Soft power: From ethnic attraction to national attraction in sociological globalism

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 565–577

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Soft power: From ethnic attraction to national attraction in sociological globalism Seong-Hun Yun a,*, Jeong-Nam Kim b a

Kansas State University, A.Q. Miller School of Journalism and Mass Communications, 221 Kedzie Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506, United States Purdue University, Department of Communication, 2176 Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and Education, 100 North University Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Accepted 19 September 2008

This paper explores the influence of ethnic relations in sociological globalism on the formulation process of a country’s soft power (i.e., national attraction). People migrate into a country, become an ethnic group, and experience sociological contact/interaction with other ethnic groups, through which they form more concrete and experiential attitudes toward each other. In turn, these attitudes affect their perceptions of other ethnic groups’ homeland countries. With soft power being defined as favorability toward a foreign country, this paper investigates the influence of ethnic relations in a three-predictor regression model of soft power—ethnic relations, between country relationship quality, and normative performance (i.e., reputation) of a country. In testing the model, this study uses secondary data consisting of U.S. national surveys including polls of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations on perceptions of foreign countries and aggregate nationlevel data. The findings show that ethnic relations has a sizable, significant influence on favorability, second to relationship quality, with normative performance having a weak, insignificant influence. This paper further discusses the findings’ implications for contemporary public diplomacy practice and theory and outlines directions for future study of ethnic relation’s influence on soft power in sociological globalism. ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Soft power National attraction Ethnic attraction Sociological globalism

1. Introduction On 26 April 2007, a gunman killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in the deadliest shooting rampage on or off a school campus in U.S. history. Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho, the mentally disturbed perpetrator, was identified as a South Korean citizen who had lived in the United States as a permanent resident since he was 8 years old. The massacre triggered criticism of U.S. laws and systems for dealing with gun violence, the mental health of a pathetic student, and the responsibility of college administrators. Less visible in the U.S. media’s coverage on the shooting spree was the response from the government of South Korea. Then president Roh Moo-hyun urgently expressed his deepest condolences and apologies to U.S. President Bush and Americans (‘‘South Koreans,’’ 2007), fearing possible racial prejudice and reprisal attacks against about 2 million Korean Americans and nationals in the United States. In fact, the concern of the South Korean government went beyond merely ensuring the safety of Koreans in America. The government also tried to minimize possible harmful ramifications of the crime perpetrated by its national on the country’s image among Americans. According to The Korea Times (Kim, 2007), an English-language paper, the Korean Tourism Organization (KTO) withdrew its ‘‘Sparkling Korea’’ television advertisement

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.-H. Yun), [email protected] (J.-N. Kim). 0147-1767/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.09.001

S.-H. Yun, J.-N. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 565–577

566

from CNN after the shooting. A KTO official said that it would be inappropriate to air the advertisement featuring images of Korea’s culture, people, and natural beauty in the aftermath of the crime. On the surface, the reaction of South Korean government was a prompt apology and low-key approach to handling the country’s image crisis abroad, and the crisis event was a hideous, aberrant, and individual crime by an ethnic Korean in the context of mental disorder and the U.S. culture of gun use. Viewed from the big picture, however, the concern of the South Korean government touches on a significant yet unattended dynamic of sociological globalism in the formulation process of a country’s national image or attraction. People migrate into a country and become an ethnic group, and experience historical, sociological, and everyday contact/interaction (i.e., ethnic relations). In these relations, ethnic groups form more concrete and experiential perceptions or attitudes (i.e., attraction/disattraction) toward each other. In turn, these affect their perceptions of other ethnic groups’ homeland countries. Today’s world has become a place where ‘‘single ethnic, homogenous societies have become increasingly outdated, and most societies are now characterized by a degree (and often a high degree) of diversity’’ (UN International Organization for Migration, 2005, p. 42). Historically and continuously creating sites of contact/interaction among peoples, sociological globalism has now reached a new stage where its consequence should be taken seriously for public diplomacy (Yun & Toth, 2008), defined as ‘‘a government process of communicating with foreign publics’’ (Tuch, 1990, p. 3), and whose contemporary focus is on building up and exercising ‘‘soft power’’ (Nye, 2004)—national attraction in the term’s ordinary usage. In short, the purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of ethnic relations in the United States, the most multiethnic, immigrant country in the world, on the perceived soft power among U.S. citizens toward foreign countries from which ethnic groups have originated. In the following we offer our conceptual framework, including definitions of key concepts, synthetically drawing on primarily the literatures of public diplomacy, soft power, international relations, and ethnic relations. 2. Conceptual framework 2.1. Soft power The notion of soft power, introduced in the 1980s by Joseph Nye, former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. According to Nye (2004), a country’s soft power is the country’s ability to get what it wants through attraction rather than coercion. He envisioned a country’s soft power as opposed to its hard power (i.e., military power) to be a new rule of the game in international politics after the demise of the Cold War and theorized on three resources of soft power—culture, domestic political, social, and economic governances, and foreign policies. Two decades later, soft power has become the central currency in public diplomacy since former Director of British Foreign Policy Centre Mark Leonard (2000), Nye (2004), other thinkers, policy commentators, and practitioners attended to its value and potential for public diplomacy. Nye’s conception of soft power is a construct of general attitude, perception, or image that a country’s citizens have on a foreign country, which is similar to conceptions of favorability toward a foreign country and national image in the literatures of international relations and marketing, specifically country of origin. Without using the language of soft power, international relations scholars Nincic and Russett (1979) first attempted the study of the formulation process of a country’s soft power by defining it as favorability among the general population toward foreign countries. Similarly, extant studies of country of origin conceptualize a country’s national attraction as a construct of image (i.e., national or country image) and investigate its influence on consumer evaluations on foreign products (e.g., Laroche, Papadopoulos, & Mourali, 2005; Papadopoulos, 1993; Papadopoulos, Marshall, & Heslop, 1987). Nincic and Russett’s (1979) study treated favorability as a dependent variable, whereas studies of country of origin conceived national image as an independent variable with focus on measurement of multidimensions of national image. Although their schemes differ (i.e., prediction of national favorability vs. measurement and effect of national image), their studies lay out a similar model of national attraction as an overall categorization of an attitude along cognitive and affective dimensions. Nincic and Russett (1979)1 theorized that perception of U.S. national interest in a foreign country (a cognitive factor) and perception of socioeconomic similarity (a mix of cognitive and affective factors) to the United States influence favorability among U.S. citizens. Their construct of socioeconomic similarity is an amalgam of cognitive and affective dimensions because the variable contains both affective property, sociodemographic factors (race, religion, and language), cognitive property, and beliefs about countries’ normative performance on political and economic governance (GNP per capita and democracy). Papadopoulos, Heslop, and the IKON Research Group (2000) and Papadopoulos et al. (1987) also theorized on three components of national image: (a) cognitive (beliefs about the country’s normative attribute), (b) affective (affection to the country’s people), and (c) conative (desired levels of interaction with the country). Their three components converge into two broad dimensions – affective and cognitive – because the conative eventually belongs to cognitive properties. Based on both lines of research, we conceptualize soft power to be explained by two affective and cognitive dimensions and propose a three-predictor (resources) model of soft power: an affective factor – (ethnic relations as a consequence of sociological globalism dimension) and two cognitive factors – relationship quality between two countries and normative performance of a country on its domestic governance.

1

They, however, did not use perception measures for national interest and similarity but rather objective aggregate data.

