Who's interacting? And what are they talking about?—intercultural contact and interaction among multicultural university students

ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Who’s interacting? And what are they talking about?—intercultural contact and interaction among multicultural university students Rona Tamiko Halualania,, Anu Chitgopekarb, Jennifer Huynh Thi Ahn Morrisonc, Patrick Shaou-Whea Dodgec a

Department of Communication Studies, San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0112, USA b International/Intercultural Studies Division, De Anza College, USA c Department of Human Communication, University of Denver, USA

Abstract This study analyzes the interactional frequencies and patterns of intercultural contact among racially/ethnically different students at a multicultural university. Specifically, the authors examine the amount of intercultural interactions individuals have within a given time period as well as the nature of such contact (e.g., topic of discussion, location, duration, relationship context). A memory-recall survey instrument is used to analyze the contact patterns that occur among various racial/ethnic groups—Latino/as, Blacks/African Americans, Whites/European Americans, and Asian Americans—in the same context. The findings reveal that most of the groups (Blacks/African Americans, Whites/European Americans, and Asian Americans) engage in narrow interaction patterns with only one other major racial/ ethnic group and that most intercultural interaction occurs on-campus in class or off-campus at workplace locations. The findings are also patterned based on (a) the specific racial/ethnic groups involved in the contact, (b) the location of the contact, (c) the topic of interaction, and (d) socioeconomic class. Lastly, this study argues that individuals define intercultural contact

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-408-924-5380; fax: +1-408-924-5396.

E-mail address: [email protected] (R.T. Halualani). 0147-1767/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2004.08.004

ARTICLE IN PRESS 354

R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

in different and often contradictory ways, which informs and shapes future intercultural contact research. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Intercultural contact; Intercultural relations; Multicultural university

By 2020, there will be no racial majority (Ness & Kim, 2001, p. B2) Assuming that the trends in the new federal statistics continue, California will become a ‘‘minority majority’ state within five years. The new federal numbers show that about 51 percent of the state is white. Formal projections for the y area are out of date, but state analysts said that the region will no longer have a white majority sometime around 2008 (McLeod, 1998, p. B2).

1. Introduction Since Census 2000, the US media has regularly highlighted dramatic shifts in the nation’s burgeoning demographic diversity and ethno–racial composition. For example, news reports feature the huge influx of Asian and Latino immigrants and the widespread growth of Asian and Latino communities in areas historically established by Whites/European Americans (for e.g., McLeod, 1998; Ness & Kim, 2001; Ness & McCormick, 2001). Perhaps, most notably, the media hype has celebrated the emerging ‘‘Majority of None’’ demographic in which no one racial/ ethnic group will be the sole majority, and Whites/European Americans will become the new minority (see e.g., Census 2000, 2001; McLeod, 1998). But, in light of such publicized diversity trends, three critical questions remain unanswered: What is the current state of intercultural relations among racially/ethnically different groups, especially in the ‘‘Majority of None’’ era? To what extent are racially/ethnically different groups in culturally heterogeneous contexts actually engaging in intercultural contact with one another? What constitutes the dynamics of such interaction in today’s polycultural settings (i.e., topic, type of relation, location of contact, duration of contact)? These questions have piqued the interests of intercultural contact and intercultural communication scholars alike with regard to the specific contact outcomes found in multicultural settings (Hood & Morris, 1997; Stein & Rinden, 2000). Meaning, given the increased opportunity potential, what are the actual rates of racial/ethnic groups who reside and work together in multicultural contexts, interacting with racially/ ethnically different persons? Popular society has presumed that with the existence of demographic diversity, contact will naturally follow, and groups will positively interact with each other (see e.g., Census 2000, 2001; Ness & Kim, 2001; Ness & McCormick, 2001; Schevitz, Olszewski, & Wildermuth, 2000). However, this presumption belies the various complex ways in which racial/ethnic groups have responded to such potential intercultural contact in diverse contexts. In some instances, racial/ethnic group members have isolated themselves away from such

ARTICLE IN PRESS R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

355

diversity, created tight-knit ethnic enclaves, and withdrawn from intercultural contact. Others have de-emphasized their racial/ethnic identities in response to the contradictory US societal messages that promote diversity while also pushing for the necessary assimilation of all cultural groups. Hence, groups in residential, workplace, and social settings may be situated amid unprecedented demographic diversity and yet ironically, may also have limited or no interaction with one another. This essay, therefore, underscores this potential paradox and examines the frequency patterns and dynamics of intercultural encounters in a specific type of polyethnic setting: the multicultural university. We grew curious about this issue given the diverse makeup of our university student population (which earned us a top 10 ranking for campus diversity in our region) and the self-proclaimed title of ‘‘multicultural university’’ that our institution touts. Thus, we set out to comprehensively investigate intercultural relations at a multicultural university in several research stages that allowed us to analyze different dimensions of contact (for e.g., the frequency, nature, individual sense-makings, and mediated representations of contact). For the first stage, our focus was on studying the actual frequencies and patterns of intercultural interaction as reported by students. More specifically, we asked the following: What are the frequencies and patterns of intercultural interaction among the major racial/ethnic groups? How much intercultural contact are racially/ethnically different groups actually having with one another at the multicultural university? Which racial/ethnic groups are interacting with one another the most and the least? What is the nature of these interactions in terms of the type of relationship between the interactants, the location and duration of these interactions, and the interactional topics of discussions? In order to answer these questions, we employed a principal research tool used by many intercultural contact scholars: a survey instrument based on memory recall measures of past contact (see e.g., Pettigrew, 1986; Powers & Ellison, 1995; Sigelman & Welch, 1993). As such, this study derives exclusively from this first stage of research. This initial stage enabled us to identify important findings, issues, and unanswered questions about intercultural interaction that develop in today’s multicultural university. Subsequently, the insights gained from this study will be used to inform and shape the subsequent multi-method research stages. In this article, we aim to delineate the specific intercultural interaction frequencies and dynamics as found among racially/ethnically different students in a multicultural university setting. First, in a literature review, we trace past intercultural contact research studies and highlight several key unanswered questions that remain about intercultural contact. Here, we contend that intercultural contact studies have primarily investigated intercultural relations within an a priori contact hypothesis model (conditions, effects, experimental manipulations) as opposed to embedded context-specific dynamics that in shift line with the different ethno–racial composition and sociopolitical climate at hand. Second, the method of survey research and data collection and the demographics of our study’s sample are described. The next section features our findings about the interactional frequencies and dynamics (overall and in terms of each specific racial/ethnic group). Lastly, the

ARTICLE IN PRESS 356

R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

conclusions and implications of our findings for future intercultural contact research will be presented.

