W w ~

THE FRIENDSHIP ROLES OF AMERICAN
ASSOCIATES 0F THAI STUDENTS ON
A MIDWESTERN CAMPUS:
IMPLICATIONS FOR A NEW BINATIONAL
THIRD CULTURE

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
SUSAN McCLELLAN ASCH
1968

u , Q .

 

1* -.Ws.mz~qf
L I B R A P; 1"
Michigan Stair:

Va Universzty if;

“EL-“‘2 any...

 
 
  

 

III II III I IIII II

 

  
    
     

  

“ BINDING av “5
HUAG & SUNS'
BIIIIE EI‘NEEIIIY INC.

”hrbt

 

I . I I {II E’PENI ..

ABSTRACT

THE FRIENDSHIP ROLES OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATES OF
THAI STUDENTS ON A MIDWESTERN CAMPUS:
IMPLICATIONS FOR A NEW BINATIONAL
THIRD CULTURE

BY
Susan McClellan Asch

The study attempts to use the concept of role as
a unit of analysis, in its sense as a culturally-defined
pattern of behavior, to investigate the building of
regularized associational patterns of persons from dif—
ferent cultures. Culture is conceptualized as being
composed of formal, informal, and technical aspects. It
is proposed that when persons of different cultural ori-
gins interact on a regular basis, the technical aspects
of the two original cultures may be formalized within
the interactions, thus forming a "binational third cul-
ture."

The obligatory association patterns with Thais
appeared to incorporate a new work dimension, thus lending
credence to the propositions. In general, however, the

associations of the Americans with the Thais we

full and rich as their associations with other_§me;icans~
mw_Ix\\\\~____._”’#’___,._—7

 

 

 

 

Susan McClellan Asch

All these findings appeared to be consonant with those
in the existing literature on third cultures, as well as

interpretable in terms of the known patterns of the origi-

nal cultures.

THE FRIENDSHIP ROLES OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATES OF
THAI STUDENTS ON A MIDWESTERN CAMPUS:
IMPLICATIONS FOR A NEW BINATIONAL

THIRD CULTURE

BY

Susan McClellan Asch

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1968

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many thanks are due to Drs. John and Ruth Useem,
whose guidance was indispensable, both in the field work
and the theory construction. I am indebted to them for
many of the concepts used herein, but I have undoubtedly
failed in their interpretation, and all errors of this
sort and those stemming from them are my responsibility
alone.

I also wish to eXpress my deep gratitude to my
husband, Marc Asch, who not only patiently read and reread

these pages, but put up with me while I wrote them.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter

I. GENERAL THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. RESEARCH MODEL AND DERIVED HYPOTHESES .

I I I O METHODOLOGY 0 O O C O O O O O O O O C 0
IV. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE AND

CATEGORIZATION OF DATA . . . . . . . .

V. RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O C O O O C I 0

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . .

VII. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O C O O C I O O O O O O O O 0
APPENDIX I. OPERATIONAL SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF

RECIPROCAL ROLE RELATIONSHIPS OF
AMERICANS AND THAIS, WITH
COMPARISONS DRAWN . . . . . . .

APPENDIX II. INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX III. DERIVATION OF FREQUENCY COUNT .

iii

Page
ii
iv

vi

14

22

29
35
56
66

67

70
7‘4

95

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Positive Responses of American Subjects
Pertaining to Work, Social, and Personal
Obligation Dimensions by Percent of Total
Response Types (R) and Frequency Mentioned
(f), for American Friends and for

Thai Friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Negative Responses of American Subjects
Pertaining to Work, Social, and Personal
Obligation Dimensions by Percent of Total
Response Types (R) and Frequency Mentioned
(f), for American Friends and for

Thai Friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Positive Responses of American Friends and
of Thai Friends Pertaining to Work, Social,
and Personal Obligation Dimensions by Per—
cent of Total Responses Types (R) and Fre-
quency Mentioned (f), for Their Relationship
with the American Subject . . . . . . . . .

Negative Responses of American Friends and
of Thai Friends Pertaining to Work, Social,
and Personal Obligation Dimensions by Per-
cent of Total Response Types (R) and Fre—
quency Mentioned (f), for Their Relation-
ships with the American Subject . . . . . .

Responses of American Students Indicating
Preference for Work, Social, and Personal
Dimensions of Optional Activities with
American Friends, with Thai Friends, and
with Both, in Percent of Total Responses . .

Responses of American Students Indicating
Indifference for Work, Social, and Personal
Dimensions of Optional Activities with
American Friends, with Thai Friends, and
with Both, in Percent of Total Responses . .

iv

Page

38

41

43

44

48

50

Table

10.

ll.

12.

Page

Responses of American Students Indicating

Avoidance for Work, Social, and Personal

Dimensions of Optional Activities with

American Friends, with Thai Friends, and

with Both, in Percent of Total Responses . . 52

Responses of American Students Indicating
Preference, Indifference, and Avoidance

for Work Dimensions of Optional Activities

with Both American and Thai Friends, in

Percent of Total Responses (NQ) . . . . . . 53

Responses of American Students Indicating
Preference, Indifference, and Avoidance

for Social DimensionscfifOptional Activities

with Both American and Thai Friends, in Per-

cent of Total Responses (NQ) . . . . . . . . 53

Responses of American Students Indicating
Preference, Indifference, and Avoidance for

Social Dimensions of Optional Activities

with Both Americans and Thai Friends, in

Percent of Total Responses (NQ) . . . . . . 54

Responses of American Students Indicating
Preference, Indifference, and Avoidance for

Work, Social, and Personal Dimensions of

Optional Activities with American Friends,

in Percent of Total Responses . . . . . . . 55

Responses of American Students Indicating
Preference, Indifference, and Avoidance for

Work, Social and Personal Dimensions of

Optional Activities with Thai Friends, in

Percent of Total Responses . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure

1.

LIST OF FIGURES

Schematic Diagram of the Reciprocal Role
Relationships Between Americans and Thais,
and Comparisons to be made Between Them .

Schematic Diagram of the Reciprocal Role
Relationships Between Thais and Americans,
and the Comparisons to be Drawn for the
Obligational Framework . . . . . . . . . .

Schematic Representation of the Reciprocal
Relationships of Americans and Thais, and
the Comparisons to be made Between Them
(for Optional Activities for Which the
Subject Feels) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page
. l4
. 15
C 16

CHAPTER I
GENERAL THEORY

The prOposed empirical area for investigation was
that of interactions of persons from different cultures;
specifically, the cultural bridges that are built up in
these interactions, and the new possible sets of roles,
conceptualized as norms and values, which become appro-
priate to the interaction when they are continued over a
period of time.1 Theoretically, and especially since this
study was intended as a portion of a larger one, it was
limited to the investigative area of roles directly and
crucially involved in the interaction, as they are re—
lated to each other and organized within.

The roles studied are a specific species of the
generic interpersonal type; this species is the group of
reciprocal roles rather loosely known in common parlance
as "friendship." A truly rigorous definition of this was
not attempted; it was simply taken to mean those same—sex,
or platonic opposite—sex, non-family reciprocal relation—
ships which demand at least a minimum degree of emotional

involvement, and regular voluntary investment of time

 

lGeorge Homans, The Human Group (New York: Har-
court, Brace, and World, 1950), PP. 108-113.

 

in mutual activities. The research was directed towards
investigation along these lines in order to avoid the
complications arising from report error in touching upon
relationships possibly involving family bonds or differ-
ential sexual mores. (This had been a possible problem
in earlier studies of this type.) This definition seemed
flexible enough to admit relationships based on personal,
social, and work-centered activities. It also allowed
breadth and depth of study without involving other obvious
and possibly highly-loaded factors, which were not inves-
tigated systematically within the interview structure
(and most probably could not be, given the particular
methodology).

Several of the ways in which these cross-cultural
interactions differ from new intra-cultural interactions,
with especial reference to interactions that cross sub-
cultural boundaries, have been elucidated by Selltiz eE_§l.,
in Attitudes and Social Relations of Foreign Students in
the United States. They say that "one difference between
the two kinds of situation is likely to be the extent to
which persons in one group have well-structured precon-
ceptions about the other group. . . . Members of two
[intra-cultural] groups, being products of the same
culture, are alike in many ways. They speak the same
language; they are likely to have similar ways of look-

ing at things. Once they begin to communicate, it is

usually not difficult for them to understand each other.
Under these circumstances, contact provides an opportunity
for observing individual behavior that does not conform
to previously held negative stereotypes and that may lead
to the perception that these peOple are more like oneself
than one had supposed. . . . In cross-cultural contact
. . . it may happen that neither party has any clear
initial stereotype, or that one or both have favorable
preconceptions. . . . A person may be more struck by the
differences in outlook and behavior than by similarities.

"Another important difference between cross-
cultural contact and inter-group contact within a country
has to do with the influence of the broader context in
which the personal interaction takes place. Usually it
can be assumed that the only major new experience that
is likely to lead to changes in ethnic attitudes is the
personal association. But this is not the case for at
least one party to cross—cultural contact—the person who
is in a strange country. For him, personal associations
are but one part of a whole new eXperience.

"There are differences in the range of relevant
objects of attitudes. Within the United States . . .
these beliefs and feelings refer to . . . a group (and)
the reference is essentially to a collection of individuals.
. . . In cross-cultural and cross-national contact, the

objects of attitudes may range from individual persons to

foreign policy. Thus the question of the extent of the
generalization of attitudes that develop in the course of
interpersonal association becomes even more salient than
it is in studies of relations between two ethnic_or racial
groups within a single country."2

Thus, it can be seen that these roles are not pre-
formulated in_tg£g within the original cultures.for the
interacting persons, and that they must indeed S; new
roles, based on new sets of normative expectations and
new value combinations.3 (This is not to say that these
norms and values do not have antecedents within the inter-
actants' original cultures. However, sets of norms and
values are interaction systems in and of themselves, and
their results in terms of attitudinal and behavioral
models must be viewed as a product of this total system,
'not as isolated segments, each the total resultant of a
particular separable component.)4 Therefore, new norm-
value set combinations result in new structured behavioral

models delineated by the norms and values; that is to say,

new roles.

 

2Claire Selltiz et al., Attitudes and Social Re-
lations of Foreign Students in the United States, (Minneap—
olis: University of Minnesota Press, 1963), pp. 7-9.

31bid., pp. 116-122.

4Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture (Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1934), p. 24; A. R. Radcliffe-Brown,
Structure and Function in.Primitive.Society (New York:

Tfie Free Press, 1952).

Inasmuch as many different definitions and inter-
pretations have been applied in the study of role, it 3
seems necessary to defhuathe use of the term herein. It
appears that Yinger's terminology5 is useful in organizing
research, in that he makes clear differentiations between
the various concepts which are often included under the
heading of role, and so this will be utilized. Briefly, he
states that position is a unit of social structure, de-
fined as a location in a system of social relationships.
Implied in this definition is the concept of structure
with connotations both of recurrence, or some degree of
permanence, and of relatedness to other positions. A
characteristic of structured relationships is that the
participants have expectations concerning their own and
others' behavior.

Role is a unit of culture; it refers to the rights,‘
and duties, the normatively approved patterns of behavior I
for the occupants of a given position. It is a structured
behavioral model relating to a certain position of an in-
dividual in an interactional setting. It is a list of
what most members of a social group believe a position
occupant should and should not, may and may not, do; it is
the culturally prescribed obligations and privileges of a

position.

 

5J. Milton Yinger, Toward a Field Theory of Be-
lnavior (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965), p. 99.

Internalized role refers to that part of the self
which represents a given individual's tendencies to per-
form a role in a given way.

Role behavior or role—playing is the actual
process of carrying out the role, which is influenced
not only by the internalized role, but by the self and
the total personality of which it is a part. It will
also be affected by the situation within which the activity
occurs, including the actions of persons occupying recip-
rocal positions, and by the larger setting within which
the interaction takes place.

The major concern was with the role itself, as
defined above. The basic question here, then was: what
are the friendship roles played by a person(s) of a host
culture6 relative to a person(s) from another culture(s),
and what, in the View of the host culture members, are
the roles played by the person(s) from the other culture
relative to the hosts? How do these differ from the same
type of interpersonal roles played by the hosts to others
from the host culture? Although only cross-cultural inter-
actions within the university setting were studied, hope-

fully some features of these interaction patterns are

 

6John Useem, Ruth Hill Useem, and John Donoghue,
"Men in the Middle of the Third Culture: The Roles of
American and Non-Western People in Cross-Cultural Adminis-
tration," Human Organization, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 169-179;
Fall 1968, p. l.

 

common for all cross-cultural interactions, and unique to
them. These may then be regarded as some evidence of a
"third culture" as it has been defined by Drs. John and
Ruth Useem,7 with its own specific characteristic roles,
role components, and role clusters, for more or less
general cross-cultural social structures or position net-
works.

