
competent interactions with the locals of the host culture enable the individuals to gain
information about the host culture’s language and culture, viewpoints, everyday expectations,
and customs (Lee & Chen, 2000). By gaining this knowledge through communication and
interpersonal interactions such as these, individuals are then able to learn about the host
culture and acquire the tools needed to further their adaptation to the new culture (Lee &
Chen, 2000). Further, Ruben and Kealey (1979) suggest that an individual’s own
communication skills are critical for cross-cultural adaptation to occur, especially those in
24
Western cultures. Illustrating that the more skilled an individual is at communicating in their
own culture, the more likely they will be a competent communicator and adapt to the new
culture (Ruben & Kealey, 1979). Therefore, communication seems to be the foundation for
building relationships and culturally adapting (Kim & Mckay-Semmler, 2013).
Intercultural communication competence also seems to be vital in regards to
international students’ adaptation into another culture that is distinct from their own.
Zimmermann (1995) conducted a study that examined the intercultural communication
competence of international students coming to America. From this study, even though there
was a slight correlation between speaking the English language and adaptation, it was found
to be just as important for international students to constantly be interacting and
communicating successfully with locals of the host environment (Zimmermann, 1995).
While the locals have had most of their lives to gain the communication skills needed for
successful interactions, most international students have only had a couple years of training
or none at all (Zimmermann, 1995). Therefore, by learning new communicative behaviors
through experimentation, international students might strengthen their intercultural
communication competence, and learn to adapt more quickly to the new environment.
Mckay-Semmler and Kim (2014) also conducted a study that analyzed the impact
communication had on adaptation. From their analysis of Hispanics’ adapting to the
American culture, it was suggested that communicating and interacting with U.S. Americans
directly relates to the Hispanics’ adaptation (Mckay-Semmler & Kim, 2014). Through
interacting with the locals, the Hispanics were able to learn from trial and error the
communicative norms of the American society, making them more competent
communicators (Mckay-Semmler & Kim, 2014). Thus, it appears that through
communication and interaction with the locals, individuals are able to detect the differences
and similarities between their accustomed culture and the new culture, while simultaneously
adapting to the new expectations (Kim, 2001). These studies jointly indicate how important
successful intercultural communication competence is to international students’ cultural
adaptation into the culture where they are studying abroad. From the above reasoning, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H5: Intercultural communication competence is positively related to cultural
adaptation.
25
CHAPTER 2
METHOD
PROCEDURES
International students were recruited in a variety of different ways. Primarily, they
were recruited from participating Communication and Psychology courses. However,
additional international students were obtained through various campus organizations that
service international students (e.g., Open University, American Language Institute, and the
International Student Center). This web-based survey was created using Qualtrics (a web-
based survey software). If enrolled in participating courses the study was presented on the
Research Participants Management website (SONA) and participants received credit for their
participation. International students not enrolled in participating courses were provided with
the link to the Qualtric survey through a recruitment flyer or email. All participants were
initially asked to complete a statement of informed consent and then they were provided with
instructions on how to complete the various parts of the survey. Since this study was only
applicable to international students, the only data excluded were from participants (n = 58)
who selected their nationality as being from the United States.
PARTICIPANTS
This study was composed of a convenience sample (N = 218) of international students
who were enrolled at a large public university in Southern California. Due to the participants
being international students, the national identity of the participants varied. Participants’
nationality included China (n = 31), India (n = 30), Mexico (n = 13), Sweden (n = 13), Japan
(n = 11), Saudi Arabia (n = 10), and the United Kingdom (n = 10) with more participants (n =
100) from other varied countries (n = 47). The participants also ranged in age from 18 to 45
years of age. Participants consisted of college freshman (n = 52), sophomores (n = 21),
juniors (n = 48), 4th
year seniors (n = 34), 5th
year seniors (N = 8), and graduate students (n =
55) (M= 3.41, SD=1.86). Every effort was made to have an equal representation of both male
26
and female students in this study. However, there ended up being a higher number of females
(n = 137) than males (n = 81). For full distribution of participants’ characteristics see Table 1
below. This study was distributed only to international students who were studying abroad;
this included international students seeking four-year degrees, as well as those only studying
abroad for a semester or two.
Table 1. Participants’ Characteristics: Sex, Age, Nationality, and Class Standing
Characteristics N %
Sex
Male 81 37.2
Female 137 62.8
Age
18 20 9.2
19 26 11.9
20 24 11.0
21 27 12.4
22 28 12.8
23 24 11.0
24 19 8.7
25 15 6.9
26 11 5.0
Other 24 11.2
Nationality
China 31 14.2
India 30 13.8
Mexico 13 6.0
Sweden 13 6.0
Japan 11 5.0
Saudi Arabia 10 4.6
United Kingdom 10 4.6
Other countries 100 45.8
27
Class Standing
Freshman (1st yr) 52 23.9
Sophomore (2nd
yr) 21 9.6
Junior (3rd
yr) 48 22.0
Senior (4th
yr) 34 15.6
5th
year Senior or beyond 8 3.7
Graduate Student 55 25.2
MEASURES
Pre-existing scales were used to measure cultural adaptation, stereotype content
model, and intercultural communication competence. A new scale was created to assess
preparedness for change based on qualitative attributes presented by Kim (2001).
Demographics
At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants are asked demographic questions.
These questions consist of asking the participants’ sex (male/female), age, class standing
(freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, etc.), ethnicity (Danish, Hispanic or Latino, Japanese,
African American, etc.) and nationality. Nationality was assessed through two questions. The
first question asked where the participants hold their nationality. The second question asked
the participants to indicate what country they normally resided in. For both questions,
participants were provided a list of countries ranging from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.
Additionally, participants were asked to indicate their English language proficiency. A series
of items on a 5-point scale (1= poorly, 5= excellent) asked participants to rate their English
speaking/writing/comprehension skills. The last questions are open-ended to asses their
language proficiency (e.g. how many years the participants have been speaking English, what
their primary language is, what language do they speak most with their friends and family,
and what other languages they speak) and also their prior travel experiences (e.g. how many
times they have been to the United States before this study abroad semester/year).
28
Preparedness for Change
Preparedness for change was measured with a newly created scale based on the
features Kim (2001) indicate reflect an individual’s readiness prior to travel: formal
education, training in host culture and language, previous cross cultural travel experiences,
and if their travel choice was voluntary. This uni-dimensional construct was measured
through 5 items. Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) how true each statement is. Items were generated based on the
various features. Some item statements included “I have received a lot of schooling and
formal education,” “I have had training in the host culture’s language prior to traveling” and
“I have had prior traveling experiences with different cultures.” In the present study, the
overall scale was found to be reliable (α = .69).
Cultural Adaptation
Cultural adaptation was assessed utilizing the Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (SCAS;
Ward & Kennedy, 1999). According to Ward and Kennedy (1999), this is a comprehensive
and versatile adaptation scale. Originally a 29-item scale that measures participants’
behavioral (22 items) and cognitive (7 items) difficulty in adapting to a new culture (Ward &
Kennedy, 1999), the present study included four additional items that were specific to the
study abroad experience. Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale from 1 (no
difficulty) to 5 (extreme difficulty) the amount of difficulty felt in different situations. The
sample items consisted of how difficult it is “Making friends,” “Taking an American
perspective on the culture,” and “Understanding what is required of you at University.” Also,
due to the point meaning of 1 (no difficulty) to 5 (extreme difficulty) all the items were
recoded to 1 (extreme difficulty) to 5 (no difficulty). In the present study, the subscales of
behavioral (α= .94), cognitive (α= .92), and studying abroad (α= .79) were found to be
reliable, as well as the overall scale (α= .97).
Stereotype Content Model
Stereotypes were measured utilizing the Stereotype Content Model (Fiske et al.,
2002). This scale measures the degree of warmth and competence felt by individuals toward
others (Fiske et al., 2002). In addition, the variants of warmth and competence illustrate four
stereotypes: paternalistic (low competence, high warmth), envious (low warmth, high
29
competence), contemptuous (low warmth, low competence), and admiration (high warmth,
high competence; Fiske et al., 2002). Five items measured competence and four items
measured warmth (Fiske et al., 2002). Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale
from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely) how true each statement is. Scale items were adjusted so
participants were responding about Americans as a group. Competence statements included
“Americans are competent” and “Americans are confident.” Warmth statements included
“Americans are warm” and “Americans are good-natured.” In the present study, both
competence (α = .68) and warmth (α = .78) were reliable sub-scales, with the overall scale
being reliable (α = .78).
