Effects of ethnocentrism and online interethnic interactions on interethnic bridging social capital among university students: The moderating role of ethnicity

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 71 (2019) 48–59

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Effects of ethnocentrism and online interethnic interactions on interethnic bridging social capital among university students: The moderating role of ethnicity

T

⁎

Somayeh Mortazavi Ganji Ketaba, , Saeed Pahlevan Sharifb, Davood Mehrabic, Noor Azma Binti Abdul Rahmand a

Universiti Putra Malaysia, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, 43300, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia Taylor’s Business School, Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus, Subang Jaya, Malaysia c Department of Cultural Studies & Communication, Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1437774681, Tehran, Iran d University Technology Malaysia, 81310, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia b

A R T IC LE I N F O

ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Ethnocentrism Interethnic bridging social capital Ethnicity Online interethnic interactions Students Malaysia

The development of interethnic bridging social capital in societies with ethnic diversity is quite challenging when ethnicity is considered an obstacle. Individuals in Malaysian “ethnocratic state” may have their own exclusive ways of interpreting other ethnics. These attitudes may prevent them from effective interaction with people of different ethnic groups. This study examines the relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital, the mediating role of online interethnic interactions, and also the moderating effect of ethnicity on this relationship. A total of 343 Malaysian undergraduates (200 Malays, 105 Chinese, and 38 Indians) from two public universities participated in a self-administered survey. Using structural equation modeling analysis, a negative relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital was found. Also, the results supported the mediating role of online interethnic interactions and the moderating effect of ethnicity on this relationship. The study revealed that in a diverse community, ethnocentrism prevents online interethnic interactions; while virtual interethnic interactions contributes to interethnic bridging social capital. Moreover, minority Indians showed higher interest to be part of multiethnic environments compared with the Malays and Chinese ethnic groups.

Introduction Malaysia is a plural country with 32.4 million population consist of the ethnic groups of Malays (67.4%), Chinese (24.6%), Indians (7.3%) and others (0.7%) (Population Distribution & Basic Demographic Characteristic Report 2010, 2018). From the historical evidence, Malaysian ethnic diversity is an ancient legacy of mostly harmonious relations, but the presence of the largest non-indigenous populations can be attributed to the massive influx of Chinese and Indian immigrant laborers in the country by colonial rulers to meet the labor needs of their colony (Tamam, 2009). Each ethnicity in Malaysia has its own unique culture and heritage, including but not limited to their preferred languages, belief systems, traditions and religions (Mustapha, 2009). Research has shown that the lack of

⁎

Coresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Mortazavi Ganji Ketab), [email protected] (S. Pahlevan Sharif), [email protected] (D. Mehrabi), [email protected] (N.A. Binti Abdul Rahman). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.04.004 Received 19 August 2018; Received in revised form 28 January 2019; Accepted 24 April 2019 Available online 13 May 2019 0147-1767/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 71 (2019) 48–59

S. Mortazavi Ganji Ketab, et al.

unity among the various ethnic groups in Malaysia can be due to their ethnocentric attitude (Isman & Hanafi, 2008). The researchers asserted that when a community becomes overly ethnocentric, interethnic harmony is threatened (Ridzuan et al., 2012). In other words, ethnocentric attitudes may have deleterious effects on the level of trust, cooperation, unity and social participation among community members in a plural society. Social trust, relationships, and norms of reciprocity are known as the pillars to build and sustain social capital in any society. However, when it comes to multiethnic societies like Malaysia, the focus is on “interethnic bridging” social capital. Interethnic bridging social capital refers to a necessity for community development enabling people to draw on resources from those who are ethnically different from themselves (Tamam, 2012). Bridging ties connect people with differences in status, interests, space, and norms and help bind diverse communities to expand social and civic identities. However, social capital can become obscure when various factors such as gender, social class, ethnicity and race impact on social interactions (Scanlon, 2004). The more diverse a community in terms of ethnicity, religion, and education are, the less chance will be for its members to trust, and have social interactions. Consequently, the generation of social capital is limited (Vermeulen, Tillie, & van de Walle, 2012). One of the best locations that different ethnic groups experience interethnic bridging social capital is multiethnic universities. Kent (1996) considers a multiethnic university to be microcosmic in nature, in the sense that the nature of ethnic relations in a multiethnic university can be a small-scale version of a larger multiethnic society. The university context, certainly, provides the best instance of an interethnic contact situation in which ethnic groups frequently meet on a relatively equal status (Finchilescu & Tredoux, 2008). Although ethnic segregation is an issue in Malaysian multicultural university campuses (Aziz, Salleh, & Ribu, 2010; Yeoh, 2006), as of this time only a few relevant studies have been conducted to investigate the extent of interethnic bridging social capital among local students of various ethnic groups (Tamam & Hashmi, 2015; Tamam, 2013). Tamam (2013) suggests that studies on students’ interethnic bridging social capital should investigate the influence of ethnicity, if any, on this social phenomenon. University life tends to be heavily “wired”; students’ contacts are not limited to face-to-face or on-campus communication only but involve a vastly expanded network of interactions with their friends and peers of other ethnic groups via social media. The results of previous studies have shown that new media and virtual communities have the ability to engender, maintain or even weaken levels of social capital, and can even impact on trust, social interactions and generalized norms (Ferlander, 2003; Lee & Lee, 2010). Online communication helps users create new online norms and transfer the norms of real life social relations into online relations. Burkhalter (1999) believes that many of social norms and ills are often regenerated in online environments as well. Due to the importance of virtual interactions, some scholars have studied the links between the Internet and social networking sites with social capital (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2011; Donath, 2007; Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Wellman, Haase, Witte, & Hampton, 2001; Williams, 2006). However, little is known about the relationship between interethnic interactions in the online environment and interethnic bridging social capital in an ethnocentric context. To fill the gap in the literature, this study deals with online interactions across ethnics and bridging social capital embedded in cross-ethnic ties; thus, the terms online interethnic interactions and interethnic bridging social capital are applied. Research has shown that ethnocentrism has deleterious effects on society as it is associated with distrust (Hooghe, 2008). It also reduces the intercultural willingness to communicate (Lin & Lim, 2003). While previous studies have examined the direct relationship between ethnocentrism and intercultural communication, research on the mediating role of online interethnic interactions in the relationship between ethnocentrism and bridging social capital is scarce. Furthermore, most of the studies have been conducted in Western countries so that, the lack of studies on social capital and particularly on interethnic bridging social capital in Malaysian context is extremely evident (Mura & Tavakoli, 2014; Tamam & Hashmi, 2015; Tamam, Idris, & Tien, 2011). Therefore, this study examines the relationships between ethnocentrism, online interethnic interactions, and interethnic bridging social capital and goes one step further to investigate the mediating role of online interethnic interactions on the relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital. Moreover, Malaysian cultural setting and the tendency of Malaysian citizens to stress their own ethnic identity over and above a shared national identity suggest that the relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital may vary among different ethnic groups. Thus, this study also investigates the moderating effect of ethnicity on the relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social. Literature review Interethnic bridging social capital (IBSC) Bridging social capital links diverse groups of people and generalized reciprocity with those who are unlike or dissimilar to you in some important ways, such as different generation, ethnic or gender (Putnam, 2001). Bridging links to what network researchers refer to as ‘weak ties’ (Granovetter, 1983), which are loose connections between individuals. Weak ties may provide useful information or new perspectives for one another but usually will not provide emotional support (Granovetter, 1983). These types of social networks literally produce ‘bridges’ that make this possible for people to become acquainted with individuals whom they might not have had the possibility to encounter in their daily lives (Putnam, 2001). Through bridging social capital, people with different backgrounds connect with other parts of their contacts within social networks (Granovetter, 1983; Putnam, 2001). Although bridging social capital is the enabler that allows various people to mix easily, Putnam (2007) indicated community cooperation, social trust, and informal socializing as the main aspects of social capital are negatively affected by neighborhood diversity. Heterogeneity imposes the negative effects on social capital. Higher diversity leads to diminishing in the total level of network interconnectedness and interethnic trust, compared to what it would be in a homogeneous society (Laurence, 2009; Putnam, 2007). Social networks of weak ties would likely encounter the stronger negative effect of diversity compared with a homogeneous one. It is 49