S.-H. Yun, J.-N. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 565–577

567

On the one hand, our specification of soft power resources is similar to Nye’s (2004) in that both include normative performance of a country in its domestic political, social, and economic governance areas. On the other hand, however, ours is more specified, based on a relational perspective. First, it is more likely for a country’s citizens to feel attraction or disattraction from the quality of bilateral relationships that bilateral foreign policies forge, and less likely from a foreign country’s policies with other countries. Second, although fascinating, conceptualizing and measuring attraction of a country’s culture to foreign citizens is no easy task—it is difficult to exclusively establish the national ownership of or identification with a certain cultural value because it is widely shared by many countries, even if it may have historically originated from a particular country. In place of culture, our model of soft power contains the quality of ethnic relations, another level of relationship linkage between peoples in sociological globalism. 2.2. Ethnic relation Research on images of foreign peoples has traditionally emphasized the primary role of international news and culture media as the main image former—e.g., the Foreign Images Study for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (Sreberny-Mohammadi, 1985). Kunczik (1997) described a reality in which the mass media shape images of foreign peoples. ‘‘Most people depend on second hand experiences or information for what they know about foreign countries and [peoples]. And for most of them, this information is not important to shaping their lives, so there is usually no need to try to obtain first hand information. Because most people’s scope of experience is naturally very limited and their knowledge of complex social processes in foreign countries comes mainly from the mass media’’ (p. 12). However, the reality is ever-changing. Whereas knowledge of social processes in foreign countries is still supplied by the powerful mass media, images of peoples are subject to a more complex and situated formation process with the evolution of sociological globalization. The global dimension of human mobility has created sites (multiethnic immigrant countries) of constant contact and interaction (ethnic2 relations) among peoples, who used to be isolated from each other in their own national territory. To be sure, sociological globalization is not a new phenomenon in the 21st century. It has been a central part of human history, shaping and reshaping societies, cultures, and economies. The 19th and the early 20th centuries witnessed waves of large-scale migration in history as people migrated to new lands such as North America. After a brief decrease in the mid20th century, people migration picked up new momentum, and the annual flow/historical volume of migrants between the late 20th century and today is reaccelerating sociological change in a large part of the world. According to the U.N. agency the International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2005), the total number of international migrants has jumped by 121 million over the past 45 years, from 75 million in 1960 to 82 million in 1970, 175 million in 2000, and 191 million in 2005, when one in every 35 people around the world was a migrant. At the same time, an increasing number of countries in both the North and South have become interwoven into a web of people flow as they play roles of both source and destination countries. The number of countries that host more than one-half million migrants has increased from 30 in 1960 to 64 by 2005; also, countries where migrants account for more than 10% of the population have increased from 48 in 1970 to 70 by 2000. The force of people mobility has unarguably made the United States as the most complex site of ethnic relations. The country has been the largest recipient state of international migrants, with a historical stock of 38 million migrants in 2005; the number of immigrants in 2000 was 28.4 million, the largest ever recorded in the nation’s history and a 43% increase since 1990. As a percentage of the population, in 2000 immigrants accounted for more than 1 in 10 residents (10.4%), the highest percentage in 70 years (U.S. Congressional Budget Office, 2004). As of 2000, there were 92 different ethnic groups (categorized by ancestry) in the United States, which had a population-base of at least 0.1 million; 37 ethnic groups with more than 1 million; and 7 ethnic groups with more than 15 million for each (Brittingham & de la Cruz, 2004). In the literature of American ethnic relations (Jones, 2003; McAllister & Moore, 1991; Parrillo & Donoghue, 2005; Walsh, 1990), perceptions, attitudes, or attraction between ethnic groups are found to be affected by more closely perceived racial and cultural demarkers. At the same time, they are substantially influenced by sociological and historical factors such as an ethnic group’s socioeconomic status, recency of immigration, degree of assimilation into the mainstream culture, political struggle/negotiation between the majority and minority ethnic groups in every aspect of the public sphere, and country of origin. Of such ethnic relations in the United States, the relations between African Americans and Korean immigrants showcase the sociological nature of interethnic communication. According to Chang and Leong (1994), African Americans began experiencing close contact with Korean immigrants in the early 1980s, as the immigrants settled into their residential areas as middleman merchants running liquor, laundry, and convenient stores. Together with racial and cultural demarkers, their immigrant–merchant and poor native–clientele relationship fundamentally set their relations in an atmosphere of friction and strain, with visible conflicts across metropolitan cities, culminating in the Los Angeles civil unrest in 1992.

2 Cohen (1974) defines an ethnicity (ethnic group) ‘‘a collectivity of people who (a) share some patterns of normative behavior and (b) form part of a larger population, interacting with people from other collectivities within the framework of a social system’’ (p. ix). In his view, migrants from independent stocks of populations such as nations within their own national territories move to another nation and constitute the culture groups that, in interaction in a common context (i.e., state), become ethnic groups.

568

S.-H. Yun, J.-N. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 565–577

Thus the nature of between-ethnics communication in a multiethnic state is close, direct, experiential, and sociological, compared to the nature of communication between peoples through the international news and culture media, which is essentially distant, mediated, and superficial. Attraction between ethnic groups is deeply rooted in the life experiences and social learning of each individual member of an ethnic group and of each ethnic group as a whole. As a result, it can become a powerful and concrete social psychological attribute among the population of the state, playing the role of a cognitive shortcut (i.e., affection) for people in forming their overall attitudes toward foreign countries from which ethnic groups originate. Consequently, attraction/disattraction from ethnic relations should be stronger in affecting national attraction than attraction/disattraction from simple demographic similarity between two peoples separated in their countries. Nincic and Russett’s (1979) study partially examined the influence of similarity in demographics (race, religion, and language) between two peoples of the United States and a foreign country on U.S. citizens’ favorability toward the countries. Their study found that the more similar the demographics between two peoples (i.e., Caucasian, Judeo-Christianity, and Indo-European language) the more favorably a foreign country is viewed by U.S. citizens. The study, however, derived attraction from objectively observed similarities in demographics between two peoples living in their respective national territories. It did not directly tap into attraction from ethnic relations in the United States, which are largely formed in historical sociological processes including demographics and other socioeconomic and political factors. Because attraction between and among ethnic groups of the United States is more historical, situational, and experiential than comparative between-country demographic similarities, it should have a more powerful influence on the soft power of a foreign country felt by U.S. citizens. By the same token, although racial similarity is known to influence attitudes toward other ethnic groups (Jones, 2003), the factor alone should not be decisive in forming attraction/disattraction toward a foreign country, such that racial similarity with a foreign people is unlikely to have a systematic association with national attraction. 2.3. Relationship quality and normative performance While ethnic relation or affection from it is an affective dimension that influences national attraction, there can be two more resources of attraction on evaluative dimension toward foreign countries: relationship quality between two countries and normative performance (i.e., reputation) of a foreign country on its domestic governance. Relationship quality has two dimensions: fundamental, long-term, and historical vs. fluctuational, short-term, and temporary. As Russett and Deluca (1981) pointed out, short-term and temporary political events or state behaviors (conflict or cooperation) cause favorability among the public toward foreign countries to fluctuate to some degree, regardless of whether both countries have maintained either bad or good relationships for a long period. However, fluctuations in favorability and their range depend on the quality of fundamental and long-term bilateral relationships, and the nature of fundamental relationship is historical, accumulative, and relatively stable across time. Once both countries have built sound relationships, temporary political strains may hurt favorability toward each other, but as these strains pass, the quality of underlying, structuralized relationships should recover favorability. According to Gallup’s (2007) polls on perceptions of foreign countries, favorability among U.S. citizens toward France and Germany nosedived after both countries opposed and refused to take part in the U.S.-led military action against Iraq at the end of 2002. In the following 2 years, favorability of France dropped from 79% (February’02) to 47% (February’04). However, the country’s favorability soon started rebounding, although slowly, to 51% (February’05), 54% (February’06), and 57% (February’07). Germany’s favorability shows a faster recovery pattern than for France: 83% (February’02), 69% (February’04), 73% (February’05), 79% (February’06), and 83% (February’07). Although ethnically divergent inside, citizens of a multiethnic nation care equally for their national self-interest in relationship to foreign countries. Thus the higher the quality of the relationship with a foreign country, the more likely people will form a strong attraction toward the country. The normative performance of a country on domestic governance is the quality of behavioral performance of a country in areas of governance, such as politics, economy, and social well-being. Unlike relationship quality, this variable of normative performance is not relational, but rather an attribute (i.e., reputation) that a country has from its quality domestic governance. Just as a country gains reputation from its normative foreign policies in the forms of foreign aid, conflict mediation, or policy initiatives in global environmental issues, the quality of domestic governance alone does not solely form the country’s reputation. However, considering that only quality domestic governance leads to responsible participation in global governance, quality domestic governance can be the ultimate source of reputation for a country. In short, because of its normatively appealing nature, the quality of a country’s domestic governance affects the soft power of the country among citizens of foreign countries. 2.4. Hypotheses and research question  H.1: Ethnic relation in the United States is likely to have an influence on a foreign country’s soft power felt by U.S. citizens. R.Q.1: What is the relative importance of the three resources (ethnic relation, relationship, and reputation) in the formation of soft power?  H.2: Racial similarity with a foreign country is unlikely to have a decisive, systematic association with the country’s soft power felt by U.S. citizens.