It is not without importance that this particular
set of cross-cultural interactions takes place on an Ameri-
can university campus, and between persons whose avowed
central reasons for being present in this setting are aca-
demic. This means that, for the most part (and especially
since the Thais on the MSU campus are, in the main, grad-
uate students), the major portion of each person's day
will be devoted to autonomous and solitary, or semi-
solitary, scholarly activity. Moreover, these pursuits
are more compelling in terms of both time and emotional
investment than a conventional job. The work has an un-
finishable nature, and judgment is perenially imminent
upon the quality of one's own work in comparison with
that of others. Further, these others are essentially
the only persons with whom one has any face-to-face con-
tact. The family, and the other community-wide institu-

tions, such as the church, are often far away, and their

 

71bid., p. 3.

replacements in the university setting are generally
"scaled-down" versions with little stability of member—
ship. The population of the university community itself
is constantly shifting.

In short, relationships must be formed in the con-
text of little time, constant work pressure, and in the
company of a youth-adolescent age-grade, a shifting popu-
lation, and generally, a restricted social class range,
with the work of whose members one's own work (and, there-
fore, right to be present in the community), is constantly
compared. Also, the relationships must be formed out of
the context of familiar institutions, and without ref-
erence to a family group. All the persons involved in
the relationships are also involved in a consuming pro-
cess of adjustment to this context, and removal from
others, and in preparing themselves to enter other con-
texts of marriage, occupation, and adult status in the
larger community. These conditions must certainly have
some effect upon any relationship, and it must be borne in
mind that this is the backdrop in ecological and individual
terms for this cross-cultural exchange and relationship-
set construction.

Internal to the roles, the problem centered around
the role components. Essentially, these components may
be considered to fall into three general areas: positive

obligations, Options, and negativeobligations, the

particular contents of which are considered to be culturally
defined. Obligations correspond in some measure to Hall's8
informal areas of culturally—defined behavior patterns
(from both a positive and negative approach) and options
to the technical areas, though not coincidental in exact
detail. This is partially due to the fact that these are
specific component areas of particular roles, rather than
the more macrocultural assumptions upon which the formation
of roles depends.

"Positive obligation" is comprised of that group I
of normative behavioral expectations which a particular
culture holds and with which performance must accord,
since it defines these as vital for the maintenance of
the role in society; therefore, these are the norms and
values supposedly exhibited in role behavior, which it is
felt necessary for a role-player to hold and exhibit in
order to be defined by the society as playing that role
within the normal range.9

Options are those specific normative behavioral
expectations and cultural values whose whole pattern

should exemplify the actual content of the broad obliga-

tory framework for the player of a certain role, but

 

8Edward T. Hall, The Silent Language (Greenwich,
Conn.: Fawcett Publications, 1961).

 

9Robert Merton, "Social Structure and Anomie,"
ASR: Vol. 3, Oct. 1938, pp. 672-3,

10

which are neither individually prescribed nor proscribed
[by a culture] as a necessity for the maintenance of the
role. Essentially a whole, separately they are the minutia
of everyday life. Options may be further broken down into
preferred, indifferent, and non-preferred. In an emerging
role, this may be an important distinction, in that the
preferred and non-preferred options may be on the verge
of leaving this optional-technical realm, and becoming a
part of the obligatory framework. In fact, in the nascent
stages of third-culture role-sets, the obligatory categories
may be wholly defined by the culture of origin; the Optional-I
technical may reveal the beginnings of these obligatory '
areas for the new third-cultural roles.

Finally, negative obligations may be considered,
or null normative cultural expectations and values; that
is, expectations that those norms and values whose be-
havioral manifestations threaten the maintenance of a role
either within the society or as a viable conduct-choice
for the individual, will not be held by the player of this
role.

From a comparison of these the formal10 may be
deduced-—that is, the underlying cultural assumptions
which may differ, within an interaction-Space continuously
containing assumptions of two other cultures, from the

=assumptions of these other cultures.

 

10Hall, Op. cit.

ll

Externally, the problem was that of role, or role
definition, and the integrative linkages of these roles
into third and host culture role clusters. Analysis of
the internal linkage structure of the role set was also
considered pertinent. The problem, then was not seen as
purely structural, but was concerned with the normative
values inherent in these roles, components, clusters, and
their linkages. As implied earlier, the scope of this
investigation was limited by addressing it to these prob—
lems from the vieWpoint of only one of the parties to the
interaction, the American student. The rationale behind
this was based on an attempt to avoid interjecting a
secondary cross-cultural or third—cultural, role (inter-
viewer-interviewee) into the investigation of the primary
one between the American and Thai associates. Thus, the
results of the study only properly treat of the affected
roles in the host culture, or, at best, half of a third-
cultural role system. (That is, the American's definition
of, and feelings concerning, his own role, and that of the
Thai.) However, since this was apparently relevant in.
terms of a "third culture," the profits in generalizing
power yielded by the results were much greater, as they
may be regarded as having relevance for the whole inter-
action (when both parties are in the "third culture").

A series of questions was formulated, in an attempt

to tap the variables concerned in these problems.

12

These roughly followed the form of role definitions by
components (through internalized role). For all of these
the interest was explicitly in their form, and implicitly
in their salience and antecedents. In the final analysis,
an attempt was made to see if these fell in any distinct
empirical patterns, and what, if any, theoretical conclu-
sions could be suggested on this basis.

For the research problem, the major questions were:
(a) Is there evidence of a third culture between same
gender Thai and American students on MSU campus? (b) If
so, what is the content of this third culture? (c) Does
it conflict with the content of the host or guest cultures?

On a theoretically specific level, with regard to
a particular role, it was asked, as a way of approaching
these major research questions: are there differences in
the role definitions by Americans for Americans and Thais
who occupy the same positions? If so, what are these
differences? Do they follow a definite pattern? Do the
differences represent opposing definitions or modes of
behavior? The same things might be asked for Americans
and foreign students in general.

Within this study, however, the investigation was
limited to American-Thai and intra-American defined associa-
tional patterns, in an effort to control for background
guest culture referents, while the methodology was con-
structed with an eye to comparability with similar studies

involving other cross-national relationships.

13

There were a number of other questions that arose
in connection with these, although they could not be sys-
tematically investigated here. Among these were: what
are the differences between role definitions and role
behavior for Americans? Are there differences for Ameri-
cans and Thais in the same positions? What is the salience
of these differences and those in the role definitions for
the individual? Are they dependent on depth of involve-
ment? Are they situationally dependent? What are the
pathways to the roles? What structural patterns and
salience do the positions held have relative to Americans?
Relative to Thais? Are there differences in these saliences
and patterns? How do the internalized roles compare to
the role definitions as an aggregated phenomena? How do
they compare to aggregated role behavior? As individual
phenomena? Is the comparability of internalized role to
role behavior and role definition, aggregated or individual,
related to depth of involvement and/or the interaction
situation? Are there fewer conflicts between role behavior
and internalized role for persons who have a more accurate
perception of the role definitions of the group? (Or are

these conflicts structured by the group itself?)

CHAPTER II
RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

The set of problems posed by the questions of major
concern were visualized as the schematic diagram below,
where a solid arrow denotes a reciprocal role relationship
which was tapped. A dotted arrow indicates an operation-
alized hypothesis of similarity or non-similarity. The

11

word "American" or "Thai" indicates the group for which

the role definition is being considered.

The protype or basic model, is this:

Role Definition

Self Other

American I 3E
/ .

American “

 

 

 

American
4§>

 

 

:> Thai

Fig. 1.--Schematic Diagram of the Reciprocal Role Relation-
ships Between Americans and Thais, and Comparisons
to be made Between Them.

 

llTalcott Parsons and Edward Shils, Towards a
General Theory of Action (Cambridge, Mass.:, Harvard
University Press, 1951). Group being used here in the
sense of an aggregate, with no supposition of a collec-

tivity.

14

15

From these we may derive a more specific model,
organized around conceptual components of role. It is
possible to see how these following specific models com-
bine to form the basic type (above) if each is visualized
as printed on a card, and the cards stacked into a deck
that comprises this basic model. And just as in a deck
of playing cards, though each has a symbolic value of its
own, these values have no meaning without reference to

the other cards in the "deck" and the "game" being played.

(A) Positive Obligations

 

 

 

 

 

Self Other
I / 0
American \ i. A > American
I I
American <i —J¥L if E Thai

 

(B) Negative Obligations

 

 

 

 

 

O / O
American \ AF. A > American
. A ' n!‘ .

American \ AL )1! > Thai

Fig. 2.--Schematic Diagram of the Reciprocal Role Relation-
ships Between Thais and Americans and the Compari-
sons to be Drawn for the Obligational Framework.

Every general cultural role has a specific temporal,
spatial, and social locus. Specific content questions must

relate to this locus, and thus the following questions con-

cerning the specific content of the Thai-American student's

l6

friendship role were related to a spatial location on the
Michigan State University campus, temporally in 1968, and,
socially, largely in the midwestern, white, American college
student frame of reference, as will be described in the
methodology. The reciprocal relationship was not broken
down into two separate orientations in the following visu-
alization, as was done previously, in the Obligational
schematic illustration. This was done to correspond with
the Operational model, in which the question was posed as
a whole, containing the reciprocity in its structure (by
use of the word "with" rather than "to"). This strategy
was adopted when subjects on the pretest indicated that
they felt that two questions concerning one relationship

”were redundant.(and, therefore, boring in the extreme).

I

(A) Preference

 

 

 

Self Other

American < K >‘American
I

American < “L > Thai

(B) Indifference

 

American < A > American
I

 

American < L > Thai

(C) Avoidance

 

American < f > American
I
American < J > Thai

 

Fig. 3.--Schematic Representation of the Reciprocal Rela-
tionships of Other Americans and Thais, and the
Comparisons to be made Between Them (for Activities

Which the Subject Feels Are Optional).

17

The above is intended as a non-verbal model. This
was investigated in depth, rather than the verbal model,
to control, to some extent, for the differentials in
English language proficiency of the Thai students, par-
tially because there was no way in which this could be
accurately ascertained in the context of this research.

Further, as Goffman suggests12 the self may be
presented in both verbal and non-verbal forms. Verbaliza-
tion differences in terms of both expression and accept-
ability across cultures, may be more readily recognized
and allowed for, or corrected, on a conscious level, than
non-verbal differences. Thus, it would seem that the
points of most constant difference, and therefore, the most
ripe for adaptation in a new way, would exist on the non-
verbal level. This, then, seemed to be the most fruitful
investigative area in which to find the beginnings of a
new third-cultural exchange. In the case of the Thais,
relative newcomers to the campus of the university in ques-
tion, this may be a particularly crucial factor.

Finally, the third culture was an area in which
very little investigation had been carried out, although
its outlines had been established for some time. The
verbal model, on the other hand, had been closely scru-

tinized, and studies of quantitative elegancel3 had become

 

12Erving Goffman, The Presentationggf Self in Every-
day Life (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1959).

 

l3Charles Osgood, George Suci, and Percy Tannenbaum,
The Measurement of Meaning (Urbana: U. of Ill. Press, 1957).

 

18

aprOpos in this area. An attempt to combine the two at
this level of development might have introduced triviality
into the former and uncalled-for globalism into the latter.
The non-verbal model, besides presenting a particularly
rich and untapped area for investigation, also avoided the
outlined difficulty and the chronic controversies surround-
ing the verbal model.

It may be noted that theory has been treated in
levels first dealing with a very general and encompassing
theory-level and then narrowing the focus of interest to
a specific segment of this model (role, within general
systems analysis). Secondly, distinctions were made within
this segment (position, role, etc.) and examination and

comparison of these distinct concepts (role definition,

through the process of aggregating internalized role),14

was proposed. Third, an attempt was made to distinguish
the culturally-defined components of this concept (positive

obligation, option, and negative obligation), and next to

L
- — v—‘ w

14That is, the actual questions utilized within the
instrument dealt with the individual concept of the role
requirements. By aggregating these, an attempt was made to
reconstruct the more general cultural concept of the role,
rather than dealing with the individual variants of the
concept. The difficulties in this approach, in terms of
group versus individual measurement of concepts are obvious
the syntality (see Mills, The Sociology of Small Groups,
New York: Prentice-Hall, 1968) effect is essentially ig-
nored, except inasmuch as it affects the individual con-
cepts. However, since our sample is just that (a culture
sample, although non-random on several variables), rather
than constituting a functioning small group: in and 0f it-
self, it would seem that we would be methodologically jus-
tified in not allowing syntalic effects to become a central
consideration. The advantages of parsimony along this line
are also manifestly obvious.