2. Literature review 2.1. Uncovering the major gaps in intercultural contact research Undoubtedly, extant intercultural contact research dating back to the 1950s, has yielded valuable insights about the conditions under which intergroup contact is favorable and helps to reduce out-group prejudice (also referred to as the contact hypothesis) (see e.g., Allport, 1954, 1979; Williams, 1947; Amir, 1976; Cook, 1985; Ford, 1986; Pettigrew, 1986; Pettigrew & Troop, 2000; Stephan, 1987; Stephan, & Bingham, 1985; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994). Past studies have specifically tested the conditions, effects (attitudinal and cognitive), and outcomes of contact and the many intermingling factors involved in intergroup processes (see e.g., Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield, Aronson, & Sikes, 1977; Bond, DiCandia, & MacKinnon, 1988; Cohen, 1972; Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Johnson & Johnson, 1982; Novell & Worchel, 1981; Riordan & Ruggiero, 1980; Wilder & Thompson, 1980). While such research has contributed important knowledge about the conditions and attitudes of intercultural contact, there still exist three fundamental questions about the actual rates and dynamics of intercultural interaction among racial/ethnic groups in multicultural contexts (see Pettigrew, 1986). In this section, we identify these key questions that emerge out of intercultural contact research and form the impetus for this exploratory study. 2.2. How much actual intercultural contact is occurring between racial/ethnic groups? Through extensive research, intercultural contact scholars have identified and tested the conditions, attitudinal/cognitive effects, and outcomes of contact and the contact hypothesis (see e.g., Allport 1954, 1979; Amir, 1969, 1976; Armor, 1972; Cook, 1985; Deutsch & Collins, 1951; Ford, 1986; Pettigrew, 1986; Stephan, 1987; Stephan & Bingham, 1985; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994). Most of this scholarship has been based on experimental manipulations of intergroup behavior or attitudinal measures of racial/ethnic group members towards racially/ethnically different others. Thus, in the face of extant literature on this topic, there is little known about the actual amount and frequency of intercultural contact that specific racial/ethnic groups engage in (as noted by Ellison & Powers, 1994; Pettigrew, 1986; Sigelman & Welch, 1993; Smith, 1994). Only a handful of scholars (Ellison & Powers, 1994; Sigelman & Welch, 1993; Powers & Ellison, 1995, to name a few) have broached this line of inquiry via self-reports and asked specific racial/ethnic group members about the amount of contact they have had within a specified period of time. Uncovering information about the frequency and amount of contact between various racial/ ethnic groups can proffer valuable insight into the everyday, ‘‘real-world’’, and contextualized nature of intercultural contact. In addition, we may better understand

ARTICLE IN PRESS R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

357

the type of intercultural contact that is occurring between groups and which groups interact the most and the least as opposed to the ideal contact that is presumed to be in operation (or the attitudinal perceptions about contact that may or may not translate into contact behavior). In this way, intercultural contact frequency that specific groups experience in relation to one another can direct researchers to changing demographic and sociocultural factors in polyethnic settings (i.e., increasing immigration, growing racialization of neighborhoods and schools, reformation of ethnic enclaves) that shape contact and its conditions, precursors, and outcomes, thereby revising and extending the contact hypothesis and intercultural contact theory. 2.3. What is the interactional nature of intercultural contact between racial/ethnic groups? Along with contact frequency, the specific interactional nature of intercultural contact has not been fully examined. Meaning, what specifically occurs during intercultural interaction? What topics are discussed in intercultural interactions? How long do these interactions last? Where do these interactions take place? In what type of relationships do intercultural interactions mostly take place? With these questions in mind, we conceptualized ‘‘interactional nature’’ as those elements that actually constitute the interactional process of contact such as the following: duration (the length of time in which contact occurs), setting (in what environments contact takes place), relationship type (the kind of relationship between interactants—as strangers, acquaintances, friends), and interactional topic (the specific conversational topics are discussed during contact, including at what point is race/ ethnicity discussed and what are the difficult points of conversation). Understanding the complex nature of intercultural contact can lend insight into the particular dynamics of contact that exist among racially/ethnically different groups (in general and in relation to specific racial/ethnic group relations—for e.g., Black/African American–Asian/Asian American contact). It would be interesting to trace the variable ways in which contact occurs between racially/ethnically different groups such as with racial/ethnic group members participating in infrequent, brief interactions with one another via limited conversation or longer conversations centering on the immediate context. Moreover, important details such as the extent to which contact is positive or negative, and how, when, and where racial/ethnic group members interact with each other, can be determined. With this focus, scholars are better able to sketch out contact composites for specific groups and retheorize contact conditions and effects for different groups, as evidence has surfaced that the contact hypothesis may indeed operate differently for each racial/ ethnic group (as suggested by Ellison & Powers, 1994; Ford, 1973; Robinson & PrePreston, 1976; Sigelman & Welch, 1993). In this exploratory study, we therefore strive to extend and contextualize intercultural contact theory by providing heuristic insights on the intercultural interactional patterns and details between specific racial/ ethnic groups (i.e., Latino/a–African American, Asian American–Latino–White/ European American contact, among other types.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 358