S.-H. Yun, J.-N. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 565–577

569

 H.3: Ethnic relation in the United States, which has been historically and sociologically formed, is likely to have more influence on the soft power of foreign countries among U.S. citizens than the countries’ demographic similarity to the United States. 3. Method 3.1. Operationalization 3.1.1. Dependent variable 3.1.1.1. Soft power. This was operationalized by the degree of favorability among citizens toward foreign countries. Of a number of such favorability measures in U.S. polls, we used the feeling thermometer3 of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR). The thermometer measure has a 100-point scale, on which a score of 100 indicates the highest favorability and a score of 0 indicates the lowest. Since 1978 the CCFR has measured U.S. citizens’ favorability toward foreign countries every 4 years with national, random samples. Soft power of foreign countries, captured by favorability measures, has been shown to strongly correlate with the countries’ bottom-line security interest—U.S. citizen’s willingness to defend those countries. Russett and Deluca (1981) found a high correlation (r2 = .74) between favorability and willingness to defend for 10 countries, based on poll data from the American Institute of Public Opinion in the years 1975 and 1976. 3.1.2. Independent variables 3.1.2.1. Ethnic relations. This was operationalized by the Bogardus Social Distance Scale, defined as ‘‘the degree of intimacy that people are prepared to establish in their relations with others’’ (Park, 1924). Bogardus (1927) developed his social distance scale to measure attitudes toward some 30 ethnic/racial groups in the United States. His scale captures the quality of ethnic relation mainly through the degree of social contact people are willing to have with ethnic/racial groups. Bogardus first used his scale with a nationwide survey of college students in 1926, and established his measure as the most widely used scale in the study of American ethnic/racial relations through longitudinal national surveys in 1946, 1956, and 1966. Several subsequent replications have been conducted to track the status of ethnic/racial relations in the country in 1977 (Owen, Eisner, & McFaul, 1981), 1993 (Kleg & Yamamoto, 1998), and 2001 (Parrillo & Donoghue, 2005). The original 1926 study and all of the subsequent replications measured six subdimensions of the construct of ethnic relations with minor variations in question wording: acceptance as (1) a kinship member, (2) a personal friend, (3) a neighbor, (4) a coworker, (5) a speaking acquaintance, and (6) a visitor to the country. Since ethnic preferences and prejudices have an enduring quality, the rankings or standings of ethnic groups in the United States on the Bogardus scale have remained largely similar throughout the past 70 years. The top tier consists of White Caucasian ethnic groups from British and derivative WASPs, followed by Northern Europeans such as Germans, Irish, French, and Scandinavians. The middle tier is composed of Southern, Central, and Eastern European ethnic groups such as Italians, Greeks, Poles, Russians, and Jews. The bottom tier is filled with non-White ethnic groups such as Hispanics, Africans, Asians, and Arabs. However, there have been notable shifts in the overall structure of rankings as well as the standing of individual groups. According to Parrillo (2006), although the overall relative standings of ethnic groups remain similar, social distance among U.S. ethnic groups has shrunk for the past three decades. The overall mean score of 1.44 is significantly lower than the 1977 overall mean score of 1.93, as is the spread in social distance of .87 compared to 1.38. The rise of Italians from the middle tier to the top tier is remarkable. In the 2001 study Italians occupied the second position ahead of the previously dominating English, Canadians, and French. Greeks also jumped into the seventh position. In addition, studies (Parrillo, 2006; Parrillo & Donoghue, 2005; Smith & Dempsey, 1983) of social distance also found that between-country relationships (ally vs. enemy) as well as normative governance (communist vs. democratic) influence social distance toward an ethnic group under some circumstances, particularly when the ethnic group’s homeland country is communist or has political and military conflicts with the United States. 3.1.2.2. Relationship quality. This was operationalized by a single indicator—the total number of accumulated, bilateral treaties in force in all dimensions of the relationship between both countries. Although singular, the variable of bilateral treaties captures the degree of exchange and cooperation between both countries in all such areas of relationships as trade/ commerce/finance/economy, military/defense/security, education, transportation, tourism, culture, taxation, labor, science, telecommunication, and environment. Bilateral treaties dictate the breadth and depth of enabling legal frameworks, not only for states to manage their government-to-government relationships but also for citizens of both states to engage in and develop a web of multifaceted relationships.

3 The CCFR’s polls on American public opinion and U.S. foreign policy ask the following favorability question: ‘‘I’d like you to rate your feelings toward some countries, with 100 meaning a very warm, favorable feeling, zero meaning a very cold, unfavorable feeling, and fifty meaning not particularly warm or cold. You can use any number from zero to one hundred, the higher the number the more favorable your feelings are toward that country’’.