Intercultural Communication Competence
Intercultural communication competence was measured in two ways. Previous
research has indicated that communication competence has both dispositional (i.e. trait-like)
and situational (i.e. state-like) characteristics (see Cupach & Spitzberg, 1983). In order to
assess the dispositional characteristics of communication competence, the Conversation
Skills Rating Scale (CSRS; Spitzberg, 2007) was used. This is a 30-item scale that assesses
interpersonal competence (Spitzberg, 2007); however for the present study it has been
adapted to analyze intercultural communication competence. The first 25-items measure
behavior skills (e.g., composure, attentiveness, coordination, and expressiveness), while the
last 5-items measure individuals’ molar communication competence (Spitzberg, 2007).
Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale from 1 (inadequate) to 5 (excellent)
how skillful they are at using various communicative behaviors (e.g. list). Statements
included “Speaking rate (neither too slow nor too fast)” and “Speaking fluency (pauses,
silences, “uh”, etc.).” The items “Shaking or nervous twitches,” “Unmotivated movements
(tapping feet, fingers, hair-twirling, etc.),” and “Interruption of partner speaking turns” were
recoded. Participants were then asked to indicate on a 7-point scale from 1 (poor
conversationalist, socially unskilled, incompetent communicator, inappropriate
communicator, ineffective communicator) to 7 (good conversationalist, socially skilled,
competent communicator, appropriate communicator, effective communicator) their overall
communication performance. In the present study, both the skills (α =.95) and the molar
scales (α =.92) were found to be reliable.
30
In order to assess state-like competence, Wiemann’s (1977) communicative
competence scale was utilized. This state measure is a 30-item scale that assesses an
individual’s communication style in relation to communication competence (Wiemann,
1977). Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree) how much the statements listed apply to their communication style.
Statements included “I find it easy to get along with others” and “I can adapt to changing
situations.” Also, the statements “My personal relations are cold and distant” and “I ignore
other people’s feelings” were recoded. In the present study, the scale was found to be reliable
(α =.93).
DATA ANALYSIS
Data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). First,
the data was screened for normality and outliers. As indicated in each measure section, items
in some of the scales were then recoded. Then, all scale items were assessed for frequency
and reliability. In an effort to examine superior reliability and structure on the preparedness
for change and adaptation scales an exploratory factory analysis was undertaken, and
examination of alpha-if-item-deleted were examined. In neither analysis did a better
structured emerge. After this, descriptives and correlational analyses were conducted (See
Table 2). In order to test the positive relationship between preparedness for change and
intercultural communication competence (H1) a bivariate correlation was run. To test the
positive relationship between preparedness for change and cultural adaptation (H2) a
bivariate correlation was also administered. RQ1 asked to what degree are U.S. Americans
perceived as (a) warm and (b) competent and was answered by assessing the rating on the
two dimensions (descriptive statistics). Further a paired t-test was conducted to assess the
distributions of stereotypes warmth and competence. Next, RQ2 asked what the relationship
between the stereotypes of warmth and competence were and was assessed with a bivariate
correlation. RQ3 inquired about the relationship between stereotype (a) warmth and
(b) competence and preparedness for change and was also assessed with a bivariate
correlation. RQ3 was further evaluated through a multiple stepwise regression. H3 examined
the relationship between intercultural communication competence and (a) stereotype warmth
and (b) stereotype competence. Both parts to H3 were assessed with bivariate correlations.
31
Tab
le 2
. In
terc
orr
elati
on
Matr
ix o
f A
ll C
on
stru
cted
Vari
ab
les
P
rep
are
Ad
apt
Ste
reo
Tra
it
ICC
Skil
l
ICC
Mola
r
ICC
Adap
t
Cogn.
Adap
t
Beh
av.
Ad
apt
Ab
road
Ad
apt
Su
m
War
m
Pre
par
e -
Adap
t .1
3
-
Ste
reo
.21
**
.18
*
-
Tra
it I
CC
.3
0*
**
.25
**
.44***
-
Skil
l IC
C
.29
**
*
.38
**
*
.26**
.59***
-
Mola
r IC
C
.23
**
.46
**
*
.14
.45***
.62***
-
Adap
t C
ogn
. .1
2
.94
**
*
.17*
.19*
.35***
.37***
-
Adap
t B
ehav
. .1
4
.99
**
*
.18*
.26**
.38***
.46***
.91***
-
Adap
t A
bro
ad
.17
*
.90
**
*
.13
.25**
.39***
.48***
.79***
.88
**
*
-
Adap
t S
um
.1
5
.98
**
*
.17*
.25**
.38***
.43***
.94***
.99
**
*
.90
**
*
-
War
m
.16
*
.19
*
.85***
.28***
.17*
.04
.20*
.20
**
.12
.20
**
-
Com
p.
.19
*
.12
.84***
.46***
.27***
.19*
.09
.1
0
.10
.10
.43
**
*
*C
orr
elat
ion i
s si
gnif
ican
t at
the
p <
.05 l
evel
. *
*p
< .01 l
evel
. *
**p <
.001
lev
el
32
H4 tested the positive relationship between cultural adaptation and (a) stereotype warmth and
(b) stereotypes competence. Both parts to H4 were examined through bivariate correlations.
Last, in order to test the positive relationship between intercultural communication
competence and cultural adaptation (H5) the data was assessed with a bivariate correlation.
33
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
HYPOTHESIS 1
Hypothesis 1 porposed that there is a positive relationship between preparedness for
change and intercultural communication competence. The preparedness for change measure
correlated (r= .30, p < .001) with Wiemann’s (1977) Communicative Competence measure
and (r= .29, p < .001) with Spitzberg’s (2007) Conversational Skills Rating Scale (CSRS). It
also correlated significantly with the molar portion of the CSRS (r = .23, p < .01). Therefore,
H1 is supported with a small-to-moderate effect size.
HYPOTHESIS 2
Hypothesis 2 proposed that there is a positive relationship between preparedness for
change and cultural adaptation. Preparedness for change did not correlate significantly with
the composite adaptation measure (r = .13, ns, p=.09). Nor did it correlate significantly with
the composite cognitive (r= .12, ns, p=.14) or behavior (r = .14, ns, p=.08) subscales of the
adaptation measure. It did however show a marginal correlation with the adapt abroad
subscale of the adaptation measure (r = .17, p < .05), and all of the correlations are positive
in sign, indicating a slight tendency for formal preparation to be associated with feelings of
adaptation. Nonetheless due most of the findings not being statistically significant, H2 is not
supported.
RESEARCH QUESTION 1
Research question 1 asked to what degree are U.S. Americans perceived as (a) warm
and (b) competent. Means of the individual stereotyping items range from 3.26 to 4.30 on a
5-point scale, with relatively small (below 1 scale interval) standard deviations. The warmth
mean (M = 3.49, SD = .80) and competence mean (M = 3.82, SD = .61) indicates that
34
Americans are perceived as somewhat above true midpoint in both warmth and competence.
Conducting a paired t-test indicates that Americans are perceived as significantly more
competent than warm (t(164) = -5.49, p < .001).
RESEARCH QUESTION 2
Research question 2 asked what is the relationship between the stereotypes of warmth
and competence. The warmth and competence variables were significantly and positively
correlated (r = .43, p < .001). In general, this indicates that perceptions of Americans’
warmth are positively associated with perceptions of their competence.
RESEARCH QUESTION 3
Research question 3 asked what is the relationship between stereotype (a) warmth and
(b) competence and preparedness for change. Preparedness for change was significantly but
only slightly correlated with perceptions of warmth (r = .16, p < .05) and competence (r =
.19, p < .05). In general, there was a slight but significant tendency for perceptions of
preparedness for change to be associated with greater perceptions of American’s warmth and
competence. When stepwise regressed upon preparedness for change, only competence
entered the model, suggesting that warmth adds no statistically unique variance in predicting
preparedness for change.
