Article Evaluation

Predicting Acculturative Orientations of American College Students toward International Students

Katy Snell & Chun Zhou*

Acculturation refers to the degree to which immigrants maintain their ethnic culture and accept or reject the new dominant culture. While considerable studies have focused on immigrants’ acculturative processes, little is known about acculturation from the per-

spective of the host culture. This study examined American students’ acculturation orientations toward international students based on the concept of interactive accultura-

tion and investigated the influence of ethnocentrism, sex, and Facebook use on such acculturation attitudes. Results from a survey of 346 American college students indicated

a high degree of individualism and integrationism over other orientations, namely trans- formation-integrationism, exclusionism, assimilationism, and segregationism. The

model with ethnocentrism, sex, and Facebook usage predicted five of the six acculturation orientations, with ethnocentrism being the most important predictor.

Keywords: Acculturation; Ethnocentrism; Sex; Facebook; Social Networking Sites

(Received 17 September 2014; accepted 31 May 2015)

With the development of human civilization and globalization, there has been a rapid increase in the circulation of goods and people since the last century. This

transnational flow includes international education. According to the Institute of International Education (2014), there were over 800,000 international students

*Both authors contributed equally to this article.

Katy Snell is a PhD student in the School of Communication at the University of Miami. Her research

interests are intercultural communication and popular culture. Chun Zhou is a PhD student in the School of

Communication at University of Miami. Her research interests are intercultural communication and health

communication.

Correspondence to: Katy Snell, School of Communication, University of Miami, 5100 Brunson Dr, Coral

Gables, FL 33146, USA. Email: [email protected].

The authors noted that the result of the integrationism model did not meet the conventional .80 power

threshold (Cohen, 1988, 1992) and was underpowered. To detect a small effect size (f2 = .02; Cohen, 1988,

1992) at that power level, the required sample size (N = 668) would have to be double our current sample

size according to the G*Power analysis.

� 2015 World Communication Association

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 2015

Vol. 44, No. 3, 179–200, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2015.1057860

studying in the United States until 2013. For decades, researchers have studied

how well people from outside cultures adjust to their new environments. There has been a steady stream of research devoted to studying the adjustment of

students living abroad, from psychological acculturative stress (e.g. Castillo, Zahn, & Cano, 2012) to media usage (e.g. Allison & Emmers-Sommer, 2011). Researchers

have gained a highly nuanced understanding of what types of personalities (e.g. extroverted) are most able to make social connections with host group members

(Lin, Peng, Kim, Kim, & LaRose, 2011). Acculturation studies have been replicated across a variety of ethnicities, producing a number of immigrant perspective scales,

such as the Bidimensional Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (Marin & Gamba, 1996) and the East Asian Acculturation Measure (Barry, 2001). However, there remains limited empirical research addressing the reverse

perspective: how people from the dominant culture adapt to newcomers. Scholars have noted that the host community’s attitude could and does impact

immigrants’ acculturation processes. For example, Berry (2005) proposed a set of strategies that society at large could incorporate in its reception of immi-

grants ranging from exclusionism to multiculturalism. Kim (2001) emphasized the importance of the host community’s reception of the sojourner/immigrant

across all contexts as one of the major determinants of acculturation outcomes. This study sheds some light on understanding how the host group acculturates to the newcomers by providing empirical data. Specifically, this study seeks to

analyze host acculturative attitudes, relying on Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, and Senecal’s (1997) Interactive Acculturation Model (IAM), which includes a

dedicated scale specifically measuring the attitudes and opinions of host community members.

In addition, scant research has explored the factors that could influence the acculturation attitudes held by the host group. Consequently, another purpose of

this study is to test whether ethnocentrism, sex, and Facebook usage are signifi- cant predictors of host culture’s acculturation attitudes. The concept of ethno-

centrism is innately related to acculturation attitudes because it is an attitude that determines an individual’s degree of valuing other cultures (LeVine & Campbell, 1971). Sex is also a chosen variable because several studies have

identified that males and females have different attitudes toward the immigrant groups (e.g. Chandler & Tsai, 2001). Finally, today’s communication environ-

ment is changing, especially for college students. Social networking sites (SNSs), in particular Facebook, are becoming an increasingly popular springboard for

communication. Although many scholars and critics position SNS use as a panacea for many communication ills (e.g. Bor, 2014; Hampton, Sessions Goulet,

Rainie, & Purcell, 2011; Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten, 2006), we sought to investigate the use of Facebook as a potentially inhibitory communication plat- form between international and domestic students. Thus, another predictor of

acculturation orientations that we will examine is the intensity of Facebook usage by the host culture.

180 K. Snell & C. Zhou

Literature Review

Acculturation

First proposed by Powell (1880), the concept “acculturation” refers to how people change their psychological mindset because of cross-cultural imitation. Since this

seminal definition, acculturation has been increasingly researched within the field of psychology. For instance, Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits (1936) gave the first

widely accepted definition of acculturation as “changes in the original cultural pat- terns” in individuals and groups resulting from coming into constant, in-person

contact with different cultures (p. 149). Teske and Nelson (1974) further developed this concept, arguing that acculturation changes happen not only in people’s minds, but also in their behaviors, norms, and values.

Decades after introduction of the term, Berry (1980) fashioned a new accultura- tion model. He divided acculturation into four types in terms of a group’s inclina-

tion of cultural identity maintenance and relationship building with dominant society: assimilation, integration, rejection, and deculturation. In 1997, Berry

refined these four types into a bi-dimensional model, which explains the status of immigrants in various stages of acculturation, including assimilation, integration,

separation, and marginalization. According to this view, two core questions deter- mine an immigrant’s acculturation orientation: (1) To what degree do immigrants maintain their culture, customs, and values?; and (2) To what degree do immi-

grants consider maintaining relationships with the host society at large as valuable? For instance, immigrants who place a high value on sustaining relationships with

the host culture would be classified as assimilated if they choose to relinquish their home culture’s characteristics. If immigrants maintain connections with their home

culture and form relationships within the host culture, then they would be consid- ered integrated. Rejecting both the heritage culture as well as the new host culture

would be an example of marginalization. Finally, separation would occur when immigrants choose to preserve their own cultural customs and values, but reject

the host culture that surrounds them. Following Berry’s presentation of this acculturation framework, other scholars

tried to extend acculturation studies in a similar fashion. For example, a multidi-

mensional model was proposed for studying one’s cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty in five domains: language familiarity, ethnic identity, cultural heritage,

interethnic interaction, and interethnic distance (Padilla, 1980). Meanwhile, Padilla and Perez (2003) argued that alternative factors also influence the way people

acculturate, such as discrimination from the host culture and the power relation- ship between dominant and non-dominant groups. In particular, Kim’s (2001)

theory of cross-cultural adaptation took into account the powerful influence of the host culture in terms of being receptive or not to the immigrant or sojourner in terms of personal and social communication between the groups.

