Becoming intercultural: exposure to foreign cultures and intercultural competence.

Liu, Shuang

Introduction

Intercultural competence is a survival skill in the 21st century because increasing mobility of people and contact between cultures have created an urgent need for us to live and work productively and harmoniously with people having very different values, beliefs, worldviews, backgrounds, and habits (Bok, 2009). The successive historical breakthroughs of print, telephone, broadcasting, television, Internet and social media have progressively expanded the domain of communication beyond the immediate cultural and geographic borders. Advanced transportation facilities bring people from different parts of the world into contact in universities, at work, in neighbourhoods, and in public places. Internet technologies and social media enable people to move among different cultures without leaving home or stay immersed in their home culture even after they have geographically located elsewhere. The present study aims to examine the link between university students' exposure to foreign cultures (operationalized in this study as the ability to speak foreign languages and experiences of residing in foreign cultures) and perceived level of intercultural competence. To what extent can people become interculturally competent by virtue of exposure to other languages and cultures? Answers to this question have implications for intercultural training in the 21st century. Intercultural training in the higher education sector is an important issue as university graduates will be future leaders in their respective fields in our culturally diverse society.

Intercultural Competence: Definitions, Components and Measurements

Intercultural competence has been defined by scholars from various disciplinary fields over the past decades and there is no consensus on a universal definition (Deardorff, 2006). The study of intercultural competence can be traced to Aristotle's Rhetoric, which focuses on how people use language to create understanding and change in attitudes and behaviours. The widely cited definition of communication competence in the intercultural literature is offered by Wienann (1977) who describes it as 'the ability of an interactant to choose among available communicative behaviours in order that he [sic] may successfully accomplish his own interpersonal goals during an encounter while maintaining the face and line of his fellow interactants within the constraints of the situation' (p. 198). Key to this definition is the notion of effectiveness (ability to achieve the intended goal through interaction with the other communicator or environment) and appropriateness (ability to act and speak in a way that leads to desired communication outcomes). Intercultural competence factors in the linguistic and cultural differences that communicators bring to the interaction.

Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) propose four interrelated components of intercultural competence: the knowledge component (the level of cultural knowledge a person has about another person with whom s/he is interacting), the affective component (the emotional aspects of an individual in a communication situation, which affects motivation), the psychomotor component (the ability to use verbal and nonverbal codes to communicate in a culturally appropriate way), and the situational component (the actual context in which intercultural communication occurs). Expanding on Spitzberg and Cupach's (1984) model, Chen (2010) proposes a model which conceptualizes intercultural competence as three processes: affective process (intercultural sensitivity), cognitive process (intercultural awareness) and behavioural process (intercultural adroitness). These three processes constitute an integrated framework of intercultural competence, and this model is useful in evaluating whether intercultural experience translates into intercultural competence.

The affective process concerns personal emotions during an intercultural interaction (Triandis, 1976). Positive emotional responses will lead to respect for cultural differences. Personal attributes such as self-concept, open-mindedness, non-judgmentalism, and social relaxation also constitute parts of the affective process of intercultural competence (Chen, 2010). A person's affective response to intercultural difference is also referred to as intercultural sensitivity, conceptualized in two ways: affective aspect of intercultural competence and subjective experience of cultural differences (Chen & Starosta, 2005). Intercultural sensitivity is described as individuals' motivation to understand, appreciate and accept differences in cultures. Increased intercultural sensitivity leads to intercultural competence.

The cognitive process refers to the ability to understand situational and environmental requirements and emphasizes intercultural awareness, which entails both self-awareness and cultural awareness (Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey & Wiseman, 1991). Successful intercultural communication requires the ability to monitor ourselves. Such vigilance is essential to modifying our expressive behaviour to meet the particular communication context (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984) and reduce uncertainty (Gudykunst, 2004). At the same time cultural awareness alerts us to cultural variability and the conventions of our and other's cultures that influence people's thinking, doing and being (Liu, Volcic & Gallois, 2011).