HYPOTHESIS 3
Hypothesis 3a proposed that there is a positive relationship between stereotype
warmth and intercultural communication competence. There is a statistically significant
positive correlation between warmth and intercultural communication competence (Wiemann
(1977) scale, r = .28, p < .001), Spitzberg’s (2007) CSRS skills measure (r = .17, p < .05),
but not to the CSRS molar measure (r = .04, ns, p=.58). Therefore, H3a is partially supported.
Hypothesis 3b proposed that there is a positive relationship between stereotype
competence and intercultural communication competence. There is a statistically significant
and positive association with the Wiemann’s (1977) measure of intercultural communication
competence (r = .46, p < .001) and the CSRS skills measure (r = .27, p < .001), and the
CSRS molar measure (r = .19, p < .05). Thus, H3b is supported.
35
HYPOTHESIS 4
Hypothesis 4a proposed that there is a positive relationship between stereotype
warmth and cultural adaptation. The correlation between stereotype warmth and cultural
adaptation revealed a statistically significant, small positive correlation (r = .20, p < .01),
which was consistent with both the behavioral (r = .20, p < .01) and the cognitive (r = .20,
p < .05), but not the adapt abroad scale (r = .12, ns, p= .14). In general, the perception of
Americans as warm is associated with a slight tendency to feel more well-adapted. Therefore,
H4a is supported.
Hypothesis 4b proposed that there is a positive relationship between stereotype
competence and cultural adaptation. The stereotyping of competence is not significantly
associated with the overall adaptation measure (r = .10, ns, p= .21), as well as the three
subscales of adaptation: behavioral (r = .10, ns, p= .19), cognitive (r = .09, ns, p= .23), and
adapt abroad (r = .10, ns, p= .20), Therefore, H4b is not supported.
HYPOTHESIS 5
Hypothesis 5 stated that there is a positive relationship between intercultural
communication competence and cultural adaptation. Cultural adaptation is positively related
to intercultural competence, as measured by the Weimann’s (1977) measure (r = .25, p <
.01), Spitzberg’s (2007) CSRS skills measure (r = .38, p < .001), and CSRS molar measure
(r = .43, p < .001). All three subscales of the adaptation measure displayed comparable
consistent correlations to intercultural communication competence. To Weimann’s (1977)
measure the adaptation subscales measured: behavioral (r = .26, p < .01), cognitive (r = .19,
p < .05), and adapt abroad (r = .25, p < .01). To Spitzberg’s (2007) skills CSRS scale the
adaptation subscales measured: behavioral (r = .38, p < .001), cognitive (r = .35, p < .001),
and adapt abroad (r = .39, p < .001). Last, to Spitzberg’s (2007) molar CSRS scale the
adaptation subscales measured: behavioral (r = .46, p < .001), cognitive (r = .37, p < .001),
and adapt abroad (r = .48, p < .001). In general, there is a moderately strong tendency for
cultural adaptation to be associated with greater perceived communication competence, and
therefore, H5 is supported.
36
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
In a world rapidly advancing in mobility, open borders, globalized business and
challenges, competence in intercultural interactions seems more important than ever. It
appears that numerous models and theories of competence in intercultural contact have been
proposed, but far fewer have been explicitly tested. This study sought to expand and test
Kim’s (2001) well-developed model of intercultural adaptation by testing already existing
measures (preparedness for change and intercultural communication competence) along with
extending the model to include additional variables such as stereotypes warmth and
competence as they influence cultural adaptation.
Kim (2001) indicates that preparedness for change affects host intercultural
communication competence. Kim (2001) proposed that five features facilitate preparedness
for change, which in turn promote intercultural adaptation and competence: Formal
education, training in host culture and language, previous cross cultural travel experiences,
and voluntary choice of cultural location. The findings illustrated that there was a
significantly positive relationship between all five features of preparedness for change and
intercultural communication competence (H1). Not only did preparedness for change
correlate with Wiemann’s (1977) state-like scale of communication competence, but it also
correlated with both parts of Spitzberg’s (2007) Conversation Skills Rating Scale (CSRS).
This is consistent with previous research that illustrated that increased prior knowledge
known about a culture decreases misunderstandings and increases the quality of individual’s
communicative patterns and overall interactions (De Verthelyi, 1995). This also parallels
prior research that has indicated how individuals’ conversations with locals would increase
with a structured course in cultural training of the new culture prior to travel (Brislin & Kim,
2003; Furnham & Bochner, 1982; Kitsantas, 2004). Thus, the higher an international
37
student’s level of preparedness for change, the more successful interactions between
international students and U.S. Americans take place.
In her model, Kim (2001) also indicates that intercultural communication competence
affects cultural adaptation. The findings illustrated that there is a significant positive
relationship between intercultural communication competence and cultural adaptation (H5).
Prior research has extensively illustrated the connection between intercultural
communication competence and cultural adaptation to a new environment (Lin & Yi, 1997;
Redmond & Bunyi, 1993; Sawyer & Chen, 2012), in particular for international students to
have intercultural communication competence when trying to adapt to a new culture (Mckay-
Semmler & Kim, 2014; Zimmermann, 1995). Without successful and appropriate
conversations with locals, international students are less likely to acquire the necessary
communicative skills to prosper in the new environment (Kim, 2001; Lee & Chen, 2000).
Ultimately, intercultural communication competence is an essential trait for international
students to have when trying to culturally adapting to the American culture.
Preparedness for change and cultural adaptation are also linked in Kim’s (2001)
model. Although there was a positive relationship between preparedness for change and
cultural adaptation, that relationship was not significant (H2). Overall, international students’
level of preparedness for change did not substantially influence their cultural adaptation into
the American culture. This could be due to the disparity between how the American culture is
portrayed in other countries such as China, and the reality of how the American culture really
is (Rawlings & Sue, 2013). In other words, the knowledge international students are being
taught about the American culture through movies and television or even in the classroom
setting may not be consistent with how U.S. American culture actually is (Chen, 2000;
Rawlings & Sue, 2013). Even though previous research has indicated a need for in-depth
training courses prior to travel (Brislin & Kim, 2003; Lin & Yi, 1997), some countries seem
to be basing their training off unrealistic views of the American culture. So when
international students arrive to the United States, their expectations of our culture may be
skewed. A more speculative explanation may be that U.S. culture is so ubiquitously over-
exposed through mass media and mobility that preparation adds little to the sophistication of
foreigners in understanding the culture.
38
When analyzing the subscales of Ward and Kennedy’s (1999) general adaptation
scale, however, the results varied. Although the composite subscales of cognitive and
behavioral were not significant, the third subscale, ‘adapt abroad,’ did illustrate a small
significantly positive correlation with preparedness for change. The subscale ‘adapt abroad’
was measuring specific aspects international students studying abroad face in university
settings. Prior research has indicated that each university around the world has its own
organization, expectations, workload, and staff-student relations which international students
are expected to adapt (Klineberg & Hull, 1979). Yet, the more prepared international students
are with knowledge of these new aspects before travel, the better their adaptation into the
new culture (Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Selltiz et al., 1963). Even though the findings illustrate
that in general cases, preparedness for change does not relate to cultural adaptation, it is
possible that in educational settings with more structured and specific new cultural aspects,
the knowledge learned prior to travel is easier to implement. If this is the case, it makes sense
that the international students’ level of preparedness for change would significantly affect
their adaptation to life at the new university. This is consistent with the present study’s
findings, which illustrated that even though in general preparedness for change does not
significantly influence cultural adaptation, specific to the university there is a slight
association.
After analyzing the variables illustrated in Kim’s (2001) model to affect cultural
adaptation, the present study added the stereotype dimensions of warmth and competence,
which are found in the stereotype content model (Fiske et al., 2002) and represent
fundamental dimensions of social perceptions (Fiske et al., 2007; Kervyn et al., 2010;
Kervyn et al., 2013). Through extending Kim’s (2001) model with the addition of these
variables, it is thought that a better understanding and awareness of how stereotypes affect
cultural adaptation could be gained. First, the degree to which U.S. Americans are perceived
as either warm or competent was tested (RQ1). The findings indicated that U.S. Americans
are perceived as both warm and competent. When the results were compared together,
however, it was illustrated that U.S. Americans are perceived to be significantly more
competent than warm. Due to the voluntary nature of study abroad programs, it was assumed
that the stereotypes warmth and competence associated to U.S. Americans might vary.
39
Instead, the findings indicated that international students still view U.S. Americans as more
competent than warm.