570

S.-H. Yun, J.-N. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 565–577

The number of bilateral treaties has been used in the literature of between-country relations. East and Gregg (1967) used bilateral treaties as a single indicator for between-country cooperation. Nonetheless, use of cumulative bilateral treaties in force has weaknesses and strengths. The counting unit is not sensitive to delicate changes in a variable and its effect, which can be captured by the units of amount or volume (i.e., annual flow in trade or investment in monetary units). However, the stocked nature of bilateral treaties can be more reliable in capturing the depth and breadth of fundamental relationship between countries and the relationship’s historicity. Moreover, increasing volume of trade may harm relationships under some circumstances, such as trade imbalance. The economic exchange relationship alone, although substantial, does not necessarily reflect the overall, bottom-line, foundational quality of between-country relationships. The measure of bilateral treaties between the United States and a foreign country was obtained from the Bilateral Treaties in Force for the United States (U.S. Department of State, 2007). 3.1.2.3. Normative performance. This was operationalized by the degree of normative performance of a foreign country in three spheres of domestic governance: wealth, democracy, and social well-being. Wealth (the quality of economic life) was measured by GDP per capita, and democracy (the quality of political life) was captured by Freedom Score (Freedom House, 2007). The Freedom Score measures a country’s normative performance on two areas (political rights and civil liberties), and average scores between both areas were used. Social well-being (the quality of social life) was measured by the Human Development Index (HDI) of the UNDP (1996,2004). As a composite measure, the HDI captures the quality of social wellbeing in three general areas of social life (life expectancy, literacy/education, and standard of living), and has been used as the standard measure of well-being. 3.2. Samples and data preparation Our study has two samples of two time points: 2002 (N = 27 foreign countries) and 1994 (N = 16). The choice of year and sample under study was made based primarily on data availability for the Bogardus Social Distance. Since Bogardus’s last national survey in 1966, three replications have been conducted in 1977, 1993, and 2001. Of the three measures, those of 2001 (Parrillo & Donoghue, 2005) and 1993 (Kleg & Yamamoto, 1998) were chosen for study because they are more timely regarding the recent and far more diverse ethnic configuration of the United States. Parrillo and Donoghue’s (2005)4 study had 2916 students from 22 colleges and universities across the United States; they updated Bogardus’s original list of 30 ethnic groups by deleting nine groups that had become far less visible and instead included nine new groups that had become visible because of their sizable number in the U.S. population. Kleg and Yamamoto’s replication was conducted with a nonrepresenative sample of 135 middle school teachers in a Colorado metropolitan area school district, which was similar to Bogardus’s initial study in 1925 with a sample of 110 young businessmen and public school teachers. They reported scores of Bogardus’s Social Distance for 24 ethnic groups. Accordingly, the measures of CCFR’s favorability in 2002 and 1994 were used because of their nearest time points to each of the two measures of Bogardus’s Social Distance. Both the 2002 and 1994 polls were based on random national sampling. The 2002 poll’s5 sample size was 3262 adults, and was conducted between 1 and 30 June 2002, through telephone and faceto-face interviews; the 1994 data6 polled 1492 adults between 7 and 25 October 1994 through face-to-face interviews. For the indicators of relationship quality and normative performance, the data of 2002 and 1994 were used. Particularly with the indicator of relationship quality (i.e., the total number of bilateral treaties), all treaties that had cumulatively entered into force up to 31 December 1994 and 2002 were counted. However, the treaties in force before severance of formal diplomatic relations or a de facto state of war between the United State and a foreign country were not counted because they are in fact dead. Nevertheless, to measure the status of relationship quality more accurately, the treaties entering into force after severance of formal relations were included because they are signs of a rapprochement between the two countries. To prepare data for the main regression analysis, the total number of bilateral treaties was square rooted to achieve normality. Also, a principal component analysis was conducted with the three indicators of normative performance (GDP per

4 In their study the population was defined as the actual U.S. college population. The sample was accomplished based on random selection from an alphabetical listing of 4-year higher education institutions, stratified by the four major regions of the United States (East, South, Midwest, and West). To further ensure a representative sample, the number of surveys to be completed at each institution was prorated according to its total enrollment. Information on the study’s response rate was not published, but Parrillo and Donoghue (2005) reported that except for a high proportion of Catholic respondents and of female respondents, their study’s response rate approximated the actual U.S. college population. 5 In the poll the population was defined as U.S. general public 18 years of age and older. On behalf of the CCFR, Harris Interactive conducted 2862 telephone interviews, using a random digit dialing technique with a national probability sample. In addition, for comparison with the in-person CCFR studies of 1998 and previous years, personal interviews with a national probability sample of 400 individuals were conducted. Data for the telephone and in-person interviews were weighted separately according to known demographic characteristics of the population and merged to form a combined sample (n = 3262). Regarding questions to measure perceptions of the 27 countries, information on the margin of error in response frequencies was not available. However, information on the margin of sampling error for a 55 division of opinion (where margins of error are highest) was reported. At the p  .05 level the margins of error ranged from 1.7 percent points (for questions asked of all respondents) up to four percent points (questions asked of the respondents of a randomly selected subsample) (CCFR, 2003). 6 The 1994 polled the same national adults 18 years of age and older with a national probability sample as the other CCFR polls. Information on the margin of sampling error in response frequencies was not published, but according to the CCFR (1995), poll questions are weighted to eliminate sampling distortion with respect to age, sex or race.

S.-H. Yun, J.-N. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 565–577

571

Table 1 The results of a single-solution PCA for indicators of normative governance. Indicator

2002 loading a

GDP per capita Freedom Scoreb HDI

Percentage of explained variance Eigenvalue a b

1994 loading

.97 .87 .92

.95 .87 .94

84.53 2.54

84.61 2.54

Square rooted. Reversely coded.

capita, Freedom Score, and the HDI indices) to use the scores of a single principal component for analysis. As Table 1 shows, the three indicators were satisfactorily converged into a single construct for both 2002 and 1994. For 2002, a single component explained 84.53% of the total variance among the indicators that loaded highly on the component; for 1994 84.61% of the total variance was accounted for by a single component with high loadings from the indicators. 3.3. Data analysis methods For hypothesis 1 and research question 1, we tested a three-predictor (relationship quality, normative performance, and ethnic relation) regression model of soft power, using the enter (simultaneous) regression method. In doing so, we first based our analysis on the year 2002 and then validated its findings in two ways with a different year’s data (1994) and two split samples from 2002 data, White and African American groups. Hypothesis 2 expects that racial similarity alone, an influential factor on ethnic relations, is unlikely to have a decisive, systematic association with national attraction. To test this hypothesis, we conducted t-tests on favorability between both White and African American groups using 2002 data. Hypothesis 3 expects that ethnic relations is likely to have stronger influence on national attraction toward foreign countries than the countries’ demographic similarity to the United States. To test this hypothesis, we first constructed an alternate model of soft power with the same two predictors (relationship quality and normative performance) but a new predictor (demographic similarity). We then compared the results of regression analysis for the model with those for our base model with ethnic relation. Similar to the measure of socioeconomic similarity in Nincic and Russett’s (1979) study, we devised a demographic similarity measure7 consisting of two indicators: race and religion. On the measure, foreign countries with a higher percentage in their population of White Caucasian and Christian people, including Catholics and Protestants, have greater demographic similarity to that of the United States. A foreign country’s demographic data were obtained from CIA’s World Fact Book, and a single-solution principal component analysis was conducted to extract PC scores from the two indicators. The resulting single component explained 85.84% of total variance with an eigenvalue of 1.71 for 2002. We compared both competing models only in the White American group for 2002 because our measure of demographic similarity was constructed on the properties of White Caucasian race and Christianity. It should thus be more valid for the White group than for the African American group. Appendix A presents the composition of the 2002 and 1994 sample s and data used for analysis. 4. Results Hypothesis 1 speculates that ethnic relation8 has an influence on the soft power of foreign countries felt among U.S. citizens, and Research question 1 asks about the relative importance of the three predictors (relationship quality, normative performance, and ethnic attraction) in predicting and explaining soft power. Table 2 displays Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the variables for 2002 and 1994. With all the coefficients strong and significant at a .01 level, relationship quality has the greatest coefficients with favorability for both years of 2002 (r = .88) and 1994 (r = .90). Table 3 displays the results of regression analysis of our three-predictor model of soft power for 2002. The results show that ethnic relation has a sizable regression coefficient (b = .32**) on favorability, next to relationship quality (b = .56**). However, normative performance has the smallest and insignificant regression coefficient of .16. Because normative performance turned out to be insignificant, we took it out of the model and ran another regression analysis with relationship