The behavioural process or intercultural adroitness involves how to act effectively and appropriately in intercultural interactions in order to attain communication goals including the application of message skills, language ability, behavioural flexibility, interaction management, and social skills (Zimmermann, 1995). Research evidence suggests that intercultural competence is more than just being able to speak the language of the other communicator in the communication process (see Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009 for a review). It involves knowing the background of the people, where they grow up, what they care for, and how they react in order to communicate with people from different cultures.

The question considered in the present study is whether intercultural competence can be acquired through the experience of living in other cultures. Assessing intercultural competence, though complex, is possible because the overarching model is made up of a number of smaller testable variables, which can provide a roadmap to each succeeding examination (Landis & Bhawuk, 2004). Commonly adopted tools for assessing intercultural competence are various types of self-report questionnaires (Fantini, 2009). This study adopted Chen's (2010) model to scope the level of journalism and communication students' intercultural competence in terms of the cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions. This study also examined whether students with greater exposure to other cultures perceived themselves as interculturally more competent. Findings of this study can inform intercultural education in universities where students are situated in multicultural environments.

Methodology

Research context

The present study was conducted with students in journalism and communication programs in a large Australian university, which is home to over 43,500 students, including 10,500 international students from more than 130 countries. Increased cultural diversity on university campus and the accelerating transnational dynamics of globalization in the larger society urge educators to incorporate cultural inclusivity in policy, curriculum, pedagogy and assessments (Penbek, Yurdakul, & Cerit, 2009). In the higher education sector, the issue of cultural diversity involves both enhancing students' intercultural experiences and preparing them to function effectively and appropriately in the multicultural environment. For journalism and communication students, it is of crucial importance that they have intercultural skills as they are more likely to engage in mediated or face-to-face communication with culturally different others in their future career. The challenge, therefore, is to equip them with the knowledge, skills and cultural sensitivity that they need to participate effectively as citizens and professionals in a global society.

In response to the need to enhance cultural awareness, foster intercultural understanding, and develop intercultural communication adaptability in journalism and communication students, the department in this study undertook a project with the goal of equipping students with the capacity to engage effectively and appropriately in different cultural contexts. This project was expected to lead to curriculum change to be implemented progressively over a three-year period. These proposed curriculum changes will include incorporating cultural diversity elements and knowledge of other cultures in various courses which currently are predominantly 'Western-oriented'. The first stage of this project is to scope the levels of intercultural competence in first-year undergraduate students and identify areas that need to be addressed in subsequent curriculum changes. Follow-up studies will be conducted to the students over the three-year period as they progress to second and third year in the university in order to evaluate change in their intercultural competence over time. The present paper reported findings from the first stage of the project. The overarching research question addressed is: How does exposure to foreign cultures relate to the perceived level of intercultural competence in our students?

Participants

A total of 165 first-year students in journalism and communication programs including those in the dual degree programs participated in this study. Majority of the participants (86%) spoke English as first language; 38% of them spoke at least one language other than their mother tongue. The foreign or second languages spoken included Afrikaans, Chinese, Spanish, Dutch, German, Malay, French, Japanese, Samoan, Vietnamese, Italian and Indonesian. Approximately 42% of the participants had resided in other countries (excluding Australia), and the length of residence in foreign countries ranged from four months to 40 years (there were some mature aged students in the undergraduate cohort). The pool of the participants represented diverse cultural backgrounds.

The questionnaire

Data were collected through a 50-item online survey. All questions were close-ended and based on scales adopted from the literature (except for demographic questions). Apart from the demographic questions (six in total), the rest 44 items formed seven variables representing cognitive, affective and behavioural aspects of intercultural competence (all scale alphas were above .70). All items were assessed on 7-point Likert scales (1 strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree).

Knowledge. Items measuring cultural knowledge were adopted from the Cultural Intelligence Scale, tested in Ang and van Dyne's (2008) study. The six items assessed an individual's understanding of how cultures are similar and different (e.g., 'I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures'). The six items were computed to form a single scale ([alpha] = .81).