When testing the relationship between the stereotypes warmth and competence and
intercultural communication competence (H3), the results were also similar. Even though the
findings illustrated that there was a significant positive relationship between international
students perceptions of U.S. American friendliness (warm) and intercultural communication
competence, this positive relationship is a qualified one. This was because there was only a
significant relationship on Wiemann’s (1977) competence scale and Spitzberg’s (2007)
CSRS skills scale, not on the molar one attached to CSRS. Prior research has indicated that
the more warmth felt toward an interlocutor, the more likely the motivation to continue the
interaction (Cuddy et al., 2008). Although the findings suggest this, there appears to be a
change where being friendly (warm) does not indicate a successful interaction. Both the
perceived competence of U.S. Americans and the lack of warmth needed for successful
interaction might stem from deep-seated perspectives individuals from other countries have
of high status countries like the United States (Glick et al., 2006). And regardless of the
voluntary nature of their travel, will still view these countries with resentment for their
competitive and assertive disposition (Fiske et al., 2007; Glick et al., 2006). This is consistent
with prior research that illustrated U.S. Americans being viewed more competent than warm
(Glick et al., 2006; Trifiletti et al., 2011). In the present study, the only aspect that indicated a
definite successful interaction was the stereotype competence. This was shown to be the case
in all three scales of intercultural communication competence. This is consistent with prior
research that indicates the more an individual is perceived as being intelligent (competent),
the more successful the interaction will be (Abele et al., 2008). In addition to the classes
universities offer that generally prepare individuals for the new culture, there are now
specific classes offered to strengthen students’ intercultural communication competence
(Beamer, 1992). In the present study, through having more intercultural communication
competence, international students appear to be more motivated and successful when
conversing with just as skillfully perceived U.S. Americans. Consequently, where it seems
the warmth stereotype draws individuals together to have an interaction, the competence
stereotype furthers the process of communication along (Cuddy et al., 2008). However due to
the partial abnormality of stereotype warmth and intercultural communication competence
40
finding, it seems to demand further research. Research and theory continue to unravel the
complementary and ambivalent ways in which the relatively parallel dimensions of warmth
and competence, affiliation and status, negative and positive face, communion and
autonomy, and appropriateness and effectiveness interact in facilitating competent interaction
(e.g. Kervyn, Yzerbyt, & Judd, 2010; Nicotera, Steele, Catalani, & Simpson, 2012).
The results also supported that preparedness for change is significantly related to
international student’s perceptions of U.S. Americans (RQ3). Overall, the more preparedness
for change international students have prior to their study abroad experience, the greater their
perceptions of U.S. Americans being regarded as friendly (warm) and intelligent
(competent). This is a consistent outcome because when the relationship between stereotypes
warmth and competence was tested (RQ2), the findings revealed that warmth and competence
are positively and significantly related. This demonstrates that the perception of U.S.
Americans being warm was positively related with perceptions of their competence. When
the data were further analyzed in the present study, however, preparedness for change did not
affect international students’ perceptions of U.S. Americans as warm, only their perceived
level of competence. This is an unexpected finding because past research has illustrated that
the warmth stereotype tends to dominate over an individual’s perceived level of competence
(Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2007). So if warmth is considered to be the initial stereotype
(Cuddy et al., 2008), it holds valence that U.S. Americans’ warmth, might then be seen as
more important than their competence. Nevertheless, the data to the present study illustrates
that competence is the more important of the two dimensions for preparedness for change,
even though it is correlated with warmth. Due to this, it appears that both dimensions might
serve different roles. Future research should be conducted to explore why this might have
been the end result.
The positive relationship between cultural adaptation and stereotypes warmth and
competence (H4) illustrated a small but significantly positive relationship between cultural
adaptation and stereotype warmth. In general, this finding indicates that the more
international students perceive U.S. Americans as friendly (warm), the more likely they will
adapt to the American culture. Previous research has indicated that when brought into a new
environment, out-group members naturally want to adapt (Park & Judd, 1990). Since,
interaction with locals of the host culture is the first step toward adapting (Kim, 2001), if
41
U.S. Americans are perceived as friendly (warm), international students are likely to go out
of their way to interact and begin the process of adaptation. Conversely, through further
analyzing the data, it was shown that the subscale of ‘adapt abroad’ did not show a
significant relationship with cultural adaptation. This indicates that the U.S. Americans’
perceived level of friendliness did not influence the international students’ adaptation to the
new classroom environment. This might be because international students were more
concerned with getting an acceptable grade than conversing with the U.S. Americans in their
class.
Whereas there was a significant relationship between the stereotype warmth and
cultural adaptation, the findings of the present study illustrated that there was not a
meaningful one between stereotype competence and cultural adaptation. Overall, the
perceived competence of U.S. Americans did not affect international students’ perceived
cultural adaptation to the American culture. This is not consistent with past research. One
explanation is that in order to culturally adapt, individuals need to be able to develop deeper
relationships (Kim, 2005). It may be that U.S. Americans are able to develop relationships
with individuals from other countries, but international students see those relationships as
relatively superficial (Klineberg & Hull, 1979). Therefore, through not developing deeper
connections, the perceived competence associated to U.S. Americans might not significantly
influence the international students’ cultural adaptation into the American culture. Given this
unexpected finding, more research should be conducted to analyze why this might be the
outcome.
There is an alternative approach that could be taken to analyze the influence the
dimensions of warmth and competence have on international students’ cultural adaptation.
Instead of implementing the general dimensions of warmth and competence, the four
quadrants (cold/incompetent, cold/competent, warm/incompetent, and warm/competent)
could be analyzed in context (Fiske et al., 2002). These quadrants are created from the wide-
ranging dimensions of warmth and competence (Fiske et al., 2002). Through analyzing these
four quadrants in context, instead of general stereotype dimensions, a more comprehensive
understanding might emerge regarding the influence the underlying dimensions have on
cultural adaptation. Such quadrants might separate the sources of interdependent variance
between the dimensions, and elucidate the stylistic and motivational forms such perceptual
42
schema contributes to intercultural interactions. Thus, through analyzing international
students’ cultural adaptation through these four quadrants, the variance might be restricted,
and a better consistency could be achieved.
IMPLICATIONS
The findings of the present study add to the vast research on cultural adaptation,
specifically, how preparedness for change, stereotypes, and intercultural communication
competence affects the difficult adaptation process that many international students face
when studying abroad. Research to date seems to have only compared one or two of these
variables. By combining these variables this study has provided a more comprehensive
understanding of the process international students undertake in order to culturally adapt.
Along with the general impact the findings of the present study have, there are specific
implications that can be gathered.
The present study provides a clear understanding for what might enable a successful
cultural adaptation. Through testing two variables Kim (2001) demonstrates to affect cultural
adaptation (preparedness for change and host communication competence), the present study
was able to expand knowledge of how other outside variables influence cultural adaptation.
The stereotype dimensions of warmth and competence were examined in relation to each
other, preparedness for change, intercultural communication competence, and cultural
adaptation. Through implementing these two stereotype dimensions, a more comprehensive
understanding can take place due to rudimentary and adaptive behaviors (Cuddy et al., 2008).
The fundamental yet constantly changing nature of these stereotype dimensions (Fiske et al.,
2002) could serve as important insights into the process of cultural adaptation. For example
in the present study, U.S. Americans were more likely to be seen as competent than warm.
Thus, when international students arrive to the United States, they are anticipating a more
skillful interaction with U.S. Americans than a friendly one. Through this anticipation,
expectations might be contrived that could affect their cultural adaptation into the American
culture.
Overall, international students’ preparedness for change was associated with their
perceived stereotypes of warmth and competence toward U.S. Americans. Therefore, the
more knowledge the individual gained prior to travel, the better their overall perceptions of
43
U.S. Americans were. However, only the warmth stereotype was related to cultural
adaptation. Through structural equation modeling, research should look further into how
preparedness for change, cultural adaptation, and stereotype experiences affect their
associations with an assortment of perceptions toward groups of people. Such research would
facilitate generalization of Kim’s (2001) theory to be used in other types of contexts.
Along with the theoretical implications to the present study, there are also some
practical implications. A major implication is improved study abroad programs that focus on
integrating the international students into the new culture. Due to the increased globalization
of our world, study abroad programs appear to have become a popular college experience.