 

l9

establish the empirical meanings of these components, for
which specific cultural interpretations can be given
(preference, indifference, and avoidance). Finally, the
empirical model was operationalized within an instrument,
which posed the empirical questions in a slightly less
formal and technical style, but was essentially aimed at
gathering information of the same level of generalization
and abstraction as the foregoing empirical meanings of the
components.15

In conjunction with the development of the in-
strument, several specific hypotheses were constructed,
whose testing comprised the actual stuff of the data
analysis, and which corresponded on an empirical level
with the theoretical question posed before the presenta-
tion of the model. In review, this question was: are
there differences in the role definitions for Americans
and Thais who occupy the same position ("friend")? It
follows that we also wanted to know what these differences
are, whether they form a definite pattern, and whether
they represent interculturally Opposed definitions or
modes of acceptable role behavior. These differences may
be either qualitative or quantitative. The hypotheses,

then, and their related exploratory questions are:

 

5
See Appendix I for the operational model.

20

(1) A. There will be a qualitative difference in what
is visualized by the American subjects as their positive
Obligations to their American friends, and what is felt to
be their positive obligations to their Thai friends.

B. Such a difference also exists in the negative
obligations of the self to American and to Thai friends.

C. The areas of difference, for both positive and
negative obligations, will be substantially the same.
Exploratory question: What, specifically, are these dif-
ferences in the positive and/or negative obligations to
American friends and to Thai friends?

(2) A. There will be a qualitative difference in what
the American subjects feel are the positive obligations of
the Thai friend to the self and the American friend to the
self.

B. Such a difference also exists in what are con-
sidered to be the negative obligations of the two friends
to the self.

C. The areas of difference in the obligations of
the friends to the self for both positive and negative
obligations, will be substantially the same.

Exploratory question: What, specifically, are these dif-
ferences in the positive and negative obligations of the
friends to the self?

(3) A. There will be a substantial qualitative dif-

ference in the activities which the subjects would prefer

21

to pursue with Americans and those they would prefer to
pursue with Thais.

B. There will be a substantial qualitative dif-
ference in the specific activities which the subjects are
indifferent to pursuing with Thais and those they are in-
different to pursuing with Americans.

C. There will be a substantial qualitative dif-
ference in the specific activities which the subjects
would rather avoid pursuing with Americans and those they
would prefer to avoid pursuing with Thais.

Exploratory question: If any or all of the preceding sub-
stantial differences exist, of what do they consist?

By "substantial" difference, different behaviors
regarding one or more whole classes of phenomena was meant,
rather than differences on one or two unrelated items which
might only reflect a consistent difference in the oppor-
tunity structure, or availability of a particular activity.

Here, then, both discursive and visual models of
the process of abstraction (or extraction) from a general
level of theory to the level of operational empiricism are
presented, which were followed in the research, and through
which I eventually retraced my steps, in the drawing of

some tentative conclusions.

CHAPTER I I I
METHODOLOGY

The study was limited to the interactions between
Americans and Thais, and the interaction of the American
associates with foreign students in general and other
Americans. These interactions were investigated only
through the American associates of Thai students, as pre-
_viously mentioned. It may be noted that references to
"Thai" or "American" relationships to self are those as
perceived by the self, not judged by a more objective cri-
terion. This provided a control on the interposure of
perceptual screens, by using only one observer report of
each empirical life-space (in this case, the life-space
occupant). It is probably apparent that the reciprocals
of the intra-American "questions" have not been handled
for this reason. The Americans were found by surveying,
by telephone, a sample (N=30) of Thai students proportion-
ately stratified as to sex and residence (on—campus, grad
dorm; on-campus, other dorm; and off-campus). This sample
contained married and unmarried graduate students from
several areas in Thailand, who appeared in the random sam-
ple taken from each gender residence category, out of a

population of 60. (16-7 women and 9 men from the grad

2‘2

23

dorm; 8—5 women and 3 men from the other dorms; and 7-4
men and 3 women from off-campus.) About two-thirds of the
Thai pOpulation lived in the graduate dorm, and half were
women, in the population and in the graduate dorm. One
man had recently transferred from off-campus to the grad
dorm, so men were over-represented in this portion of the
sample. The sample from the grad dorm was randomly drawn,
while the other represented all the graduate students
available in those categories. (There were two under-
graduates, who were not included in the sample, and who
lived off—campus. One other, of the 60 Thai, was a non-
student; 40 lived in the grad dorm.) The residence cate-
gory was disproportionately balanced away from the graduate
residence hall, where Thais were predominately lodged; this
was done to avoid finding only the contacts of one group,
rather than more scattered associates with whom relation-
ships might be less standardized by a clique. Thus, Thais
living elsewhere than Owen Hall are over-represented, pro-
portionately.

The list of names from which this sample was drawn
was a composite, gathered from the Foreign Student Office
listings, the foreign student directory, and the directory
of the Thai Association (given to the researcher by an
officer of that association). Several of the officers

introduced the researcher to many in the Thai community,

thus easing the telephone survey. These Officers were

24

met through contacts in the Institute for International
Studies in Education.

Thai students are not a new group on American
campuses—-members of the royal family had been attending
college here for at least 30 years. (These are a rather
large group--there are eight degrees of relationship to
the king, who until recently did not confine himself to
one wife.) However, in 1968, 2629 Thai students were
reported on American campuses.16 On the MSU campus, where
there had only been Thai for 6 years at the time the sample
was drawn, 60 Thai students were listed in the Foreign
Student Office registry. All but three of the sixty were
graduate students working towards a degree, making up ap-
proximately 6% of the foreign graduate student population
on the MSU campus. Of the 242 foreign undergraduates re-
ported for MSU, only two were Thai. The Thai population
at MSU was unusual in two ways: first, 48% were women,
as opposed to only 31% for the general Thai exchange stu-
dent population in the U.S.; and second, 95% of the MSU
Thais were graduate students, in contrast to 46% of the
Thai student population in the U.S. as a whole. Since
Thai male undergraduates are often young men from wealthy

families who cannot meet the entrance requirements for

 

16The figures reported, unless otherwise stated,
are from Open Doors, 1968: Report on International Ex-
change, Institute of International Education, 1968.

25

Chulalongkorn U. (in Bangkok) or even the less prestigious
Tammasat U.17 (in Bangkok), this indicates both an absence
of the elite Thai "playboy" type, economically and aca-
demically, and the presence of an older and more academi-
cally serious group, who may have a more adult, middle-
class Thai outlook on social and personal situations.
There is not a great number of married students, however,
since this class of city- and college-bred Thais marry in
Itheir late twenties or early thirties.

Each Thai was asked to name the five American
students on the MSU campus that he "knew best" and then to
indicate if any of these were particularly "good" friends.
From these American friends a further sample was drawn
(N=30), stratified as to sex, residence (on or off campus,
since no group seemed too highly concentrated in one liv-
ing hall), and academic level. From these categories a
proportional sample was drawn, but containing as many per—
sons named as "good" friends and roommates as possible.

In keeping with the intention to investigate the friend-
ship role in particular, an attempt was made to choose
at least one person from each Thai's list, and to in-
clude those persons who were mentioned by more than

one Thai. All others necessary to make up the correct

 

17Conversation with informant (Thai) specializing
in Higher Education.

26

proportional sample from each category were drawn from the
remaining names in that category by a standard randomizing
process.18

Of the 70 Americans named as "friends," 59.6%
were graduate students, while the remainder were under-
grads; 39% live off-campus, while the rest lived on.
Fifty-one % were male, and 49% were female (indicating
that approximately the same number of Americans were
named by male and female Thais, since all were asked for
same-gender friends). In the sample of the population
drawn, 59.9% were graduate students, 50% were male, and
40% lived off-campus. Slightly under half of both male
and female graduate students, who lived on-campus, lived
at Owen, in both the population and the sample.

The sample was interviewed by the researcher, using
the instrument partially composed of standardized, precoded
questions (though care was taken to encourage respondents
to mention any additions or exceptions to the answer cate-
gories), and partially of open-ended questions. About one-
third were open-ended. The standardized questions were
largely applicable to pathways, depth of involvement, the
interaction situation, and partly to one question on obliga-
tion, three areas of verbal role-definition, and three areas

of non-verbal role definition and behavior. These were, in

 

18Frederick Mosteller, Robert E. K. Rourke, and
George B. Thomas, Probability with Statistical Applications
(Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley PubliShing Co., Inc., 1961),
use Of a random number table, p. 430.

 

27

large part, the questions asked in the four preceding
studies in the same area19 and the coded answer categories
that had been derived from these in the field. This allows
comparability with the previous data collected on American-
foreign student interaction.
The interviews took from one and a half to three
hours; they were held in private offices and allowed for
an uninterrupted space of time. All questions were pre-
tested and revised accordingly before the schedule was used
in the field, within trial interview situations. The lists
were obtained from the Thais during the winter quarter of
1968, and the interviews with the Americans were held in
the spring quarter immediately following. The responses
to the interview and a short evaluation of the researcher's
overall impressions of the interview (respondent, situation,
etc.) were written immediately after the interview. These
sketches may hopefully form part of a base for the rudiments
of a typology of third-cultural contacts, at some later date.
Everything was done to insure both comparability of
the parts of the study which are a replication of four pre-
vious studies in this area, and internal comparability of

the questions on the instrument. Necessarily, due to the

 

19M.A. theses of Jerry Judy, Howard Borck, graduate
research of Barbara Kirk, and a senior honors project done
by Kaye Snyder, concerning, respectively, the American
associates of Indians and Pakistanis, EurOpeans, Latin
Americans, and Nigerians.

28

present instrument being a third revision of the original,
and the interviewer difference in what is unavoidably a
highly personal interaction situation (the in-depth inter-
view) some deviations will occur which may only be partially
controlled for. Nevertheless, it appears that these will
not have invalidating consequences because the instrument
has been used in various stages of revision by five differ-
ent interviewers, while evoking basically the same re-
sponses from widely differing sample groups, over a period
of several years. This "construct validity," then, may be
presumed to carry over into the present study if similar
responses continue to be evoked; it thus seems possible

to proceed on this basis with some assurance of continued

validity and comparability.

CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE AND CATEGORIZATION OF DATA

The specific terms used to delineate the obligatory
dimensions by the subjects may be subsumed under three
broad areas: work, social, and personal.20 These activi-
ties might be those considered appropriate, respectively,
to the functional, categorical, and congeniality third-
culture groups postulated by the Drs. Useem. However,
these also contain a connotation of increasing depth of
member involvement, or personality encompassment, as well
as group function, and may, in this case, represent be-
havior related to role segments rather than the sole be-
havior of a group, or solely appropriate to a role in its
entirety.

"Work-centered" dimensions will be those concerned
with occupational or academic standards and behavior;
"sociabrentered" dimensions will concern particular
diversion-oriented activities, and the maintenance of

good interpersonal relationships within, or as mediated

 

20John and Ruth Hill Useem, "The Interfaces of a
Binational Third Culture: A Study of the American Com-
munity in India," Journal of Social Issues, January, 1967,
pp. 130-143.

29

30

by, a group. "Personal—centered" dimensions are those which
concern the building and maintenance of an intimate dyad,
outside the public or semi-public sector, and are those

most likely to deal with the mutual recognition of emo-
tional tenor.

For instance, "work" obligations invariably cen-
tered around the academic sphere, as would be expected in
a university setting. These ranged between obligations not
to let an irresponsible person handle laboratory equipment
to obligations to correct English grammar on elementary
education papers.

"Social" obligations also tended to center around
campus life--the dormitory bull session, the "cultural"
event, or the playing field. The more traditional college
activities, such as fraternities and glee clubs,had little
place in these relationships, nor were dating situations
mentioned to any great extent (although the study admittedly
focussed away from this). This latter lack of cross-gender
activity may be caused by the nature of the Thai view of
such relationships--a "nice girl" (there are only two kinds:
nice girls and bar girls) should never be seen alone in
the company of a man, nor should she ever touch or be
touched by one publically. (Before marriage, she is never
with a non-related male privately.) Deputations of Thai
men have been known to visit American males who made ad-

vances (such as asking for a date) to Thai student women,

31

and ask that these Americans desist. If the woman herself
accepts these advances, she is ostracized from the Thai
community, which is a rather tight-knit group, centering

in Owen Hall. This provides a setting in which the Thais
may interact with persons of the Opposite sex, and same
culture, in the approved large groups. Two or three women,
for instance, will always be seen together.

The "no-touching" taboo, mentioned earlier, was
seen in operation when the researcher, a Thai girl, and an
American man were conversing. This other American, a
small, nervous man, touched his listeners on the arm,
lightly, to gain and maintain their attention. He at first
directed his remarks to the researcher, with these gestures,
and then turned to the Thai girl (an apparently rather
Westernized student in a short skirt and make-up). The
contact was never effected--the Thai moved quickly (one
might almost say she leaped) out of the range of his hand,
with the sureness born of lifelong avoidance. The con-
versation was disrupted--and the American man left, some-
what bewildered. This sort of incident would seem to
curtail the social activity of Thais and Americans across
sex lines.