R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

2.4. What characterizes intercultural contact beyond the Black–White demographic? Surprisingly enough, a key fundamental gap that looms in the intercultural contact literature is the limited knowledge on intercultural contact patterns among various racial/ethnic groups within the same settings. Instead, the predominant focus in intercultural contact studies has been on majority (or White/European American) attitudes towards interacting with minority groups. For instance, most studies have underscored the antecedents and consequences of contact for Whites in relation to Blacks/African Americans (Black, 1976; Fossett & Kiecolt, 1989; Giles, 1977; Giles & Evans, 1985, 1986; Giles & Hertz, 1994; Glaser, 1994; Matthews & Prothro, 1966; Taylor, 1998). Intercultural contact researchers have criticized this focus on White/ European American attitudes/behaviors as restraining in that it simultaneously privileges the White perspective over that of other racial/ethnic groups and marginalizes minority perspectives and contact behaviors (see e.g., Pettigrew, 1986; Stein & Rinden, 2000). There are, however, some notable exceptions. For instance, Sigelman and Welch (1993) and Sigelman, Bledsoe, Welch, and Combs (1996) studied the effects of contact on racial attitudes of Blacks toward Whites. Likewise, Powers and Ellison (1995) surveyed Black respondents on the frequency of their interracial dating and friendship. (See also Ellison and Powers (1994) for their analysis of Black/African American and White/European American contact and friendships as well as Jackman and Crane, (1986). These studies include a racial component but one solely of Black/African American and White/European American contact. What is missing, then, is an examination of intercultural contact among many different racial/ethnic groups (Blacks/African Americans, Latino/as, Asian Americans, and Whites/European Americans) that constitute today’s multicultural environments (Stein & Rinden, 2000). Although Hood and Morris (1997) and Stein and Rinden (2000) have investigated the relationship between majority group attitudes towards minority groups (i.e., Latino/as, Asian Americans), their attention is devoted to the majority attitudes towards contact with minority groups. Therefore, there is a great need in current intercultural contact literature to examine the fundamentals—the frequency and nature—of intercultural contact among various racial and ethnic groups in the same context. We present this study in order to help answer the aforementioned questions that still exist in intercultural contact research. Our purpose is to examine the amount and type of intercultural contact among racial/ethnic groups in a specific type of culturally heterogeneous context: a multicultural university in a Western region of the US Several intercultural contact scholars argue that the university setting is important for analysis due to the ongoing racial hostilities and divisions among students take shape on university campuses (Applebone, 1995; Magner, 1990; Salz & Trubowitz, 1997; Sampson, 1986). Moreover, according to Salz and Trubowitz (1997), undergraduate campuses are ‘‘balkanized’’ with racially separated student organizations, intramural sports teams, and residence halls. They argue that although ‘‘surveys of undergraduate students indicate that a majority express a wish for more involvement with people of different backgrounds, the picture of campus life that emerges today is one of limited and often tense interaction between

ARTICLE IN PRESS R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

359

ethnically different students’’ (p. 83). Thus, the multicultural university context stands as an analytically rich setting for further scholarly examination about the frequency and amount of intercultural contact among groups (Applebone, 1995). Given our interest in the frequency and nature of contact, we decided to base this exploratory study primarily on frequency counts, percentages, and open-ended questions about intercultural interactions. (Information about different groups’ attitudes towards one another and intercultural contact itself will become the focus of subsequent studies.) The research questions for this study include the following:







What is the frequency of intercultural contact among racial/ethnic groups in a multicultural university setting? What is the nature of contact among these groups in terms of duration, type of relationship, specific settings, and topics of discussion? Which racial/ethnic groups interact the most and the least? What are the interactional patterns among racially/ethnically different groups in this setting?

3. Method and data collection For this study, the data collection site is a large (28,000+ students) multicultural university in the Western region of the US over a 2-year period. This university site also stands as a student–commuter campus at which students travel far distances due to the region’s high cost of living, soaring housing prices, and competitive job market. Moreover, on average, students at this university maintain an arduous fourcourse load on top of a 40-h minimum work week. The primary method of data collection is a survey instrument that the authors designed. This survey instrument was distributed to university students in randomly selected General Education course sections which typically serve a varied sample of student majors and demographics. In addition, the survey instrument was distributed in classes during the first 6 weeks of each semester which constitute the ‘‘getting-to-know-you’’ period for university students, and thus, would allow for a more accurate measure of the degree of intercultural interaction occurring among students. In terms of the sample demographics, the student sample consists of a total number of 850 respondents (N ¼ 350 seniors, N ¼ 242 juniors, N ¼ 156 sophomores, N ¼ 102 freshman), with about 70% being in between the ages of 17–21 (N ¼ 595 students between the ages of 17–21; N ¼ 255 students between 22 and 26). Of these 850 students, only 30% or 255 students lived in campus residence halls, while the other 600 students lived off-campus. There is an exactly equal proportion of male to female respondents (N ¼ 425 females, N ¼ 425 males). 60% of the sample are born in the US (N ¼ 510 students) while 40% emigrated to the US (N ¼ 340 students) and have been residing in the US for at least 3 years, thereby reflecting

ARTICLE IN PRESS 360

R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

upon the combination of native-born (and longtime local resident) students and immigrant background students found in the campus population. More specifically, the latter percentage of immigrant background students (40% N ¼ 340 students) can be further classified into two groups: (1) immigrant students who are permanent residents of the US (N ¼ 204 students) and (2) sojourner students (N ¼ 136) who claimed they would return to their countries of origin after a 5-year stay. Interestingly enough, the sample’s racial/ethnic breakdown is closely representative of the university’s racial/ethnic pattern: 30% Asian American (N ¼ 255) [(which includes Chinese/Chinese Americans (N ¼ 68), Vietnamese/Vietnamese Americans (N ¼ 63), Asian Indians (N ¼ 60), Japanese/Japanese Americans (N ¼ 10), Korean/ Korean Americans (N ¼ 5), Filipinos (N ¼ 41), Thai/Thai American (N ¼ 8)]; 29% White/European American (N ¼ 247); 18% Latino/as (N ¼ 153); 7% Black/African American (N ¼ 59); 10% Pacific Islanders (N ¼ 85); and 6% Multiracial (or individuals who are of more than one racial background) (N ¼ 51). Household/ family income and the number of contributors to the income were used as factors to determine the socioeconomic status of the sample. 40% of the sample (N ¼ 340) can be considered as part of the middle class economic category with a family income of $30,000–$60,000 with at least four contributors, which reveals the working class socioeconomic designation of the majority of the university student population. The remaining respondents are equally split between the upper middle class and upper class categories of $61,000–$90,000 (N ¼ 255), and $91,000 and $120,000 (N ¼ 255), respectively (Northern California Economic Index File For Counties 23–89, 2001). We constructed our survey instrument to measure the frequency and nature of intercultural contact through a series of items that asked respondents to recall two intercultural interactions within the past 2 weeks. The 2-week time period is used to provide a more realistic recall period that accurately indicates the range of one’s everyday intercultural contact. Past studies have inquired about a year-long period or one’s accumulated experiences which makes it difficult for respondents to estimate (for e.g., Ellison & Powers, 1994; Powers & Ellison, 1995; Sigelman & Welch, 1993). We reason that the 2-week time period captures the extent of an individual’s interactional routine (which assumes that one’s contact is patterned and frequent). On the instrument, we specifically define ‘‘intercultural interaction’’ for the respondents as a ‘‘conversational exchange between at least two racially/ethnically different persons’’. Even with the clarification of this definition on our surveys, we were concerned about how the study’s participants would understand the given definition of intercultural interaction. Thus, before our data collection period began, we conducted a brief manipulation check of our definition of intercultural interaction by asking 75 randomly selected students to specify how they viewed the survey definition. As a result, all 75 students confirmed that they understood the definition as inquiring about interactions that they have had with at least one person who was racially/ethnically different from them across contexts (i.e., a racially/ ethnically different friend, neighbor, co-worker), as opposed to focusing solely on their interactions with international students or just with members of specific racial/ ethnic groups (namely Black/African Americans).