7 Nincic and Russett’s variable of socioeconomic similarity is, in fact, a mixture of a country’s demographic similarity to the United States and its normative attributes (democracy and wealth). For demographic similarity, they used three indicators: race (Caucasian), religion (Judeo-Christian), and language (Indo-European). By doing so, they too broadly treated all Caucasians with different regional origins as the same (Europe, the Middle East, and India). Also, language was not specifically defined as English, but rather broadly as Indo-European. For accurate measurement of demographic similarity to the United States, we confined Caucasian to only those of White European origin. 8 Ethnic attraction was operationalized by Bogardus’s distance scale, on which smaller social distances mean greater ethnic attraction. Thus the measure is theorized to have a negative relationship with national attraction. To make interpretation and discussion easier, we reversed negative signs of ethnic relation to positive ones in tables and discussion of findings.

S.-H. Yun, J.-N. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 565–577

572

Table 2 Pearson’s correlation coefficients for favorability and three predictors for 2002 and 1994. Variable 1. 2. 3. 4.

1

Favorability Relationship quality Normative performance Ethnic relation

2

3 **

– .90** .71** .83**,a

4 **

.79**,a .63**,a .73**,a –

.83 .77**

.88 – .74** .75**,a

– .74**,a

Note. Upper diagonal section (2002) and the lower (1994). a Original signs are negative, but signs are reversed for easy interpretation. ** p < .01.

Table 3 Enter regression analysis summary and tolerance/VIF for 2002 and 1994. Variable

Relation Normative Ethnic a * **

B

b

SEB

2002

1994

02

94

02

1.88 2.22 17.45a

1.91 .72 10.85a

.40 1.84 6.02

.49 1.88 5.10

.56** .16 .32**,a

Tolerance 94 .68** .07 .37*,a

VIF

02

94

02

94

.40 .30 46

.37 .37 .36

2.54 3.31 2.20

2.71 2.70 2.76

Original signs are negative, but signs are reversed for easy interpretation. p < .05. p < .01.

quality and ethnic relation only. These two predictors combined explained more than four-fifths of variance in favorability: adjusted R2 = .86 (N = 27, p < .01). The results of regression analysis for 2002 were first validated with 1994 data. The 1994 analysis shows a pattern for the relative size of regression coefficient similar to that of 2002. Ethnic relation has .37*, second to relationship quality (.68**); normative performance for the year also has the smallest, insignificant regression coefficient of .07 (see Table 3). The negative sign of coefficient for normative performance seems to indicate a possible multicollinearity problem. However, considering the coefficient size is practically zero, the sign does not warrant serious consideration. Nonetheless, we conducted diagnostic analyses to check if multicollinearity exists. As Table 3 shows, the values of tolerance and VIF do not indicate any serious collinearity problem. The information on condition index (Table 4) shows that only when a conservative cutoff value (15) of condition index is used, a possible source (u4) of collinearity was found only between intercept (.99) and ethnic relation (.93), not between the predictors. Moreover, while with the presence of multicollinearity the coefficients of other predictors tend to be insignificant, those of relationship quality and ethnic relation are significant, being almost identical to the results of the 2002 analysis. As Table 3 shows, the standard errors of coefficient in the 1994 analysis appear to behave normally, whereas those with mulitcollinearity tend to be too big or small. In short, the diagnostic checks and close examination of statistical information seem to sufficiently rule out any substantial presence and impact of multicollinearity on the model’s prediction power and each predictor’s explanation ability. Meanwhile, with the insignificant predictor of normative performance deleted from the model, relationship quality and ethnic relation combined brought almost the same results, more than four-fifths of variance in favorability accounted for in 2002 analysis: adjusted R2 = .85 (N = 16, p < .01). We conducted a split-sample validation analysis with only two racial groups from 2002 data of the CCFR poll, White vs. African Americans, because the third racial group identified in the poll is not homogeneous, lumping together Asians, Latin Americans, and other races. For the analysis, we used each racial group’s favorability scores toward the 27 countries and ethnic relations (i.e., Bogardus’s Social Distance) scores for the same countries. Table 5 presents the results of split-sample validation analysis. The size and relative order of regression coefficients for each predictor in the two groups appear to be quite similar. Relationship quality has the strongest coefficients of .59** (White) and .50* (African American), followed by ethnic relation .31* (White) and .32* (African American). In addition, normative performance has the smallest, insignificant coefficients in both groups: .13 (White) and .19 (African American). Moreover, the values of coefficient for ethnic relation are almost Table 4 The condition indices and the composition of coefficient variance matrix for 1994: validation analysis. Dimension

Eigenvalue

Condition index

1 2 3 4

2.80 1.13 .07 .01

1.00 1.58 6.36 20.45

u1 u2 u3 u4

Proportion of coefficient variance Intercept

Relational

Normative

Ethnic

.00 .00 .01 .99

.01 .00 .57 .42

.00 .29 .65 .06

.00 .00 .06 .93

S.-H. Yun, J.-N. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 565–577

573

Table 5 Enter regression analysis summary for White and African Americans for 2002. Variable

B

Relationship quality Normative performance Ethnic relation

b

SEB

White

African American

White

African American

White

African American

1.83 1.60 13.90a

1.09 1.67 13.17a

.40 1.84 5.44

.43 1.74 5.24

.59** .13 .31*,a

.50* .19 .32*,a

a

Original signs are negative, but signs are reversed for easy interpretation. p < .05. ** p < .01. *

identical whereas those for the other two predictors fluctuate, which suggests that the influence of ethnic relation on favorability is more stable than the other two predictors across both White and African American groups. In short, findings from the two validation analyses suggest that ethnic relation does have a sizable explanatory power, second to relationship quality, but normative performance has the smallest and insignificant power in the three-predictor model of soft power. Hypothesis 2 speculates that racial similarity with a foreign country is unlikely to have a decisive, systematic association with national attraction among the members of racial groups in the United States. Table 6 shows the results of t-tests on foreign countries’ favorability scores between White and African American groups for 2002. The results can be interpreted more meaningfully with a cross-comparison between White and African countries across both racial groups. With 8 predominantly White Caucasian foreign countries among the 27, White Americans have significantly higher favorability than African Americans toward six countries: Canada, Germany, Israel, Poland, Russia, and the United Kingdom. Two other countries, France and Italy, have no significant differences in their favorability in both groups, which means these two White Caucasian countries are favored by African Americans as much as by White Americans. In contrast, however, African Americans have significantly higher favorability than White Americans toward two predominantly African countries, Nigeria and South Africa. Table 6 Favorability and social distance scores and t-tests of favorability between White and African American groups for 2002. Country

Afghanistan Argentina Brazil Canada China Columbia Cuba Egypt France Germany India Iran Iraq Israel Italy Japan Korea Mexico Nigeria Pakistan Poland Russia Saudi Arabia South Africa Taiwan Turkey U.K.

Favorability

Distance Scores

White

African

DM

d.f.