"Personal" obligations seemed to center around a
complex of patterns of mutual openness and honesty,
mutual support (material and psychological), mutual trust,

and mutual respect. These were Often phrased in the terms

32

given here, although responses ran from, "He should not
ask me to do anything which is wrong by my moral standards,"
to, "He shouldn't try t' hold hands with me in the hall,
an' all that crap," (both quotes are from American men,
speaking of Thais). These included intimate living prob-
lems, from window-opening in the winter to being alone
with the wife of the other. They often reflected the
American's bemusement at the "formalness" or "shyness" of

a Thai they felt they had come to know well, or their con-
fusion when a Thai whom they thought of as being a friend,
but not an intimate, "Opened up" his inner life to them,
and expected a reciprocal outpouring. This may occur due
to the differing conceptions of the degrees of intimacy
attained by a "friend" in the host and guest cultures, or,
as a Thai informant told the researcher, "When you get in
with a Thai, you're in all the way," and as an American
friend of the same researcher once said, "I have ten shells
--most people don't get below the first three." The bases
for personal exchange would seem to be entrenched in the
sub-conscious formal assumption521 concerning the constitu-
tion of intimacy in the cultures under study, and are thus

more difficult to compromise with, when a personal exchange

 

21Robin Williams, Jr., American Society (New York:
Alfred Knopf, 1959), p. 24.

 

33

complex based upon another set of such assumptions is
proposed as the base for the reciprocal role exchange.

Although open-ended questions were posed first
to obtain the obligatory dimensions, and precoded later
for the optional, the response types fell similarly within
these three areas. As noted before, the obligatory dimen-
sions tended to be defined in somewhat more abstract
terms, while the optional content of this framework was
defined on a more specific level. For instance, the obli-
gation might be seen as the duty to "share possessions
and exchange favors," while the Option might be "lend my
car." The results are presented as percentages, in order
to allow for the differing number of empirical indicators
used for each, though specific examples are cited through—
out the discussion tO indicate the scope and range of
response type.

It was apparent that the subject responses to the
questions concerning the obligatory dimensions of the
relationship, with regard to both reference groups, dif-
fered widely in degree of specificity, nuances of phrase-
ology, and emphasis upon particular points. In the absence
of a forced scaling device or precoded response categories,
it seemed appropriate to carry out a modified form of con-
tent analysis of the responses, centered around the dis-
tinctions in third—culture relationship type outlined above.

The procedure followed was to determine the number of

34

different dimensions mentioned concerning each major be-
havioral area (work, social, or personal). This allowed
at least a basic comparison of the qualitative and quan—
titative prOperties of these dimensions concerning Ameri-

can friendships, as opposed to Thai-American friendships.

CHAPTER V

RESULTS

Before reporting the results Of testing the hypoth-
eses concerning the form and content of the relationships
between Americans and Thais, it seems pertinent to explore
the social identity of the Americans Vis a vis the Thais,
as has earlier been done for the Thais themselves. (It
should always be borne in mind that relationships are
formed between people, and not between abstract concepts.)
The perceived identity of these Americans, in a very real
way, will come to be a national identity in the eyes and
actions of the Thai interactants.

These Americans were, as has been seen in the
chapter on methodology, equally balanced as to gender, and
tended to be graduate students living on campus. For the
most part, the Americans living in Owen Hall seemed to be
a part of one of several multi-national and multi-racial
dating groups; however, their relationship with the Thai
almost never occurred within this group, but was an iso-
lated, one—to-one relationship, or was the focal relation—
ship of an American with a group of Thais. In only one
instance was the Thai part of a multi-national group, and

this case occurred off-campus, and was a one-gender living

35

36

group; the American was not part of this group himself.

For undergraduates, and graduates living off-campus, the
Thai was often only one of several isolated relationships
of the American with foreign students, while these were a
distinct minority of this American's "friend" relationships.
In the other cases, the Thai was again part of an isolated
relationship with the American, and was the only relation-
ship with a foreign student that the American student had.
Neither did these Americans form any cohesive, recognized
group; they were apparently unknown to each other.

The Americans also tended to be of working-class
or lower-middle-class background. The few professional
parents were in fields such as teaching agricultural engi-
neering. Few of them seemed to be the attractive, self-
confident, well—to-do student associated with the large,
midwestern'university campus. Rather, they were often
hesitant, lacking in assurance, and had what might even
be described as a hunger to express themselves, about them-
selves, to a sympathetic listener. They were Often stu-
dious in their demeanor, and varied in dress from excep-
tional neatness to off-beat casualness.

These Americans did not conform to the general
pattern of campus fashion, such as full make-up, short
skirts and patterned stockings, and elaborate hair-dos
for the women, and V-neck sweaters, tinted shirts, press

slacks and a Princeton or English school-boy haircut for

37

the men. They were, however, a fairly well—kept group,
with clean, pressed clothes, combed hair, and polished
shoes. None could be described as bizarre, with the pos-
sible exception of one boisterous graduate woman dressed
in "hippie" clothes, and one graduate man who held him-
self stiffly and answered every question in terms of his
own moral concerns. For the most part, few could be picked
out in a crowd. Their ages ran from a young and eager
eighteen to a garralous, but warm, fifty—two. However,
the bulk were seniors or first or second year graduate
students, in their early twenties.

These, then were the Americans who formed associa-
tions with the Thai students, which will be discussed. In
the light of this background, the findings concerning these
relationships are reported.

With regard to hypothesis 1A (there will be a
qualitative difference in what are visualized by the Ameri-
can subjects as their positive obligations to their Ameri-
can friends and what are felt to be their positive obliga-
tions to their Thai friends.) there does appear to be a
qualitative difference. What is visualized by the American
subjects as their positive obligations to their American
friends and what are felt to be their positive obligations
to their Thai friends, as may be seen in the following

table , vary,

38

Table l.-—Positive Responses of American Subjects Pertaining
to Work, Social, and Personal Obligation Dimensions
by Percent of Total Response Types (R) and Fre-
quency Mentioned (f), for American Friends and for
Thai Friends.

 

 

 

 

 

Obligation Dimensions:
Positive Obligations of % (of Total Response Types)
the American Subject to: ,
Work SOCial Personal
American Friends (R=22) O 23 77
Thai Friends (R=23) 13 56 30
f
American Friends 0 23 116
Thai Friends 24 118 65

 

 

 

*See Appendix III.

Each cell indicates % of response types; the figure indicates
the percentage of responses pertaining to this area, of all

the responses given to the question. A peculiar facet of

this table is that the figures for the Thai were derived from
a precoded list of responses. However, any responses not in-
dicated were deleted, and the subjects were encouraged to,
and did, suggest other responses, which were included. Never-
theless, the rate of response was increased by the forced
nature of the question, although no focussed responses were
suggested that did not correspond to subject responses on
earlier open-ended questions. Further, the percentage of
response types on this corresponded with those of open-ended
questions. As a part of a pattern, this comparison may have
some utility, but this and related problems preclude meaningful
tests for the statistical significance above the nominal level.
The difference appears to lie in the fact that there

is a great deal of emphasis on the personal sphere in

the American relationships and none on the work sphere,

39

while for the Thai relationship, the emphasis is upon the
social sphere, with less upon the personal; the work dimen-
sion acquires some importance,though not a great deal.22
That is, when speaking of their relationships with
their American friends, the subjects stressed openness,
honesty, sincerity, and a host of other such values; often,
the need for mutual support in a group came through strongly
on the "social" dimension. There was also a concern, prob-
ably indigenous to American culture and the university set—
ting, with "finding time" to keep up both personal and
social aspects of a relationship. This was not as apparent
in the interaction with the Thais; there was, instead, a
concern by the subjects for guiding the Thai socially--
taking him to concerts, including him in group discussions,
and the like. This guidance function tended to occur in
the personal sphere with the Americans, where it took an
"advice to the lovelorn" form. Part of this "guidance"
complex seemed to extend to the work area with the Thais;
Americans felt they should "do everything" to help the
Thai, from helping him learn English, to filling out job
applications. This guidance apparently had two implica-
tions: the first was a desire to present America favorably,
both through the subject's own actions, and through ex-

posing the Thai to favorable situations for observing

22The work sphere may suffer in quantitative compari-
sons Of response types, since its responses are easily rec-
ognized, and so these may often be more highly codified in
interviewing and reduced in coding than othe response types.

40

American culture. The second implication was that a Thai
would begin to behave predictably, "just like an American,"
if he were simply eXposed to the prOper influences.

The first group of Americans seemed to have no con-
cern with integrating the Thai into close personalized
relationships with Americans. On the other hand, they often
had a lively interest in Thai culture. The second American
group seemed to have a desire to form personal relationships
with the Thai, partially for their own ego-support. It
tended to include a number of American graduate women from
working class or lower middle class backgrounds, often of
a pious bent, who wanted to stress communication with the
Thai, sometimes for religious purposes. As a whole, their
dress ran to very proper, but unflattering styles, as did
their hairdos. They held themselves stiffly, were wary in
their responses, and Often speculated on the possible
psychoanalytic implications of the questions (none were
intended).

Hypothesis 18 (there will be a qualitative differ-
ence in what are felt to be the negative obligations of the
self to American friends and what are felt to be the nega—
tive obligations to the Thai friends) also appears to be
supported. However, here the emphasis upon the social
increased for Americans, while emphasis on the personal
decreased. The same was true for Thais, though not in
the same measure. Also for Thais, the emphasis upon the

work sphere decreased although this may simply reflect a

41

change from.aforced-response eliciting question to an

open-ended one.

Table 2.--Negative Responses of American Subjects Pertaining
to Work, Social, and Personal Obligation Dimen-
sions by Percent of Total Responses Types (R) and
Frequency Mentioned (f), for American Friends and
for Thai Friends.

 

 

 

 

 

Obligation Dimensions:
Negative Obligations of % (of Total Response Types)
the American Subject to: ,
Work SOCial Personal
American Friends (R=22) 0 41 59
Thai Friends (R=34) 6 68 26
f
American Friends 0 28 34
Thai Friends 3 43 21

 

 

 

*See Appendix III.

The percentages indicate the proportion of each

response type to the total number of response types for

each question concerning negative obligations of the self.
This may also suggest a tendency to think of negative
obligations in terms of social mores, and to think of
personal relationships largely in positive terms.

There seemed to be a concern with betrayal and
invasion of privacy inherent in many of the negative
obligations mentioned, for both the self and the other
Americans and Thais. Often, the betrayal was actively
by Americans or Thais gf the self 39 others concerning
private areas, or failures in mutual support functions
in a group. The less-mentioned personal sphere contained
a more passive set of failures to meet positive obliga-
tions. For instance, two of the most frequently-evoked

responses were, "He (or she) shouldn't talk (gossip)

42

behind my back," and, "He shouldn't tell others what I've
told him in confidence." This would seem to be the other
side of the coin of the overwhelming concern with trust,
frankness, and sincerity. While this may only be sug-
gested here, it poses an interesting research question
for social-psychological investigation, especially if we
inquire whether such a conceptual division coincides with
an apparent behavior complex.

Hypothesis lC (the areas of difference between
American and Thai relationships will be the same for the
positive and negative obligations,) is also upheld. The
differences in both positive and negative obligatory frame-
works for the Thai and American relationships appear to
consist of (a) the inclusion of the work sphere in the
Thai, and the exclusion in the American, and (b) a much
greater emphasis on the personal sphere than the social
for the Americans, and the reverse for the Thai.

Hypothesis 2A (there will be a qualitative dif-
ference in what the American subjects feel are the positive
Obligations of the Thai friend to the self and the American
friend to the self,) seems to be supported in the same
manner as the preceding three hypotheses. That is, the
subject's positive expectations of other Americans, as
evidenced in the high number of response types used to
document the dimension, are concentrated highly in the

personal sphere, and to exclude the work sphere.

43

The expectations of Thais, through the same evidential
process, are concentrated in the social sphere, though

including the work and personal spheres.

Table 3.--Positive Responses of American Friends and of
Thai Friends Pertaining to Work, Social, and
Personal Obligation Dimensions by Percent of
Total Response Types (R) and Frequency Mentioned
(f)? for Their Relationship with the American

 

 

 

 

 

Subject.
0 1' t' D' ' :
Positive Obligations to b iga ion% imenSions
the American Subject

from: Work Social Personal
American Friends (R=30) 0 43 57
Thai Friends (R=25) 8 56 36

f

American Friends 0 27 63
Thai Friends 2 22 30

 

 

 

*See Appendix III.

The percentage in each cell indicates the propor-
tion of responses in each area, in comparison to the total
numbers of responses given.

Several other points may also be mentioned here: the
gap between the percent of personal response-types with Amer-
icans, and that of Thais, is as high as 47%, and is never
less than 18%; and the number of personal response-types with
regard to American-American relationships drops 27% between
the most positive personalized relationship and the most nega-
tive abstract relationship, but the percentage of response-
types concerning personal dimensions of the relationship

never drops below 50% of the total number of response-types;

and finally, although there is always some concern with the

‘work dimension of the relationship between Americans and

44

Thais, which differentiates it qualitatively from the
American-American relationship, the percentage of response-

types pertaining to this dimension never rises over 13%,

and drOps as low as 6%. By "positive, personalized rela-
tionship" a self-to-American positive obligation is meant;
by "negative, abstract" the negative Obligations of the
Americans and Thais to the self is meant.