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 71 (2019) 48–59

S. Mortazavi Ganji Ketab, et al.

because bridging heterogeneous ties are weaker and more vulnerable. Laurence (2009) asserted that ethnically diverse areas would face more difficulties compared to homogeneous communities. As interactions between different ethnic groups occur infrequently, then this will lead to lower levels of trust and reciprocity. Ethnic homogeneity is a precondition for high social capital (Hero, 2007), but an ethnically diverse situation with differences in languages, cultural conflicts, religious barriers as well as historical disputes can adversely affect a wide range of social capital indicators such as cohesion, trust, social networks, and social interactions (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2002; Coffé & Geys, 2016; Hooghe, Reeskens, & Stolle, 2007; Lancee & Dronkers, 2011; Leigh, 2006; McLaren, 2003; Putnam, 2007; Stolle, Soroka, & Johnston, 2008; Sturgis, Brunton-Smith, Read, & Allum, 2011; Vermeulen et al., 2012). According to Braica (2014), the university is a small nation that has its own beliefs and values which reflects the wider nation in miniature. Assuming this is true, interethnic bridging social capital among different students is vital for the proper functioning of academic institutions. Multiethnic universities environments create opportunities for different groups of students to experience crossethnic ties and benefit from them (Tamam, 2013). Multiethnic higher education with academic freedom and collegiality atmosphere is the key to bridging ethnic differences (Mustapha, 2009). However, a study in a multiethnic university in Malaysia indicated that despite the continuous calls for different students to mingle regularly, the students are not ethnically integrated (Tamam, 2013). As the student body in most universities in Malaysia becomes more diverse in the future (Mustapha, 2009), interethnic bridging social capital among students in multiethnic universities in this country is increasingly relevant. Not only in real life but also a plethora of researchers studied social capital in the virtual world. For instance, some scholars asserted that college students who use social network sites to learn about people they met offline for the purpose of “social information-seeking”, and “expressive information sharing”, have a higher bridging social capital feeling (Ellison et al., 2011; Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2010). Ellison et al. (2007) conducted a survey study of undergraduates at a large university and found that Facebook usage associated with social capital. This relationship includes bridging social capital which underlined the informational advantages of a heterogeneous network of weak ties. These studies indicated that individuals who are involved in certain social network sites activities may be more likely to obtain social capital benefits and increasing bridging social capital may connect with latent ties while using the site. The process of social capital in the online sphere was studied in the Malaysian context as well. Jaafar and Munira (2011) applied the concept of social capital in light of online communities in Malaysia and found a significant difference in social capital definition in online interactions. The researchers claimed although online networking reinforces communication among members, trust, and norms of reciprocity were affected by different socio-cultural issues. Jaafar and Munira (2011) indicated although in Malaysia social capital is embedded in online media, not all online bridging social capital emerges in offline interactions among all various ethnic groups. The researchers asserted that bridging social capital among members of some online communities could not be successfully expanded in offline interactions too. Jaafar and Munira (2011) found that online and offline bridging social capital in Malaysia depend on trust and reciprocity between various ethnic groups. However, differences in language use, religious and cultural practices are the barriers in forming bridging social capital across Malay, Chinese and Indian communities in this nation. In another study, Rahimi (2012) mentioned that using Facebook has a positive effect on online bridging social capital among Malaysian students. The fact is that cultural capital, class relations, and gender impact on community members; they curb social capital expansion across ethnic lines in online relationships. Therefore, employing the social capital concept in online networking is a challenging process in Malaysia (Jaafar & Munira, 2011) and needs to be considered in this study. Ethnocentrism and interethnic relations Ethnic diversity itself does not make any difference in social interactions; however, people's feelings and reactions deserve indepth considerations. One of the most common concerns in multiethnic communities is the development of ethnocentric attitudes. It is more likely that Malaysia with multiethnic heterogeneous population faces the same issues. Considering that Malaysia is characterized as an “ethnocratic state” (Haque, 2003), it is crucial to consider the possible relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital in this study. ‘Ethnic’ is about cultural heritage, and ‘centrism’ refers to the central starting point. So, ethnocentrism refers to judging other ethnic groups from one’s cultural viewpoint (Bircan, 2010). Ethnocentric behaviors are based on group borders that are usually defined by at least one visible characteristic such as physical features, language, accent, or religion as indicating common descent (Hirschfeld, 1998; Kurzban, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2001). Ethnocentrism has deleterious effects on society and associates with distrust (Hooghe, 2008). Ethnocentric individuals strongly prefer to restrict their contacts with those they consider as in-group members, often at the expense of outsiders. It is easy for them to ignore, neglect, or oppress perceived out-groups. Then, continuous of this trend leads to the reduction of interethnic bridging social capital. Therefore, the lack of weak ties in heterogeneous community damages interethnic bridging social capital and consequently, fragments the society. Many scholars worldwide believe that in societies with high levels of ethnocentrism, it is more challenging to maintain cohesion and keep solidarity amongst members (Hooghe, 2003; Sniderman, Peri, & de Figueiredo, 2002). It leads to misunderstandings and reduces intercultural willingness to communicate (Lin & Lim, 2003). In the eye of an ethnocentric person, outsiders are automatically considered untrustworthy and potentially dangerous. Although one of the main laudable goals of higher education institutions is to make sure that graduates are prepared to live and work in an increasingly diverse society (Bastedo, Batkhuyag, Prates, & Prytula, 2009), many of them across the world have failed to actively encourage their students to interact across ethnic backgrounds (Robinson, 2012). Students’ engagement in intercultural interactions has been found to contribute to intercultural understandings, intercultural competence, and intercultural relationships 50