In an attempt to propose a social-psychological framework and explore more deeply the dynamics between the host and the immigrant groups, Bourhis et al.

(1997) formulated the IAM. Indeed, Sam and Berry (2006) acknowledged Bourhis

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 181

and colleagues’ important work in trying to examine the attitudes of both groups

in contact. This model accounts for governmental and state integration policies that impact immigration and adopts a similar bi-dimensional acculturation model

as that proposed by Berry (1997). The IAM was further developed by Bourhis and his colleagues to include the Host Community Acculturation Scale (HCAS), which

measures acculturation through orientations, but uniquely through the perspective of the majority culture members (Bourhis & Montreuil, 2013; Montreuil &

Bourhis, 2001). Like Berry’s (1997) framework, the HCAS is two-dimensional and measures whether or not host community members find it acceptable that

immigrants sustain their cultural identity and whether or not it is acceptable for immigrants to adopt the cultural identity of the host community. Furthermore, the HCAS categorizes host community participants into five orientations, subse-

quently extended to six by Bourhis and Montreuil (2013). In addition to the estab- lished integrationism and assimilationism orientations from Berry’s original model,

Bourhis and Montreuil (2013) converted separationism into segregationism and added individualism, exclusionism, and transformation-integrationism. These six

acculturation orientations, which are defined below, are used in this study:

Integrationism: The host community agrees that immigrants may maintain their heritage culture and adopt the host culture of mainstream society.

Assimilationism: The host community agrees that immigrants may adopt the host culture of mainstream society as soon as those immigrants give up their heritage culture.

Segregationism: The host community agrees immigrants may maintain their heritage culture, but refuses to accept those immigrants into the host culture of mainstream society.

Exclusionism: The host community feels that there is no need to interact with immigrants or that there should be fewer immigrants in their society.

Individualism: There is no difference for the host community on whether immigrants maintain their heritage culture or adopt the host culture of the mainstream society because every human being is an individual of free will.

Transformation-integrationism: The host community should transform part of its own culture in order to accommodate different cultural values from the immigrants.

While Bourhis and Montreuil (2013) proposed and refined these six acculturation orientations, they suggested that integrationism, transformation-integrationism,

and individualism are more accepting of other cultures because these three orientations respect immigrants as members of distinct cultural communities or as

individuals. On the other hand, assimilationism, segregationism, and exclusionism were grouped as less-accepting orientations as they reject cultural pluralism in

different ways or for different reasons. Prior to the addition of the sixth orientation (transformation-integrationism),

Montreuil and Bourhis (2001) conducted a study with Canadian college students

182 K. Snell & C. Zhou

to evaluate their acculturation attitudes toward immigrants. Their results showed

that while individualism was the most embraced orientation by Canadians, integra- tionism was also highly endorsed. Moreover, in descending order from the most

to the least endorsed, assimilationism, segregationism, and exclusionism were all more weakly endorsed than individualism and integrationism. Montreuil and

Bourhis’ (2001) finding implies the conventional wisdom that college students are more liberal-minded than the general population and thus potentially more likely

to support social issues such as immigration. In a survey administered to American university students, Arifianto (1999)

found that female students had more positive attitudes toward immigration than did male students and, overall, respondents seemed to have more positive attitudes toward immigration than the general public. The author attributed this difference

to students having received more education than the public at large. More recently, Cole and Zhou (2013) conducted a longitudinal study and found that “greater

involvement in service learning, multicultural courses, interracial interactions, racial awareness workshops, student-faculty interactions, and campus racial har-

mony significantly and positively contributed to civic mindedness” (p. 109). The researchers conceptualized “civic-minded” people as those who feel that social

problems are personal problems, and who believe it is their duty to be informed citizens. While individualism and integrationism were highly endorsed by Cana- dian college students, it is yet unknown whether American college students would

demonstrate the same acculturative attitudes toward their international counter- parts. Given cultural similarities between Canada and the United States, we expect

that our study would reveal similar results with American participants. As such, we anticipated similar findings to those of Bourhis and Montreuil (2013) and

worded our hypotheses similarly. We first predicted that:

H1a: Students would be more likely to have an acculturation orientation of individualism than integrationism.

H1b: Students would be more likely to have an acculturation orientation of assimilationism than segregationism.

H1c: Students would be more likely to have an acculturation orientation of segregationism than exclusionism.

Facebook Usage

The increasing usage of SNSs as a means of communication and entertainment has

garnered much attention. Essentially, SNSs allow people to communicate with existing friends, share media, and meet new friends. Although there is a plethora of SNSs to choose from, Facebook has consistently outranked Twitter, LinkedIn,

and MySpace as the most popular SNS (Ezumah, 2013). In fact, studies on immi- grants and sojourners’ acculturation have found that using SNSs of the host cul-

ture could help them adjust to new culture. For example, Croucher (2011) proposed that immigrants use SNSs to interact with and adapt to the host culture.

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 183

Park, Song, and Lee (2014) found that East Asian college students using only

Facebook in the United States have a significantly lower level of acculturation stress and higher level of psychological well-being than East Asian college students

who use ethnic SNSs or do not use SNSs. Similarly, Bazarova and Yuan (2013) found that computer-mediated communication between Chinese international stu-

dents and their American peers has resulted in higher perceived levels of expertise. However, research on influence of SNS use by host culture members on accultura-

tion is scant. In this study, it is argued that SNS use will affect American students’ acculturation to international students in a negative way.