Hypothesis 2B (a qualitative difference also exists
in what the subjects feel are the negative obligations of
the two friends to the self,) is also supported in the
same way as the preceding four hypotheses, except that the
American obligations are mentioned in equal numbers in the
personal and social spheres, though not at all in the work
area. The Thai emphasis is again on the personal, with

about one-third concentrated in the social sphere.

Table 4.—-Negative Responses of American Friends and of
Thai Friends Pertaining to Work, Social, and Per-
sonal Obligation Dimensions by Percent of Total
Response Types (R) and Frequency Mentioned (f)?
for Their Relationships with the American Subject.

 

 

 

 

 

Negative Obligation to Obligation Dimensions:
the American Subject %
from: Work Social Personal
American Friends (R=26) O 50 50
Thai Friends (R=21) 9 57 33
f
American Friends 0 23 33
Thai Friends 12 20 12

 

 

 

*See Appendix III.

The percent in each cell indicates the proportion

of responses falling in each area, in comparison to the

total number (N) of responses given.

45

The reduction in the personal response-types for
Americans is congruent with the general theory; for if
the Obligational framework of a relationship is a formal
or informal cultural facet, we would expect it to exist
out of awareness to a great extent, or for the alternatives
to not be generally conceived as possibilities. However,
an individual, to be accorded the status of a fully func-
tioning member of a society, must exhibit the behavior pat-
terns apprOpriate to the underlying cultural assumptions
of that society. Given this, there would appear to be a
certain logic in his awareness of his own specific personal
behavioral decisions (which exist internal to himself),
rather than those of others. The social decisions are
manifested somewhat more openly. Further, since the alter-
natives to the patterns dictated by formal cultural facets
are not generally conceptualized as worthy or even pos-
sible ones, it follows that the personal-internal behaviors
are not generally conceived of in the negative, while ex-
perience may have suggested the negative social behaviors,
at least for the informal cultural facets. This is where
the afore-mentioned concern with betrayal was evinced
most strongly.

As has been demonstrated in the reports of the
testing of the latter two hypotheses, hypothesis 2C (the
areas of difference in the obligations of the friends to

the self, for both positive and negative obligations, will

46

be substantially the same,) is supported--again, the Thai-
American relationship is seen to include a work dimension,
and to place its heaviest emphasis on the social, while
the American-American relationship pleaces a heavier, or
at least equal, emphasis on the personal, and does not
include the work dimension at all. The specific content
of these dimensions was essentially the same as that dis-
cussed in conjunction with the first set of hypotheses.

The last three hypotheses pertain to questions
which had a forced-answer format; that is, a list of ac—
tivities was provided, garnered from previous similar
studies (such as "have coffee, talk, drink, go to parties,
double—date with, study with, take home to meet my family"),
and the subjects were asked to mark whether they would
prefer, be indifferent to, or avoid, doing them, first
with Americans, and later on, with Thais. On this basis
we were able to compare specific individual's responses to
specific questions, and then draw a composite, as well as
drawing the initial composite scores for the group. Thus,
the following hypotheses will have several reference points
in the data analysr3,and.the reported results will have a
somewhat broader analytic base, although having the accom-
panying disadvantage of structuring the empirical interview

situation somewhat more restrictively. This will, however,

47

serve as a check on the more diffuse results obtained from
the investigation of the data generated by the open-ended
questions.

Hypothesis 3A (there will be a substantial qualitaf
tive difference in the activities which the subjects would
prefer to pursue with Americans and those they prefer to
pursue with Thais) is only partially supported. On a
composite basis, almost an equal percentage of the subjects
would prefer to pursue activities included in the work,
social, or personal areas (54-59 percent, a spread of less
than 5%). However, not as large a percentage would prefer
to do these things with Thais (12% and 10%, less, respec-
tively, for work and personal dimensions, and 19% for the
social dimensions). This is practically a reverse in the
intra-relationship dimensional structure for the Thais,
and represents a substantial change in the balance of the
importance given work for both Thai-American and American—
American relationships.

When individually analyzed, only 6% of those who
preferred pursuing social activities with Thais did not
pursue them with Americans. This is also true for 12%
of those preferring to pursue work-oriented activities
with the Thais, and for 8% of those preferring personal

activities with them.

48

Table 5.——Responses of American Students Indicating Prefer-
ence for Work, Social, and Personal Dimensions
of Optional Activities with American Friends,
with Thai Friends, and with Both, in Percent of
Total Responses.

 

 

 

 

 

Dimensions of Activity is preferred with:
Preferred Op-
tional Activity American Thai Both
Work (NQ*=120) 56 44 32
Social (NQ=300) 54 35 29
Personal (NQ=240) 59 49 41

 

 

 

*NQ = Total Responses [= number of Questions x num-
ber of Respondents (30)].

The figures in each cell represent the percent of
the total number of possible preference responses actually
given, for all questions on each dimension.

In sum, this indicates that the major difference
in the dimensional content of the relationships in ques-
tion is quantitative, rather than qualitative; that is,
fewer of the subjects would prefer to do anything with
Thais, than would prefer to do anything with other Ameri-
can friends. There appeared to be an especial dearth of
subjects who preferred to pursue specific social activi-
ties with Thais; this is quite consistent with our previous
findings which showed the highest incidence of response
types for the Thai-American relationships dimensions occur—
ring under the heading of "negative Obligation" (of the self
to Thais) and the second highest under "negative obligation"

(of the Thai) and both with regard to social activities.

49

The findings concerning the optional work dimension
are also congruent with those concerning the Obligational
work dimension. Academics represent a problem with which
all the subjects in the test group must deal; since it is
not largely dealt with in the informal-Obligational frame-
work, and since it is a problem involving conscious choice
(i.e., not a formal facet of culture), it seems to follow
that the primary orientation to the work dimension will
appear in the technical-optional content Of the obligatory
relationship framework.

Finally, the continued high percentage of subjects
preferring to pursue personal activities with Americans
corroborates the earlier postulated importance of this
dimension in American friendships while the increase in
emphasis on the personal area in American—Thai relationships
in their optional content is consistent with the fact that,
though we are investigating an established friendship rela-
tionship, it is not necessarily felt to have the obligatory
framework of the American intra-cultural relationship, nor
a particularly well—defined obligatory framework of its

23
own.

 

23This poses an interesting research question in
itself, especially in view of the relative newcomer status
of a large group of Thais to the educational exchange pro-
gram on this campus. Is the character of the American-
Thai relationship in a process of evolution from a purely
Optional scatter of activities to an obligatory framework,
and if so, is this obligatory framework qualitatively dif—

ferent from that of American-American relationships?

50

Hypothesis 33 (there will be a substantial qualita-
tive difference in the specific activities which the sub-
jects are indifferent to pursuing with Thais and those they
are indifferent to pursuing with Americans,) when tested
against the group composite, is not supported--apparently,
the "indifferent" orientation of the composite subject's
group is very similar, quantitatively and qualitatively, with

regard to both Thai-American and American-American relation-

ships.

Table 6.-—Responses of American Students Indicating Indif—
ference for Work, Social, and Personal Dimensions
of Optional Activities with American Friends,
with Thai Friends, and with Both, in Percent of
Total Responses.

 

 

 

 

 

Dimensions of . . . . .
Indifferent ActiVity is Indifferent With.
Optional Ac-

tiVitY American Thai Both

Work (NQ*=120) 37.5 45 21

Social (NQ=300) 26.0 32 14

Personal (NQ=240) 29.0 30 15

 

 

 

*NQ = Total Responses [= number of Questions X num-
ber of Respondents (30)].'

The figure in each cell represents the percent of
the possible "indifference" responses actually given.

Further, as can be seen in the table above, only
about half of the subjects who are indifferent to various

dimensions are indifferent to both the inter- and intra-

 

These questions suggest a longitudinal research design,
and cannot be answered here, although this might hope-
fully constitute part of the basis for such research.

51

cultural relationships. By referring to Table 4 we may
note that of the subjects who were indifferent to activi-
ties with the Thais, the half who were not equally indif-
ferent to these activities with the Americans actually
preferred these activities with them. The reverse was not
true for the Thais; of the subjects who were indifferent
with the Americans only about 30% preferred these activi-
ties with the Thais.

In sum, we may say that although hypothesis 3B is
not supported, further credence is given to the statement
(made in connection with hypothesis 3A) that the subjects
are more favorably disposed to activities with Americans
than with Thais. A real qualitative difference in the
dimensional-predominence of the content of the relation-
ships does not apparently exist on the Optional level, but
only a slight quantitative one in the indicated direction.

Hypothesis 3C (there will be a substantial qualita-
tive difference in the specific activities which the sub-
jects would rather avoid pursuing with Thais and those they
would prefer to avoid pursuiing with Americans,) is not
supported. However, the results derived from testing it
further reinforce the statement based on the quantitative
difference, that has been suggested by the investigation
of hypotheses 3A and 3B. This is that a substantially
larger number of the subjects prefer to pursue every type

of activity with Americans, and avoid all types of

52

activities with Thais. Concerning avoidance, almost twice as
many subjects prefer to avoid activities with Thais, as Opposed
to avoiding them with Americans, and no more than 3% of the
groups are non-coincidental. (That is, the same subjects pre-
fer to avoid the same activities with Americans as they do

with Thais, being split equally between either indifference

and preference for the identical activities with Americans.)

Table 7.--Responses of American Students Indicating Avoidance
for Work, Social, and Personal Dimensions of
Optional Activities with American Friends, with
Thai Friends, and with Both, in Percent of Total
Responses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dimensions of Avoided Activity is Avoided with:
Optional ACtiVitY American Thai Both
Work (NQ*=120) 5 11 2
Social (NQ=300) 17 31 14
Personal (NQ=240) ll 20 10
*NQ = Total Responses [= number of Questions X num—

ber of Respondents (30)].

The figure in each cell represents the number of
possible "avoidance" responses actually given to those
options in that area.

The following tables present a summary of the whole
of this second group of data, and the smaller tables in-
cluded in the analysis of the results of testing each hy-
pothesis may be seen to be portions of these. The percents
represent a comparison of the responses which actually
occurred in a category to the (N) number of those which

could possibly have occurred for each of the 22 options

53

Table 8.--Responses of American Students Indicating Prefer-
ence, Indifference, and Avoidance for Work Dimen-
sion of Optional Activities with Both American and
Thai Friends, in Percent Of Total Responses (NQ).

“
_’

 

Orientation of the Orientation of the American
American Subject Subject to Optional Work Ac-
to Optional Work tivities with the AJnerican
Activities with Friend

 

the Thai Friend: , ,
Preference Indifference AVOidance

 

Preference 32 10 0.8
Indifference 22 21 2.0
Avoidance 3 3 2.0

 

 

 

No Response = 3.2%; Rounding Error = 1%; NQ* = 120.

Table 9.--Responses of American Students Indicating Prefer-
ence, Indifference, and Avoidance for Social Dimen-
sions of Optional Activities with Both American and
Thai Friends, in Percent of Total Responses (NQ).

 

Orientation of the Orientation of the American
American Subject . Subject to Optional Social Ac-
to Optional Social tivities with the American
Activities with Friend

 

the Thai Friend: . .
Preference Indifference AVOidance

 

Preference 29 4 0.7
Indifference l7 14 1.7
Avoidance 8 7 14.0

 

 

 

NO Response = 4%; Rounding Error = 0.6%; NQ* = 300.
*NQ = Total Responses = [number of Respondents (30) x number

of Questions].

proposed. Thus, there are ten variables which measure the
social dimension, four for work, and eight for personal;
30 subjects might have indicated a positive response to
"preference" for each. Hence, 300 responses could there—
fore occur within the cell representing a preference for
social-dimension related activities. Only 78 responses of
this sort--26% of the hypothetical 300—-did occur, and it

is the percent which is entered in the cell.

54

Table lO.--Responses of American Students Indicating Prefer-
ence, Indifference, and Avoidance for Social
Dimensions of Optional Activities with Both
Americans and Thai Friends, in Percent of Total
Responses (NQ).

 

Orientation of the American
Subject to Optional Personal Ac-
tivities with the American

Friend

Orientation of the
American Subject
to Optional Per-
sonal Activities

With the Thai Friend: Preference Indifference Avoidance

 

 

Preference 41 7 0.8
Indifference 14 15 0.0
Avoidance 4 6 10.0

 

 

 

No Response = 2%; Rounding Error = 0.2%; NQ* = 240.

* NQ = Total Responses = [number of Respondents CNN X num-
ber of Questions].