Strategy. Items measuring strategy were also taken from the Cultural Intelligence Scale. The four items asked about how a person makes sense of intercultural experiences (e.g., 'I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people from different cultural backgrounds') and reflects the processes individuals use to acquire and understand cultural knowledge (e.g., 'I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me'). Responses were combined to form the strategy scale ([alpha] = .82).

Respect for cultural differences. Respondents rated how much they respect beliefs, values, norms and behaviours of other cultures. The seven items were based on Rubin's (1976) Intercultural Behavioral Assessment Indices. These items tap into affective and behavioural aspect of intercultural competence (e.g., 'I respect the ways people from different cultures behave'; [alpha] = .78).

Confidence in intercultural interaction. Respondents rated how confident they feel when interacting with people from different cultures in social context and in academic environments. These items are related to behavioural and cognitive aspects of intercultural competence. The eight items were adapted from Chen's (2010) Intercultural Sensitivity Scale, assessing confidence (e.g., 'I know what to say when interacting with people from different cultures in social contexts'; [alpha] = .90).

Motivation. Items measuring willingness to engage in intercultural communication were taken from the Cultural Intelligence Scale (Ang & van Dyne, 2008). The four items asked about a person's interest in experiencing other cultures and interacting with people from different cultures (e.g., 'I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures'). The four items also tap into the behavioural aspects of intercultural competence. Responses were combined to form the motivation scale ([alpha] = .75).

Intercultural communication competence. Ten items were adapted from Rubin's (1985) Communication Competency Self-Report Scale, assessing a person's ability and flexibility in adjusting verbal and nonverbal behaviours in intercultural communication (e.g., 'I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it'). The 10 items were computed to form a single variable of intercultural competence encompassing cognitive, affective and behaviour aspects (a = .76).

Ambiguity tolerance. This scale comprised five items adapted from the Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance scale (McLain, 1993). Literature suggests that people who are open-minded and psychologically prepared to accept differences and uncertainty are more likely to be successful in intercultural encounters (Chen & Starosta, 2005). The five items asked about how comfortable a person is in unfamiliar cultural contexts (e.g., 'I find being in unfamiliar cultural contexts threatening'). In computing the scale, one item was deleted to achieve the desired alpha score. Thus the scale in this study consisted of four items ([alpha] = .73).

Procedures

The survey was administered online via Surveymonkey to all first-year students in the journalism and communication programs. A letter detailing the purpose of the study and ethics (voluntary participation, anonymity, no harm to participants, ethical clearance) was sent to all potential participants in mid-March 2012, inviting them to participate in the survey. The site was open for 3 weeks; at the completion of the survey, 165 valid questionnaires were received.

Results

Ratings on the seven scales and relationships among them

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the seven variables were presented in Table 1. Significant intercorrelations were found among them (rs = .17 to .54), but these did not exceed the mean scale reliabilities, suggesting that the scales were empirically distinct (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).

On the 7-point scale, the participants rated their levels of 'respect for other cultures' highest (M = 6.07; SD. = .71); followed by 'motivation to engage in intercultural communication' (M = 5.79; SD. = .91). This result indicated that participants believed that they were respectful for other cultures and were willing to engage in communication with culturally different others. The lowest ratings fell on 'knowledge of other cultures' (M = 4.51; SD. = .91); followed by 'tolerance of ambiguity' (M = 5.02; SD. = 1.08), indicating a moderate level of comfort when being in culturally unfamiliar situations. We did not specify types of cultures when we asked about knowledge of other cultures, the culture-general characteristics of the items could have contributed to the moderate level of ratings on cultural knowledge. In general, participants demonstrated a fairly high level of confidence in interacting with people from other cultures (M = 5.53; SD = .87). The correlation coefficients showed that although 'respect for other cultures' was rated highest; it was not significantly related to either 'strategy' or 'knowledge'. 'Knowledge', on the other hand, was significantly related to all other variables, albeit being rated lowest among the seven variables. This finding may suggest that attitudes (respect) and knowledge might or might not translate into behaviours (strategy), depending on the person and context (See Table 1).