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 71 (2019) 48–59

S. Mortazavi Ganji Ketab, et al.

(Arellano, Torres, & Valentine, 2008; Hurtado, 2005), but having an ethnically diverse classroom and campus environment do not necessarily mean students will naturally engage in intercultural interactions and relationships (Hurtado, 2005). This fact emphasizes the importance of ethnicity as Fong and Isajiw (2000) have argued that no discussion of ethnic relations and cross-ethnic ties is complete without investigating the impact of ethnicity. Online interethnic interactions Although multicultural higher education institutions are considered opportunities for students to increase positive cross-ethnic ties, computer-mediated communication transformed physical social networks into cyber networks as a new form of social relationships. Online communication mostly keeps people indoors, and when they get involved with it, they usually pay less attention to their physical and social surroundings (Lin, 2002). Past studies revealed that positive interethnic interactions among ethnically diverse peers in colleges or universities play a vital role in achieving the educational benefits. These learning outcomes include an increased commitment to democratic values (Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2005; Saenz, Ngai, & Hurtado, 2007), an enhanced overall satisfaction, belonging, and persistence (Hurtado, 2005; Locks, Hurtado, Bowman, & Oseguera, 2008), more positive academic and social self-concept (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002), improved leadership skills and cultural understanding (Antonio, 2001), and higher levels of civic interest (Gurin et al., 2002). When it comes to ethnic diversity, social network sites are communication tools to connect different users. Differences in class, religion and culture, language, lifestyle as well as the social gaps, have made it more difficult for ethnic communities to communicate effectively. Although, social network sites are alternative ways to promote social interactions between different groups of users (Jaafar & Munira, 2011), a study on online communication in asynchronous contexts indicated that high school and college students mentioned their ethnic groups frequently and requested the ethnic group of their conversational partners (Whitaker & Hill, 1998). Tynes, Reynolds, and Greenfield, (2004) found that many of the boundaries that may exist between ethnic groups are more fluid online. In other words, when segregation is increasing in environments, ethnically diverse groups come together online and try to find their own ethnic group for conversations with specific people (Tynes et al., 2004). Friendship and friend relationships play vital roles in the generation of social capital (Bubolz, 2001; Heimtun & Abelsen, 2012). Considering a theoretical association between interethnic interactions and social capital root in cross-ethnic ties (Rydgren & Sofi, 2011), cyber communication has brought about the idea of employing social capital within the context of the online interactions. In this regard, some researchers indicated that virtual communities could complete and, to some extent, reshape social capital development (Quan-Haase & Wellman, 2004; Stone & Hughes, 2002). Social media in Malaysia can be a useful tool in enabling interethnic interactions; relationships can be made easier without visual cues, and it can generate solidarity among various ethnic groups (Ridzuan et al., 2012). Low (2011) indicated in his study that Facebook surfing is a significant daily activity of most Malaysian students and 91 percent of the respondents spent at least one hour on this social network site. Low (2011) claimed that Facebook is vital for Malaysian students to keep in touch with friends, publicize news and find a date; it is as if they were addicted to using it on a daily basis, and can be upset when deprived of online communication. Hence, the role of online communication in unifying is as crucial as face-to-face interethnic interactions for Malaysians. The research context The official quota of student intake in Malaysian public universities is set at 55% for Malays and 45% for non-Malays, while in practice, such quota may well be 75% and 25%, respectively (Kim, 2001). However, two public universities with good balance students of different ethnic groups were selected. The reason was that they had a high number of local students and ethnic breakdown of the students’ population was 6:3:1 of Malays, Chinese and Indians which reflects the population ratio in Malaysia. The units of analysis of this study were the Malay, Chinese and Indian undergraduate students, studying at these universities. Although past literature suggested that students’ experiences with diversity impact positively on their educational outcomes, according to Tamam (2012) little is known about the effects of ethnic-related diversity on undergraduates in Malaysian universities. Post-graduate students were not included in the study because undergraduate students have to attend the classes regularly and have different opportunities to be in contact with students of other ethnics. A majority of local undergraduate students of all ethnics live in residential colleges. Various forms of activities throughout the year are provided by these residential colleges and students are required to pass a couple of compulsory courses related to ethnicity, culture, and ethnic relations (Tamam, 2013). So, these activities would lead students to bridge to each other and communicate beyond ethnocentric attitudes. But there exists a paucity of data on the extent to which the students actually experience interethnic bridging social capital through interethnic interactions (Tamam, 2013). Since a majority of undergraduate students have daily face-to-face communication with peers of other ethnic groups on campus, they may tend to build or expand their online relationships via social media as well. Indeed, choosing the students allow researchers to control for the effect of face-to-face interactions and assess the importance of online relationships. So, the students’ online relationship is significant. Therefore, based on the literature and the discussions, the present study was carried out to test the following hypotheses: H1. There is a negative relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital. H2. There is a negative relationship between ethnocentrism and online interethnic interactions. H3. Online interethnic interactions is positively related to interethnic bridging social capital. 51