A great deal of previous research from the perspective of American students has indicated that Facebook usage helps in strengthening one’s existing social relation- ships, but not necessarily in meeting and bonding with new relationships. For

instance, Ezumah (2013) found that, among American students, the top five uses of Facebook were: keeping in touch with friends (97.9%), sharing photos (80.7%),

keeping in touch with family (79.3%), reconnecting with old friends (72.6%), and using the site as a source for entertainment (70.9%). Interestingly, only 34.7% of

the respondents identified Facebook as a means to meet new people. In the same vein, Facebook’s (2012) research on its users showed that users’ friends were most

likely of a similar age and resided in the same country, further demonstrating a preference for in-group members as part of the Facebook culture. As Facebook is overwhelmingly used to connect with already-established friends by American stu-

dents (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007), it may impede international students who attempt to use Facebook as a means of introducing themselves to their

American peers for the first time. The finding that different reasons leading to differing levels of perceived impor-

tance of SNSs among international and American students lends further evidence to the argument that the SNS platform may not facilitate online conversations

between the two groups. For example, Jackson and Wang (2013) found that American students spent more time on SNSs, considered them to be more impor-

tant, and had more friends in SNSs than did Chinese international students. In conclusion, the authors suggested that people from collectivistic cultures are more likely to fulfill their social motives by engaging in face-to-face communication in

the real world, compared to people from individualistic cultures, who more often gratify their social needs in the virtual world. Moriyike, Adenubi, and Bright

(2013) reported that SNSs encourage international students to seek normative information about their university culture. However, “students do not gain a

greater sense of energy, purpose, vision, and ultimate self-understanding through forming mutual connections with peers in order to facilitate their satisfaction with

university life” (Moriyike et al., 2013, p. 7). In research about international students’ usage of Facebook, many studies

incorporate Putnam’s (2000) “bridging” and “bonding” theory of social capital.

While bridging social capital consists of loosely formed relationships that bridge a person to another network, bonding social capital provides a person access to new

perspectives and information through stronger relationships. Lin et al. (2011)

184 K. Snell & C. Zhou

found that the more often international students interacted with people from the

same country on Facebook, the more online bridging capital they gained. In con- trast, the more often they interacted with their American peers on Facebook, the

lower the offline bonding and bridging capital they gained (Lin et al., 2011). Simi- larly, Ma, Ma, and Ito (2014) found that “SNS use for social and informational

functions increased individuals’ levels of perceived bridging social capital and perceived life satisfaction, while SNS use for entertaining recreational functions

was unable to predict perceived social capital but increased individuals’ levels of loneliness” (p. 52). This finding may indicate some disinterest or poor commu-

nication between American students and their international peers. Although there is some evidence that both groups are able to communicate at a superficial, intro- ductory level, Facebook does not seem to facilitate deeper relationships between

international and American students. Facebook may be socially alienating for international students, and online interac-

tion that is relatively impersonal compared to face-to-face communication may be more obstructive in facilitating positive interactions on Facebook between American

students and their international counterparts. Generally, it has been long supported that online interaction could heighten in-group identity and out-group stereotype

(e.g. Halpern & Gibbs, 2013; Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). Accordingly, intense Facebook use by American college students could lead to adoption of less-adaptive acculturation orientations. The following hypotheses were tested:

H2: Intensity of Facebook usage would be a positive predictor of the accultura- tion orientations of assimilationism, segregationism, and exclusionism, such that students with higher intensity of Facebook usage would be more likely to adopt these three acculturation orientations.

H3: Intensity of Facebook usage would be a negative predictor of the acculturation orientations of transformation-integrationism, integrationism, and individualism, such that students with higher intensity of Facebook usage would be less likely to adopt these three acculturation orientations.

Sex

From the evolutionary approach of social psychology, it has been argued that there is a main effect of sex on racism and discrimination. The so-called “subordinate

male target hypothesis” (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999, p. 144) indicates that males are both the agents and targets of discrimination, as they are more intrasexually

competent and more aggressive. Females, on the other hand, have been identified as a subordinate group in most societies, including the United States (e.g. Fetzer,

2000). Typically, males are more likely to display stereotype and xenophobic atti- tudes towards out-group members, such as immigrants, than females (Schaller, Park, & Mueller, 2003; Sidanius, Levin, van Laar, & Sears, 2008). Females are

assumed to have low power and are discriminated against more often (Glick & Fiske, 1996). As a result, females are assumed to share more similarities with

immigrants and have more empathy toward them. Fetzer (2000) supported this

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 185

claim by demonstrating that, given the male-dominant society in the United States,

American females were more likely to support immigration than males (see also Arifianto, 1999). Another study found that males were more likely to refuse access

to social benefits to immigrants and exclude children of illegal immigrants from public schools than females (Davidson & Garcia, 2014). Similarly, while studying

attitudes toward immigrants in Sweden, Akrami, Ekehammar, and Araya (2000) reported that males were more likely to report racial prejudice than females.

Despite some inconsistent findings (e.g. Mayda, 2006), more studies have indicated that females have a more favorable attitude toward immigrants than males (e.g.

Chandler & Tsai, 2001; McDaniel, Nooruddin, & Shortle, 2011). In light of this literature, we predicted that:

H4: Male students would be more likely to adopt the acculturation orientations of assimilationism, segregationism, and exclusionism than female students.

H5: Male students would be less likely to adopt the acculturation orientations of transformation-integrationism, integrationism, and individualism than female students.

Ethnocentrism

Originally coined by Sumner (1906), the term “ethnocentrism” exists to some

degree in all cultures and is a superiority disposition of one’s own group, as “each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders” (p. 13). Furthermore, ethnocen-

trism involves cooperative relations with the in-group (domestic culture) and absence of cooperative relations with the out-group (LeVine & Campbell, 1971).

People who are co-members of a shared culture are more willing to interact with each other as opposed to interacting with outsiders. Neuliep and McCroskey

(1997a, 1997b) note that people who are ethnocentric tend to hold rigid attitudes and behaviors toward in-groups that are different from attitudes and behaviors

toward out-groups. More specifically, ethnocentric persons may foster cooperative relations with in-group members, while acting competitively against out-group

members (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997a). While it seems that ethnocentrism and acculturation orientation have a lot in

common by definition, the two concepts are inherently different. It has been

pointed out that ethnocentrism is not a derogatory term that expresses contempt or disapproval of other cultures (Neuliep, 2002). Rather, it is a descriptive word that

compares other cultures to one’s own culture (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997a, 1997b). Ethnocentrism also fosters loyalty, patriotism, and solidarity (Neuliep,

2002). Ethnocentrism can be viewed along a continuum from low to high, and everyone falls somewhere along this continuum (Neuliep, 2012). An individual who

is highly ethnocentric does not necessarily despise another culture, and thus may not embrace some of the less-adaptive acculturation orientations, such as exclu- sionism. In contrast, an individual who is not ethnocentric will not necessarily put

forth effort into transforming his or her self to adapt to the new coming culture.