It should be noted that the entire scale is skewed
heavily towards preference for Americans, and equally bal-
anced between preference and indifference for Thais (except
in the personal sphere where preference predominates).
Avoidance remains the pattern for only 10% to 20% of the
sample, with two exceptions; a drop (in work with Americans)
to 5%, and a rise (in social activities with Thais) to 31%.
These exceptions are also consistent with the theory.

In short, then, the difference existing in avoidance
patterns for Americans, and those of Thais, are purely quan-

titative.

55

Tablell.—-Responses of American Students Indicating Prefer-
ence, Indifference, and Avoidance for Work, Social
and Personal Dimensions of Optional Activities
with American Friends, in Percent of Total Re-

I

 

 

 

 

 

sponses.
Optional Activity Orientations of the American Subject
Dimensions of the Toward Optional Activity Dimensions
American Subject with American Friends
'thAm' ,A ,

Wl Frieigécan Prefer Indifferent AVOid
Work (NQ*=120) 56 37.5 5
Social (NQ=300) 54 26.0 17
Personal (NQ=240) 59 29.0 11

 

 

 

Roundinngrror + No Response (%)

 

Social 3.0
Personal 1.0
Work 1.5

Table12.--Responses of American Students Indicating Prefer-
ence, Indifference, and Avoidance for Work, Social,
and Personal Dimensions of Optional Activities
with Thai Friends, in Percent of Total Responses.

 

Optional Activity Orientations of the American Subject
Dimensions of the Toward Optional Activity Dimensions
American Subject with Thai Friends

with Thai Friends

 

 

 

 

Prefer Indifferent Avoid
Work (NQ*=120) 44 45 11
Social (NQ=300) 35 32 31
Personal (NQ=240) 49 30 20

 

 

 

Rounding Error + NO Response

 

Work 0
Social 2
Personal 1

*NQ = Total Responses [= number of Questions X num-
ber of Respondents (30)].

CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, it appears that the obligatory dimen-
sional framework differs quantitatively for Thai-American
and American—American relationships, as defined by American
subjects. First, there seemed to be a work dimension24
in Thai-American relationships, but not for American-
American. Second, there was a greater emphasis in Thai-
American relationships on the social, rather than the per-
sonal, dimension. For the American relationships, the
Opposite was true. Third, there was a greater emphasis
on the social dimension in Thai-American relationships
than in American-American relationships; there was a
greater emphasis on the personal in American-American
relationships than in Thai—American relationships. Fur-
ther, both the intra— and inter-relationship differences
decreased as the frame of reference became increasingly
abstract and negative, e.g., became other-to—self and

negative obligations.

 

24A dimension, in this sense, is a complex of
obligations--prescribed and proscribed norms and values--
surrounding a particular segment of the life-experience;

in this case, work.

56

57

The optional dimensional content does not differ
qualitatively--the dimensional interrelationships are
essentially the same internal to both American-American
and American-Thai relationships. However, a quantitative
difference exists between the two types Of relationships,
and between the dimensions within each relationship.
Between the two relationships, there is a tendency for
the balance of feelings in American-American relationships
to be on the preferential end of the spectrum, and for
there to be a very low rate of avoidance. For the Thai-
American relationships, preference and indifference are
essentially in balance (except on the personal dimension,
where preference well outweighs indifference), and the avoid—
ance rate, although the lowest of all three orientations,
is twice that for the American-American relationships.

Between dimensions, the personal dimension activi-
ties are the most preferred, and the work dimension ac-
tivities are the least avoided, though they show the
highest rate of indifference. The social dimension-
connected activities are the least preferred and the most
avoided, although for the Thai-American relationships, the
rates of preference, indifference and avoidance are nearly
the same.

In short, the American-American and Thai-American
friendship relationships (or reciprocal role definitions,

in this case) differ by the dimension by which they are

58

structured and defined, and in the evaluative orientation
to their content.

What, then, do these findings mean in terms of
the major research questions? It is obvious that if we
accept the assumption that the Thais and Americans occupy
the same position ("friend") then the answer to whether
the role definitions for these Thais and Americans differ,
is a largely unqualified "yes." The ways in which these
differ has been outlined above. The patterns into which
these differences fall has also been outlined as a ten-
dency of the American subjects to emphasize the personal
dimension with Americans and the work dimension with Thais,
and to emphasize the social dimension, especially in its
negative aspects, more strongly with Thais. Indeed, the
leaning is towards the definition of relationships with
other Americans in a positive way, and the definitions
of relationships with Thais negatively, although the
tendency towards the positive is the over-riding one.

‘The final question (on this level) is whether
these differences represent opposing definitions or modes
of behavior in the host and guest cultures. The answer
to this must be speculative, or at least based on previous
findings concerning the two cultures. The explanation

seems relatively prominent in the literature25 concerning

 

25Guskin and Sookthawee, "Changing Values of Thai
College Students," Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn U.,
Bangkok, 1964, pp. 1-113. Also Herbert Phillips, "Person—
ality and Social Structure in a Siamese Community," Human
Organization, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 105-108; and Fred Riggs,
Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity,

(Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1966).

59

the differing emphases given the personal dimension in
the two relationships. Thai culture does not allow for
intimacy outside the family circle or with a few selected
life-long associates, and thus it would be unusual.for a
close personal relationship to be formed by a Thai.- The
presence of as much concern with the personal aspects of
the American-Thai relationship as now exists may be an
indication that the Thais are indeed forming relationships
which contain new elements with the Americans. The same
may be said of the new obligatory work dimension for
Americans--while an emphasis upon the work role is not a
phenomenon antithetical to American cultural values, it
is obviously not considered an obligatory dimension of a
relationship which also contains an emphasis upon social-
personal dimensions. The combination of these two factors
(the relative de-emphasis of the personal dimension and
the emphasis upon the work dimension) and the emphasis
upon the social dimension with the Thais is characteristic
.f

of third-cultural relationships.26

The emphasis present upon personal dimensions even
‘within American-Thai relationships may be a function of
(a) the use of only American subjects in determining the
dimensions, and (b) the ecological locus of this third
culture within an American college culture, to which the

Thais must, at least in some degree, adapt.

26Useem, Useem, and Donoghue, Op. cit., p. 14.

 

60

Finally, we may suggest that the positivism with
which American-American relationships are treated is a
pervasive characteristic of American culture,27 but that
the relative negativism with which American-Thai relations
are treated is typical of (a) the tendency of members of
a society to exclude from their daily life spaces experi-
ences for which their culture provides no adequate.pat-
tern, and (b) the generally less positivistic attitude
characteristic of Eastern societies. The mixture of posi—
tive and negative feelings concerning American-Thai rela-
tionships, with a balance in the areas often regarded as
central to third culture (i.e., the social dimension) may
be taken as further evidence of a burgeoning third culture.

In short, it appears that a set of third-cultural
relationships are in the process of evolving, and that the
framework of this set is largely social, but containing a
new work and a lessened personal dimension not typical of
the host or guest culture in their affective content, nor
their balance of emphasis. That is, there is a balance
between positive feeling and indifference concerning work,au1
equal spread of positivism, indifference, and negativism
concerning the social dimension (probably indicating a more

well-formed concept and dimensions) and a balance towards

 

27Margaret Mead, And Keep Your Powder Dry (New
York: W. Morrow and Co., 1942).

 

61

positivism concerning thepersonal. This context is
familiar to neither culture's members, but is emergent
between them. Neither is this typical of relationships
of other types within the society (on different levels of
intimacy or involving a different relationship basis) in
terms of what we know of these in American or Thai-culture.
In terms of the larger theory, this means that
new formal-informal cultural facets are evolving within
this role set (the role set is becoming defined in terms
of formal and informal cultural assumptions), and that,
in all probability, several of the specific behaviors
which form the technical content of the informal frame-
work are also involved in becoming informal dimensions.;
(It should here be noted that in speaking of the technical
content of an informal framework, I am imposing a struc-
ture upon Hall's distinctions between formal, informal,
and technical cultural facets which he does not suggest
himself; theoretically, this structure--that is, the par-
ticular dynamic relationship between the cultural facets—-
is a descendent of Benedict's "arc of culture" and its
implications for the understanding of various aspects of
culture.) H0pefully, this shift, from a technical to an
informal and formal cultural assumptive foundation for a
role set, is a phenomena which is common to all continuous

cross-cultural interactions within an evolving community

62

of men, and thus the processual content of building "third—
cultural bridges."28
This is to say that role-definitions will be made
in largely technical terms, but that they will become role
definitions in the true culturally-based sense as used
herein, through the process of generalization of specific
phenomena to an informal basis; and that this informal
framework may be part of the normative structure of a new
third culture. Further, roles will at first be defined in
the informal terms of the two original cultures, but the
new informal third-cultural facets may even be antithetical
to informal facets of one or both of the original cultures.
Finally, an emphasis may be placed upon dimensions which
are relatively impoverished in the original cultures in
their informal attributes--that is, dimensions which are
scarcely treated in the original cultures may become impor-
tant as an informal facet of a new third-cultural role-set.
In the American-Thai context, the above means that
Thais and Americans find that their relationships must
center around work, with members of the other culture,
because in social, and particularly in personal areas, the
cultural formal assumptions have already been internalized
strongly by the adult culture members. Such personal-social

relationships are well-known and highly valued in both

 

28Useem, Useem, and Donoghue, op. cit., p. 15.

63

cultures, and, thus, theytend to be framed in a set of
formal assumptions. However, the work role, at least of

the academic type, may be less familiar and less-defined

by the cultures. It may well represent a segment of the
life ordinarily isolated in a certain age-grade at a certain
locus, for Americans. The character of the Americans who
were involved with the Thais also contributes to this view—-
they were often people who had had no connection with the
collegiate-level academic role, and to whom it had little
reality, before they had come to college. Several had

lived at home throughout undergraduate school. Many were
from Michigan and had not traveled widely.

This academic work role may also be so new and
little-represented in general Thai culture that it is
essentially not defined by any but technical assumptions,
and may also be a highly segmentalized role, circumscribed
by few dimensions. From these segmentalized, technical
roles, Americans and Thais may well be building a
reciprocal role relationship, and utilizing the technical
norms of their own cultures as the formal and informal
norms of this. For instance, it may be efficient to ask
another to proofread a paper in each culture; however,
this may evolve into an obligation between American and
Thai classmates. As one of the respondents put this,
"We're real close--she always types my papers for me, and
I correct all hers for grammar and stuff--of course, I

-don't understand the math."

64

Or, either between Americans or Thais, dinner
invitations may be a matter of convenience--but in the
third-cultural role—set, the exchanging of food and hos-
pitality may become one of the defining dimensions Of a
friendship. Again the discussion of certain political
situations, such as Vietnam, may be a matter of conversa-
tional coincidence among intra—cultural groups--but may
entail de rigeur avoidance in the cross-cultural relation-
ship; that is, become an assumed condition of the mainte-
nance of the relationship.

In short, things which are minimally normatively
circumscribed or weighted in both host and guest cultures
may become the bases for a cross-cultural exchange, and
may in time come to be the informal (or formal) assumptions
or moral norms of the latter set of relationships. When
these roles become informally or formally and richly framed,
they may constitute a complex into which new recruits may
move, assuming these defined roles, and this may be the
beginning of a third culture.

The dynamic interaction implied here between cul-
tural facets may be taken as an indication that the exclu-
sion of a specific consideration of cultural facets in
systems analysis is an omission which should lead us to
re-evaluate judgments made in its terms. This is especially
true, since the meeting of systems theory and culture based

theory in role (a most basic concept in American sociology)

65

is too obvious to be ignored. This study, again hopefully,
may point in some small part to the fallacy of considering
culture as a static variable, and reaffirm its dynamic,

processual nature.

CHAPTER VIII

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Probably the two most dire needs in terms of this
particular research are (a) the need to compare these role
definitions with role behavior, and the role behaviors
with each other, and (b) the need to investigate the recip-
rocal aspects of these relationships among the Thais.
Additional research questions of interest, though not of
as direct import, have been suggested throughout the text,
as the circumstances which prompted them have arisen. The
need for further research in this area cannot be under-
estimated, nor can its personal and public importance for
understanding of both the lives of others, and the life
of the self, in a shrinking world where even the meanings
of society and culture must undergo a constant process of

revision.

66

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benedict, Ruth. Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co., 1934.

 

Borck, Howard. "Interaction of American Students with
Western European Students at a Midwestern Univer—
sity," unpub. M.A. thesis, Michigan State Univer-
sity, East Lansing, Michigan, 1966.

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday
Life. Garden City, N.Y.: DouBIeday, I959.

. The Transfer and Use of Development Skills.
Bureau of SoEIal Science Research, 1966.

Guskin and Sookthawee. "Changing Values of Thai College
Students," Faculty of Education, Bangkok, Chula-
longkorn University, 1964.

Hall, Edward T. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1966.

 

. The Silent Language. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett
Publications, 1961.

 

Hewes, Gordon. "The Ecumene As a Civilization Multiplier
System," Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers,
Fall, 1965, No. 25, pp. 73-110, Berkeley, Cali:
fornia.