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 71 (2019) 48–59

S. Mortazavi Ganji Ketab, et al.

H4. Online interethnic interactions mediates the negative relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital. H5. Ethnicity moderates the indirect relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital through online interethnic interactions. Methods Participants and procedure To achieve a study sample that represents the population, stratified quota-sampling procedures were employed. A total of 343 undergraduate students, out of 392 were approached, voluntarily participated in a self-administered cross-sectional survey indicating a response rate of 87%. The respondents were from four residential colleges with ethnic ratio in the student body that best approximate the Malaysian national 6:3:1 ethnic ratio of Malays, Chinese, and Indians. Of the 343 respondents, 200 were Malays, 105 were Chinese, and 38 were Indians. The respondents’ age ranged from 18 to 27 years with a mean of 21.90 (SD = 1.58). They were more females (57%) than males (43%). The samples represent all levels of undergraduate students; first-, second-, third-, and forthyear students, 30.1%, 29.5%, 23.9% and 16.5% respectively. Instruments Ethnocentrism To measure ethnocentrism, this study used the Neuliep’s (2002) generalized ethnocentrism (GENE) scale. The original scale consisted of 22 items measured with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The Neuliep’s (2002) scale has been found reliable and widely used by many other studies (Borden, 2007; Capell, Dean, & Veenstra, 2008). However, the word culture in the items was changed to ethnic to fit the context of the study. It is because the focus of this research is on each main ethnic group in Malaysia not a unified Malaysian culture. The word culture could mislead them to consider all of the ethnic groups as a whole and answer the items as a Malaysian citizen. However, respondents should act as a representative of own ethnicity in this study. For example [Most other cultures are backward compared to my culture] was changed to [Most other ethnics are backward compared to my ethnic] or the item [Most people from other cultures just don't know what is good for them] was modified to [Most people from other ethnics just don't know what is good for them]. Online interethnic interactions The seven items of online interethnic interactions were extracted from Your First College Year YFCY Survey (2015). The items concerning interethnic interactions on campus are one component of this particular questionnaire. Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) has been developed the YFCY survey with 200 different items to assess the academic and personal development of students at college (YFCY Survey, 2015). This survey instrument has been validated in multiple studies (Fuentes, Alvarado, Berdan, & DeAngelo, 2014; Hawkins, 2012). However, the items were modified to fit the context of the study. The online concept was added to each item for emphasizing on interethnic interactions in cyber space. Respondents were asked to indicate how frequent they had online interethnic interactions (i.e., e-mails, chat rooms, social network sites and so forth), with response options ranging from never (1) to very often (5). Examples of the items on the scale includes [I use online media to interact with peers and friends of different ethnics; I had meaningful and honest online discussions about ethnic relations with peers and friends of different ethnics]. Interethnic bridging social capital The 20 items of the interethnic bridging social capital (IBSC) with a five–point Likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree were adopted from Tamam’s scale on interethnic bridging social capital. Here are some examples of the items; [I am willing to spend time to support campus student activities that are multiethnic in nature; Most of the times I prefer to work in a multiethnic group in course assignments; I like to get involved in activities design for students of all ethnic groups]. For validity assessment of ethnocentrism, online interethnic interactions, and interethnic bridging social capital, both face and content validity were employed. Also, reliability test was conducted to examine the internal consistency of the collected data. Face validity assessment For assessing the face validity of the instrument, thirty students (10 Malays, 10 Chinese and 10 Indians) were invited to assess and comment on the appropriateness, relevance and ambiguity of the survey items. Also, the necessary time for completing the questionnaire was determined in this step. There were no major issue in the questionnaire and the scales measured what was supposed to measure. Only a few items were amended based on the students’ comments. Content validity assessment In this step, the questionnaire was provided to three experts. They were professors in the Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication at University Putra Malaysia. They were asked to assess and comment on the wording, items allocation, and scaling of the items (Colton & Covert, 2007). The researchers adjusted the scales according to their respective expertise. 52