ARTICLE IN PRESS R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

361

The series of question items included several constructs, one of which is the frequency of intercultural conversations within the last 2 weeks with response scales of ‘‘none, 1–2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–8, 9–10, 11+’’. Respondents were then asked to recall up to two intercultural interactions and then were led through the following closedended items about the nature of each interaction: (a) gender of the interactional partner, (b) racial/ethnic background of the partner, (c) duration of the interaction (with response scales of ‘‘0–30 min, 31–60 min, 61–180 min—3 h, 181–360 min–6 h,’’ (d) location of the interaction, with response scales of ‘‘class, campus student union, residence hall, other campus location (specify), off-campus workplace, home, neighborhood, other off-campus location (specify)’’, (e) type of relationship with interaction partner, with responses scales of ‘‘stronger, acquaintance, friend, relational partner/spouse, family member/relative, co-worker’’, and (f) the frequency of interacting with the partner, with responses scales of ‘‘less than once a week, 1–3 times a week, 4–7 times a week, more than 7 times a week, only time the interaction occurred’’. Open-ended questions (‘‘What topics did you discuss during the interaction?, ‘‘If you did not have an intercultural interaction in the last 2 weeks, why do you think this was the case?’’) were also employed in order to examine the nature of intercultural contact. In our analysis stage, we focused on the amount and type of intercultural contact of university students overall and of specific racial and ethnic groups and in relation to personal attributes of sex, age, income, childhood ethnic/racial neighborhood mix, high school racial/ethnic mix, current neighborhood racial/ethnic mix, and number of years living in the US The aforementioned foci were employed to sketch out the interactional patterns among the four major racial/ethnic student groups in our university sample (Black African Americans, Asian/Asian Americans, White/ European Americans, and Latino/as). In conjunction with frequency counts and percentages, ANOVA statistical tests were conducted to assess the relationship between the number of intercultural interactions reported by students overall and the Table 1 Overall intercultural interaction pattern of 4 major racial/ethnic groups (Latino/as, Black/African Americans, White/European Americans, and Asian Americans) Number of intercultural interactions within a 2-week period

1–2 intercultural interactions (53% N ¼ 450); 3–4 intercultural interactions (37% N ¼ 314)

Duration of intercultural interactions

0–30 min (60% N ¼ 510) 31–60 min (40% N ¼ 340)

Location of intercultural interactions

On-campus (in class, student unions, residence halls, on-campus jobs) (60% N ¼ 510) Off-campus workplaces (28% N ¼ 238)

Frequency of communication with interactant(s)

1–3 times a week (50% N ¼ 425) 4–7 times a week (50% N ¼ 425)

Relationship to intercultural interactant(s)

Friends (85% N ¼ 722)

362

Black/African American respondents

White/European American respondents

Latino/a respondents

B Location of intercultural interactions with corresponding specific racial/ ethnic groups in column A

C Topics discussed with corresponding specific racial/ethnic groups in column A and B

(1) Whites/European Americans (47% N ¼ 28) (2) Latino/as (43% N ¼ 25)

On-campus (residence halls)

Social life, school-related topics

Off-campus (workplace) & on-campus (residence)

Work-related issues, social life

(1) Whites/European European Americans (43% N ¼ 110)

On-campus (in class, student union)

(2) Other Asian Americans (46% N ¼ 117), namely, in ranking order, with Chinese/ Chinese Americans, Vietnamese/Vietnamese Americans, Asian Indians, Filipinos, and Koreans

On-campus (in class, student union)

School-related topics, class assignments, job-related goals and careers School-related topics, class assignments, job-related goals

(1) Asian Americans (65% N ¼ 161) (i.e., in ranking order, Chinese/Chinese Americans, Asian Indians, Vietnamese/Vietnamese Americans, and Filipinos) (2) Latino/as (21% N ¼ 52)

On-campus (in class)

School-related topics, job-related goals

On-campus (student union, student organization mixers)

Social and family life

On-campus (in class)

Course material, social life, cultural differences with all groups

(1) Whites/European Americans (35% of Latino/as-N ¼ 54) (2) African Americans (25% N ¼ 38) (3) Asian Americans (25% N ¼ 38)

On-campus (residence halls) On-campus (in class)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Asian American respondents

A Racial/ethnic groups interacted the most with (in ranking order)

R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

Table 2 Specific group intercultural interaction patterns

ARTICLE IN PRESS R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

363

racial/ethnic background of the respondents. For the open-ended items regarding (a) interactional topic discussed and (b) reasons why intercultural interactions did not take place, we employed Lofland and Lofland’s (1995) qualitative focused analytic coding schemata based on recurring themes/terms grouped in categories (Tables 1 and 2).

4. Findings At the outset of our analysis stage, we first conducted an initial analysis of variance (ANOVA) on respondents’ reports of the number of intercultural interactions engaged in and respondent racial/ethnic background (respondent racial/ethnic background  number of intercultural interactions). There were no statistically significant differences between groups associated with respondent racial/ ethnic background and the number of intercultural interactions. We surmise that the lack of significance observed was largely due to the disproportional amount of respondents from each racial/ethnic group, especially the small number of Black/ African American respondents. A future study will include ANOVA analyses featuring a larger sample size with a more proportionate representation among ethnic sub-groups. Likewise, there were no significant relationships between family income, the number of intercultural conversations, and the racial/ethnic background of the interactants. Despite the lack of significance in this study, we were intrigued by the resulting interaction frequency percentages and intercultural interaction patterns that surfaced from survey responses, which are discussed below. 4.1. Overall intercultural contact pattern of multicultural university students Overall, the majority of respondents (53% N ¼ 450) reported that they engaged in at least 1–2 intercultural interactions within a 2 week time period. 37% (N ¼ 314) responded that they participated in at least 3–4 interactions during the time period. 10% (N ¼ 85) of the students, however, claimed that they had NOT engaged in any intercultural interaction. Thus, among all racial/ethnic groups, students are responding that on average they participate in intercultural contact at least once to twice a week, and for some, not at all. Respondents reported that they did engage in intercultural contact included the following: ‘‘I’m too busy and don’t have enough time,’’ ‘‘There’s not much diversity in my department,’’ ‘‘My friends come from my group,’’ or ‘‘I never look at race.’’ In terms of the actual settings of the reported intercultural interactions, 60% of the respondents (N ¼ 510) recorded that their interactions mostly took place on campus (among students), namely in class, the student union, on-campus jobs, and residence halls. The second largest percentage of responses (28% N ¼ 238) indicated that students have intercultural contact in off-campus locations where students work (restaurants, retail stores). As previously stated, the majority of the sample (N ¼ 600) lived off-campus with only 255 students living in the residence halls. Thus, given the above findings and the sample breakdown, a great amount of