Differences between groups by language

Differences in ratings on the seven variables were compared between participants whose first language was English and those who were non-native English speakers. Significant differences were found between the two groups on all variables except for 'respect' and 'knowledge'. The largest difference was located in the level of ambiguity tolerance, with students whose first language was English rating themselves much higher (M = 5.18; SD = .99) than non-native English speakers (M = 3.72; SD = .92; t = 5.74, P < .001). These results showed that the command of language (i.e. English as first language) could give people higher levels of confidence, competence, and motivation to engage in intercultural communication as well as a higher level of ambiguity tolerance in intercultural encounters.

Interestingly, the ability to speak a foreign language did not seem to make a difference in ratings on the seven variables, except for 'knowledge', with participants who spoke more than one language rated their 'knowledge' significantly higher than those who were monolingual (t = 2.74, p < .01). Table 3 presents the results.

Differences between groups by experience of residence in other cultures

No significant differences were found between participants with experience of living in foreign cultures and those without such experience in relation to ratings on all seven variables. For respondents who indicated the number of years they spent living overseas (N = 53), no significant correlations were found between length of overseas residence and ratings on the seven variables except for 'knowledge' (r = .35, p < .05). Understandably, the longer the individual stayed in a foreign culture, the greater the level of knowledge would be about that culture. The fact that the experience of living in other cultures did not make a significant difference in the respondents' ratings on intercultural competence suggested that people may not become interculturally competent by virtue of sheer exposure to foreign cultures.

Table 4 shows ratings on the seven variables by residence. We grouped the foreign countries where the respondents (N = 62) resided into six categories (Note: Not all participants who were with experience of living in other cultures specified the country of residence): Asia (China, HK, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines), Europe (Germany, France, Russia, UK), Africa (South and West Africa), Pacific countries (Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu), North America (USA, Canada), and New Zealand. Due to the small number of people in each sub-category, we could not run meaningful statistical analysis to compare between group differences. Nevertheless, respondents from the European group (N = 23) showed highest level of confidence in engaging in intercultural communication (M = 6.14, SD = .78) whereas, very interestingly, the New Zealand group (N = 7) scored lowest on confidence (M = 4.75, SD = .88). Individuals who resided in European countries seemed to be most confident in interacting with culturally different others; on the other hand, those who lived in New Zealand did not feel as confident.

One possible explanation is that New Zealand is the nearest neighbouring country, very similar to Australia, and therefore is not considered as 'foreign' to Australia. Whereas the experience of living in more culturally distant European countries might have helped to boost the confidence in intercultural communication, the experience of residing in a more culturally similar country might not have the same effect. However, confidence aside, there was no significant difference in ratings on competence in intercultural communication. These findings may also suggest that intercultural competence does not come naturally; people could reside in a different culture but still primarily engage in intracultural communication. However, it needs to be noted, though, that these results should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of people in each group. Further research with a larger sample is needed to verify the findings.

Discussion

The present study examined the relationship between exposure to other cultures, as indicated by the ability to speak foreign languages and experiences of living in other cultures, and the perceived level of intercultural competence assessed by seven variables tapping into the cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions of intercultural communication competence (respect for other cultures; motivation to engage in intercultural communication, communication competence, confidence, strategy, knowledge and tolerance of ambiguity). Of the seven variables, 'respect for other cultures' were rated highest whereas 'knowledge of other cultures' was rated lowest, followed by 'tolerance of ambiguity'. These results indicate that student participants generally recognize cultural differences and respect them; however, they might not feel comfortable to engage in intercultural communication where the level of uncertainty or ambiguity is relatively high and the situation is less predictable compared to that in intracultural communication. Comparison between native and nonnative English speakers revealed significant differences in their ratings on tolerance of ambiguity, with native English speakers reporting a higher level of ambiguity tolerance. This could be due to the fact that Australia is an English speaking country; therefore, respondents whose first language is English are more likely to feel that they have control over the environment around them. Moreover, respondents' cultural backgrounds might also be a contributor as many participants who are non-native English speakers are from Asia (e.g., China, Singapore, Hong Kong) where the need for uncertainty avoidance is relatively high compared to that in Western cultures (e.g., USA, UK).