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 71 (2019) 48–59

S. Mortazavi Ganji Ketab, et al.

Reliability assessment To assess the reliability of the scales, the present study employed Cronbach’s Alpha. The computed reliability coefficients were .86, .87, and .91 for ethnocentrism, interethnic bridging social capital, and online interethnic interactions respectively. Based on Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson, (2010) the generally agreed upon lower limit of Cronbach’s Alpha is .70. Cronbach’s Alpha of all the scales was above the generally agreed limit, indicating internal consistency among the items of the constructs. Moreover, composite reliability for ethnocentrism, interethnic bridging social capital, and online interethnic interactions was .87, .90, and .93 respectively that established construct reliability of the constructs (Pahlevansharif & Sharif Nia, 2018). Data analysis and results Variables were screened for outliers and missing data. Descriptive statistics including mean and standard deviation of continues variables as well as frequency and percentage of categorical variables were computed using SPSS v. 20. The total item score for each construct was computed and used in a linear regression model to test the hypotheses. AMOS software package v. 24. was used as it allows researchers to perform mediation and multi-group analysis simultaneously. In testing the mediation hypothesis, a bootstrapping approach with 2000 replications was used. Bootstrapping is a nonparametric approach that makes no distributional assumptions of variables. Standard errors and confidence intervals of indirect effects estimated through bootstrapping are more accurate and have a higher statistical power than other methods such as the Baron and Kenny (1986) and Sobel (1982) (Pahlevansharif & Sharif Nia, 2018). In testing the moderation effect of ethnicity, a multi-group analysis was performed to compare the relationships of the mediation model across the three ethnic groups of Malays, Chinese, and Indians. All tests were two-tailed and a p-value of less than .05 was considered to be statistically significant. The descriptive statistics of the variables and the results of conducting Pearson correlation analysis to assess the relationship among the variables across different ethnic groups are reported in Table 1. As it is shown, among Malay and Chinese participants while there was a significant positive association between interethnic bridging social capital and online interethnic interactions, ethnocentrism was negatively related to interethnic bridging social capital and online interethnic interactions. However, this study could not find any significant relationship among the variables in Indians. Table 2 reports the results of assessing the moderated mediation model. There was a significant negative relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital (b = −0.502, p < .001) providing support for H1. Ethnocentrism was negatively related to online interethnic interactions (b = −0.492, p < .001) and online interethnic interactions was positively associated with interethnic bridging social capital (b = 0.168, p < .001) supporting H2 and H3 respectively. Also, a significant negative indirect relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital through online interethnic interactions was found (b = −0.083, p < .001) that supported the mediation hypothesis, H4. The model explained 29.2% of the variance of interethnic bridging social capital. The results of conducting a multi-group analysis revealed that the relationship between ethnocentrism and online interethnic interactions was significantly different between Malays (b = −0.646, p < .001) and Indians (b = 0.287, p = .328). Similarly, the results of assessing this relationship among Chinese (b = −0.341, p < .05) and Indians (b = 0.287, p = .328) showed that difference between these two ethnic groups was quasi-significant, p = .064. Also, there was a quasi-significant difference among Chinese (b = 0.209, p < .001) and Indians (b = 0.027, p = .780) on the relationship between online interethnic interactions and interethnic bridging social capital, p = .091. Finally, the indirect relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital among Malays (b = −0.105, p < .001) and Indians (b = 0.008, p = .615) was almost significant, p = .054. The results showed partial support for H5. The model explained 32.3%, 34%, and 6.9% of the variance of interethnic bridging social capital among Malays, Chinese, and Indians respectively. Discussion The present study was set out to assess (i) the relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital, (ii) the mediating role of online interethnic interactions in this relationship, and (iii) the moderating effect of ethnicity on the mediation model. The interest to examine this moderated mediation model is because of the premise that interethnic bridging social capital is of significance on two grounds. First, the construct interethnic bridging social capital as applied in this study is not only to measure interethnic relations in term of perception toward others of different ethnics. It is in terms of how individuals are integrated into a multiethnic society to tap the resources embedded in the cross-ethnic ties. Second, interethnic bridging social capital fosters personal development. The literature suggests theoretical linkages between ethnocentrism, interethnic interactions, and interethnic bridging social capital, however, empirical evidence on the mechanism behind these relationships is lacking. The findings support the assertion that variation in the level of interethnic bridging social capital among university students depends on students’ ethnocentric level. Interethnic bridging social capital, like any other forms of social capital, is vulnerable to ethnocentrism-originated mistrust. People who are strongly ethnocentric are often expressing some form of personal insecurity, and are eager to see the worst in disliked or hated ethnic groups. Therefore, an increase in ethnocentric attitudes decreases the level of interethnic bridging social capital among various ethnic groups. Also, the results indicated that ethnocentric attitudes could be barriers against effective online communication with other people of different ethnics. The findings showed that ethnocentrism had a significant negative effect on online interethnic interactions. Students with ethnocentric attitudes tended to reduce their virtual communication with peers of other ethnics. This study showed the 53

54 2.389 3.670 2.264

0.415 0.445 0.746

−.468

−.273 .389***

2.346 3.706 2.379

OII: Online Interethnic Interactions, IBSC: Interethnic Bridging Social Capital. * p < .05. *** p < .001.

[1] Ethnocentrism [2] IBSC [3] OII

***

Mean

***

OII

IBSC

Mean

SD

Malay

All Samples

Table 1 The results of Pearson correlation analysis across the ethnic groups.

0.423 0.437 0.753

SD −.505

IBSC ***

***

−.363 .427***

OII 2.308 3.647 2.478

Mean

Chinese

0.377 0.391 0.660

SD

−.470

IBSC ***

*

−.195 .430***

OII

2.220 4.053 2.711

Mean

Indian

0.445 0.487 0.811

SD

−0.259

IBSC

0.158 0.003

OII

S. Mortazavi Ganji Ketab, et al.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 71 (2019) 48–59

55

−0.502***

−0.492*** 0.168*** −0.420***

−0.083***

Total effect Ethnocentrism →IBSC

Direct effect Ethnocentrism → OII OII → IBSC Ethnocentrism → IBSC

Indirect effect Ethnocentrism → OII → IBSC

[−0.145,0.041]

[−0.676,− 0.308] [0.113, 0.223] [−0.520,− 0.320]

[−0.602,-0.402]

95% CI [LB-UB]

−0.105***

−0.646*** 0.163*** −0.415***

−0.521***

b

Malay

[−0.200,−0.041]

[−0.877,− 0.415] [0.092,0.234] [−0.542,− 0.288]

[−0.644,−0.398]

95% CI [LB-UB]

−0.071*

−0.341* 0.209*** −0.416***

−0.487***

b

Chinese

[−0.193,−0.009]

[−0.672,− 0.010] [0.115,0.303] [−0.581,− 0.251]

[−0.663,−0.311]

95% CI [LB-UB]

b: unstandardized path coefficient, OII: Online Interethnic Interactions, IBSC: Interethnic Bridging Social Capital. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. ▲ p < .10, ns p ≥ .10.

b

Path

All Samples

Table 2 The results of assessing the moderated mediation model.