38.36 48.19 56.68 80.49 49.50 37.59 38.51 46.05 55.20 64.14 49.04 33.92 31.27 59.68 66.16 62.02 50.94 62.35 43.92 37.56 54.27 58.72 37.52 50.27 53.65 48.02 79.69

37.38 49.94 59.19 70.60 53.38 40.61 46.94 53.57 57.25 52.98 51.92 38.05 38.78 50.81 63.02 58.20 43.83 61.07 51.74 37.67 44.92 47.07 42.24 58.42 51.56 48.53 65.23

.98 1.75 2.51 9.90 3.88 3.01 8.43 7.52 2.06 11.16 2.88 4.13 7.50 8.87 3.15 3.82 7.11 1.28 7.82 .10 9.36 11.65 4.72 8.15 2.08 .51 14.46

499 566 121.48a 127.50a 919 561 549 590 607 955 892 753 657 908 942 132.17a 577 952 528 526 578 946 54.51a 67.90a 575 565 123.19a

t .29 .62 1.1 4.34** 1.82 1.13 2.90** 2.84** .69 5.54** 1.41 1.87 3.01** 3.45** 1.61 1.62 2.60* .59 2.86** .03 3.24** 5.90** 1.23 2.65* .77 .18 6.29**

White

African

1.91 1.49 1.49 1.14 1.47 1.49 1.56 1.98 1.23 1.25 1.60 1.98 1.98 1.31 1.10 1.51 1.52 1.57 1.44 1.91 1.38 1.44 1.98 1.44 1.47 1.98 1.16

1.74 1.36 1.36 1.47 1.66 1.36 1.52 1.93 1.53 1.70 1.62 1.93 1.93 1.67 1.35 1.66 1.68 1.54 1.23 1.74 1.80 1.86 1.93 1.23 1.66 1.93 1.59

Note. Social distance scores in both racial groups are from Parrillo and Donoghue (2005). The varying figures of d.f. across countries indicate respondents from the CCFR’s 3262 sample provided differing numbers of valid answers across countries. In our analysis, three categories of invalid answer were ignored: ‘‘not familiar/no opinion,’’ ‘‘not sure,’’ and ‘‘decline to answer.’’ The scores of favorability for both racial groups were directly obtained from the CCFR poll’s raw dataset (CCFR poll # 2002-CCFR: American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2003—General Public [computer file]. Roper Center for Public Opinion Research Study USHARRISINT2002-CCFR. Harris Interactive [producer], 2002. Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut [distributor], 2007). a Equal variance not assumed. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

S.-H. Yun, J.-N. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 565–577

574

Table 7 Pearson’s correlation coefficients for demographic similarity model in White Americans for 2002. Variable 1. 2. 3. 4.

Favorability among Whites Relationship quality Normative performance Demographic similarity * **

1

2

3 **

–

4 **

.81 .77** –

.88 –

.57** .43* .62** –

p < .05. p < .01.

Table 8 Comparison of ethnic relation model and demographic similarity model in White Americans for 2002.a Variable

B

SEB

b

1. Ethnic relation model Relationship quality Normative performance Ethnic relation

1.83 1.60 13.90b

.40 1.84 5.44

.59** .13 .31*,b

2.05 2.58 2.09

.42 1.96 1.38

.65** .20 .17

2. Demographic similarity model Relationship quality Normative performance Demographic similarity a b * **

Enter regression analysis was used for each model. Original signs are negative, but signs are reversed for easy interpretation. p < .05. p < .01.

Additionally, the results show that of the other 17 non-White and non-African countries in Asia, the Middle East, and South America, 4 countries (Cuba, Egypt, Iraq, and Korea) have significantly different favorability scores across the two racial groups. African Americans display higher attraction toward Cuba, Egypt, and Iraq, but lower attraction toward Korea than White Americans. Korea’s lower favorability among African Americans is exceptional, given that the other three East Asian countries (China, Japan, and Taiwan) are similarly favored by both racial groups. In short, the results of cross-comparison between White Caucasian and African countries preliminarily suggest that racial similarity alone does not completely explain differences in national attraction. However, this finding is still open to further inquiry, given the tendency that White Americans favor more Caucasian countries than African Americans do and vice versa (African Americans favor more African countries). Hypothesis 3 speculates that ethnic relations in the United States has a greater influence on national attraction toward foreign countries among U.S. citizens than demographic similarity. As Table 7 shows, the predictor of demographic similarity has a medium sized (.57**) correlation coefficient with favorability. Table 8 presents the results of comparison analysis for our base model with ethnic relation and the alternate model with demographic similarity, which was conducted based on a White American group of 2002 data. The regression coefficient of demographic similarity turned out to be insignificant and smaller (.17) than the significant coefficient of ethnic relation (.31*), which clearly shows the latter has a stronger influence on favorability than the former. In short, the results of the model comparison suggest more strongly that ethnic relation, a sociological construct, has more explanatory power on soft power than demographic similarity. 5. Conclusion Our study of the three-predictor model of soft power has two major findings. First, ethnic relation has a sizable and stable explanatory power on national attraction while relationship quality9 has the greatest power on national attraction, with normative performance having the least and insignificant power. Second, ethnic relation has a stronger power in explaining national attraction than demographic similarity. The implications of these findings are both practical and theoretical. On the practical side, the findings suggest the importance of ethnic relation to foreign governments practicing their public diplomacy in the United States, and call for their

9 Although a single indicator (i.e., the total number of all types of bilateral treaties) was used in this study for the construct of relationship quality, the indicator’s strong correlation coefficients with favorability seemed to be remarkable (r = .88, N = 27 for 2002 and r = .90, N = 16 for 1994) in two ways. First, Nincic and Russett’s (1979) study used four indicators for a construct of national interest (U.S. interest in a foreign country), which is conceptually similar to relationship quality of our study: (a) U.S. direct investment outward, (b) trade (sum of export and import), and (c) the number of U.S. military bases, and (d) personnel dispatched. Principal component scores from these four indicators performed noticeably less than the total number of bilateral treaties alone with Gallup’s favorability measure: r = .76, N = 25 countries (1976) and r = .67, N = 28 (1967). Second, in an additional analysis with the 2002 favorability scores in this study, principal component scores from two indicators (total sum of export and import in goods and total sum of FDI in- and outward) also performed less than bilateral treaties alone: r = .81, N = 27.