For most international students, studying abroad in the United States it is not just about the
educational opportunity (Zimmermann, 1995), but a chance to learn about U.S. American
culture and English language (Rawlings & Sue, 2013). In order for such programs to
succeed, their students need to be able to communicate competently with U.S. Americans
(Zimmermann, 1995). Future study abroad programs should consider a buddy or indigenous
mentor system where U.S. Americans are paired up with international students. Zimmermann
(1995) contends that this would be helpful for international students’ adjustment into the
American culture. Also, it is speculated that by being paired up, not only would international
students gain the knowledge they seek, but U.S. Americans might also benefit through the
process.
Another practical implication would be effective mandatory training or preparations
programs for international students prior to studying abroad. Previous research and the
present study have shown that training programs would be an efficient means to lessen some
of the problems international students face when studying abroad (Furnham & Bochner,
1982; Kitsantas, 2004). Even though some countries do have prior cultural training, the
training does not provide an accurate portrayal of how the new culture really is, which allows
international students to create unrealistic expectations (Rawlings & Sue, 2013) In addition,
although teaching in the classroom setting is important, actual interactions with individuals
from the new country is more valuable (Zimmerman, 1995). So, new training programs
should focus on getting the participants out of the classroom setting and into firsthand
experiences. It has also been suggested that the lack on contact between groups could enable
negative perceptions (Tan, Fujioka, & Lucht, 1997) Thus, with the correct type of training
44
programs, international students can learn through trial and error before they travel and start
the beginning stages of effective communication in the new culture.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
As with all research, there were several limitations to the current study. A main
limitation was that the sample was a convenience sample taken at a large southwestern
university. Through this type of sample, not only were there more female (n=137) than male
(n=81) participants, but it was also challenging to find a significant number of participants.
This could have been partially due to the fact that this study was only applicable to
international students and opportunities to recruit these types of students are limited. Next,
this was a cross-sectional study. Since this study was only distributed at one point in time, a
longitudinal study might show different results, especially in the sense that the amount of
time a student has been in the locale, or the degree to which the student has traveled
previously, could affect the participants’ intercultural competence and preparation. It would
also be noteworthy to see if the results from this cross-sectional study would vary from those
of a longitudinal study, which examined cultural adaptation of international students during
their entire study abroad experience. Another limitation was that the international students’
nationality ranged and varied only slightly. A lot of the participants came from either China
(n=31) or India (n=30). Research has shown that the more diverse the new culture is
compared to an individual’s home culture, the more those individuals will struggle to adapt
(Chen, 2000; Lin & Yi, 1997; Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern, 2002). Since a bulk of
participants were from cultures distinct to the United States, future researchers might want to
be consistent with the range of their participants’ nationality. This consistency might enable a
more widespread understanding of the adaptation process international students from various
cultures go through. The fact that the sample consisted of students who elected to study in the
U.S. may also indicate a restriction in range of their attitudes toward U.S. Americans,
compared to the attitudes of U.S. Americans of their home indigenous cultural population.
Although this study examined many different variables that affect cultural adaptation,
it only examined the effects the stereotypes of warmth and competence have on international
students’ culture adaptation. In order to extend the stereotype content model, future
researchers might focus on the typologies (paternalistic, envious, contemptuous, and
45
admiration) that make up these two stereotype dimensions (Fiske et al., 2000). Even though
examination of those typologies in the present study would have constricted this analysis, in
another format they might bring about a more detailed understanding of how each stereotype
affects cultural adaptation. Also, due to the explicit emotional outcomes related to each
typology (Fiske et al., 2000), more information about the role of emotion and its affect within
cultural adaptation would bring more clarity to these results.
CONCLUSION
This research has illuminated the importance of cultural adaptation in today’s society.
It appears that humans have an innate ability to adapt to new environments (Kim, 2001). Due
to this, with study abroad programs gaining more popularity, this research is crucial to the
advancement of such programs. Through extending Kim’s (2001) structural model, new
variables were shown to affect international students’ cultural adaption into American
culture. By conducting studies such as this one, the relationship between various factors and
cultural adaptation could be implemented into new updated study abroad programs. By
highlighting the influence of preparedness for change, stereotypes, and intercultural
communication competence on cultural adaptation, a greater understanding of the trials and
errors international students go through when studying abroad may be obtained. Ultimately,
an individual’s perceptions, interaction capabilities, and expressive means influence cultural
adaptation (Kim, 2001). With such abilities one can begin to understand through verbal and
nonverbal cues of the new environment “what is real, what is true, what is right, what is
beautiful, and what is good” (Kim, 2001, p. 47).
46
REFERENCES
Abele, A. E., Cuddy, A., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2008). Fundamental dimensions of
social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(7), 1063–1065.
Adrian-Taylor, S., Noels, K., & Tischler, K. (2007). Conflict between international graduate
students and faculty supervisors: Toward effective conflict prevention and
management strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(1), 90-117.
Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. English
Language Teaching Journal, 56(1), 57-64.
Andrews, D. C., & Henze, B. (2009). Teaching professional writing to American students in
a study abroad program. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 72(1),
5–20.
Arasaratnam, L. A. (2006). Further testing of a new model of intercultural communication
competence. Communication Research Reports, 23(2), 93–99.
Arthur, N. (2003). Preparing international students for the re-entry transition. Canadian
Journal of Counseling, 37(3), 173-185.
Beamer, L. (1992). Learning intercultural communication competence. International Journal
of Business Communication, 29(3), 285-303.
Belz, J. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in
telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 68-99.
Bender, J., Gidlow, B., & Fisher, D. (2013). National stereotypes in tourist guidebooks: An
analysis of auto- and hetero- stereotypes in different language guidebooks about
Switzerland. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 331-351.
Binggeli, S., Krings, F., & Sczesny, S. (2014). Stereotype content associated with immigrant
group in Switzerland. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 73(3), 123-133.
Black, J., & Gregersen, H. (1990). Expectations, satisfaction, and intention to leave of
American expatriate managers in Japan. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 14(4), 485-506.
Bond, M. (1986). Mutual stereotypes and the facilitation of interaction across cultural lines.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 259-276.
Brislin, R. W., & Kim, E. S. (2003). Cultural diversity in people’s understanding and uses of
time. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(3), 363-382.
47
Carlson, J. S., & Widaman, K. F. (1988). The effects of study abroad during college on
attitudes toward other cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
12(1), 1-18.
Chang, Y. (2013). Never mind? Journal of Intercultural Communication, 32, 5.
Chapdelaine, R., & Alexitch, L. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of culture shock for
international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 167-
184.
Chen, Z. (2000). International students' preparation for and adaptation to the American
higher education system: A study of cross-cultural communication. World
Communication, 29, 25-48.
Church, A. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 540-572.
Cuddy, A., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions
of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 61–150). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Cuddy, A., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J., … Bond, M. (2009).
Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some
differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(pt 1), 1-33.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Trait versus state: A comparison of dispositional
and situational measures of interpersonal communication competence. Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 47(4), 364-379.
De Verthelyi, R. (1995). International students’ spouses: Invisible sojourners in the culture
shock literature. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(3), 387-411.
Dovidio, J., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and
discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. In J. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P.
Glick, & V. Esses (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and
discrimination (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ebert, I., Steffens, M., & Kroth, A. (2014). Warm, but maybe not so competent?-
Contemporary implicit stereotypes of women and men in Germany. Sex Roles, 70(9-
10), 359-375.
Eckes, T. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the
stereotype content model. Sex Roles, 47(3-4), 99-114.
Edwards-Joseph, A., & Baker, S. (2012). Themes Caribbean overseas students perceive
influence their levels of culture shock. College Student Journal, 46(4), 716-729.
Ellenwood, A. E., & Snyders, F. J. A. (2010). Virtual journey coupled with face-to-face
exchange: Enhancing the cultural sensitivity and competence of graduate students.
Intercultural Education, 21(6), 549-566.
Fiske, S. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, &
G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th
ed., Vol. 1, pp. 357–414).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
48
Fiske, S. (2012). Managing ambivalent prejudices: Smart-but-cold and warm-but-dumb
stereotypes. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
639(1), 33-48.
Fiske, S., Cuddy, A., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth
and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-83.
Fiske, S., Cuddy, A., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype
content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and
competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902.
Fiske, S., Xu, J., Cuddy, A., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and
interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal
of Social Issues, 55(3), 473-489.