0.008

ns

0.287 ns 0.027 ns −0.291▲

−0.283ns

b

Indian

[−0.053,0.128]

[−0.289, 0.863] [−0.161, 0.215] [−0.634, 0.052]

[−0.620,0.054]

95% CI [LB-UB]

ns

0.565

ns

1.489 ns 0.753 ns −0.005

0.314

ns

Malay-Chinese

ns

1.926▲

2.956** −1.333 0.669 ns

1.574

ns

Malay-Indian

z-value of the difference

ns

1.299

ns

1.855▲ −1.693▲ 0.643 ns

1.164

Chinese-Indian

S. Mortazavi Ganji Ketab, et al.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 71 (2019) 48–59

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 71 (2019) 48–59

S. Mortazavi Ganji Ketab, et al.

Internet in a heterogeneous society with the ethnicity issue, not only is unable to strengthen the online weak ties but also weaken these ties. Therefore, the boundaries which ethnic groups set in the real life are more fluid online, as different ethnic groups tend to find their ethnic groups for the online interactions (Tynes et al., 2004). The current study specified that the Internet could act as a double edge sword in different situations. Although the Internet increases number of weak ties across social groups (Hampton, 2003), this research showed it damaged the weak ties in a society with ethnic diversity. According to Haythornthwaite (2002), the new social media serves as tools to enhance weak ties, the result, however, suggests that online tools failed to play the same role in multiethnic communities. Even though Malaysians are social media heavy users, they have yet to reinforce their online interethnic interactions. This finding is in line with Bolong, Tamam, and Abas’s study in 2008 that Malaysians prefer to make the relationship and communicate through the Internet with their own ethnicities rather than other ethnic groups. Moreover, as expected, engagement in positive online interethnic interactions had a significant positive relationship with interethnic bridging social capital, as online interethnic interactions rely on people’s own communication decisions. Indeed, the results supported the theoretical basis arguing that interethnic bridging social capital is concerned with the weak ties that connect individuals to resources that exist outside their inner circles (Tamam, 2012). Online interethnic interactions mostly through social media could have a significant positive effect on interethnic bridging social capital among different ethnic groups. The finding of this study is consistent with previous studies which indicate that online interactions through social media such as Facebook can help to build bridging social capital (Ellison et al., 2007; Kavanaugh, Reese, Carroll, & Rosson, 2005). Phua, Jin, and Kim, (2017) found that Twitter users have the highest bridging social capital, followed by Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat users. As mentioned by other researchers the Internet is considered as a supplement for creating social capital and strengthening weak ties (Haythornthwaite, 2002; Quan-Haase & Wellman, 2004; Stone & Hughes, 2002). Therefore, online interethnic interactions help students not only reduce their prejudice against other ethnic groups but also to encourage them to get involved with others. Furthermore, the results provided support for the mediating role of online interethnic interactions in the relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital. Online interethnic interactions as a mediator could explain the negative relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital. It highlighted the vital role of effective interethnic interactions to boost bridging capital among ethnicities. Past studies (Kavanaugh et al., 2005; Wellman et al., 2001; Quan-Haase & Wellman, 2004) signify that the Internet certainly bolsters the growth of bridging social capital; while this study shows that bridges among different ethnic groups are weak in the online sphere due to ethnicity issues. According to Dekker, Belabas, and Scholten, (2015) online interaction deals with very similar complexities as offline communication. This finding supports Rahimi’s (2012) study in Malaysia that online interactions through Facebook are hardly strengthening weak ties in real life. In other words, ethnocentrism decreases online interethnic interactions; whereas online interethnic interactions strengthen weak ties among students of different ethnic groups. This study showed that ethnicity partially moderated the indirect effect of ethnocentrism on interethnic bridging social capital and ethnicity is still vital to Malaysians. The findings showed that the ethnicity of the Malays and the Chinese negatively affected the relationship between ethnocentrism and interethnic bridging social capital. However, this relationship was not moderated by the minority Indians. The findings indicated that local ethnic groups remain focused on creating a sense of “we” and “us” that excludes an out-group as another, a “them”. The understanding of Malaysia as a diverse country in which there is a desire to live in a harmonious national community is not endorsed by the participants. Cordingley (2001) indicated that only 10% of the students interviewed considered themselves as “Malaysian first”, whereas the remaining tended to identify themselves as Malays, Chinese, and Indians. As Nair-Venugopal (2009, p. 84) also observes about Malaysia, “national identity may be more of a problematic issue now than before”. Ethnicity was important for students except for minority Indians. According to Verkuyten and Khan (2012), the minority group is more concerned about maintaining its subgroup identity identification than with the national category, however, this study showed that this is not true for the Indian minority ethnic group. Minority group members see their social ties as the necessity or desirability for themselves (Tamam, 2013). In addition, Hurtado, Dey, and Trevino, (1994) and Cole (2007) found in their studies that minority students in the US were more interested to interact across ethnic lines compared to the majority. The current study displayed that minority Indian showed higher interest to be part of multiethnic environments compared with the Malays and Chinese ethnic groups. Hence, ethnic diversity per se does not threaten unity and integration; it is the thoughts and beliefs of people which lead them to act on a bias. Limitations A number of limitations in the study should be noted. The samples were only students from public universities, thus limiting the generalization. Replication study involving non-students samples should be carried out to broaden the generalization. The respondents’ age ranged from 18 to 27 years old, future studies should consider an older sample, or older generation to gain a better understanding of their influence on the development of interethnic bridging social capital. Conclusion This study illustrated that reinforcing or reducing interethnic bridging social capital induced by ethnocentrism is explained by students’ online interethnic interactions. Ethnocentrism prevented online interethnic interactions; while virtual interethnic interactions contribute to interethnic bridging social capital in the diverse community. Given that online communication has enough power to strengthen interethnic bridging social capital among youths, monitoring and reinforcing interaction among Malays, Chinese 56