ARTICLE IN PRESS 364

R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

intercultural contact for students is occurring largely on- and off-campus, at places of work but rarely in neighborhoods, communities, or the private homes of students. The overall student intercultural contact was relatively brief in duration, with a smaller portion of the sample involved in longer interactions. More specifically, for 60% (N ¼ 510) of the respondents, these interactions lasted from 0 to 30 min while the remaining respondents estimated that their exchanges took from 31 to 60 min long. Moreover, a large majority (85% N ¼ 722) of the respondents among all the racial/ethnic groups claim these interactions are with friends (or those who they ‘‘remain close to via ongoing contact’’). Half of the respondents reported that they socialize with their interactants 1–3 times a week while the other half interacts with their recalled partners 4–7 times a week. It seems then that overall students’ intercultural contact is not with fleeting acquaintances but with friends in ongoing contact (between 1 and 7 times a week for communication frequency), which confirms past research on the importance of friendship networks and intercultural contact effects (see e.g., Wright, Aron, McLaughlin–Volpe, & Ropp, 1997). The topics of discussion followed a thematic pattern among specific racial/ethnic groups and are detailed below in relation to the frequency and type of contact reported by each specific racial/ethnic group. 4.2. Black/African American intercultural contact According to survey responses, Black/African American intercultural contact occurred mainly with Latino/as (43% N ¼ 25) and Whites/European Americans (47% N ¼ 28) and less so (if at all) with Asian Americans (10% N ¼ 6). In fact, Blacks/African Americans had the least contact out of all of the major racial/ethnic groups with Asian Americans. Black/African American contact, ranging from 1 to 4 interactions in a 2-week period, took place primarily off-campus in workplace locations mostly with Latino/as (55% N ¼ 32) and on-campus in residence halls with Latino/as and Whites/European Americans (32% N ¼ 19). There was no significant pattern between family income and frequency and type of intercultural contact between Blacks/African Americans, Latino/as, and Whites/ European Americans (although 43% of Blacks/African Americans came from a family income category of $30,000–$60,000-N ¼ 25 and 48% in the less than $30,000 bracket-N ¼ 28). Black/African American respondents seemed to interact with those with whom they had previous contact. 65% of this group (N ¼ 38) reported their child neighborhood racial/ethnic mix as being mixed White/European American and Black/African American while 48% (N ¼ 28) characterized their current neighborhood mix as mixed White/European American, Black/African American, and Latino/a. Their high school neighborhood mix was identified as ranging from mostly White/European American (38% N ¼ 22) to African American (35% N ¼ 21). For this group, two preliminary themes surfaced regarding the specific topics discussed with certain groups during the recalled interactions. Blacks/African Americans mainly spoke with Latino/as about work-related issues (30% N ¼ 18), social life (25% N ¼ 15), and common acquaintances (20% N ¼ 11:8). In addition,

ARTICLE IN PRESS R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

365

Blacks/African Americans and Whites/European Americans primarily conversed about social life and activities (48% N ¼) and school-related topics (classes and assignments) (19% N ¼).

4.3. Asian American intercultural contact Asian Americans reported their intercultural interactions as being exclusively with Whites/European European Americans (43% N ¼ 110) and other Asian Americans (46% N ¼ 117), namely, in ranking order, with Chinese/Chinese Americans, Vietnamese/Vietnamese Americans, Asian Indians, Filipinos, and Koreans. It is important to note that when asked about their most recent intercultural encounters within the last 2 weeks, the majority of Asian American respondents specified their racially/ethnically different interactants as belonging to other specific Asian American groups (i.e., Chinese Americans, Filipino/as, Korean Americans). This finding is noteworthy in that different from Latino/a, Black/African American, and White/European American respondents, Asian American respondents identified other ethnically different Asian Americans as being ‘‘interculturally’’ different. Because the racial/ethnic designation of ‘‘Asian American’’ broadly encapsulates over 80 different Asian groups who often possess vastly different cultural identities, world views, and even languages (Espiritu, 1992), it is therefore important to specify the intercultural contact patterns that occur among the different Asian American respondents in this study. More specifically, Asian American–Asian American intercultural contact seemed to occur mostly between Chinese/Chinese Americans and Vietnamese/Vietnamese Americans (32% of Asian American–Asian American contact-N ¼ 82), Chinese/Chinese Americans and Asian Indians (29% N ¼ 74), and Chinese/Chinese Americans and Filipinos (17% N ¼ 43). There was minimal contact reported between Asian Americans and Latino/as (5% N ¼ 13) and Asian Americans and Blacks/African Americans (5% N ¼ 13). The majority of the Asian American–White/European American contact encounters (39% N ¼ 99) and Asian American–Asian American contact encounters (35% N ¼ 89) took place on-campus in class meetings and student union restaurants. Asian American student respondents spanned a wide range of socioeconomic class brackets: 25% in the $31,000–$60,000 range (N ¼ 77), 32% in the $61,000–$90,000 range (N ¼ 82), and 43% in the $91,000–$120,000 range (N ¼ 97). Thus, Asian American students reflected lower, middle, and upper socioeconomic classes, with a higher percentage in the upper economic tier. Asian Americans interacted relatively equally with Whites/European American students and Asian Americans about school-related topics (15% for Whites/European American contact-N ¼ 38; 18% for Asian American contact-N ¼ 46), class assignments and topics (36% for Whites/European American contact-N ¼ 92; 32% for Asian American contact-N ¼ 82), impending exams (10% for Whites/European American contact-N ¼ 26; 8% for Asian American contact-N ¼ 20), and job-related goals and careers (23% for Whites/European American contact-N ¼ 59; 27% for Asian American contact-N ¼ 69).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 366