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty in a foreign culture: An empirical
analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-
cultural interaction (pp. 161-198). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Gaw, K. (2000). Reverse culture shock in students returning from overseas. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(1), 83-104.
Gertsen, M. (1990). Intercultural competence and expatriates. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 1(3), 341-362.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent stereotypes as legitimizing ideologies:
Differentiating paternalistic and envious prejudice. In J. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The
psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup
relations (pp. 278– 306). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Abrams, D., Dardenne, B., Ferreira, M. C., Gonzalez, R.,…Yzerbyt,
V. (2006). Anti-American sentiment and America’s perceived intent to dominate: An
11-nation study. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28(4), 363-373.
Glock, S., & Krolak-Schwerdt, S. (2013). Does nationality matter? The impact of
stereotypical expectations on student teachers’ judgments. Social Psychology of
Education, 16(1), 111-127.
Goldstein, S., & Kim, R. (2006). Predictors of U.S. college student’s participation in study
abroad programs: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 30(4), 507-521.
Guan, Y., Deng, H., & Bond, M. H. (2010). Examining stereotype content model in a
Chinese context: Inter-group structural relations and mainland Chinese’s stereotypes
towards Hong Kong Chinese. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(4),
393-399.
Hamad, R., & Lee, C. M. (2013). An assessment of how length of study abroad programs
influences cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment, 23(5), 661-674.
Harris, P. R., & Moran, R. T. (1987). Managing cultural differences. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing Company.
49
Herfst, S. L., van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Timmerman, M. E. (2008). Intercultural effectiveness
training in three Western immigrant countries: A cross-cultural evaluation of critical
incidents. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(1), 67-80.
Hoyle, R. H., Pinkley, R. L., & Insko, C. A. (1989). Perceptions of social behavior: Evidence
of differing expectations for interpersonal and intergroup interaction. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(3), 365-376.
Institute of International Education [IIE]. (2013). Open doors 2013: Report on international
educational exchange. Washington, DC: National Press Club.
Isabelli-García, C. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivation and attitudes:
Implications for second language acquisition. In M. A. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.),
Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 231-258). Tonawanda, NY:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Jung, E., Hecht, M., & Wadsworth, B. (2007). The role of identity in international students’
psychological well-being in the United States: A model of depression level, identity
gaps, discrimination, and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 31(5), 605-624.
Kervyn, N., Dolderer, M., Mahieu, T., & Yzerbyt, V. (2010). Atypicality and the two
fundamental dimensions: Applying the negativity effect on warmth to group
perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), 484-489.
Kervyn, N., Fiske, S., & Yzerbyt, V. (2013). Integrating the stereotype content model
(warmth and competence) and the Osgood semantic differential (evaluation, potency,
and activity). European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 673-681.
Kervyn, N., Yzerbyt, V., & Judd, C. (2010). Compensation between warmth and
competence: Antecedents and consequences of a negative relation between the two
fundamental dimensions of social perception. European Review of Social Psychology,
21, 155-187.
Kervyn, N., Yzerbyt, V., Judd, C., & Nunes, A. (2009). A question of compensation: The
social life of the fundamental dimensions of social perception. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 96(4), 828-842.
Kim, Y.Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory.
Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Kim, Y. Y. (1995). Cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.),
Intercultural communication theory (pp. 170-193). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and
cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Adapting to an unfamiliar culture: An interdisciplinary overview. In W.
B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Cross-cultural and intercultural communication (pp. 243-257).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50
Kim, Y. Y. (2005). Adapting to a new culture: An integrative communication theory. In W.
B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 375-400).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, Y. Y., & Mckay-Semmler, K. (2013). Social engagement and cross-cultural adaptation:
An examination of direct- and mediated interpersonal communication activities of
educated non-natives in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 37(1), 99-112.
Kitsantas, A. (2004). Studying abroad: The role of college students’ goals on the
development of cross-cultural skills and global understanding. College Student
Journal, 38(3), 441-452.
Klineberg, O., & Hull, W. (1979). At a foreign university: An international study of
adaptation and coping. New York, NY: Praeger.
Knutson, T. J., Komolsevin, R., Chatiketu, P., & Smith, V. R. (2003). A cross-cultural
comparison of Thai and U.S. American rhetorical sensitivity: Implications for
intercultural communication effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 27(1), 63-78.
Koskinen, L., & Tossavainen, K. (2004). Study abroad as a process of learning intercultural
competence in nursing. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 10(3), 111-120.
Krings, F., Sczesny, S., & Kluge, A. (2011). Stereotypical inferences as mediators of age
discrimination: The role of competence and warmth. British Journal of Management,
22(2), 187-201.
Lee, B., & Chen, L. (2000). Cultural communication competence and psychological
adjustment: A study of Chinese immigrant children’s cross-cultural adaptation in
Canada. Communication Research, 27(6), 764-792.
Lee, T., & Fiske, S. (2006). Not an outgroup, not yet an ingroup: Immigrants in the
stereotype content model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 751-
768.
Lin, C. (2006). Culture shock and social support: An investigation of a Chinese student
organization on a U.S. campus. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,
35(2), 117-137.
Lin, J., & Yi, K. (1997). Asian international students’ adjustment: Issues and program
suggestions. College Student Journal, 31, 473–479.
Lin, M., Kwan, V., Cheung, A., & Fiske, S. (2005). Stereotype content model explains
prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of anti-Asian American stereotypes.
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 34-47.
Liu, S. (2014). Becoming intercultural: Exposure to foreign cultures and intercultural
competence. China Media Research, 10(3), 7-14.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to
communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion
students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 369–388.
51
Martin, J., Bradford, L., & Rohrlich, B. (1995). Comparing predeparture expectations and
post-sojourn reports: A longitudinal study of U.S. students abroad. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(1), 87-110.
McKay-Semmler, K., & Kim, Y. Y. (2014). Cross-cultural adaptation of Hispanic youth: A
study of communication patterns, functional fitness, and psychological health.
Communication Monographs, 81(2), 133-156.
McLaren, L. M. (2003). Anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe: Contact, threat perception, and
preferences for the exclusion of migrants. Social Forces, 81(3), 909-936.
Mizera, L., Tulviste, T., Konstabel, K., & Lausa, E. (2013). Silent and slow Estonians,
emotional and fast Russians: A comparative study of communication stereotypes in
two neighboring countries. Communication Quarterly, 61(3), 268-283.
Mustaffa, C., & Ilias, M. (2013). Relationship between students adjustment factors and cross
cultural adjustment: A survey at the northern university of Malaysia. Intercultural
Communication Studies, 22(1), 279-300.
Nicotera, A., Steele, J., Catalani, A., & Simpson, N. (2012). Conceptualization and test of an
aggression competence model. Communication Research Reports, 29(1), 12-25.
Olaniran, B. (1996). Social skills acquisition: A closer look at foreign students on college
campuses and factors influencing their level of social difficulty in social situations.
Communication Studies, 47(1-2), 72-88.
Oommen, D. (2013). The relationship between mental distress, assessed in terms of anxiety
and depression, and conflict management in the context of cultural adaptation.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 42(3), 91-111.
Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 173-191.
Park, B., Ryan, C. S., & Judd, C. M. (1992). Role of meaningful sub-groups in explaining
differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 553-567.
Pitts, M. (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(6), 450-
462.
Rawlings, M., & Sue, E. (2013). Preparedness of Chinese students for American culture and
communicating in English. Journal of International Students, 3, 29-40.
Redmond, M., & Bunyi, J. (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(2), 235-254.
Rohrlich, B., & Martin, J. (1991). Host country and reentry adjustment of student sojourners.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15(2), 163-182.
52
Ruben, B., & Kealey, D. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and
the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 3(1), 15-47.
Ruble, R., & Zhang, Y. (2013). Stereotypes of Chinese international students held by
Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(2), 202-211.
Ryan, C. S., & Bogart, L. M. (1997). Development of new group member’s in-group and out-
group stereotypes: Changes in perceived group variability and ethnocentrism. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 719-732.
Sablina, S., & Kopiatina, O. (2013). The role of language-game in sociocultural adaptation:
Russian students in France. International Education Studies, 6(4), 10-19.
Sawyer, R., & Chen, G. (2012). The impact of social media on intercultural adaptation.