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 71 (2019) 48–59

S. Mortazavi Ganji Ketab, et al.

and Indians on the online realm must be considered as a crucial matter by the Malaysian government. As online interethnic interactions depend on people’s personal choice to take place, positive motivations mainly generated by authorities at the national level can help youths to build friendly connections with those who are ethnically different from themselves. Positive online interethnic interactions among multiethnic students are necessary to prepare them to participate in establishing a democratic society. Therefore, students’ positive experience of being in a diverse environment can equip them with useful tools to live in a multicultural society. Declarations of interest None. Acknowledgement This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics, 85(2), 207–234. Antonio, A. L. (2001). The role of interracial interaction in the development of leadership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in Higher Education, 42(5), 593–617. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011054427581. Arellano, E. C., Torres, M. F., & Valentine, K. (2008). Interactional diversity in border colleges. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(3), 282–297. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1538192708326396. Aziz, Z., Salleh, A., & Ribu, H. E. (2010). A study of national integration: Impact of multicultural values. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 691–700. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.094. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. Bastedo, M., Batkhuyag, B., Prates, E., & Prytula, Y. (2009). Educational policies for integrating college competencies and workforce needs: Cases from Brazil, Mongolia, Ukraine, and the United States. Issue brief. Institute for Higher Education Policy. Bircan, T. (2010). Diversity, perception and ethnocentrism. A multilevel analysis of ethnocentrism in Belgian communities. Bolong, J., Tamam, E., & Abas, W. A. W. (2008). Kejelekitan sosial dan hubungan interpersonal antara kaum dalam komuniti maya melalui Internet Relay Chat (IRC). In J. B. Akmar Hayati Ahmad Ghazali, S. Z. Omar, A. Mua ti, & Z. Ahmad (Eds.). Cabaran Komunikasi Masa Kini (pp. 303–313). Serdang: UPM Publication. Borden, A. W. (2007). The impact of service-learning on ethnocentrism in an intercultural communication course. Journal of Experiential Education, 30(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590703000206. Braica, A. P. (2014). Particularities of the organizational culture in the higher education establishments in Romania. Way, 14(2). Bubolz, M. M. (2001). Family as source, user, and builder of social capital. The Journal of Socio-economics, 30(2), 129–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(00) 00091-3. Burkhalter, M. (1999). Reading race online. Communities in cyberspace60–75. Capell, J., Dean, E., & Veenstra, G. (2008). The relationship between cultural competence and ethnocentrism of health care professionals. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 19(2), 121–125. Coffé, H., & Geys, B. (2016). Toward an empirical characterization of bridging and bonding social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006293181. Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact and intellectual self-concept. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 249–281. Colton, D., & Covert, R. W. (2007). Designing and constructing instruments for social research and evaluation. John Wiley & Sons. Cordingley, P. (2001). Mahathir's dilemma. Dekker, R., Belabas, W., & Scholten, P. (2015). Interethnic contact online: Contextualising the implications of social media use by second-generation migrant youth. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 36(4), 450–467. Donath, J. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 231–251. Ellison, N. B., 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(4), 1143–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13(6), 873–892. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385389. Ferlander, S. (2003). The internet, social capital and local community. Finchilescu, G., & Tredoux, C. (2008). Intergroup contact, social context and racial ecology in South Africa. Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew179–194. Fong, E., & Isajiw, W. W. (2000). Determinants of friendship choices in multiethnic society. Paper presented at the sociological forum. Fuentes, M. V., Alvarado, A. R., Berdan, J., & DeAngelo, L. (2014). Mentorship matters: Does early faculty contact lead to quality faculty interaction? Research in Higher Education, 55(3), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9307-6. Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 201–233. Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–367. Hair, J. F., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River. Hampton, K. N. (2003). Grieving for a lost network: collective action in a wired suburb special issue: ICTs and community networking. The Information Society, 19(5), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/714044688. Haque, M. S. (2003). The role of the state in managing ethnic tensions in Malaysia. The American Behavioral Scientist, 47(3), 240–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0002764203256186. Hawkins, K. T. (2012). Thinking and reading among college undergraduates: An examination of the relationship between critical thinking skills and voluntary reading. Doctoral DissertationKnoxville: The University of Tennessee. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1302. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society, 18(5), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01972240290108195. Heimtun, B., & Abelsen, B. (2012). The tourist experience and bonding. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(5), 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2011.609275. Hero, R. E. (2007). Racial diversity and social capital: Equality and community in America. Cambridge University Press. Hirschfeld, L. A. (1998). Race in the making: Cognition, culture, and the child’s construction of human kinds. MIT Press. Hooghe, M. (2003). Value congruence and convergence within voluntary associations: Ethnocentrism in Belgian organizations. Political Behavior, 25(2), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023899813242.