186 K. Snell & C. Zhou

Because ethnocentrism is a cognitive predisposition that can lead to many other

behaviors and attitudes, it is possible that it may have relationships with different acculturation orientations. These linkages have never been studied before. For exam-

ple, examining American consumers living in Guatemala, Seelye and Brewer (1970) found that acculturation is inversely related to ethnocentrism; that is, the more the

American immigrants identified with the Guatemalan culture, the less ethnocentric they were in their consumption preferences. We predicted the following hypotheses:

H6: Ethnocentrism would be a positive predictor of the acculturation orienta- tions of assimilationism, segregationism, and exclusionism, such that more- ethnocentric students would be more likely to adopt these three acculturation orientations.

H7: Ethnocentrism would be a negative predictor of the acculturation orienta- tions of transformation-integrationism, integrationism, and individualism, such that more-ethnocentric students would be less likely to adopt these three accul- turation orientations.

Moreover, ethnocentrism is associated with a multitude of other attitudes.

Frenkel-Brunswik (1949) and Rokeach (1948) were the first scholars to explain ethnocentrism and authoritativeness from the cognitive vantage point. Specifically,

a higher need for structure and higher mental rigidity could be connected to higher ethnocentrism. Building upon these findings, Kemmelmeier (2010) found that women had a lower need for structure and authority and, therefore, were less

likely to exhibit ethnocentric attitudes than males. Furthermore, research has shown that sex is an important predictor of inter-

group attitudes. Specifically, women tend to be less likely to hold negative out- group attitudes and prejudice than men (e.g. Kite & Whitley, 1996; Sidanius &

Pratto, 1999). Women are also more likely than men to express caring and com- passion in interpersonal relations as well as toward out-groups (Gault & Sabini,

2000; Kemmelmeier, 2010; Lennon & Eisenberg, 1987; Schieman & Gundy, 2000). As such, we would predict that the more-ethnocentric males be more likely to

adopt the three less-adaptive acculturation orientations (assimilationism, segrega- tionism, and exclusionism) than the lesser ethnocentric males. Conversely, the less-ethnocentric females would be more likely to adopt the three more adaptive

acculturation orientations (transformation-integrationism, integrationism, and individualism) than the more-ethnocentric females. The last hypothesis stated:

H8: The negative relationship between level of ethnocentrism and adaptiveness of acculturation orientations will be stronger for male students than for female students.

Method

Data Collection

A convenience sample of 404 undergraduate and graduate students at a southeast- ern university participated in the study. Questionnaires were administered to

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 187

students in 20 communication and international studies classes from November 11

to November 26, 2013. Excluding 49 international students and 9 incomplete responses, the final sample size of the study totaled 346 participants.

Measurement

Acculturation orientations

The six dependent variables were measured by using the HCAS (Bourhis & Montreuil, 2013). The scale covers six acculturation orientations in five domains:

culture, customs, values, housing, and language. The other two domains of endo- gamy and employment were not included due to questionnaire length constraints

and their irrelevance to college students. The six acculturation orientations were (1) individualism (e.g. “whether international students maintain their culture her-

itage or adopt the American culture makes no difference because each person is free to adopt the culture of his/her choice”); (2) integrationism (e.g. “international

students should maintain their own heritage customs while also adopting the American customs”); (3) transformation-integrationism (e.g. “American students should transform certain aspects of their own values in order to really integrate

the values of international students”); (4) assimilationism (e.g. “international stu- dents should live in housing where their neighbors are mostly members of the

American mainstream”); (5) segregationism (e.g. “international students should speak their own languages rather than use the English language in the United

States”); and (6) exclusionism (e.g. “international students should not speak either English or their own languages because, in any case, there should be fewer interna-

tional students in this country”). Each orientation subscale included five items, and each item was measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The subscale reliabilities were: α = .77 for individualism, α = .69 for integrationism, α = .85 for transformation-integra- tionism, α = .72 for assimilationism, α = .63 for segregationism, and α = .91 for exclusionism. Averaged means for these six acculturation orientations were calculated for data analysis.

Intensity of Facebook usage

This predictor was measured using the Facebook Intensity Scale (Ellison et al., 2007). Before the development of the scale, Facebook use was mainly measured by

amount of time or number of friends, but the scale was able to include measure- ment of both duration of use and users’ emotional engagement to the site. It has

been validated to be a reliable measure for this purpose (Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008; Valenzuela, Park, & Kee, 2009). Six items (e.g. “I am proud to tell people I’m on Facebook”) were included in the scale (α = .86). Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An averaged mean for intensity of Facebook usage was calculated

for data analysis.

188 K. Snell & C. Zhou

Ethnocentrism

This predictor was measured based on Neuliep’s (2002) Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale. Twenty-two items (e.g. “my culture should be the role model for other

cultures”) were included in the questionnaire, but seven items were dropped because they serve only as distracters (Neuliep, 2002). After reverse-coding of three

items, the 15-item scale was reliable (α = .88). Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A

composite score was calculated for data analysis, by summing up the scores of the 15 items.

Demographics

Sex was coded into a dummy variable after data collection, using female as the referent group (female = 0 and male = 1). Respondents were also asked to report their ethnicity (Asian, African-American, Hispanic, Caucasian, or Other), age

(open-ended), and class standing (Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, Graduate, or Other).

Findings

Of all respondents, 58.1% were Caucasian, 23.7% were Hispanic, 5.8% were African-American, 4.6% were Asian, and 7.8% were other ethnicities (e.g. multiple

ethnicities). In total, 60.4% of respondents were female, 24% of students were freshmen, 20.5% were sophomores, 26.3% were juniors, 24.6% were seniors, and

4.6% were graduate students. The majority of respondents were 20 years old or younger (M = 20.48, SD = 3.39). Respondents demonstrated relatively low degrees

of ethnocentrism (M = 26.92, SD = 8.52), compared to previous studies (e.g. McCroskey, 2002; Neuliep & McCroskey, 2001), and a neutral intensity of

Facebook usage (M = 3.39, SD = .97). To test hypotheses 1a–c, paired-sample t-tests were employed. Consistent with

Montreuil and Bourhis’ (2001) findings, these hypotheses were supported with

more respondents adopting an individualism orientation (M = 5.32, SD = 1.24) than an integrationism orientation (M = 5.01, SD = 1.05), t(333) = 3.65, p < .001,

and more respondents adopting an assimilationism orientation (M = 2.45, SD = .94) than a segregationism orientation (M = 2.20, SD = .86), t(340) = 5.07,

p = .001. Also, respondents were more likely to embrace a segregationism orienta- tion (M = 2.21, SD = .87) than an exclusionism orientation (M = 1.57, SD = 1.01),

t(339) = 12.10, p < .001. Mean-wise, the likelihood of adopting the newly devel- oped orientation, transformation-integrationism (M = 3.07, SD = 1.25) fell in

between the likelihood of adopting integrationism and adopting assimilationism. Paired-sample t-tests showed that transformation-integrationism was significantly more adopted than assimilationism (t(336) = 7.50, p < .001) and less adopted than

integrationism (t(335) = 24.85, p < .001).