R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

4.4. White/European American intercultural contact Whites/European Americans reported that they interact the most with Asian Americans (65% N ¼ 161) (i.e., in ranking order, Chinese/Chinese Americans, Asian Indians, Vietnamese/Vietnamese Americans, and Filipinos). They also reported interacting with Latino/as (21% N ¼ 52) and had limited contact with Blacks/ African Americans (5% N ¼ 12). Interestingly enough, the socioeconomic class designations of the White/European American respondents roughly matched those of the Asian American respondents, spanning the socioeconomic classes of $61,000–$90,000 and $91,000–$120,000. In addition, these respondents reported their past and present neighborhood mixes as majority White/European American. Contact interactions between Whites/European Americans and Asian Americans revolved mostly around school-related topics (classes and assignments) (35% N ¼ 86) and job-related goals (20% N ¼ 49) on-campus in academic departments and classes (59% of reported locations in interactions with this group-N ¼ 146). But, with Latino/as, conversations focused on social life (33% N ¼ 82) and family life (18% N ¼ 44) on campus in the student union (29% of reported locations with this group-N ¼ 72) or in student organization mixers (22% of reported locations with this group-N ¼ 54). 4.5. Latino/a intercultural contact Latino/a respondents reported that they participated in 1–4 intercultural interactions (roughly 50% on 1–2 N ¼ 76; 50% on 3–4 N ¼ 76) and interacted the most with Whites/European Americans (35% of Latino/as-N ¼ 54). These students responded that they interacted equally with African Americans (25% of the Latino/a respondents-N ¼ 38) and Asian Americans (25% of the Latino/a respondents-N ¼ 38) (the remainder of the Latino/a sample interacted in varied percentages with different groups—Pacific Islanders, multiracial and multiethnic individuals). Thus, the Latino/a students represented the only major racial/ethnic group to interact with all three of the major racial/ethnic groups on campus: Whites/ European Americans, African Americans, and Asian Americans. In terms of socioeconomic status, Latino/a respondents spanned lower to middle economic class backgrounds (47% from a total family income of $30,000–$60,000-N ¼ 72; 28% from a total family income of less than $30,000-N ¼ 43; and 25% from a total family income of $61,000–$90,000-N ¼ 38). Though Latino/a respondents reported contact with all three major racial/ethnic groups, their contact backgrounds mostly derived from both majority Latino/a (41% N ¼ 63) and mixed Latino/a and White/ European American neighborhoods (40% N ¼ 61), in addition to mixed Latino/a and White/European American high schools (19% N ¼ 29). It therefore appears that the limited contact Latino/a respondents had in the past with Blacks/African Americans and Asian Americans in their neighborhoods did not seem to prevent them from interacting with these groups in later contact. Most of their intercultural interactions occurred on campus (65% for on-campus designation-N ¼ 99), specifically before, during, and after class in particular with

ARTICLE IN PRESS R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

367

Whites/European Americans and Asian Americans, and in residence halls with African Americans. The remaining 35% of the respondents (N ¼ 54) reported that their intercultural contact took place in off-campus workplaces (retail shops; restaurants) primarily with Whites/European Americans and African Americans. 80% of Latino/a students (N ¼ 122) considered their intercultural interactions partners to be friends who they interact with 1–3 times a week while 20% (N ¼ 30) viewed these interactants as acquaintances. There was great variety of conversational topics across the three major racial/ethnic groups with whom Latino/a students interacted. Such topics included information and conversations about classes, graduation, and course material as well as leisure activities and social life and were spread across all interactions reported by Latino/as. One noteworthy finding in analyzing the Latino/a group in comparison to the other three racial/ethnic groups is that only the Latino/a respondents discussed cultural differences in family and lifestyle with all reported contact groups (White/European Americans, Asian Americans, and Black/African Americans). Thus, according to Latino/a responses, there is relatively equal intercultural contact occurring between Latino/as and other racial/ethnic groups on topical matters of culture.

5. Discussion Our findings reveal several important insights about intercultural contact among multiple racial/ethnic groups in a polycultural setting. Indeed, students are participating in intercultural interactions at least one to two times a week. However, such contact is patterned based on (a) the specific racial/ethnic groups involved in the contact, (b) the location of the contact, (c) the topic of interaction, and (d) socioeconomic class. For instance, Latino/as stood out as the only group to interact with all of the major racial/ethnic groups. This finding could be due to the growing population size of Latino/as across academic departments and settings and thus greater opportunities for interaction (Taylor, 1998). Additionally, only the Latino/a respondents specifically discussed cultural/racial/ethnic differences with other groups. In light of this pattern, it would be interesting to examine the relationship between the population size (density) of Latino/as (an immigrant group that is projected to become the future demographic majority) and intercultural contact frequencies and dynamics with Latino/as in multicultural contexts. If individuals have more exposure to members of this group across settings, does it also follow that individuals will frequently interact with Latino/as? What kind of intercultural contact, if any, with Latino/as will occur? How will such contact shape attitudes towards and perceptions of Latino/as? To what extent will contact episodes in one particular setting carry a generalization effect towards all Latino/as (Wright et al., 1992)? Future studies should also delve into contact outcomes given the widespread population dispersion of Latino/as across contexts and regional areas and how this dramatic demographic trend may result in a possible oversaturation effect (i.e., the notion that with so many Latino/as around, racially/ethnically different persons may deem contact with Latino/as insignificant and undesirable).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 368