When we compared participants who speak one or more foreign languages with those who are monolingual, interestingly, no significant differences were found between the two groups on their perceived level of intercultural competence, except for ratings on 'knowledge of other cultures'. This finding provides further support for the literature that considers linguistic competence as important but not sufficient for successful intercultural communication (Penbek et al., 2009). Similarly, Bennett (2008) argues that language learning is not equivalent to cultural leaning and cultural contact does not necessarily lead to intercultural competence. Effective intercultural communication involves one's ability to understand cultural norms, nonverbal behaviour, intentions of the counterpart, and the ability to see relationships between people in the same way as they are seen in the host community, in addition to linguistic proficiency.

The experience of living in more geographically distant countries to Australia seems to boost the confidence in engaging in intercultural communication (e.g., the European group compared to the New Zealand group). However, length of residence in a foreign country does not appear to be a significant contributor to intercultural competence in this study. Similar findings were reported in an earlier study of 101 international students in an American university (Zimmermann, 1995), which showed that length of stay in the United States or in the local community was not related to the students' perception of adjustment to their new cultural environment. Cultural knowledge alone does not lead to intercultural competence (Perry & Southwell, 2011). It needs more than accumulating facts and knowledge about a culture to develop intercultural competence.

The present study sheds light on whether the experience of living in foreign cultures can naturally develop a required level of intercultural sensitivity, cultural awareness and behavioural adaptability to better communicate across cultures. Our findings confirm that people do not necessarily become interculturally competent by sheer exposure to other cultures. It is plausible that even if cultural diversity on campus is conducive to developing students' intercultural awareness, cultural awareness might not automatically translate into intercultural competence. Previous studies have shown that students tend to limit their interactions to fellow students from the same cultural background (Halualani, Chitgopekar, Morrison, & Dodge, 2004).

Limitations and further study

The present study has adopted the established measurements in an online survey to assess university students' intercultural competence. While cross-sectional studies like this one provide insight into the levels of intercultural competence of respondents, the complexities in assessing intercultural competence call for a multimethod approach. In addition, the small sample size of non-native English speakers and the unbalanced sample size between native and non-native English speakers suggest that results need to be interpreted with caution. Future study could consider using a larger and more balanced sample as well as adopting a combination of multiple assessment types, formats and strategies, including self-report questionnaires, interactive activities, role-play, and field tasks. Longitudinal studies can also be useful in capturing change over time as a result of intercultural encounters.

Conclusion

Intercultural competence is increasingly recognized across the global spectrum of educational institutions, corporations, government agencies and non-government organizations as a central capability for the 21st century (Hammer, 2011). High mobility of people and contact between cultures due to migration, business, education, and international exchanges make the development of intercultural relations fundamentally important for education (Bleszynska, 2008). With the increasing tendency of globalization, it is more important than ever before to equip university students with the knowledge and skills to function effectively and appropriately to meet the challenges in the larger society. Incorporating specific intercultural training in the university curricula is particularly important in international student receiving countries.

The success of any international education program is highly dependent on how well curriculum developers understand key aspects of intercultural competence such as intercultural sensitivity, cultural awareness and behavioural flexibility. In multicultural countries like Australia, intercultural communication presents specific challenges considering its geographical isolation, cultural and linguistic differences, its predominantly Anglo-Saxon population composition, and Western educational philosophies and practices (Neri & Ville, 2008). Scoping students' current level of intercultural competence is the first step to developing intercultural knowledge and skills in students so that they can survive and thrive in the larger multicultural environment beyond university. The task ahead is incorporating intercultural training in the university curricula to engage students in critical thinking about their own beliefs and actions towards others and promoting better understanding of multiple perspectives.