Homans, George. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, Inc., 1950.

 

Judy, Jerry. "Interaction of American Students with
Indian Students at a Midwestern University,"
unpub. M.A. thesis, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1967.

Kroeber, A. L. "The Ancient Oikumene As a Historic Cul—
ture Aggregate," Journal of the Royal Anthropo-
logical Institute, Vol. 75, Parts 1-2, 1945, pp.
9-20 0

 

Mead, Margaret. And Keep Your Powder Dry. New York:
W. Morrow and Co., 19421

 

67

68
Merton, Robert. "Social Structure and Anomie," ASR,
Vol. 3, Oct. 1938, p. 672.

Mills, Theodore. The Sociology of Small Groups. Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967.

Morris, Richard T. The Two-Way Mirror. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1960.

 

Mosteller, Frederick, Rourke, Robert E. K., and Thomas,
George B. Probability with Statistical Applica—
tions. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publish-
i____
ing Co., Inc., 1961.

Nadel, S. F. The Theory of Social Structure. New York:
The Free Press ofiGlencoe, 1957.

Osgood, Charles, Suci, George, and Tannenbaum, Percy.
The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press, 1957.

 

Parsons, Talcott, and Shils, Edward. Towards a General
Theory of Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1951.

 

Phillips, Herbert. "Personality and Social Structure in
a Siamese Community," Human Organization, Vol. 22,
No. 2, pp. 105-108.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. Structure and Function in Primitive
Society. New York: The Free Press, 1952.

Riggs, Fred. Thailand: The Modernization ofta Bureaucratic
Polity. Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1966.

Selltiz, Claire, et a1. Attitudes and Social Relations
of Foreign Students in the United States. Minneap-
olis:- University of Minnesota Press, 1963.

 

Shaffer, and Dowling. "Foreign Students and Their American
Student Friends," Indiana University, Bloomington,
1966.

Useem, John. "The Community of Man: A Study in the Third
Culture," The Centennial Reivew, Vol. VII, No. 4,
‘Fall, 1963, pp. 481-498.

__i , and Useem, Ruth Hill. "The Interfaces of a
Binational Third Culture: A Study of the American
Community in India," Journal of Social Issues,
Jan. 1967, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 130-143.

69

Useem, John, and Useem, Ruth Hill. The Western—Educated
Man in India. New York: Dryden Press, 1953.

 

, and Donoghue, John. "Men in the Middle of the
Third Culture: The Role of American and Non-
Western People in Cross-Cultural Administration,"

Human Organization, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 169-179,
Fall, 1963.

Williams, Robin, Jr., American Society. New York: Alfred
Knopf, 1959.

Yinger, J. Milton. Toward a Field Theory of Behavior.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I
OPERATIONAL MODEL

The Operational model is laid out here so the
connection between the empirical and the theoretical may
be more easily seen. The theoretical model will be given
in capitals, and will be a duplicate of the one presented
on the preceding pages; the actual questions used to tap
each theoretical sub-component are listed directly below
this. The "deck of cards" paradigm will still serve as an
illustration of the manner in which the components combine
to form the basic model, if each set of questions bound
together by arrows is visualized as constituting one "card,"

and the basic model, the "deck."

 

Positive Obligation

Self to Other Other to Self

 

American
How should you act towards How should he act towards
him? (The previously ‘<fiflfi: you?
defined "friend.") II

I
Thai |I

Do you feel any of these -ߣ> In what ways are these
responsibilities towards <!L—-different from the things
this person? he should do for you?

70

71

OPTION29

Preference

Self to Other Other to Self

 

 

American
Here is a list of activi-
ties that some people might
do with others. Would you
please put a plus (+) by
every activity that you
would really like to do
with your American
friends?

Thai
For this particular person,
please mark these activities
plus (+) that you would
really like to do with him.

A
I
I
I

V

Indifference

American
Here is a list of activities
that some peOple might do
with others. (a) Would you
please put...a zero (0) by A
every one which you may I
have done or miht do on I
occasion? '
. V

Thai
For this particular person,
please mark these activities:
...; "zero"--might or occa-
sionally do;...

Avoidance

American
Here is a list of activities
that some people might do with
others. (a) Would you please
put...a "minus" (-) by every one
that you prefer to avoid?

Thai

please mark these activities:
...; "minus"--would prefer not
to do.

|
For this particular person, |

 

29For the substantive content of the "options,'
see p. 70.

72

Negative Obligation

Self to Other Other to Self

 

 

American
How...shouldn't you act ———7fi>IHow...shouldn't he (the

towards him? (The pre- <éK—+—-friend) act towards you?
viously defined "friend.") |

Thai . :I
What do you feel you ——————Jk>-In what ways are these
shouldn't do for him:< different from the things
or with him? he...shouldn't do for or
with you?

.<

b.
c.

j.

k.
l.
m.
n.
o.

p.
q.
I”.
s.

t.

OPTIONAL ACTIVITIES

participate in sports (volleyball, soccer, tennis, golf,
ping-pong, paddleball)

campus events (lecture-concert series, etc.)

academic academic activities (lab work, classes, depart-
ment meetings and social functions, group projects,
academic discussions, exchange class notes)

social activities: (1) fraternity activities, (2) play
cards, (3) watch TV, (4) sing songs, (5) play chess,

(6) eat together, (7) walk back from class, (8) listen
to records, (9) attend parties, (10) movies, (11) dances
(12 International Club.

date, double date

drink

visit students in other cities, travel

religious activities

family activities: (1) friends home over vacation, (2)
guest at their home, (3) invite them to dinner

general discussions (bull sessions, coffee discussions,
phone conversations)

aid in academic work

work

study together, help each other in classes

be a companion, discuss personal matters, counseling
personal give and take activities (ride in and borrow
car, share close friends, look for a job, help with job
applications, borrow and lend books)

correspond

take him or her to a party of Americans

become seriously involved

participating in any activities together which would
make him/her dependent on me.

going to places where he/she might be embarassed because
of nationality (restaurants where there is racial dis-
crimination, for example)

take him/her to a political organization meeting

take part in activities in which just persons of his
nationality participate

nothing

73

APPENDIX II

INSTRUMENT

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

(Revised)

Susan Asch

Michigan State University
Spring, l968

Page One.

In this interview, everything you say will be confidential - and your
name will never be connected with the data.

A, Let us first look at some general backgrognd information abogtiyourself:
1. Sex: Male'_____ Female
2. In what year were you born?
3. Are you married? Yes._____ No
If no:
Dating steadily? Yes __ No

Pinned? Yes No

Engaged? Yes No

 

A. What is your academic level? Ph.D. Master's

Sr. Jr. SOph. Other 5th Yr. Vet. Med.

 

 

5. What is your major?

 

7. What is your father's occupation?

 

8. What is your mother's occupation?

9. a. Hbuld you describe the ethnic background of your family?

 

 

IO. In what ways has this experience had an effect on your interest in
different peoples? Important ___ No appreciable influence ___
Rejection of background __

12. Could you give me a brief history of where you have lived, and for how
long (put time in provided space).

Rural small town (up to 50,000)

 

suburb small city (50,000 to 249,000)

 

large city (over 250,000) military bases in U.S. 8 overseas ___

rural and small city small town and large city

 

small city and large city

 

12. b. Number of homes until 18 or entered college

 

Number of homes after 18 or entered college

 

 

lM-I— -

 

 

Asch Interview Schedule Page Tho.

13. Have you been outside of the continental U.S.? Yes No
If yes: where, for how long, and for what purpose?

1h.)l am going to give you a listing of some other possible direct or indirect

15.)contacts which you may have had with foreign countries or peOple from

l6.)them before coming to college. Would you please rate these by the degree
of influence they may have had in making you interested in or aware of
foreign countries?

GIVE CARD glhllfillé.
.§i_ General Interaction with American and Foreign Students Since Coming to MSU.

I would now like to turn to the period since you have been at MSU and explore
interaction you have had with American and foreign students here.

17. How'many foreign students do you know?
1 - 2 ("a couple”)
3 - 5 ("a few“)
6 -10
11-20
21-30
31°50
51-60

 

 

18. How did you get to know foreign students?

a. Academic interests

(1) classroom. class project, in same department, academic clubs
(2) share office or study room

b. Social activities
(1) dorm activities
(2) church activities
(3) fraternity
(A) campus clubs and meetings
(5) sports
(6) campus clubs and sports

c. Proximity
(1) roonmate or suitemate
(2) dorm, apartment, married housing

d. Miscellaneous
(1) self initiative
(2) work
(3) foreign spouse
(A) met in country of foreign student
(5) through American friends
(6) through foreign student friends

19. Have you ever lived with a foreign student? Yes No

Asch Interview Schedule Page Three.

23. What countries do the foreign students that you associate with most often
at MSU come from?

2h.

25.

26.

GIVE CARD #7}

Are there reasons for associating with peOple from these countries more than
peOple from other countries? If so, what are they?

a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.

p.

a.

b.

not applicable. Specify

 

unspecified

academic interests

general curiosity of foreign students' culture
lived or visited that country

ethnic background

living proximity

friends of friends

friendlier than others, more gregarious
church

work tagether

Sports

respondent speaks the language

foreign student spouse, foreign student girl friend

student association

___ prefer this country if personality of individual foreign student is
compatible to respondent

If you had your choice, which national group would you prefer to .1”—
associate with most often?

GIVE CARD #2:

Why would you prefer to associate with the people from these countries?
(Use letters from responses to 24).

 

Which nationality groups would you least like to associate with? S»
GIVE CARD #2}
Why would you prefer to associate less with the peeple from these .1/

countries?

not applicable

culture; don't like and don't understand

undesirable personality attributes

race

anti-American attitude of foreign student, cliquishness of foreign

students, unwillingness to learn about America

__ pOlltiCBl reasons, (”3‘le far that cmmtry'c \heailml (n ovI‘I-I no.1
politics, ideological distaste
parental attitude toward area

'_- those students from area that become perpetual students
communication problem

'__- unfavorable image from movies or heresay

___. 26.b. continued on next page.

IIIII

Asch Interview Schedule Page Four.

27.

28.

29.

30.

‘___ aggressiveness in boy-girl relationships
_different academic norms - not doing lab work, borrowing nOtes and
_not returning them, cheating, expect special treatment because they
are foreign

___ physically uncomfortable

___.personal cleanliness

.___ other. Specify

 

What proportion of your time do you usually spend with foreign students?
__ unspecified

none

very little (1% - 9%)

10% - 20%

25% - 49%

50%.- 65%

70% - 80%

85% - IOG%

do your parents feel about your association with foreign students?
favorable

indifferent

unfavorable

III§I|IIII

. How do you think Americans in general react to American students having
foreign student friends here at MSU?
‘___ favorable
____indifferent
‘___ unfavorable

b. Would there be any countries which would be exceptions to this?

ewe CARD #3213

c. Why?
(l)_ Communist area
(2): racial
(3)_ _other political
(A) _cultural
(5)— countries respondent ls uninformed about

(6) : religious

a. How do you personally feel about American students having foreign filcnds
here at MSU? Favorable Unfavorable Indifferent

6. Are there exceptions to this?

31!: CARD i229

c. Why? (Use numbers from 29c.)

Asch Interview Schedule Page Five.

31. a.

77. How
a.

b.

How do you think Americans in general react to American students dating
foreign students?

Just dating Romantically
Favorable
____Indifferent
,___ Unfavorable

Would there be any countries which would be an exception to this?

GIVE CARD 2 b.
Why? (Use numbers from 29c.)

How do you personally feel about American students dating foreign
students?

Just dating Romantically
Favorable
Indifferent
__ Unfavorable

WOuld you personally consider marriage to someone of another culture?
Yes No

 

Would there be any countries which would be an exception to this?

GIVE CARD £22 .

Why?

would you define a “friend"? (Probe question.) That is,
How should or shouldn't you act towards him?

How should or shouldn't he act towards you?

73. Have there been times when you feel you have not done all you should to be
a good friend to your present American friends?

In what ways? Probe.

Asch Interview Schedule Page Six.

79.

55-
(.Le
lfl}.

El.

82.

Have there been times when you feel that your American friends have not ox”
done all they should to be good friends to you?

In what ways? (Probe.)

Here is a list of responsibilities which some American students feel towards
students from other countries.
a. Could you tell me which of these you would feel with foreign students?
c.

GIVE CARD A.

Incidentally, these cards are intended only as suggestions, not as hard-and-
fast categories, so if you think of any additions or exceptions to make to
them, please feel free to do so.

b. Is there anything you shouldn't do with or for them?

EIVE CARD A.
In what ways do you feel that you do not always meet your responsibilities
to foreign students?

What are the responsibilities that foreign students have to you?
(probe question). That is, how should and shouldn't they behave towards
you?

PeOple often feel that others are not holding up their end of a relation-
ship or not living up to their responsibilities in some other way. In
what ways do you feel that foreign students do not always live up to their
responsibilities to you?