S.-H. Yun, J.-N. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 565–577

575

attention on the quality of relations between their diasporas and other ethnic groups in the country. The findings thus issue a call to revisit strategy and practice in public diplomacy that primarily focuses on promoting and marketing national image through mediated new and old mass communication channels—‘‘mass communication public diplomacy approach’’ in Zaharna’s (2007) terms (p. 217) and ‘‘soft power in an information age’’ (Nye, 2002, p. 6). Also, the findings offer an insight into the ongoing search for relationship building between peoples of countries (Fitzpatrick, 2007; Leonard, Small, & Rose, 2005; Nye, 2004). Public diplomacy practitioners have long sought to build quality relationships primarily with the elites of foreign citizens through various cultural/educational exchange programs. Recently, as contacts between ordinary people have increased because of globalization, practitioners have also begun attending to their various contact points in the name of citizen public diplomacy (Public Relations Coalition, 2007), corporate public diplomacy (Reinhard, 2004), and network diplomacy (Zaharna, 2007). The findings of this study show that sociological globalism is creating a substantial yet more complex relationship linkage between peoples that presents a challenge and, at the same time, an opportunity for building national attraction. Furthermore, the findings from this study and other studies of American ethnic relations point out to non-White Caucasian foreign countries their inherent barriers and challenges for working on ethnic relations in the United States, whose majority population is still White Caucasian. More generally, the task of nurturing and managing ethnic relations abroad is not easy for governments because there is the risk of interfering in the sovereignty of a target state, especially as their ethnic group members become naturalized by obtaining citizenship from the state. Notwithstanding, it is becoming even more imperative for governments to find ways to help their diasporas build quality relationships with others if they wish to build a new source of soft power. On the theoretical side, this study is a rare empirical attempt to study soft power, the key word in contemporary public diplomacy research. Theoretical discourses on this subject are abundant, but there has been little empirical theory building. Specifically, this study employed favorability toward foreign countries as a measure of soft power and tested a soft power model constructed on an interface between sociology and international relations in the context of sociological globalization. The prediction power of both relationship quality and ethnic relation is remarkable, accounting for about 85% of variance in national attraction captured by the favorability measure. These two predictors serve as structural factors on favorability; along with another event or state behavior variable such as the Conflict and Peace Data (Azar, 1980) capable of capturing fluctuations in national attraction, they should be able to explain much more variance in favorability toward foreign countries. This study’s findings also suggest a serious consideration of the ability of normative performance (i.e., reputation) of a country in predicting and explaining soft power or national attraction. Although it is theoretically and empirically sound (its simple correlation coefficient with favorability is .83** for 2002) as a resource of soft power, the findings show its inefficacy (small and insignificant regression coefficient) in explaining favorability largely due to its common variance with relationship quality and ethnic relation. This contrasts with the role of the variable in composing a measure of national image in the literature of the country of origin. The high correlations ranging between .63 and .77 among ethnic relations, relationship quality, and normative performance work very well in the factorial measurement scheme for national image. To be sure, this study’s findings should be approached with reservations about their generalizability. Like the 1993 measure of Bogardus’s Social Distance Scale, which was based on a nonrepresentative Colorado sample, the 2001 measure did not come from a population sample like other replication measures in the literature. This weakness is inevitable to a large extent because the national replications of Bogradus’s ethnic relations have deliberately used samples of college students for longitudinal comparability. However, future study on the influence of ethnic relations on soft power should benefit from social distance measures based on national representative samples. For future study, we propose an extension of sociological theory into soft power research on the interactions between immigrants and native minorities and between immigrant minorities. Immigrant groups are likely to have a more intense and direct interaction with each other than with majority ethnic groups because of their geographic concentration into urban areas and their similar immigrant status. In 1997 about 60% of immigrants were concentrated in eight major metropolitan cities: Los Angeles (4.8 million), New York (4.6), Miami (1.4), San Francisco (1.4), Chicago (1.1), Washington D.C. (.68), Boston (.61), and Houston (.54) (Schmidley & Gibson, 1999). Overall, almost 95% of the total foreign population lived in metropolitan areas as of 2003 (U.S. Congressional Budget Office, 2004). Of the prospective sociological theories, the middleman minority theory (Blalock, 1967; Bonacich, 1973; Loewen, 1971) is a promising one that addresses the relations between middleman immigrant minorities and low-class, native minorities. In line with the middleman theory, this study’s finding on Korea’s exceptionally lower national attraction among African Americans can be attributed to the worsening relations between Korean immigrants and African Americans. Another theory for extension is the immigrant hypothesis (Cheng & Espiritu, 1989), which predicts milder relations between immigrant groups than those between immigrant groups and native minority groups. The theory argues that immigrant groups are primarily foreign born, sharing a similar immigrant ideology but lacking the privilege of nativity that worsens the relations between immigrant and native minority groups. The immigrant hypothesis calls attention to the interethnic relations between immigrant groups, although it has been increasingly challenged by signs of friction between them, most notably between Korean small business owners and Hispanic employees in metropolitan cities such as Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Chicago (Lee, 2007). In sociological globalism, the process where ethnic relations influence national attraction is so complex, and the consequences of interethnic relations in the United States are not confined to national attraction toward foreign countries

S.-H. Yun, J.-N. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 565–577

576

among U.S. citizens. For instance, attraction among Latino immigrants toward Korean immigrants in the United States is likely to become a powerful ingredient in forming attraction among citizens in Latin countries toward the country of Korea. Unlike in the past, today’s immigrants are no longer isolated and separated from their homelands. Temporary nonimmigrants return with their experiences, and even permanent immigrants are connected physically and virtually to their people, aided by low cost in transportations and communications (International Labor Organization, 2006). Together with word of mouth and interpersonal networks of communication, the mass media of the homelands, finding a local angle from the lives of their fellow people, increasingly report e´migre´s’ ordeals abroad.

Appendix A The composition of two samples and data used for analysis. Country

Favorability 02

Afghanistan Argentina Brazil Canada Chinab Columbia Cuba Egypt Franceb Germanyb Indiab Iranb Iraqb Israelb Italyb Japanb Koreab Mexicob Nigeria Pakistan Polandb Russiab Saudi Arabiab South Africa Taiwanb Turkey U.K.b

29 47 55 77 48 36 35 45 55 61 46 28 23 55 65 60 46 60 42 31 50 55 33 50 50 45 76

M S.D.

48.26 13.66

Social distance

Relationship quality

Normative performance

Demographic similarity

94

01

02

02

02

46

1.88a 1.45a 1.45a 1.20 1.47

55 57 48 28 24 54 58 53 48 57

52 54 48 48 1.94a 69 49.94 10.90

1.28 1.33 1.60 1.94a 1.94a 1.38 1.15 1.52 1.54 1.55 1.43a 1.88a 1.44 1.50 1.94a 1.43a 1.47

93

1.68 1.45a 1.53 1.94a 1.20 1.27 1.95 2.21c 2.21c 1.42 1.19 1.62 1.72 1.56

1.30 1.33 2.21c

1.23

1.68 8.72 1.17

1.55 .25

1.60 .37

4.58 8.49 8.66 16.16 7.14 8.37 2.45 7.68 10.34 12.61 7.62 0 0 8.83 9.75 12.57 9.80 14 5.39 8 8.54 8.43 5.10 6.56 11.53

94

6.08

9.70 11.58 7.4 0 0 8.12 9 10.77 8.89 12.69

8 6.08 4.8

94

S1.86 .28 .07 1.37 S.79 S.24 S.88 S.97 1.24 1.25 S.64 S.63 S1.70 .90 1.23 1.20 .80 .26 S1.40 S1.37 .51 S.25 S.49

S1.54

1.03 1.04 S1.56 S.90 S1.73 .62 .99 1.01 .51 S.14

16.37

9.59 S.19 13.19

1.26

.10 S.27 S.59 .07 .44 S1.05 .97

8.43 4.04

7.85 3.85

.00 1.00

.00 1.00

.94

S1.06 1.42 .70 .87 S1.00 .39 .54 S.98 1.34 1.08 S1.03 S1.04 S1.02 1.05 1.51 S1.05 S.41 .32 S.53 S1.04 1.54 .35 S1.06 .02 S1.00 1.11 .00 1.00

Note. The favorability scores resulted from an adjustment by the CCFR for comparison to take into account mode differences in survey methods between the 2002 and 1994 polls. For three countries, Cuba, Iran, and Iraq, the treaties in force before severance of their formal diplomatic relation with the United States – Cuba (January 1961), Iran (April 1980), and Iraq (January 1991) – were not counted, but the treaties afterward, if any, were counted in. a Parrillo and Donoghue (2005) did not measure Bogardus’ Social Distance for 12 small ethnic groups respectively but instead measured them in four broad designations: Arabs, Muslims, Africans, and other Hispanics/Latinos. The distance scores for these designations were used for Afghanistan/Pakistan (Muslims), Egypt/Iran/Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Turkey (Arabs), Argentina/Brazil/Columbia (other Hispanics/Latinos), and Nigeria/South Africa (Africans). b Countries that also appeared in 1994. c Similarly, Kleg and Yamamoto (1994) measured the distance score for Arabs, and the score was used for Iran/Iraq/Saudi Arabia. Also, both studies did not specifically measure the distance for Taiwanese, the score for Chinese was used for Taiwanese because of their same ethnic origin.