References

Ang, S., & van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and monological network. In S. Ang & L. van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook on cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 3-15). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Bennett, J. M. (2008). On becoming a global soul: A path to engagement during study abroad. In V. Savicki (Ed.), Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research and application in international education (pp. 13-31). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing..

Bleszynska, K. M. (2008). Constructing intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 19(6), 537-545.

Bok, D. (2009). Forward. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. ixx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.

Chen, G.-M. (2010). Foundations of intercultural communication competence. Hong Kong: China Review Academic Publishers.

Chen, G.-M., & Starosta, W. (2005). Foundations of intercultural communication. Lanham, ML: American University Press.

Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in Intercultural Education, 10(3), 241-266.

Fantini, A. E. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: issues and tools. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 456-476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. (2004). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Gudykunst, W., Ting-Toomey, S., & Wiseman, R. (1991). Taming the beast: Designing a course in intercultural communication. Communication Quarterly, 40, 272-286.

Halualani, R. T., Chitgopekar, A., Morrison, J. H. T. A., & Dodge, P.S.-W. (2004). Who's interacting? And what are they talking about? - Intercultural contact and interaction among multicultural university students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(5), 353-372.

Hammer, M. R. (2011). Additional cross-cultural validity testing of the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 474-487.

Landis, D., & Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2004). Synthesizing theory building and practice in intercultural training. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.),

Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed.) (pp. 453-468). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Liu, S., Volcic, Z., & Gallois, C. (2011). Introducing intercultural communication: Global cultures and contexts. London: Sage.

McLain, D. L. (1993). The Mstat-I: A new measure of an individual's tolerance of ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 183-189.

Neri, F., & Ville, S. (2008). Social capital renewal and the academic performance of international students in Australia. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(4), 1515-1538.

Penbek, S., Yurdakul, D., & Cent, A. G. (2009, July). Intercultural communication competence: A study about the intercultural sensitivity of university students based on their education and international experiences. Paper presented at European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, 13-14 July 2009, Izmir.

Perry, L. B., & Southwell, L. (2011). Developing intercultural understanding and skills: Models and approaches. Intercultural Education, 22(6), 453466.

Rubin, B. D. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group & Organization Studies, 1, 334-354.

Rubin, B. D. (1985). The validity of the communication competency assessment instrument. Communication Monographs, 52, 173-185.

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.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Triandis, H. C. (1976). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explanation and test of model of communication competence. Human Communication Research, 3(3), 195-213.

Zimmermann, S. (1995). Perceptions of intercultural communication competence and international student adaptation to an American campus. Communication Education, 44(4), 321-335.

Shuang Liu

The University of Queensland, Australia

Correspondence to:

Shuang Liu, PhD

School of Journalism and Communication The University of Queensland St Lucia Campus, Brisbane, QLD 4072 Australia

Email: shuang.liu@uq.edu.au

Table 1. Descriptive Data for the Variables (N = 165)

Variable                  M      SD        1          2

1. Respect               6.07   .71    (.78) (a)   0.36 ***
2. Motivation            5.79   .91                 (.75)
3. Competence            5.73   .60

4. Confidence            5.53   .87
5. Strategy              5.44   .96
6. Ambiguity tolerance   5.02   1.08
7. Knowledge             4.51   .96

Variable                    3          4          5          6

1. Respect                0.17 *     0.19 *      0.11     0.30 ***
2. Motivation            0.43 ***   0.54 ***   0.25 **    0.52 ***
3. Competence             (.76)     0.42 ***
                                               0.40 ***   0.26 **
4. Confidence                        (.90)       0.11     0.53 ***
5. Strategy                                     (.81)       0.15
6. Ambiguity tolerance                                     (.73)
7. Knowledge