57

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 71 (2019) 48–59

S. Mortazavi Ganji Ketab, et al.

Hooghe, M. (2008). Ethnocentrism. Hooghe, M., Reeskens, T., & Stolle, D. (2007). Diversity, multiculturalism and social cohesion: Trust and ethnocentrism in European societies. Hurtado, S. (2005). The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations research. The Journal of Social Issues, 61(3), 595–610. Hurtado, S., Dey, E. L., & Trevino, J. G. (1994). Exclusion or self-segregation? Interaction across racial/ethnic groups on college campuses: S. Hurtado. Isman, M. Z., & Hanafi, F. (2008). Perpaduan Politik Asas Integrasi Nasional di Malaysia. In M. Z. Mat Kib, W. H. Kabul, & S. Salahudin Suyurno (Eds.). Hubungan Etnik di Malaysia (pp. 59–69). Sejarah Iltizam & Cabaran Baru. Jaafar, W., & Munira, W. (2011). On-line networks, social capital and social integration: A case study of on-line communities in Malaysia. Kavanaugh, A. L., Reese, D. D., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2005). Weak ties in networked communities. The Information Society, 21(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01972240590925320. Kent, N. J. (1996). The new campus racism: What’s going on? Thought & Action, 12(2), 45–57. Kim, Q. (2001). University quota: National interests or racial ego. Seachange. Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(26), 15387–15392. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.251541498. Laird, T. F. N., Engberg, M. E., & Hurtado, S. (2005). Modeling accentuation effects: Enrolling in a diversity course and the importance of social action engagement. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 448–476. Lancee, B., & Dronkers, J. (2011). Ethnic, religious and economic diversity in Dutch neighbourhoods: Explaining quality of contact with neighbours, trust in the neighbourhood and inter-ethnic trust. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(4), 597–618. Laurence, J. (2009). The effect of ethnic diversity and community disadvantage on social cohesion: A multi-level analysis of social capital and interethnic relations in UK communities. European Sociological Review, 27(1), 70–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp057. Lee, J., & Lee, H. (2010). The computer-mediated communication network: Exploring the linkage between the online community and social capital. New Media & Society, 12(5), 711–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809343568. Leigh, A. (2006). Trust, inequality and ethnic heterogeneity. The Economic Record, 82(258), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2006.00339.x. Lin, N. (2002). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action, vol. 19. Cambridge University Press. Lin, R. A., & Lim, S. (2003). Ethnocentrism and intercultural willingness to communicate: A cross-cultural comparison between Korean and American college students. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 32(2), 117–128. Locks, A. M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N. A., & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of campus climate and diversity to students’ transition to college. The Review of Higher Education, 31(3), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2008.0011. Low, S. Y. (2011). Awareness of invasion of privacy on social networking site among youth in Malaysia: A case study of facebook. McLaren, L. M. (2003). Anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe: Contact, threat perception, and preferences for the exclusion of migrants. Social Forces, 81(3), 909–936. Mura, P., & Tavakoli, R. (2014). Tourism and social capital in Malaysia. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(1), 28–45. Mustapha, R. (2009). Social integration among multi-ethnic students at selected Malaysian universities in Peninsular Malaysia: A survey of campus social climate. Asean Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (AJTLHE), 1(1), 35–44. Nair-Venugopal, S. (2009). Interculturalities: Reframing identities in intercultural communication. Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(2), 76–90. Neuliep, J. W. (2002). Assessing the reliability and validity of the generalized ethnocentrism scale. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31(4), 201–215. Pahlevansharif, S., & Sharif Nia, H. (2018). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Iran, Tehran: Artin Teb. Papacharissi, Z., & Mendelson, A. (2010). 12 Toward a new (er) sociability: Uses, gratifications and social capital on Facebook. Media perspectives for the 21st century, 212. Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. J. (2017). Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 115–122. Population Distribution and Basic Demographic Characteristic Report 2010. Thursday 07, May 2015, Retrieved from https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r= column/ctheme&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09&bul_id=MDMxdHZjWTk1SjFzTzNkRXYzcVZjdz09. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty‐first century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. Quan-Haase, A., & Wellman, B. (2004). How does the Internet affect social capital. Social capital and information technology, 113 135–113. Rahimi, S. (2012). Facebook and social capital: An examination of Malaysian undergraduate in university of Malaysia (Unpublished Masters’ thesis). Malaysia: University of Malaya. Ridzuan, A. R., Bolong, J., Omar, S. Z., Osman, M. N., Yusof, R., & Abdullah, S. F. M. (2012). Social media contribution towards ethnocentrism. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 517–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.158. Robinson, T. E. (2012). Exploring how white and Asian American students experience cross-racial interactions: A phenomenological study. University of Massachusetts Boston. Rydgren, J., & Sofi, D. (2011). Interethnic relations in Northern Iraq: Brokerage, social capital and the potential for reconciliation. International Sociology, 26(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0268580910380981. Saenz, V. B., Ngai, H. N., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Factors influencing positive interactions across race for African American, Asian American, Latino, and White college students. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9026-3. Scanlon, C. (2004). What’s wrong with social capital? Australian Fabian Society and Arena Publications. Sniderman, P. M., Peri, P., & de Figueiredo, R. J., Jr. (2002). The outsider: Prejudice and politics in Italy. Princeton University Press. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.). Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). Washington DC: American Sociological Association. Stolle, D., Soroka, S., & Johnston, R. (2008). When does diversity erode trust? Neighborhood diversity, interpersonal trust and the mediating effect of social interactions. Political Studies, 56(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00717.x. Stone, W., & Hughes, J. (2002). Empirical meaning and measurement validity. Australian Institute of Family Studies June. Sturgis, P., Brunton-Smith, I., Read, S., & Allum, N. (2011). Does ethnic diversity erode trust? Putnam’s ‘hunkering Down’thesis reconsidered. British Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123410000281. Tamam, E. (2009). Influence of interethnic contact on interethnic attitudes of Malay and Chinese-Malaysian university students in Malaysia. Human Communication, 12(1), 53–66. Tamam, E. (2012). Race-related diversity experiences in lifelong learning: Impacts on undergraduates’ intercultural sensitivity and interracial bridging social capital. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1756–1760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.373. Tamam, E. (2013). Interracial bridging social capital among students of a multicultural university in Malaysia. Journal of College Student Development, 54(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0000. Tamam, E., & Hashmi, M. (2015). Predicting interethnic bridging social capital in youth ethnic-diversity engagement: The role of interethnic interaction and intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 21(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2015.1024697. Tamam, E., Idris, F., & Tien, W. Y. M. (2011). Interracial communication and perceptions of the compatibility of different races among Malay and non-Malay students in a public university in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 703–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.168. Tynes, B., Reynolds, L., & Greenfield, P. M. (2004). Adolescence, race, and ethnicity on the Internet: A comparison of discourse in monitored vs. unmonitored chat rooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.09.003. Verkuyten, M., & Khan, A. (2012). Interethnic relations in Malaysia: Group identifications, indispensability and inclusive nationhood. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 15(2), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2012.01374.x. Vermeulen, F., Tillie, J., & van de Walle, R. (2012). Different effects of ethnic diversity on social capital: Density of foundations and leisure associations in Amsterdam

58

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 71 (2019) 48–59

S. Mortazavi Ganji Ketab, et al.

neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 49(2), 337–352. Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. The American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640121957286. Whitaker, E. E., & Hill, E. N. (1998). Virtual voices in “Letters across cultures”: Listening for race, class, and gender. Computers and Composition, 15(3), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.16/s8755-4615(98)90005-6. Williams, D. (2006). On and off the’ net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 593–628. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00029.x. Yeoh, E. K.-K. (2006). Ethnic coexistence in a pluralistic campus environment. GeoJournal, 66(3), 223–241. Your First College Year (YFCY) Survey. Retrieved from https://heri.ucla.edu/your-first-college-year-survey/.

59