' Asch Interview Schedule Page Seven.

8#.

86.

87.

89.

Here is a list of activities that some pe0ple might do with others.

a. Would you please put a “plus" (+) by every activity that you would
really like to do with your American friends, a “zero” (0) by every
one which you may have done or might do on occasion, and a ”minus“
(-) by every one that you prefer to avoid?

GIVE CARDJ.

What do you do with your American friends most often?

Are you ever in types of situations with your American friends which make
you feel angry, embarassed, or uncomfortable? What are they?

Would you do the same with this list for your foreign student friends?
(Mark as in 84.)

ammo a.

What do you do most often with your foreign student friends?

Have there been occasions when you have been in situations with youu
foreign student friends in which gjther or both of you felt angry,
unc0mfortable, or embarassed? What were they?

*/ ‘

of"

Here is a list of things which some peOple might talk about with others.
Would you please put a "plus” by everything that you would like to talk
about with your American friends, a “zero” by things which you may have or
might talk about on occasion, and a “minus" by every one you would prefer
to avoid talking about?

W

ASCh Interview Schedule Page Seven‘A.

9]. What do you talk about to Americans most often? v”

92. Have you ever felt embarassed, angry, or unc0mfortable when talking to
an American about something? What was it?

93. Would you do the same for this list for your foreign student friends?

GIVE CARD C.

9%. Which of these do you talk about frequently?

95. What have you talked about with foreign students that made either or both
of you feel angry or embarassed or uncomfortable?

Asch interview Schedule

C. Personal Interaction with One Foreign Student

Page Eight.

Let us now shift our interest from foreign students and Americans in general to

foreign students from Thailand.

Think of a particular MSU student from this

area whom you know best, so we can talk about the relationship between the two
Don't mention his or her name, but keep this particular person in mind

of you.
as we go along.

33. How would you describe this person?

34.

35.

 

Unknown

.__. a. Country

__ b. Sex: male __ female __

__ c. Age

__ d. Marital status: single __ married __

lilill? H

H

2

e. Type of residence: on campus
off campus

married housing on campus

f. Grad __ Undergrad __
9. Academic major
h. Region or city: specific region given ___
”rural" or "city“ given ___.
i. Socio-economic class: upper ___.
upper middle ____

 

middle ___
lower middle-___
lower

1. Is his academic major the same—as yours? Yes.___

k. How would you describe him as a person?

long have you known this person?
2 - 5 months

6 - 9 months

I -l& years

2 years

3 -3% years

4 years

5 years

is it that you happen to know this person?
academic activities

residence and proximity

roommate

introduced through other foreign students
introduced through other American

church activities

met in his native country
self-introduction

sports

other (what?)
unspecified

 

No

Asch '"te'v'e" Schedule Page Nine.

36. How close do you feel toward this person?

GIVE CARD flES.

37. if this person is of the opposite sex, is there any romantic interest?
No Yes On his/her part only
Not applicable

38. What do you know about this person's family?
a. have met personally
b. intimate details
c. some
.___ d. very little or nothing
e. other

#4. a. Do you feel any of these responsibilities towards this person?

GIVE CARD A.

b. What do you feel you shouldn't do for him or with him?

97. In what ways are these different from the things he should and shouldn‘t
do for or with you?

Have there been times when you have not met your responsibilities to him?
What were they?

U)
(A
O

98. Of these responsibilities that he has to you, which has he sometimes not
met?

Asch interview Schedule Page Ten.

99. For this particular person, please mark these activities: ”plus" - would
like to do; “zero" - might do or occasionally do; "minus“ - would prefer
not to do.

GIVE CARD 8.

39. What are the things you do most often with him apart from others?

ho. What are the things you do most often along with others?

50.)Please mark this list of things you might talk about with your foreign
5i.)student friend as you have marked the others: (+ - like to talk about,
52.)O u might talk about, - - prefer not to talk about.)

GIVE CARD C.

#9. What do you talk about most often with him?

45.)Have you ever been in a situation or talked about anything with this person
53.)when you quarrelled or either or both of you felt uncomfortable, embarassed,
5h.)or angry? What did this concern?

#8.)

Asch Interview Schedule Page Ten A.

57-

How well do you think this person knows you?
(Probe: How do you think this person would describe who you are and what
you are like?)

Do you think this person is fairly typical of Thailand?
Yes ___ No SOmetimes

Do you expect to maintain contact with this person after he goes home?
Yes No Possibly

Would you like to keep this person's friendship even if relations became
strained between your two countries?
Yes No Possibly

Why? Personal reasons

 

Impersonal reasons

 

D. Chanqes

There has been a great deal of speculation about what it means for Americans
to have contact with foreign students. I would like to look at the meaning
these experiences have had for you.

63. Have you changed your outlook in any way about the countries represented

by the foreign students that you know here at MSU? In what ways?
(Probe for specific areas of the world.)

Asch Interview Schedule Page Eleven.

51;.

65.

67.

70.

Can you see any difference in your world view?

a. For example, do you look on the world as mone of a community of men from
interacting with foreign students? Yes ___. No
(Probe.)

b. Or do you see a bigger gap between peeples of different countries?
Yes No

(Probzt)

How do you feel about American society?

Probe for:

a. integrated -- differentiate between values and activities

b. fringe or marginal

c. deviant

d. isolated

Has your attitude towards American society been affected in any way by your
contact with foreign students?

If so, how?

Do you feel you have gained anything from your interaction with foreign
students?
If yes, what?

Do you feel there have been any disadvantages from your association with
foreign students?
If there have been some, why do you continue to associate?

Here is a list of some aspects of American life. Could you tell me if you
have changed your attitudes on any of these because of meeting students
from other countries? (Probe for each.)

GIVE CARD #69.

Has this interaction affected your plans for the future in any of the
following ways? Probe for how, why.

a. travel

b. study abroad

c. living abroad

d. Peace Corps

e. courses

f. foreign language study

9. vocation

h. other

Asch Interview Schedule Page TWelve.

7l. Do you feel there have been any other changes in your outlook due to
interaction with students from other countries?

72. Looking back over your years at MSU, do you feel you would like to have had
more contact with students from other countries?

Yes No
Probe reasons not wanting more contact, reasons for not having had more
contact.

73. Are there any countries which would be exceptions to this?

76. Is there anything else you would like to tell me that we haven‘s covered?

91

Asch Interview Schedule

CARD #14, 15, 16

Rating scale: 3 = very, 2 = some, 1 = little, 0 = none.

0"

books, movies, television

school projects and/or extracurricular activities
personal contact with people from other countries who
were in the U.S.

persons in your family who have talked about foreign
experiences

Americans out51de your family who have talked about
foreign experiences

church-related activ1ties

work-related activities

independent interests

living abroad

other

 

CARD #23

llll lllll

Latin America

Europe

Middle East

India and Pakistan

Asia(excluding India), countries east of Iran including
the Pacific islands

Australia, New Zealand

Canada

Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania

no preference

CARD #29b.

Northern EurOpe

Southern Europe

Eastern Europe

India and Pakistan

Asia (excluding India and Pakistan) including countries
east of Iran including the Pacific Islands

Middle East

Africa

Latin America

Canada

Australia

no specific country or area but persons, in general,
having the coded characteristics, are exceptions.

55
22
44
21.
79.
95.

ll |||||||| llllllll

92

C.

explain different aspects of American life

be generous with time and money

be a courteous host; more polite

assist and help in personal matters

explain language usage

introduce them to other Americans

help them with their studies

tell him if his behavior does not fit in with American
customs

overlook certain behavior

speak slowly, using less slang

give rides, lend car

be sincere, trustworthy

try to act as a favorable representative of all Americans
given extra credit on exams because they are foreign

do house chores not related to their sex in their culture
be indignant for him if other Americans are discriminating
against him

be submissive if you are female and he is male

other

CARD E

III

a. participate in sports (volleyball, soccer, tennis,
golf, ping—pong, paddleball)

b. campus events (lecture-concert series, etc.)

0. academic activities (lab work, classes, department
meetings and social functions, group projects,
academic discussions, exchange class notes)

d. social activities: (1) fraternity activities, (2)
play cards, (3) watch TV, (4) sing songs, (5) play
chess, (6) eat together, (7) walk back from class,
(8) listen to records, (9) attend parties, (10)
movies, (11) dances, (12) International Club.

e. date, double date

f. drink

9. visit students in other cities, travel

h. religious activities

1. family activities: (1) friends home over vacation,
(2) guest at their home, (3) invite them to dinner

j.

k.
l.
m.
n.
o.

p.
q.
r.
s.

1.1.

V.

CARD C

83.
85.
86.
97.
98.

93

general discussions (bull sessions, coffee discussions,
phone conversations)

aid in academic work

work

study together, help each other in classes

be a companion, discuss personal matters, counseling
personal give and take activities (ride in and bor-
row car, share close friends, look for a job, help
with job applications, borrow and lend books)
correspond

take him or her to a party of Americans

become seriously involved

participating in any activities together which would
make him/her dependent on me

going to places where he/she might be embarassed
because of nationality (restaurants where there is
racial discimination, for example)

take him/her to a political organization meeting
take part in activities in which just persons of

his nationality participate

nothing

aacademics and related topics, strictly business

(his country) places he's been, customs internal
affairs of other countries (his, if foreign)
America, his likes and dislikes, thoughts about
America

comparisons of (his) other country and America,
intercultural views, differences in educational
systems

international affairs and policy, politics

his life, his family, his home life, our 2 families,
my home life

dating, dating practices, American girls/boys, women/
men, marriage, sex

small talk, the theater, art, movies, books, music
and songs, campus events, sports, trips we have
taken, other peoples (his)

racial issues, civil rights, the American Negro

94

j. ___ personal things, future plans, our mutual past
(substitute type of relationship), schooling and
money situations, job interviews, bad breath

k. ___ deeper things (than with most Americans), our beliefs,
religion, philosophy

1. not much

m. —__ everything, anything

n. ::: private feelings, the more intimate aspects of your
own life, your feelings about other close relation-
ships

CARD # 36

a. one of my best friends

b. a good friend

c. a friend with whom I share primarily academic
interest

d. a person with whom I share only academic interests

e. an acquaintance

f. someone I dislike

CARD #69

a. race

b. religion

c. U.S. values and policies

d. economic systems .

e. kinship and family

f. dating and marriage

g. your own personal views

h. your self-concept

APPENDIX III

DERIVATION OF FREQUENCY COUNT

That is, the results were presented as percentages
of the total number of response types (concerning positive
friendship obligation dimensions) mentioned, and the fre—
quencies with which they are mentioned. For instance,
suppose there were five American subjects (N)* who gave
a total of ten different response types (R) to questions
(Q) concerning their positive obligations to their Ameri—
can friends. (Response Type A might have been, "I should
correct his spelling on papers.") Also suppose that
Response Types A, B, and C concerned work obligations,
and Response Types D and E concerned social obligations,
and Response Types F, G, H, I and J concerned personal obli-
gations. One subject might have given all or none of the
response types--a particular response type might have

been given by one or more persons.

 

*The example given uses small numbers of response
types and respondents to clarify the procedures. In the
actual sample, there were, of course, always 30 respondents,
and a larger number of responses.

95

96

In tabular form this would be:

Response Types by Friendship
Obligation Dimensions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Social Personal

Subjects: A B C D E F G H I J

1 '// ./ /

2 / / /

3 / / /

4 / / / /

5 / / / / /
Total Re- Total
sponses 3 2 2 2 2 3 l l 1 2 f = 19
Given
Total Re-
sponses
Given for
each Obli- 7 4 8
gation
Facet:

 

 

 

 

Thus, every subject who gave response type A has
a mark in column A after his subject number. All response
types given by all subjects were summed for each of the
friendship obligation dimensions giving f, frequency of
mention, for each dimension. [Example: The f for work
obligations of American subjects to American friends)=7].
This figure was entered in the relevant table, such as the
following sample table, in the cell corresponding to the
work friendship obligation dimension with American friends,

along with the percentage of the response types, mentioned

97

for American friends, pertaining to work. (That is, 3
response types, or 30% of the total number of different
response types given, concerned work.)

The same procedure was followed for a similar
question asked of the American subjects concerning their
positive obligations to their Thai friends.

The tables constructed followed this form
(where f is, as shown above, the actual number of work,
social, or personal-centered responses given by all the

subjects):

Sample

Table-—Positive Responses of American Subjects Indicating
Work, Social, and Personal Obligation Dimensions
by Percent of Total Response Types and Frequency
Mentioned, for American and Thai Friends.

 

 

 

 

 

Positive Obligations Obligation Dimensions
of the American % (of Total Response Types)
Subject to: Work Social Personal

American Friends (R=lO) 30 20 50

Thai Friends (R=12) 50 20 30

f
American Friends 7 4 8
Thai Friends 3 5 6

 

 

 

t ’7’"

HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIE

|3|2 33|||3 3|||||3|3 ||||