Variable                    7

1. Respect                 0.01
2. Motivation            0.37 ***
3. Competence            0.34 ***

4. Confidence            0.35 ***
5. Strategy              0.29 **
6. Ambiguity tolerance    0.21 *
7. Knowledge              (.81)

Note:

(a.) Reliabilities are given in parentheses along the main diagonal.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Table 2. Differences in Ratings on the Seven
Variables by Native Language

Variable              English 1st language?   N     M      SD

Respect               Yes                     127   6.10   .72
                      No                      16    5.83   .62
Motivation            Yes                     128   5.87   .87
                      No                      16    5.08   .96
Competence            Yes                     121   5.80   .54
                      No                      16    5.20   .72
Confidence            Yes                     127   5.64   .77

                      No                      16    4.68   1.10
Strategy              Yes                     136   5.52   .88
                      No                      18    4.84   1.32
Ambiguity tolerance   Yes                     123   5.18   .99
                      No                      15    3.72   .92
Knowledge             Yes                     131   4.54   .95
                      No                      16    4.34   1.06

Variable              t-value    P

Respect               1.59       .126

Motivation            3.15 *     .005

Competence            3.23 *     .005

Confidence            3.39 **    .004

Strategy              2.87 *     .005

Ambiguity tolerance   5 74 ***   .000

Knowledge             .69        .496

Note:

* p < .05; *** p< .00

Table 3. Differences in Ratings on the Seven
Variables by Foreign Language Spoken

Variable              Foreign language?   N    M      SD     t-value

Respect               Yes                 53   6.00   .78    -.93
                      No                  88   6.12   .68
Motivation            Yes                 53   5.84   1.02   .51
                      No                  89   5.76   .86
Competence            Yes                 52   5.67   .67    -.94
                      No                  84   5.77   .55
Confidence            Yes                 52   5.47   1.01   -.56
                      No                  89   5.56   .78
Strategy              Yes                 57   5.38   1.08   -.57
                      No                  96   5.47   .88
Ambiguity tolerance   Yes                 50   5.03   1.06   .17
                      No                  87   5.00   1.10
Knowledge             Yes                 53   4.80   .92    2.74**
                      No                  92   4.36   .95

Variable              P

Respect               .354

Motivation            .593

Competence            .348

Confidence            .574

Strategy              .569

Ambiguity tolerance   .867

Knowledge             .007

Note:

** p < .01; differences in participant numbers
were because some did not answer all
questions.

Table 4. Differences in Ratings on the Seven
Variables by Residence in Foreign Cultures

Variable     M/SD   Asia   Europe   Africa   Pacific   America   NZ

Respect      N      15     24       8        2         6         6
             Mean   6.18   6.40     6.02     6.21      6.05      5.71
             SD     .55    .48      .85      1.11      .26       .69
Motivation   N      14     23       9        2         6         7
             Mean   5.87   6.41     5.28     5.62      5.75      5.32
             SD     .88    .76      1.46     .88       1.14      1.31
Competence   N      14     23       8        2         6         6
             Mean   5.81   5.92     6.02     5.80      5.82      5.54

             SD     .53    .72      .47      .00       .70       .34
Confidence   N      15     23       8        2         5         7
             Mean   5.32   6.14     5.75     4.94      5.45      4.75
             SD     .80    .78      .78      .97       1.20      .88
Strategy     N      15     25       10       2         7         7
             Mean   5.17   5.46     5.70     5.50      5.07      5.57
             SD     .97    .98      .87      .71       .77       .75
Ambiguity    N      13     23       8        2         6         7
tolerance    Mean   4.63   5.33     4.85     4.40      4.53      4.08
             SD     .83    1.07     .66      .85       1.30      1.05
Knowledge    N      15     22       10       2         7         6
             Mean   4.62   4.90     4.50     5.17      4.50      4.22
             SD     .99    .82      1.42     .71       1.22      .80