References Azar, E. (1980). The Conflict and Peace Data Bank (COPDAB) project. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24, 143–152. Blalock, H. (1967). Toward a theory of minority group relations. New York: John Wiley. Bonacich, E. (1973). A theory of middleman minorities. American Sociological Review, 37, 547–559. Bogardus, E. (1927). Immigration and race attitudes. New York: DC Heath. Brittingham, A., & de la Cruz, G. P. (2004). Ancestry: 2000. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-35.pdf. Chang, E., & Leong, R. (1994). Los Angeles: Struggles toward multiethnic community. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Cheng, L., & Espiritu, Y. (1989). Korean businesses in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods: A study on intergroup relations. Sociological Perspectives, 32, 521–534. Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. (1995). American public opinion and U.S. foreign policy 1995. Retrieved July 7, 2007, from http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/ UserFiles/File/POS_Topline%20Reports/Archived%20POS%20Surveys/95Report.pdf. Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. (2003). Worldviews 2002: U.S. general population topline report. Retrieved July 8, 2007, from http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/POS_Topline%20Reports/POS%202002/Public%20Topline%20Report%20Worldviews%202002.pdf. Cohen, A. (1974). The lesson of ethnicity. In A. Cohen (Ed.), Urban ethnicity. London: Tavistock. pp. ix–xxiii.

S.-H. Yun, J.-N. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 565–577

577

East, M., & Gregg, P. (1967). Factors influencing cooperation and conflict in the international system. Public Opinion Quarterly, 11, 244–269. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2007). Advancing the new public diplomacy: A public relations perspective. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2, 187–211. Freedom House. (2007). Comparative scores for all countries from 1973 to 2006. Retrieved June 23, 2007, from http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw/ FIWALLScore.xls. Gallup. (2007). Perceptions of foreign countries. Retrieved October 1, 2007, http://www.gallup.com/poll/1624/Perceptions-Foreign-Countries.aspx. International Labor Organization. (2006). International labor migration and development: The ILO perspective. Geneva: ILO. International Organization for Migration. (2005). Migration in an interconnected world: New directions for action. Geneva: IOM. Jones, R. (2003). The segregation of ancestry groups in San Antonio. The Social Science Journal, 40, 213–232. Kim, T-h. (2007, April 19). More Koreans rethink study in US. The Korea Times. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/ nation_view.asp?newsIdx=1317&categoryCode=117. Kleg, M., & Yamamoto, K. (1998). As the world turns: Ethno-racial distances after 70 years. The Social Science Journal, 35, 183–191. Kunczik, M. (1997). Images of nations and international public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., & Mourali, M. (2005). The influence of country image structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products. International Marketing Review, 22, 96–115. Lee, A. (2007, March 12). Korean-Latino relations grow icy. New American Media. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/ view_article.html?article_id=956104e550c2a5e61502487bd2912c9e. Leonard, M., Small, A., & Rose, M. (2005). British public diplomacy in the ‘age of schisms’. London: The Foreign Policy Centre. Leonard, M., & Vidhya, A. (2000). Going public: Diplomacy for the information society. London: The Foreign Policy Centre. Loewen, J. (1971). The Mississippi Chinese: Between Black and White. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McAllister, I., & Moore, R. (1991). Social distance among Australian ethnic groups. Sociology and Social Research, 75, 95–100. Nincic, M., & Russett, B. (1979). The effect of similarity and interest on attitudes toward foreign countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43(1), 68–78. Nye, J. (2002). Hard power and soft power in a global information age. In M. Leonard (Ed.), Re-odering the world: The long-term implications of September 11th (pp. 2– 10). London: The Foreign Policy Centre. Nye, J. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs. Owen, C., Eisner, H., & McFaul, T. (1981). A half-century of social distance research: National replication of the Bogardus studies. Sociology and Social Research, 66, 80–89. Papadopoulos, N. (1993). What product and country images are and are not. In N. Papadopoulos & L. Heslop (Eds.), Product country images: Impact and role in international marketing (pp. 3–38). New York: International Business Press. Papadopoulos, N., & Heslop, L. the IKON Research Group. (2000). A cross-national and longitudinal study of product-country image with a focus on the US and Japan. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. Papadopoulos, N., Marshall, J., & Heslop, L. (1987). Strategic implications of product and country images: A modeling approach. Paper presented at the meeting of the 41st research congress of European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research. Parrillo, V. (2006). Strangers to these shores: Race and ethnic relations in the United States. New York: Pearson Education. Parrillo, V., & Donoghue, C. (2005). Updating the Bogardus Social Distance studies: A new national survey. The Social Science Journal, 42, 257–271. Park, R. (1924). The concept of social distance. The Journal of Applied Sociology, 8, 339–344. Public Relations Coalition. (2007). Private sector summit on public diplomacy: Models for action. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://www.state.gov/documents/ organization/82818.pdf. Reinhard, K. (2004). Testimony before the House subcommittee on national security, emerging threats, and international relations: Hearing on the 9/11 commission recommendations on public diplomacy. Retrieved March 23, 2007, from http://www.businessfordiplomaticaction.org/action/written_testimony.pdf. Russett, B., & Deluca, D. (1981). ‘Don’t tread on me’: Public opinion and foreign policy in the eighties. Political Science Quarterly, 96, 381–399. Schmidley, D., & Gibson, C. (1999). Population profile of the United States: 1999. Retrieved August 23, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/popprofile/profile.999.html. Smith, T., & Dempsey, G. (1983). The polls: Ethnic social distance and prejudice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 584–600. South Koreans balance sympathy and shame in delicate response to US rampage. (2007, April 20). The International Herald Tribune. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/21/asia/AS-GEN-SKorea-US-Shooting-Sympathy-and-Shame.php?page=1. Sreberny-Mohammadi, A. (1985). Foreign news in the media: International reporting in 29 countries. Paris: UNESCO. Tuch, H. N. (1990). Communicating with the world: US public diplomacy overseas. New York: St. Matin’s. United Nations Development Programme. (1996). Human development report 1996. Paris: UNDP. United Nations Development Programme. (2004). Human development report 2004. Paris: UNDP. U.S. Congressional Budget Office. (2004). A description of the immigrant population. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of State. (2007). Treaties in force 2007. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/treaties/2007/index.htm. Walsh, A. (1990). Becoming an American and liking it as functions of social distance and severity of initiation. Sociological Inquiry, 60, 177–189. Yun, S. H., & Toth, E. (2008). Future sociological public diplomacy and the role of public relations: Evolution of public diplomacy. American Behaviroal Scientist. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, in press. Zaharna, R. S. (2007). The soft power differential: Network communication and mass communication in public diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2, 213– 228.