R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

By contrast, Blacks/African Americans had limited contact with Whites/European Americans and Asian Americans. This pattern could be the result of decreasing population size at the university-of-study (and in the surrounding region) due to a soaring cost of living and the gentrification of Black urban neighborhoods in the area. Another possibility for limited Black/African American contact with other groups can be due to the growing insularity of Black/African American student life which forms as a response to discrimination and prejudice from majority groups (see e.g., Ellison & Powers, 1994; Powers & Ellison, 1995; Sigelman & Welch, 1993). Blacks/African Americans interacted the most with Latinos off-campus and at workplaces and spoke about work-related issues and social life. Here intercultural contact frequencies and dynamics may reveal contact connections that result largely from similarities in socioeconomic class. For instance, Blacks/African Americans and Latinos tend to occupy the same neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces. Knowledge about the type of contact that emerges between those two groups (and others) who share similar socioeconomic backgrounds, is sorely needed. Shared socioeconomic class background also linked Whites/European American and Asian American respondents who reported frequent contact with one another. In fact, these two groups closely matched each other’s range of socioeconomic status backgrounds (for e.g., $61,000–$90,000 and $91,000–$120,000 ranges). On a more general level, this similarity has led Asian Americans to be characterized by scholars and demographers as the new ‘‘Whites’’ with their upward mobility, accumulation of wealth, and traditional family values (Ong, 1999; Takagi, 1992). It is imperative, then, that intercultural scholars further examine the role that socioeconomic class plays in relation to intercultural contact (see e.g., Ellison & Powers, 1994; Powers & Ellison, 1995; Sigelman & Welch, 1993). To what extent does shared socioeconomic class become a source of commonality or competitive difference? Under what conditions? What type of contact occurs between Whites/European Americans and Asian Americans who take the same classes, live in the same neighborhoods, work in the same organizations, and enter the same professions? What are the differences between the economically shaped contact of Whites/European Americans and Asian Americans with that of Blacks/African Americans and Latino/as? Such a focus on the relationship between socioeconomic class and intercultural contact across settings may reveal great insights about the specific intercultural dynamics occurring between racially/ethnically different groups. Taken together, the intercultural contact patterns found here suggest that racially/ ethnically different persons enter and move into intercultural interactions from different starting points (e.g., socioeconomic class, past exposure, historical memories of past contact and other racial groups). Past intercultural contact (Allport, 1979; Amir, 1969, 1976; Armor, 1972; Cook, 1985; Ford, 1986; Pettigrew, 1986; Smith, 1994; Stephan, 1987; Stephan & Bingham, 1985; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994) research, while recognizing the socioeconomic dimension of race/ethnicity, has not fully theorized how different racial/ethnic groups in the same setting participate in interactions in relative positions to each other (whether these positions are largely or slightly unequal or equidistant) and how such positionalities may affect the frequency and nature of contact scenarios. Moreover, there could also

ARTICLE IN PRESS R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

369

be different sense-making logics that racially/ethnically different members have in engaging in intercultural contact. Meaning, Black/African Americans may understand intercultural interaction through a differentiation logic in which they understand intercultural contact as a forum in which to establish their differences in relation to other racial/ethnic groups (Kim, 1986, 1991). Asian Americans. Latino/as, and White/European Americans may also interculturally interact under the logic of emphasizing ‘‘sameness’’ or similarities, connections with culturally different others, or in the case of Asian Americans and White/European Americans, the focus may be on task-related dimensions (Kim, 1986, 1991). It is therefore imperative to fully examine via qualitative means (interviews, focus groups, diaries) to what extent racial/ethnic group members use different sense-making logics to understand and engage in intercultural contact. The findings in this study illustrate a powerful contradiction: racially/ethnically different university students have limited interaction with each other in a context— the multicultural university—that hails and promotes ‘‘diversity’’. We have recently confirmed this finding in the second research stage of this project by interviewing 100 individuals about their intercultural interactions (i.e., their experiences and perceptions of such encounters). Approximately 72 interviewees emphasized diversity and intercultural interaction as ‘‘important’’ aspects of their lives but then shared that they had limited contact (and in some instances, none at all) with those outside of their racial/ethnic group. This indicates that individuals may, on one level, express support for diversity and intercultural contact because of the need for social approval and the larger societal emphasis on such issues. But, on another level, these individuals are not engaging in actual contact because of already entrenched racial/ ethnic fragmentation and insular enclave formation throughout the US and even in culturally heterogeneous ‘‘Majority of None’’ areas. In addition, societal emphasis on ‘‘diversity’’ may also be growing into a type of ideological common sense that exempts (and justifies) individuals from having to participate in actual intercultural contact. The irony here is that demographic shifts that present greater intercultural contact opportunities may, in fact, stifle, such contact from occurring. Thus, contact can certainly be influenced by larger societal attitudes towards diversity. To better understand the nature of this contradiction between great demographic diversity and limited intercultural contact, future empirical investigations should trace the shifts in contact frequency and type between groups over time in relation to the changing sociopolitical attitudes towards diversity (for e.g., in line with the 1970s focus on cultural pluralism, 1980s focus on multiculturalism and race consciousness, and the 1990s focus on colorblindness and cultural equality—see Gordon & Newfield, 1996). Finally, the most significant insight gained from this study revolves around the dilemma of how individuals are actually defining and understanding intercultural contact. For example, several respondents reported that they either had no interactions or an excessive amount (11+) during a 2-week period. These claims raise a critical question: How do individuals define and understand intercultural contact? Scholars have assumed that ‘‘intercultural contact’’ means the same thing to all persons. However, this study’s respondents demonstrate differing ways of perceiving this notion, even though a survey definition was provided. Some

ARTICLE IN PRESS 370

R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

individuals may have interpreted intercultural contact to mean engaging in one brief interaction or multiple ongoing exchanges with racially/ethnically different people. Others defined contact exchanges as those that involved taking about each other’s racial/ethnic differences while others did not (which raises the issue of whether contact requires the discussion of racial/ethnic difference so that there will be a generalization effect onto other interactions and group members). Participants could also have read the notion of contact to mean interaction with international or foreign students (such as with the reported claims of ‘‘no interactions’’). Furthermore, individuals may not see their friends and acquaintances as being racially/ethnically different persons as they have invoked dominant society’s focus on colorblindness. Thus, how individuals are perceiving and defining contact has a major effect on the way in which scholars investigate issues of contact. Intercultural contact research, which relies mostly on memory-based recall survey measures and rigorous operational definitions of intercultural contact, may need complementary methodological strategies (i.e., qualitative interviewing, focus groups) in order to further understand the nature of intercultural dynamics. We have already begun employing one such methodological strategy—qualitative in-depth interviews and 8month diaries—as a way to deeply analyze how individuals experience, understand, and make sense of intercultural contact over an extended period of time in different contexts. Undoubtedly, intercultural contact scholars face a great challenge in examining today’s contact factors and dynamics in line with changing contexts, sociopolitical attitudes, and demographic trends that complicate gained insights about contact between racially/ethnically different groups. We hope that our study is a step towards raising important questions and revealing key findings about contemporary intercultural interaction patterns and dynamics.