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 189

For hypotheses 2–7, four-step hierarchical linear regression analyses were used

to predict the six acculturation orientations. Ethnicity (recoded as white versus non-white) was entered as a control variable in the first block, and intensity of

Facebook usage (H2 and H3), sex (H4 and H5), and ethnocentrism (H6 and H7) were entered in the next three blocks separately. The six acculturation orientations

were the criterion variables. The only model that failed to reach statistical significance was the model

predicting integrationism, F(4, 308) = 1.42, p = .227, adjusted R2 = .005 (Table 1). Based on the post-hoc G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) results,

the power of that regression analysis was .44, which was acceptable (Cohen, 1988, 1992). The other five acculturation orientation models were statistically significant: assimilationism, F(4, 309) = 22.55, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .216 (Table 2);

Table 1 Hierarchical Regression for the Integrationism Orientation.

Block Predictor r β R2 change F change

1 Ethnicity −.09 −.08 .01 2.56 2 Facebook Intensity Use .01 .03 .00 .50 3 Sex −.06 −.03 .00 .69 4 Ethnocentrism −.11* −.08 .01 1.94 Total R

2 = .018, adjusted R

2 = .005, F(4, 308) = 1.42

Note. Standardized coefficients were reported for the last step of the hierarchical regression analysis. *p < .05.

Table 2 Hierarchical Regression for the Assimilationism Orientation.

Block Predictor r β R2 change F change

1 Ethnicity .13* .10 .02 7.22** 2 Facebook Intensity Use −.01 .02 .00 .00 3 Sex .21*** .11* .04 12.93*** 4 Ethnocentrism .46*** .42*** .17 65.54*** Total R

2 = .226, adjusted R

2 = .216, F(4, 309) = 22.55***

Note. Standardized coefficients were reported for the last step of the hierarchical regression analysis. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 3 Hierarchical Regression for the Exclusionism Orientation.

Block Predictor r β R2 change F change

1 Ethnicity .01 −.01 .00 .68 2 Facebook Intensity Use .00 .04 .00 .11 3 Sex .18** .10 .04 13.35*** 4 Ethnocentrism .51*** .48*** .22 90.57*** Total R2 = .262, adjusted R2 = .252, F(4, 307) = 27.22***

Note. Standardized coefficients were reported for the last step of the hierarchical regression analysis. **p < .01; ***p < .001.

190 K. Snell & C. Zhou

exclusionism, F(4, 307) = 27.22, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .252 (Table 3); segrega-

tionism, F(4, 307) = 17.23, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .173 (Table 4); individualism, F(4, 301) = 3.71, p = .006, adjusted R2 = .034 (Table 5); transformation-integra-

tionism, F(4, 304) = 2.52, p = .041, adjusted R2 = .019 (Table 6). In terms of predictors, intensity of Facebook usage in the second block failed to

positively predict the three less-adaptive acculturation orientations: assimilationism (β = .02, SE = .05, p = .648), segregationism (β = .05, SE = .05, p = .347), and exclusionism (β = .04, SE = .05, p = .419). Similarly, it failed to negatively predict any of the three more-adaptive acculturation orientations: transformation-integra-

tionism (β = .01, SE = .08, p = .824), integrationism (β = .03, SE = .06, p = .576), and individualism (β = .03, SE = .08, p = .631). Therefore, H2 and H3 were not supported.

Table 4 Hierarchical Regression for the Segregationism Orientation.

Block Predictor r β R2 change F change

1 Ethnicity .02 −.02 .00 .42 2 Facebook Intensity Use −.00 .05 .00 .16 3 Sex .17** .10 .03 10.79** 4 Ethnocentrism .41*** .40*** .15 55.51*** Total R

2 = .183, adjusted R

2 = .173, F(4, 307) = 17.23***

Note. Standardized coefficients were reported for the last step of the hierarchical regression analysis. **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 5 Hierarchical Regression for the Individualism Orientation.

Block Predictor r β R2 change F change

1 Ethnicity −.05 −.05 .00 .74 2 Facebook Intensity Use −.01 .03 .00 .04 3 Sex .00 .08 .00 .27 4 Ethnocentrism −.22*** −.21*** .04 13.75*** Total R

2 = .047, adjusted R

2 = .034, F(4, 301) = 3.71**

Note. Standardized coefficients were reported for the last step of the hierarchical regression analysis. ***p < .001.

Table 6 Hierarchical Regression for the Transformation-Integrationism Orientation.

Block Predictor r β R2 change F change

1 Ethnicity −.10 −.11 .01 2.37 2 Facebook Intensity Use −.05 .01 .00 .00 3 Sex .08 .07 .01 2.77 4 Ethnocentrism .14** .13* .02 4.87* Total R

2 = .032, adjusted R

2 = .019, F(4, 304) = 2.52*

Note. Standardized coefficients were reported for the last step of the hierarchical regression analysis. *p < .05; **p < .01.

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 191

H4 was partially supported, as sex significantly and positively predicted assimila-

tionism (β = .11, SE = .10, p = .040) and exclusionism (β = .10, SE = .10, p = .050). However, sex was not a statistically significant predictor for segregation-

ism (β = .10, SE = .10, p = .060). Such results indicated that male students were more likely than females to adopt assimilationism and exclusionism but not

segregationism. H5 was not supported, as sex did not significantly predict the three more-adaptive orientations: transformation-integrationism (β = .07, SE = .15, p = .246), integrationism (β = −.03, SE = .13, p = .604), or individualism (β = .08, SE = .15, p = .185).