Intercultural Communication Studies, 21(2), 151-169.
Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., Collentine, J., Lafford, B., Lazar, N., & Díaz-Campos, M. (2004).
A comparison of Spanish second language acquisition in two different learning
contexts: Study abroad and the domestic classroom. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 1-18.
Selltiz, C., Christ, J., Havel, J., & Cook, S. (1963). Attitudes and social relations of foreign
students in the United States. Minneapolis, MN: Lund Press.
Shackleford, N. (2011). Japanese students in a New Zealand homestay programme: Issues of
linguistic and intercultural competence. Communication Journal of New Zealand,
12(1), 71-81.
Shupe, E. (2007). Clashing cultures: A model of international student conflict. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(6), 750-771.
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(6), 609-631.
Spitzberg, B. H. (2007). CSRS: The conversational skills rating scale—An instructional
assessment of interpersonal competence (NCA Diagnostic Series, 2nd
Edition).
Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. K.
Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2-52).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sussman, N. (2002). Testing the cultural identity model of the cultural transition cycle:
Sojourners return home. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 391-
408.
Tan, A., Fujioka, Y., & Lucht, N. (1997). Native American stereotypes, TV portrayals, and
personal contact. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(2), 265-284.
Tomich, P., McWhirter, J., & King, W. (2000). International student adaptation: Critical
variables. International Education, 29, 37-46.
53
Trifiletti, E., Andrighetto, L., Rattazzi, M., Visintin, E., & Falvo, R. (2011). More competent
than warm: The implicit stereotypes of Americans. Testing, Psychometrics,
Methodology in Applied Psychology, 18(4), 199-209.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 659-677.
Wiemann, J. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence. Human
Communication Research, 3(3), 195-213.
Williams, T. R. (2005). Exploring the impact of study abroad on students’ intercultural
communication skills: Adaptability and sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 9(4), 356-371.
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(1), 119–152.
Yu, B., & Shen, H. (2012). Predicting roles of linguistic confidence, integrative motivation
and second language proficiency on cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 36(1), 72-82.
Yzerbyt, V., Kervyn, N., & Judd, C. (2008). Compensation versus halo: The unique relations
between the fundamental dimensions of social judgment. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1110-1123.
Zhou, Y., Jindai-Snape, D., Topping, K., & Todman, J. (2008). Theoretical models of culture
shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 33(1), 63-75.
Zimmermann, S. (1995). Perceptions of intercultural communication competence and
international student adaptation to an American campus. Communication Education,
44, 321-335.
54
APPENDIX
SURVEY
Statement of Informed Consent
You are being asked to partake in a research study. However, before you start the process, it is crucial to read
and understand the following information in order to be aware of what is being asked of you.
Investigators:
Ariel Baumbaugh, M.A. Candidate, School of Communication, San Diego State University
Carmen M. Lee, Ph.D., School of Communication, San Diego State University
Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to assess the cultural adaptation of international students to American culture.
Specifically, this study seeks to assess the stereotypes held of Americans and intercultural communication
competence in relation to cultural adaptation. This study will involve approximately 300 international students.
Description of the Study:
Participation in this study will involve completion of a web-based self-report survey. You will be asked to
specify the attributes you associate with Americans. Additional questions will be asked that deal specifically
with how competent you are at communicating with the locals and your overall cross-cultural adaptation to the
culture. It is recommended that you complete this survey in one sitting. This survey should take no more than
60 minutes.
Risks or Discomforts:
There are no predicted risks seen by completing this survey. However, if you feel uncomfortable answering a
question, feel free to skip it. If some of the questions in the survey cause you to reflect on certain situations that
produce trouble, please feel free to contact Counseling and Psychological Services at S.D.S.U at 619-594-5220.
Incentive to Participate:
If you are enrolled in a participating communication and psychology courses, you may receive extra credit for
completion of this survey. However, if you are not enrolled in participating communication or psychology
courses, no extra credit or compensation will be presented to you. All participants, regardless of credit
awarding, can benefit from participation because this survey will bring individuals closer to understanding the
process of cultural adaptation.
Confidentiality and Anonymity:
Your participation in this survey is completely confidential. Your name will not be linked to the answers in any
way. Moreover, your responses from the questionnaire will be kept confidential and only viewed by the
Investigators.
Voluntary Nature of Participation:
Your participation in this survey is voluntary. Your decision to participate or not will not effect your relations
with SDSU. Also, if you decide not to finish the survey, you may stop immediately without penalty.
55
Questions About the Study:
If you have any questions about this study, please contact the following individuals:
Ariel Baumbaugh, MA Candidate Carmen M. Lee, PhD
School of Communication School of Communication
San Diego State University San Diego State University
[email protected] [email protected]
If you have questions regarding your rights as a participant in this study, please contact the Division of
Research Administration San Diego State University (619-594-6622; [email protected]).
Consent to Participate:
The San Diego State University Institutional Review Board has agreed to this consent form, as indicated by the
Board’s stamp. The consent form needs to be evaluated annually and becomes invalid on the date that is shown
on the official stamp.
Take as much time as needed in completing this survey. Please answer the questions honestly.
Thank you in advance for your participation.
By checking the “I consent” box, you indicate that you have read the information provided in this document and
have had an opportunity to ask any questions about the study. It also indicates that you agree to be in the study
and have been told that you can change your mind and withdraw your consent to participate at any time.
Finally, by clicking on the “I consent”’ box below, you are only giving your consent to participate and not
giving up any of your legal rights. You can save or print out a copy of this consent form from your computer.
If you consent to participate in this study, please check the “I consent” box below. If you do not consent, you
may close this browser window.
____ I consent
56
Demographics
In order for a more complete understanding of your responses to this survey, we’d like to ask
you for some general information about yourself. Please answer the following questions by
selecting the appropriate response or filling in the blanks.
What is your sex? (please check one) ___ Male ___ Female
What is your age (please indicate numerically; e.g., 18, 19, etc.)? ________
What is your current college standing?
___ Freshman (1st yr) ___ Sophomore (2
nd yr) ___ Junior (3
rd yr)
___ Senior (4th
yr) ___ 5th
Year Senior or Beyond ___ Other (please
specify):__________
Please indicate your ethnicity (For example: Danish, Hispanic or Latino, Japanese, African
American etc.):__________________
What is the country where you hold nationality? Feel free to select all that apply.
___Afghanistan ___Britain ___ China ___Canada
___ Italy ___Jordan ___Kenya ___New Zealand
___Turkey ___Vietnam ___Zimbabwe ___Other (please specify):_____
*NOTE: The list of nationalities comes from http://www.listofcountriesoftheworld.com/
What is your country of residence? (i.e. the country where you normally live)
___Australia ___Japan ___China ___Britain
___Canada ___Taiwan ___Indonesia ___India
___New Zealand ___Brazil ___France ___Italy ___Other (please specify): _______
57
Please answer the following question in regard to your ability to speak English. If poorly,
indicate the number “1” and if you speak English excellently indicate the number “5.” Please
feel free to specify any number between 1 and 5.
Poorly (1) Excellently (5)
How well do you speak English? 1 2 3 4 5
How well do you write English? 1 2 3 4 5
How well do you read English? 1 2 3 4 5
How many years have you been speaking English? (please indicate numerically e.g., 1, 2, 3,
etc.) ________
What is your primary (first) language? ________________
What language do you speak with most of your friends? ________________
What language do you speak with most of your family? ________________
Do you speak any other languages besides [adaptive insert of primary language] and
English? ___No ___Yes (please specify languages): _______________
How many times have you been to the United States before this study abroad
semester/year? (Please indicate numerically; e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc.) ________
58
For the following, please indicate overall how you would rate yourself when conversing with
others. Specifically, for the descriptions of behaviors listed below, we would like for you to
rate how skillfully YOU use, or do not use, the following communicative behaviors in
conversations with others. If inadequate (awkward or disruptive) indicate "1," if excellent
(smooth or controlled) indicate "5." Choose any response between “inadequate” and
“excellent.”