References Allport, G. (1954, 1979). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 319–341. Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In P. A. Katz (Ed.)., Towards the elimination of racism (pp. 245–308). New York: Pergamon. Applebone, P. (1995). Nation’s campuses confront an expanding racial divide. New York Times, 25 October A1, B9. Armor, D. (1972). The evidence on busing. Public Interest, 28, 90–126. Black, E. (1976). Southern governors and civil rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Blaney, N. T., Stephan, S., Rosenfield, D., Aronson, E., & Sikes, J. (1977). Interdependence in the classroom: a field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 121–128. Bond, C. F., Jr., DiCandia, C. G., & MacKinnon, J. R. (1988). Responses to violence in a psychiatric setting: the role of the patient’s race. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 448–458. Census 2000 (2001). Who we are-Poll finds positive view of state’s diversity. San Francisco Chronicle, 2001, May 14,p. B2. Cohen, E. G. (1972). Interracial interaction disability. Human Relations, 25, 9–24. Cook, S. W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues: the case of school desegregation. American Psychologist, 40, 260–452. Deutsch, M., & Collins, M. (1951). Interracial housing. Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

ARTICLE IN PRESS R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

371

Ellison, C. G., & Powers, D. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis and racial attitudes among Black Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 32, 477–494. Espiritu, Y. L. (1992). Asian American panethnicity: bridging institutions and identities. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Ford, W. S. (1973). Interracial public housing in a border city. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 426–444. Ford, W. S. (1986). Favorable intergroup contact may not reduce prejudice: inconclusive journal evidence, 1960–1984. Sociology and Social Research, 70, 256–258. Fossett, M. A., & Kiecolt, K. J. (1989). The relative size of minority populations and white racial attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 820–835. Giles, M. W. (1977). Recent Black and racial hostility: an old assumption revisited. Social Science Quarterly, 58, 412–417. Giles, M. W., & Evans, A. (1985). External threat, perceived threat, and group identity. Social Science Quarterly, 66, 50–66. Giles, M. W., & Evans, A. (1986). The power approach to inter-group hostility. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30, 469–485. Giles, M. W., & Hertz, K. (1994). Racial threat and partisan identification. American Political Science Review, 88, 317–326. Glaser, J. (1994). Back to the Black belt: racial environment and White racial attitudes in the South. Journal of Politics, 56, 21–41. Gordon, A. F., & Newfield, C. (1996). Mapping multiculturalism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). ‘Contact is not enough’, an intergroup perspective on the ‘contact hypothesis’. In M. Hewstone, & R. Brown (Eds.)., Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1–44). New York: Basil Blackwell. Hood, M. V., & Morris, I. L. (1997). Amigo o Enemigo?: context, attitudes, and Anglo public opinion toward immigration. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 309–323. Jackman, M. R., & Crane, M. (1986). ‘‘Some of My Best Friends are Black y’’: interracial friendships and Whites’ racial attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 459–486. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1982). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning experiences on cross-ethnic interaction and friendships. Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 47–58. Kim, Y. Y. (1986). A communication approach to interethnic relations. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.)., Interethnic communication: current research (pp. 9–18). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kim, Y. Y. (1991). Intercultural communication competence. In S. Ting-Toomey, & F. Korzenny (Eds.)., Cross-cultural interpersonal communication (pp. 259–275). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing. Magner, D. K. (1990). Amid the diversity racial isolation remains at Berkeley. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 37(11), A37–39. Matthews, D., & Prothro, J. (1966). Negroes in the new southern politics. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World. McLeod, R. G. (1998). ‘‘Minority Majority’’ well on way in state: striking changes in new census data. San Francisco Chronicle, September 4, 1998, p. B2. Ness, C., Kim, R. (2001). Census reveals fast-growing diversity in US San Francisco Chronicle, March 13, 2001, p. B2. Ness, C., & McCormick, E. (2001). 33,871,648 hispanics now make up a third of Californians: race-whites no longer a majority. San Francisco Chronicle, March 30, 2001, p. A1. Northern California Economic Index File For Counties #23–89 (2001). State Government Economic Register, Sacramento, CA. Novell, N., & Worchel, S. (1981). A reexamination of the relation between equal status contact and intergroup attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 902–908. Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship: the cultural logics of transnationality. Durham: Duke University Press. Pettigrew, T. F. (1986). The intergroup contact hypothesis reconsidered. In M. Hewstone, & R. Brown (Eds.)., Contact, conflict, and intergroup relations (pp. 169–195). Oxford: Blackwell.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 372

R.T. Halualani et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 353–372

Pettigrew, T. F., & Troop, M. S. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? In S. Oskamp (Ed.)., Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Powers, D. A., & Ellison, C. G. (1995). Interracial contact and Black racial attitudes: the contact hypothesis and selectivity bias. Social Forces, 74(1), 205–226. Riordan, C., & Ruggiero, J. (1980). Equal status interracial interaction: a replication. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 131–136. Robinson, J., & PrePreston, J. (1976). Equal status contact and modification of racial prejudice. Social Forces, 54, 900–924. Salz, A., & Trubowitz, J. (1997). It was all of us working together: resolving racial and ethnic tension on college campuses. The Educational Forum, 62, 82–90. Sampson, W. A. (1986). Desegregation and racial tolerance in academia. Journal of Negro Education, 55(2), 171–184. Schevitz, T., Olszewski, J., & Wildermuth, L. (2000). New demographics changing everything: experts examine the rise of state minorities. San Francisco Chronicle, August 31, 2000, p. A1. Sigelman, L., Bledsoe, T., Welch, S., & Combs, M. W. (1996). Making contact? black–white social interaction in an urban setting. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1306–1332. Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited: black–white interaction and positive racial attitudes. Social Forces, 71(93), 781–795. Smith, C. B. (1994). Back and to the future: the intergroup contact hypothesis revisited. Sociological Inquiry, 64(4), 438–455. Stein, R. M., & Rinden, A. L. (2000). Reconciling context and contact effects on racial attitudes. Political Research Quarterly, 53(2), 285–303. Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. In C. Hendrick (Ed.)., Group processes and intergroup relations (pp. 13–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stephan, W. G., & Bingham, C. W. (1985). Intergroup relations. Chicago: Brown and Benchmark. Takagi, D. Y. (1992). The retreat from race: Asian American admissions and racial politics. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories of intergroup relations: international and social psychological perspectives (2nd ed.)Westport, CT: Praeger. Taylor, M. C. (1998). How White attitudes vary with the racial composition of local populations: numbers count. American Sociological Review, 63, 512–535. Wilder, D. A., & Thompson, J. G. (1980). Intergroup contact with independent manipulations of ingroup and outgroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 589–603. Williams, R. M., Jr., (1947). The reduction of intergroup tensions. New York: Social Science Research Council. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90.