Consistent with H6, ethnocentrism positively predicted the three less-adaptive acculturation orientations: assimilationism (β = .42, SE = .09, p < .001), segrega- tionism (β = .40, SE = .08, p < .001), and exclusionism (β = .48, SE = .09, p < .001). However, H7 was only partially supported. Ethnocentrism negatively predicted the individualism orientation (β = −.21, SE = .13, p < .001), but positively predicted the transformation-integrationism orientation (β = .13, SE = .13, p = .028). For integrationism (β = −.08, SE = .11, p = .164), ethnocen- trism was not a significant predictor. To test H8, an interaction term between ethnocentrism and sex was added as a

separate block in each of the six models, but none of the coefficients for the interaction term achieved significance: assimilationism (β = .13, SE = .17, p = .059), exclusionism (β = .13, SE = .17, p = .053), segregation (β = .08, SE = .16, p = .266), integration (β = −.06, SE = .21, p = .427), individualism (β = .02, SE = .25, p = .754), and transformation-integrationism (β = .08, SE = .25, p = .296). These results indicated that there was no interactive effect between sex and ethnocentrism on the six acculturation orientations. H8 was not supported.

Discussion

Relying on Bourhis and Montreuil’s (2013) HCAS, this study investigated American students’ acculturation attitudes toward international students on six

acculturation orientations: assimilationism, segregation, exclusionism, integra- tionism, individualism, and transformation-integrationism. The primary results

indicated that American students embraced individualism and integrationism; the adoption of transformation-integrationism was neutral, followed by the less-adap-

tive orientations of assimilationism, segregationism, and exclusionism, respectively. Our findings mirrored those of Bourhis and Montreuil’s study (2013), which involved Canadian participants. Our study also examined the effects from Face-

book usage, sex, and ethnocentrism on the six acculturation orientations. Ethno- centrism was the most important predictor, while sex was only significant in

predicting the two less-adaptive acculturation orientations, assimilationism and exclusionism. The use of Facebook had no effect on American students’

acculturation attitudes. As Bourhis and Montreuil (2013) have suggested, exclusionism, assimilationism,

and segregationism are less adaptive, while individualism, integrationism, and

192 K. Snell & C. Zhou

transformation-integrationism are more adaptive. To provide a more explicit

explanation distinguishing which orientation is more adaptive than another, we recommend categorizing the acculturation orientations along a continuum from

the least to the most adaptive: exclusionism, assimilationism, segregationism, individualism, integrationism, and transformation-integrationism. We should note

that our conceptualization of acculturation was similar to Bennett’s (1993) concept of ethnorelativism and his intercultural sensitivity model. In Bennett’s model, each

position along the continuum represents an increasingly more complex perception of cultural difference. In the framework we used, the exclusionism orientation is

on the least adaptive end, which is the most intolerant stance, in which an American student maintains the perspective that international students should not adopt the features of the host culture. Transformation-integrationism is on the

most adaptive end, as it requires American students to adapt their lives to better accommodate international students.

On the less-adaptive end, Bourhis and Montreuil (2013) argued that the assim- ilationism orientation is the traditional concept of absorption. In other words,

American students with an assimilationism orientation expect that international students “relinquish their cultural identity for the sake of adopting the culture of

the majority of society” (p. 380). In comparison, American students identifying with segregationism may find it acceptable for international students to maintain their own cultures, but they would advocate that foreign cultures should not mix

with American culture. Assimilationism is less adaptive than segregationism; the former orientation turns down the heritage culture rather than the host culture,

implying that the host culture is superior. On the more-adaptive end, the integrationism orientation is more tolerant and

expects international students to participate in both American culture and their ethnic cultures. Individualism acts as a neutral acculturation orientation on this

continuum, rather than a particularly favorable attitude towards one culture over another. However, there may be both a positive and negative aspect of this

orientation as well. It is positive, in that it allows people to be who they want to be, but negative, in that a person who is highly individualistic can be inherently solitary and may not acknowledge the value of other cultural differences. For

example, an American student who has a strong individualism orientation may be unconcerned with or even unwilling to acknowledge an international student’s

choice of food, music, or relevant holidays. Rather, their individual merits as a quiet and clean neighbor or their demeanor in class will be of greater importance.

Interaction with the international student may only matter insofar as the respective lives of the two students overlap in the public arena.

Results using ethnocentrism to predict assimilationism, segregationism, and exclusionism may appear counter-intuitive at a first glance. For these three less-adaptive orientations, it seems that assimilationism and segregationism are too

dissimilar to one another to be both positively predicted by ethnocentrism. While assimilationism denotes newcomers’ adoption of the host culture and abandon of

the heritage culture, segregationism conveys the opposite with newcomers’

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 193

maintenance of the heritage culture and separation from the host culture.

However, we argue that all three are reductionist in some way, suggesting that these three acculturation orientations resist cultural pluralism and hold that at

least one culture (host and/or ethnic) needs to be suppressed in order for interna- tional students to adjust to the American college environment. This view explains

why two oppositional acculturation orientations, such as assimilationism and segregationism, could both be predicted positively by ethnocentrism.

Furthermore, it is interesting to consider how the two of the more adaptive orientations (individualism and transformation-integrationism) could be predicted

by ethnocentrism. Contrary to our expectations, ethnocentrism negatively pre- dicted individualism, but positively predicted transformation-integrationism. This inconsistency lends further credence to Neuliep and McCroskey’s (1997b) defini-

tion of ethnocentrism as a non-pejorative term. Being less ethnocentric not only indicates that an individual may value other cultures as equal to one’s own culture,

but also that others have the right to choose which culture they want to affiliate with regardless of the superiority of the culture. In contrast, more-ethnocentric

individuals may predominantly value their own culture, but they may also be will- ing to learn from other cultures, possibly to benefit their own in-group. Further-

more, there was no relationship between ethnocentrism and integrationism, which supports the conventional wisdom that American college students are influenced more by a liberal ideology. They generally advocate for cultural integration without

considering their own evaluation of the specific culture. Based on the review of the literature, we hypothesized that a high intensity of