Inadequate (1) Excellent (5)
1. Speaking rate (neither too slow nor too fast) 1 2 3 4 5
2. Speaking fluency (pauses, silences, “uh”, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5
3. Vocal confidence (neither too tense/nervous nor
overly confident sounding)
1 2 3 4 5
4. Articulation (clarity of pronunciation and
linguistic expression)
1 2 3 4 5
5. Vocal variety (neither overly monotone nor
dramatic voice)
1 2 3 4 5
6. Volume (neither too loud nor too soft) 1 2 3 4 5
7. Posture (neither too closed/formal nor too
open/informal)
1 2 3 4 5
8. Lean toward partner (neither too forward nor too
far back)
1 2 3 4 5
9. Shaking or nervous twitches (aren’t noticeable or
distracting)
1 2 3 4 5
10. Unmotivated movements (tapping feet, fingers,
hair-twirling, etc.)
1 2 3 4 5
11. Facial expressiveness (neither blank nor
exaggerated)
1 2 3 4 5
12. Nodding of head in response to partner statements 1 2 3 4 5
13. Use of gestures to emphasize what is being said 1 2 3 4 5
14. Use of humor and/or stories 1 2 3 4 5
59
15. Smiling and/or laughing 1 2 3 4 5
16. Use of eye contact 1 2 3 4 5
17. Asking of questions 1 2 3 4 5
18. Speaking about partner (involvement of partner as
a topic of conversation)
1 2 3 4 5
19. Speaking about self (neither too much nor too
little)
1 2 3 4 5
20. Encouragements or agreements (encouragement
of partner to talk)
1 2 3 4 5
21. Personal opinion expression (neither too passive
nor aggressive)
1 2 3 4 5
22. Initiation of new topics 1 2 3 4 5
23. Maintenance of topics and follow-up comments 1 2 3 4 5
24. Interruption of partner speaking turns 1 2 3 4 5
25. Use of time speaking relative to partner 1 2 3 4 5
For the next set of statements, please rate your overall communication performance.
I was a(n)…
26. Poor Conversationalist 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good Conversationalist
27. Socially Unskilled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Socially Skilled
28. Incompetent Communicator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Competent Communicator
29. Inappropriate Communicator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appropriate Communicator
30. Ineffective Communicator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Effective Communicator
60
Preparedness for change is the level of readiness for travel an individual has. This next
section deals with the preparedness for change one has before they study aboard. In this
section, try to remember back to before you came to the United States to study abroad. Please
respond to the following and indicate how true each statement is. If strongly disagree
indicate "1," if strongly agree indicate "5." Choose any response between “strongly disagree”
and “strongly agree.”
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
31. I have received a lot of schooling and formal education 1 2 3 4 5
32. I have had training in the host culture’s cultural
practices/customs prior to traveling
1 2 3 4 5
33. I have had training in the host culture’s language prior
to traveling
1 2 3 4 5
34. I have had prior traveling experiences with different
cultures
1 2 3 4 5
35. I voluntarily studied abroad 1 2 3 4 5
Please respond to the following statements and indicate your general experience in the
United States. When answering, specify the amount of difficulty that is experienced. Choose
any response between "no difficulty" and "extreme difficulty".
No Extreme
Difficulty Difficulty
36. Making friends 1 2 3 4 5
37. Using the transport system 1 2 3 4 5
38. Making yourself understood 1 2 3 4 5
39. Getting used to the pace of life 1 2 3 4 5
40. Expressing your ideas in class 1 2 3 4 5
41. Going shopping 1 2 3 4 5
42. Going to social events/gatherings/functions 1 2 3 4 5
61
43. Understanding the local value system 1 2 3 4 5
44. Talking about yourself with others 1 2 3 4 5
45. Understanding jokes and humor 1 2 3 4 5
46. Dealing with someone who is
unpleasant/cross/aggressive
1 2 3 4 5
47. Getting used to the local food 1 2 3 4 5
48. Following rules and regulations 1 2 3 4 5
49. Understanding the locals’ world view 1 2 3 4 5
50. Dealing with the bureaucracy 1 2 3 4 5
51. Making yourself understood 1 2 3 4 5
52. Adapting to local accommodation 1 2 3 4 5
53. Communicating with people of a different
ethic group
1 2 3 4 5
54. Understanding what is required of you at
university
1 2 3 4 5
55. Relating to members of the opposite sex 1 2 3 4 5
56. Dealing with unsatisfactory service 1 2 3 4 5
57. Seeing things from the locals’ point of view 1 2 3 4 5
58. Dealing with the climate 1 2 3 4 5
59. Coping with academic work 1 2 3 4 5
60. Dealing with people staring at you 1 2 3 4 5
61. Accepting/understanding the local political
system
1 2 3 4 5
62. Dealing with people in authority 1 2 3 4 5
63. Taking a local perspective on the culture 1 2 3 4 5
64. Worshipping in your usual way 1 2 3 4 5
65. Finding your way around 1 2 3 4 5
66. Understanding cultural differences 1 2 3 4 5
67. Dealing with foreign staff at the university 1 2 3 4 5
68. Being able to see two sides of an
intercultural issue
1 2 3 4 5
62
69. How many conversations a week do you typically have with Americans since being in
the United States? ________
Please respond to the following and indicate how true each statement is. When answering,
specify YOUR perceptions of U.S. Americans you have interacted with since being in the
United States. If not at all, indicate "1," if extremely indicate "5." If helpful, think back to a
recent conversation with an US American. Choose any response between “not at all” and
“extremely.”
Not At All (1) Extremely (5)
70. Americans are competent 1 2 3 4 5
71. Americans are confident 1 2 3 4 5
72. Americans are independent 1 2 3 4 5
73. Americans are competitive 1 2 3 4 5
74. Americans are intelligent 1 2 3 4 5
75. Americans are tolerant 1 2 3 4 5
76. Americans are warm 1 2 3 4 5
77. Americans are good-natured 1 2 3 4 5
78. Americans are sincere 1 2 3 4 5
Please take a couple of moments to recall the most recent interaction YOU have had with an
American while studying abroad in the United States. Think about an interaction that has
lasted at least fifteen minutes. Try and imagine yourself there at that exact moment.
79. Where was it (i.e., place/location)? __________________
80. How long ago did this recalled conversation take place? __________________
81. What was the first initial of the person’s name that the conversation was with?______
63
Keep the above memory and conversation in your mind when answering the following
statements.
Please respond and indicate how each statement depicts your style of communication in that
conversation. Again, when answering, specify how those statements apply to YOU. If
strongly disagree, indicate "1," if strongly agree indicate "5." Choose any response between
"strongly disagree" to "strongly agree”.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
82. I find it easy to get along with others 1 2 3 4 5
83. I can adapt to changing situations 1 2 3 4 5
84. I treat people as individuals 1 2 3 4 5
85. I feel as if I am rewarding to talk to 1 2 3 4 5
86. I can deal with others effectively 1 2 3 4 5
87. I am a good listener 1 2 3 4 5
88. My personal relations are cold and distant 1 2 3 4 5
89. I feel like I am easy to talk to 1 2 3 4 5
90. I wont argue with someone just to prove I am
right
1 2 3 4 5
91. I ignore other people’s feelings 1 2 3 4 5
92. I generally know how others feel 1 2 3 4 5
93. I let others know I understand them 1 2 3 4 5
94. I understand other people 1 2 3 4 5
95. I listen to what people say to me 1 2 3 4 5
96. I like to be close and personal with people 1 2 3 4 5
97. I generally know what type of behavior is
appropriate in any given situation
1 2 3 4 5
64
98. I usually do not make unusual demands of my
friends
1 2 3 4 5
99. I am supportive of others 1 2 3 4 5
100. I can easily put myself in another person’s
shoes
1 2 3 4 5
101. I am a likeable person 1 2 3 4 5
102. I am flexible 1 2 3 4 5
103. People can go to me with their problems 1 2 3 4 5
104. I generally say the right thing at the right time 1 2 3 4 5
105. I like to use my voice and body expressively 1 2 3 4 5
106. I am sensitive to others’ needs of the moment 1 2 3 4 5
107. I am relaxed and comfortable when speaking 1 2 3 4 5
108. I do not mind meeting strangers 1 2 3 4 5
109. I am generally relaxed when conversing with a
new acquaintance
1 2 3 4 5
110. I enjoy social gatherings where I can meet new
people
1 2 3 4 5
111. I am not afraid to speak with people in
authority
1 2 3 4 5
Thank you for your participation!
You have reached the end of the survey, please make sure to click on the submit button
below.
*Note if you are to receive extra credit, you will then be taken to the necessary form.