Facebook usage (for three orientations) could further dissuade distanced American students from communicating effectively with their international peers. However,

our results showed that none of Bourhis and Montreuil’s (2013) six acculturation orientations could be predicted by the intensity of Facebook usage. The lack of

support of the hypotheses means that, as a tool for maintaining relationships with friends, SNSs, such as Facebook, should not be blamed for isolating international

students from American students. Additionally, it is possible that the “isolation” effect of SNSs makes more sense for international students than for American stu- dents (e.g. Li & Chen, 2014; Park et al., 2014). In other words, cultural and lan-

guage barriers disproportionately impact international students in the SNS context, meaning that the barrier to communication may stem more from international

students than domestic students. For example, international students may not understand the slang and emoticons used by their American counterparts in Face-

book. Communication between the two groups might be ameliorated if the two groups socialize through alternative means, including other SNSs that are better

suited to starting new friendships and face-to-face communication. Although the Intensity of Facebook Usage scale is recognized as the most established and widely used scale to measure Facebook use, it also includes some attitudinal items toward

Facebook (e.g. “I am proud to tell people I am on Facebook” or “I would be sorry if Facebook shut down”), which are less relevant to our study. As a result, it is

possible that a more sensitive SNS usage scale needs to be developed to account

194 K. Snell & C. Zhou

for the multitude of uses Facebook can encompass and the various ways in which

acculturative styles could be demonstrated within the site. Computer-mediated communication is uniquely positioned to facilitate understanding when language,

shyness, or anxiety impedes face to-face interactions. While Facebook is a popular SNS now, SNSs are not the only type of website that should be researched. Other

types of internet media (e.g. Vine, Pinterest, and Instagram) could be investigated as potential avenues of communication between student groups. Because smart-

phones allow for 24-hour connectivity to SNSs, there is no “disconnecting” any- more, which means that conceptualizing SNS usage based on hours spent on the

site is a bit outdated. We feel that new scales should analyze the comradery gained from participating in a shared online culture (and the degree to which a person feels like they understand and are included in this culture). This perspective would

likely be more salient in connecting SNS usage with acculturation orientations and ethnocentrism. The Facebook Intensity Scale, while useful, is very much tailored to

Facebook, which is a different experience from other SNSs that emphasize brevity and may have unique coded language and communication norms.

Ultimately, with the rising number of international students studying abroad, especially in American colleges, it is important to make their transition as comfort-

able as possible. However, research to date has not thoroughly taken into account how American students adapt to the rising influx of international students. Research in acculturation cannot be exclusively conducted from the perspective of

the immigrant adapting to the new majority culture. As both groups progress through their education together, it is important to maximize their relationships.

If social media are not the most fitting channel to facilitate rapport, school administrators and faculty need to consider adjusting established structures to

achieve better harmony, such as cultural sensitivity training courses. The subsequent diaspora of international students after the completion of their

studies is of great importance to the overall global reputation of the United States. International students will likely become opinion leaders within their respective

communities, and the relationships they formed with American peers during their educational experience abroad will have lifelong repercussions on how they view American contemporaries in the workplace. As Kim and Gudykunst (1988)

acknowledged, immigrants and sojourners come in search of “freedom, security, and social, economic, or cultural betterment” (p. 7). As members of the academic

world, we need to make sure that our educational institutions are providing this enrichment. Also, for the sake of sustaining interest in international education in

the United States and future tourism, economic, and political interactions globally, American acculturation to international students is an important issue to consider.

American academic institutions need to evaluate their programs for integrating American and international students and find ways to maximize these relationships. This study is not without some limitations. First, the subscale reliabilities for

integrationsim and segregationism did not reach a satisfying level in our study. It is worth noting that the particular institution in which students were surveyed is

already a highly multicultural campus in the Southeast, and those scales may need

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 195

to be retested on a less-diverse campus. Second, while some of the classes surveyed

were offered extra credit from the instructors, others were not, which may impact the quality of the responses. Third, since we were unable to significantly link the

intensity of Facebook usage among American students with ethnocentrism or acculturation orientations, this finding may suggest the need for an alternate scale.

Finally, although student samples are not optimal in much of survey research, they are actually the population of interest in our study. In fact, Bourhis and

Montreuil’s (2013) study used their HCAS scale with Canadian college students. Such student samples could be used in comparative replications across colleges

with varying degrees of multiculturalism in the same or different countries. In summary, studying acculturation orientations from the perspective of the

host country offers a promising and valuable line of research. This study indicated

that American students’ degree of ethnocentrism will strongly influence their interactions with international students. Although we were unable to connect Face-

book usage directly with acculturation orientations, we did confirm that Facebook is a dominant means of communication and feel that it could bridge relationships

between domestic and international students.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Michel Dupagne for his tireless advice and

support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., & Araya, T. (2000). Classical and modern racial prejudice: A study of attitudes toward immigrants in Sweden. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 521–532. doi:10.1177/0956797610390384

Allison, M., & Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2011). Beyond individualism-collectivism and conflict style: Considering acculturation and media use. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 40, 135–152. doi:10.1080/17475759.2011.581033

Arifianto, A. R. (1999, January). Attitudes of students from a Midwestern college toward immigra- tion. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association meeting in Chicago, IL.

Barry, D. T. (2001). Development of a new scale for measuring acculturation: The East Asian acculturation measure (EAAM). Journal of Immigrant Health, 3, 193–197. doi:10.1023/ A:1012227611547

Bazarova, N. N., & Yuan, Y. (2013). Expertise recognition and influence in intercultural groups: Differences between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 437–453. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12018

196 K. Snell & C. Zhou

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitiv- ity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaption. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology-An International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale, 46, 5–34. doi:10.1111/j.1464- 0597.1997.tb01087.x

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013

Bor, S. E. (2014). Using social networking sites to improve communication between political campaigns and citizens in the 2012 election. American Behavioral Scientist, 58, 1195–1213. doi:10.1177/0002764213490698

Bourhis, R., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. doi:10.1080/002075997400629

Bourhis, R. Y., & Montreuil, A. (2013). Methodological issues related to the host community accul- turation scale (HCAS) and the immigrant acculturation scale (IAS): An update. UQAM Work- ing Paper, Dèpartmentde Psychologie, Universite’ de quèbecŭ montrèal (Updated: January 2013).

Castillo, L. G., Zahn, M. P., & Cano, M. A. (2012). Predictors of familial acculturative stress in Asian American college students. Journal of College Counseling, 15, 52–64. doi:10.1002/ j.2161-1882.2012.00005.x

Chandler, C. R., & Tsai, Y. (2001). Social factors influencing immigration attitudes: An analysis of data from the General Social Survey. The Social Science Journal, 38, 177–188. doi:10.1016/ S0362-3319(01)00106-9

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. Cole, D., & Zhou, J. (2013). Do diversity experiences help college students become more civically

minded? Applying Banks’ multicultural education framework. Innovation in High Education, 39, 109–121. doi:10.1007/s10755-013-9268-x

Croucher, S. M. (2011). Social networking and cultural adaptation: A theoretical model. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4, 259–264. doi:10.1080/17513057. 2011.598046

Davidson, T., & Garcia, C. (2014). Welcoming the stranger: Religion and attitudes toward social justice for immigrants in the U.S. Journal of Religion & Society, 16, 1–21. Retrieved from http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2014/2014-28.pdf

Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Ezumah, B. A. (2013). College students’ use of social media: Site preferences, uses and gratifications theory revisited. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4, 27–34.

Facebook. (2012). Four degrees of separation. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.4570v3.pdf Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using

G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.

Fetzer, J. S. (2000). Public attitudes toward immigration in the United States, France, and Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18, 108–143. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.ep8930758

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 197

Gault, B. A., & Sabini, J. (2000). The roles of empathy, anger, and gender in predicting attitudes toward punitive, reparative, and preventative public policies. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 495–520. doi:10.1080/026999300402772

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.70.3.491

Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1159–1168. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008

Hampton, K., Sessions Goulet, L., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011). Social networking sites and our lives. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www. pewinternet.org/2011/06/16/social-networking-sites-and-our-lives/

Institute of International Education. (2014). International student enrollment trends 2013/2014. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/ Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/International-Students/Enrollment-Trends

Jackson, L. A., & Wang, J. L. (2013). Cultural differences in social networking site use: A com- parative study of China and the United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 910–921. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.024

Kemmelmeier, M. (2010). Gender moderates the impact of need for structure on social beliefs: Implications for ethnocentrism and authoritarianism. International Journal of Psychology, 45, 202–211. doi:10.1080/00207591003587705

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer- mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(88) 90023-4

Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, Y. Y., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1988). Cross-cultural adaptation: Current approaches. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kite, M. E., & Whitley Jr., B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights a meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336–353. doi:10.1177/0146167296224002

Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences in empathy and sympathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 195–217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.

Li, X., & Chen, W. (2014). Facebook or Renren? A comparative study of social networking site use and social capital among Chinese international students in the United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 116–123. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.012

Lin, J. H., Peng, W., Kim, M., Kim, S. Y., & LaRose, R. (2011). Social networking and adjust- ments among international students. New Media & Society, 14, 421–440. doi:10.1177/ 1461444811418627

Ma, Y. G., Ma, Y. L., & Ito, N. (2014). Exploring the predicted effect of social networking site use on perceived social capital and psychological well-being of Chinese international students in Japan. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 52–58. doi:10.1089/cyber. 2012.0537

Marin, G., & Gamba, R. (1996). A new measurement of acculturation for Hispanics: The bidimensional acculturation scale for hispanics (BAS). Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 297–316. doi:10.1177/07399863960183002

198 K. Snell & C. Zhou

Mayda, A. M. (2006). Who Is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 510–530. doi:10.1162/ rest.88.3.510

McCroskey, L. L. (2002). Relationships of instructional communication styles of domestic and for- eign instructors with instructional outcomes. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Western States Communication Association, Long Beach, CA.

McDaniel, E. L., Nooruddin, I., & Shortle, A. F. (2011). Divine boundaries: How religion shapes citizens’ attitudes toward immigrants. American Politics Research, 39, 205–233. doi:10.1177/ 1532673X10371300

Montreuil, A., & Bourhis, R. (2001). Majority acculturation orientations toward “valued” and “devalued” immigrants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 698–719. doi:10.1177/ 0022022101032006004

Moriyike, L. A., Adenubi, O. S., & Bright, O. (2013). Influence of social networking sites on lifestyles, acculturation, and self esteem of university students in Ondo State, Nigeria. New Media and Mass Communication, 13, 17–25.

Neuliep, J. W. (2002). Assessing the reliability and validity of the generalized ethnocentrism scale. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31, 201–215.

Neuliep, J. W. (2012). The relationship among intercultural communication apprehension, ethnocentrism, uncertainty reduction, and communication satisfaction during initial inter- cultural interaction: An extension of anxiety and uncertainty management (AUM) theory. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41(1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/17475759. 2011.623239

Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997a). The development of intercultural and interethnic communication apprehension scales. Communication Research Reports, 14, 145–156.

Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997b). The development of a U.S. and generalized ethno- centrism scale. Communication Research Reports, 14, 385–398. doi:10.1080/0146337010 9385615

Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The influence of ethnocentrism on perceptions of inter- viewee attractiveness, credibility, and socio-communicative style. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC.

Padilla, A. M. (1980). The role of cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty in acculturation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 47–84). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Padilla, A. M., & Perez, W. (2003). Acculturation, social identity, and social cognition: A new perspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 35–55. doi:10.1177/073998630 3251694

Park, N., Song, H., & Lee, K. M. (2014). Social networking sites and other media use, accultura- tion stress, and psychological well-being among East Asian college students in the United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 138–146. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.037

Powell, J. W. (1880). Introduction to the study of Indian languages (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of

acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149–152. Rokeach, M. (1948). Generalized mental rigidity as a factor in ethnocentrism. The Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43, 259–278. doi:10.1037/h0056134 Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Mueller, A. (2003). Fear of the dark: Interactive effects of beliefs

about danger and ambient darkness on ethnic stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 637–649. doi:10.1177/0146167203029005008

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 199

Schieman, S., & Van Gundy, K. (2000). The personal and social links between age and self-reported empathy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 152–174.

Seelye, H. N., & Brewer, M. B. (1970). Ethnocentrism and acculturation of North Americans in Guatemala. The Journal of Social Psychology, 80, 147–155.

Sidanius, J., Levin, S., van Laar, C., & Sears, D. O. (2008). The diversity challenge: Social identity and intergroup relations on the college campus. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online

social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 434–445. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002

Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. A study of the sociological importance of usage, manners, customs, mores, and morals. New York, NY: Dover.

Teske, R. H. C., & Nelson, B. H. (1974). Acculturation and assimilation: A clarification. American Ethnologist, 17, 218–235.

Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 875–901. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.x

Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 9, 584–590. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.584

200 K. Snell & C. Zhou

Copyright of Journal of Intercultural Communication Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.