... -04., ‘. _ .. v. vm- \. .1 .«.-_ l u; ‘u mam ”‘5‘ \ In .., . :.-. “(-r't'r-uf' burn-p4! u . - y...“ 1 n l. . «1., .4 r,” 1‘. I. V137 run. a, I." .. f a .. ‘ N, ”N . on," H , . w: .Vu . . r \nrn : ‘v': Wt M 0 ’l 0‘ "Milli;ill]will]”WilliII _ 3 1293 00620 8072 1 , t , - LIBRARY W Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled The effects of cultural similarity and anticipation of future interaction on information-seeking behavior: An information-based approach to uncertainty reduction theory in a structured initial interaction presented by Hyun Ou Lee has been accepted. towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D . degree in Communication Maia/r professor Date 7-17-1989 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Instilun'on 0-12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ’ is 5. 3 ‘l i V . w —— 14‘ 093'“ 9 :‘001 3200 .JY’UL 1 62102 f—z ‘7 c l A , v TOV 2 8 2004 FEé 5;; . 553%; 00 mm ' , I I 1 . d .- - n' f‘ F a: 2‘ ll MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution THE EFFECTS OF CULTURAL SIMILARITY AND ANTICIPATION OF FUTURE INTERACTION ON INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR: AN INFORMATION-BASED APPROACH TO UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION THEORY IN A STRUCTURED INITIAL INTERACTION BY Hyun Ou Lee A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1989 bo4®4bh ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF CULTURAL SIMILARITY AND ANTICIPATION OF FUTURE INTERACTION ON INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR: AN INFORMATION-BASED APPROACH TO UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION THEORY IN A STRUCTURED INITIAL INTERACTION BY Hyun Ou Lee Past research on uncertainty reduction theory produced conflicting results regarding the effect of cultural similarity on subsequent uncertainty reduction behavior during intercultural initial interaction, primarily due to its methodological shortcomings. Consequently, employing a face-to-face interaction, the present study investigated whether the social actors differentiate the question-asking strategies for uncertainty reduction depending upon the culture of their interview partner. Moreover, this study examined how the prospect of future interaction with a stranger influences the social actor's information-seeking behavior during an initial interaction. The data indicate that people perceive the intercultural partners to be less similar to themselves, and report less attributional confidence and interpersonal attraction as compared to the intracultural partners. As for information-seeking behavior, the study showed that the social penetration process is more difficult in intercultural initial Wag "firs—r.— _ _ interaction as the participants interacted with the intercultural partners rarely requested intimate information such as questions dealing with the partner's attitude, opinion, and personality. Unexpectedly, however, the effect of anticipation of future interaction upon information-seeking behavior is found to be minimal in this study. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sometimes we can hardly express what we feel inside, especially when you think you have completed so-called, "a mission impossible". However, in order to conform to the convention of human society, I would like to do my best to express my sincere and deepest appreciation to several persons who made the impossible mission possible. I honestly believe that this dissertation should be devoted to my father and mother. Without their endless love, support, and sacrifice, I would not have the privilege to complete this degree. Next, a special thanks to Dr. Boster, my advisor, for his precious time, guidance, and encouragement throughout my stay in East Lansing. Not to mention his statistical ability, he had a genuine power to drive me up to the last drop of my capability. Gratitudes also go to Dr. Bain, Dr. Miller, and Dr. McKinley for their invaluable help as committee members. I also thank my Korean friends and research assistants for their help as confederates, coders, and supporters while this study was undertaken. Finally, I would like to share this degree with my wife, Kwi-yong, who always stands behind me to show her love and care. I thank God to allow me to share this moment with her. ONCE AGAIN, I THANK YOU ALL!!! ii Chapter I II III IV TABLE OF CONTENTS THEORETICAL RATIONALE .................... Initial Interaction and Uncertainty Reduction Theory ............. Uncertainty Reduction Theory in Intercultural Interaction ................ An Information-based Approach to Intercultural Interaction ..... ........... Anticipation of Future Interaction and Uncertainty Reduction .... ............ METHODOLOGY 0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Subjects ................................. Procedure .......... ....... .......... ..... Design ..................... .......... .... Instrumentation .. ........................ Identification of Questions ......... ..... Assignment of Questions into Categories .. RESULTS .............................. .... Manipulation Check ...... ................. Perceptions of the Uncertainty Reduction Variables ................................ Number and Types of Questions Asked ...... Summary of the Tests of Hypotheses and Research Questions ....................... DISCUSSION ............................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................... TABLES APPENDIX iii 14 23 28 28 28 29 30 31 31 34 34 35 39 45 48 6O 69 87 LIST OF TABLES Correlations among Perceptions of Similarity, Total Amount of Information-seeking, Attributional Confidence, and Interpersonal Attraction in Intracultural Initial Interaction .......... ...... .. Correlations among Perceptions of Similarity, Total Amount of Information-seeking, Attributional Confidence, and Interpersonal Attraction in Intercultural Initial Interaction ... ...... . ........ An Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Perceptions of Similarity .................. ..... An Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Attributional Confidence ........ ................ An Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Interpersonal Attraction ....... ...... .... ....... An Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Liking of the Interview ......................... An Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Perceptions of Future Relationship Development .. Frequency Distribution of Questions Asked across Question Categories in Intracultural Interaction ... Frequency Distribution of Questions Asked across Question Categories in Intercultural Interaction ... An Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Information-seeking Behavior .......... .......... An Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on General Request Type of Information ........ ..... An Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Demographic, Roles, and Background Type of Information ...... ..... ........ ................ ..... An Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Activities, and Experiences Type of Information .. iv 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 An An An An Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Abilities, and Preferences Type of Information .. 82 Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Past and Future Intention Type of Information ... 83 Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Attitudes, and Opinions Type of Information ..... 84 Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Personalities Type of Information ................ 85 Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Clarity Type of Information ................ ..... 86 CHAPTER ONE ~THEORETICAL RATIONALE Initial Interaction and Uncertainty Reduction Theory A considerable amount of research attention has been given to communication processes during the early stages of acquaintanceship (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Duck, 1976; Kellermann, 1986; Osterkamp, 1980; Sunnafrank & Miller, 1981). The initial interaction period between strangers is generally labeled as an "acquaintance process". Duck (1976) defined it as "a communication process whereby an individual transmits (consciously) or conveys (somewhat unintentionally) information about his personality structure and content to potential friends, using subtly different means at different stages of the friendship's development (p. 127)". This definition is heavily rooted in implicit personality theory, which contends that people tend to use a limited set of information about others as the basis for inferences about more general qualities that others are likely to possess (Schneider, 1973). Thus, the theory implies that an initial interaction plays a significant role in determining the future relationship. Consistent with the theory, Zunin and Zunin (1972) report that four minutes was the average time during which strangers interacted before deciding to part or continue their interaction. 1 2 Several researchers suggest that the principle of similarity-attraction explains how an actor decides whether to pursue or to avoid new relationships. It is well documented that the higher the perceived similarity level between two individuals, the greater their attraction to each other (Byrne, 1971; Byrne & Clore, 1966). Scholars provide three explanations of this finding. First, Heider (1958) emphasizes the homeostatic characteristics of the elements within the dyad. According to him, we are cognitively consistent if we like those who hold attitudes similar to our own. Second, Byrne (1971) proposes a reinforcement explanation. He contends that attraction is a function of the extent to which reciprocal rewards occur during interaction, with attitudinal similarity being a major source of reward in dyadic encounters (Clore & Byrne, 1974). Third, Berger and Calabrese (1975) advocate uncertainty reduction theory‘ to explain the similarity-attraction hypothesis. . Uncertainty reduction theory by Berger and Calabrese (1975) approaches the process of an initial interaction from a communication perspective. Originally, the theory postulated 7 axioms and 21 theorems specifying relationships among the amount of communication, nonverbal affiliative expressiveness, information seeking, intimacy level of communicative content, reciprocity, similarity, liking, and uncertainty reduction. Subsequent research and 3 conceptualizations elaborated the theory including specific antecedents and strategies of uncertainty reduction (Berger, 1979), events that increase uncertainty in personal relationships (Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985), the role of language (Berger & Bradac, 1982; Sherblom & Rheenen, 1984) and shared communication networks (Parks & Adelman, 1983). Moreover, the theory has been extended to well-established relationships, such as friendships (Parks & Adelman, 1983; Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985). Berger and Calabrese (1975) argue that when strangers meet, their primary concern is to reduce uncertainty, and hence, increase predictability about the behavior of both .’ themselves and others.,¥Ungertainty reduction theorywasserts \ that reducing uncertaintyxis central to at least two a. HWHH .1... _ H‘ processes, prediction and explanation. At the beginning of an encounter, one important task for interactants is to predict the other's actions; a second task is to develop causal explanations for observed behaviorsT>In this model, the perceived similarity reduces uncertainty, which enhances interpersonal attraction. Berger and Calabrese (1975) stated that "if the effects of uncertainty were statistically removed from the similarity-attraction relationship, the similarity-attraction relationship would weaken significantly (p. 110)". Since uncertainty itself is left as a nominal construct in the theory, Clatterbuck (1979) developed an operationalization of uncertainty in an 4 / initial interaction through measures of attributional yggngigenge.’ Even though there appear several variations of Clatterbuck's original scale (e.g., Parks and Adelman's measure), researchers generally equate uncertainty reduction with attributional confidence. However, tests of the role of uncertainty reduction in mediating the relationship between similarity and attraction generally yield mixed support for the axioms and theorems of uncertainty reduction theory (Clatterbuck, 1979; Gudykunst, Nishida, Koike, & Shiino, 1986; Gudykunst, Yang, & Nishida, 1985; Prisbell & Anderson, 1980). After reanalyzing seventeen studies, Clatterbuck (1979) concluded that there is a modest but positive relationship between attraction and uncertainty reduction, while the magnitude of the correlation between the perception of similarity and uncertainty reduction is negligible. Similarly, a study by Prisbell and Anderson (1980) produced partial support for the effect of similarity on uncertainty reduction. Sunnafrank (1986) commented that of more than 100 individual tests of uncertainty reduction theory, only half of them resulted in theoretical support. Moreover, the support has been nothing more than weak associations between the variables examined. Given the weak effect of uncertainty reduction in mediating the relationship between similarity and attraction, the present study proposes an information-based 5 model of uncertainty reduction in an initial interaction. Despite the fact that the starting point of uncertainty reduction theory is to approach the similarityeattraction hypgthgsis from a communication perspective, the role of information-seeking behavior in the uncertainty reduction process has been largely overlooked. Cognitive scientists View humans as goal-oriented beings whose capacities to communicate permit them to accomplish their goals (Planalp & Hewes, 1982). In particular, from a cognitive perspective, it seems important to recognize that the active role individuals play in determining the amount of information to which they are exposed rests upon the assessment of the perceived similarity of their partner. At the onset of interaction, social actors will experience a high level of uncertainty, which, in turn, will produce increased information-seeking behavior to assess the perceived similarity level between interactants. If the initial information obtained produces the perception of similarity, further information-seeking behavior will occur. If associated with the perception of dissimilarity, the amount of information-seeking behavior will decrease thereafter. Furthermore, the amount of information obtained during an initial interaction will help interactants make Inore confident attribution about their partner's behavior, tvhich will result in enhanced interpersonal attraction. It report by Gudykunst et al. (1985) explored this 6 possibility. They found a significant positive relationship between the perceived similarity and intentions to use interrogative strategies, such as intention to interrogate and self-disclosure. In addition, the amount of information was positively related to attributional confidence as well as to interpersonal attraction. However, since this finding is based on behavioral intention, it is important to assess data based on actual interaction. Therefore, the present study poses the following hypotheses concerning the role of information~seeking behavior for uncertainty reduction in a face-to-face interaction. HYPOTHESIS 1 There will be a positive relationship between the perception of similarity and the amount of information sought by social actors. HYPOTHESIS 2 There will be a positive relationship between the amount of information obtained and both attributional confidence and interpersonal attraction. Uncertainty Reduction Theory in Intercultural Interaction Along with the role of information-seeking behavior, this study applies uncertainty reduction theory to 7 intercultural relationships to test the theory's generalizability. There are at least two significant implications of examining the initial stage of intercultural relationships. First, recent developments in theories of intergroup behavior suggest that intercultural initial interaction occurs in the matrix of the perceived dissimilarity between interactants (Allen & Wilder, 1979; Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Brown & Turner, 1981). Allen and Wilder (1979), for example, demonstrated that persons assumed a fellow ingroup member possessed more beliefs similar to their own than did a member of the outgroup even when they were categorized into groups on the basis of an arbitrary task, and Billig and Tajfel (1973) reported similar findings. Accordingly, if the mere categorization of persons into groups without a realistic pretext for the classification is sufficient to lead to the perception of intergroup differences in beliefs and attitudes, then, it is necessary for intercultural scholars to address the functions of perceived dissimilarity for subsequent intercultural behaviors, as intercultural relationships render many differences between interactants, such as skin color, language, and communication styles, tangible. Second, several intercultural studies indicate that once intercultural communicators overcome the barriers of the initial interaction, culture is not a major factor in subsequent interaction. When close intracultural and 8 intercultural relationships are compared, no differences were observed in either perceived similarity or perceptions of social penetration (Gudykunst, 1985b; Gudykunst, Chua, and Gray 1987a). Summarizing social penetration studies in the intercultural context, Gudykunst, Nishida, and Chua (1987b) stated that "when relationships reach the point of close friendship, and the individuals are basing their predictions about their partner on psychological data, the degree of social penetration in which people engage should not differ in intracultural and intercultural relationships as a function of culture (p. 176)". Therefore, investigating the initial stage of intercultural relationships may uncover an optimum way of overcoming the intercultural initial interaction barrier. Of particular interest to intercultural scholars is the function of cultural similarity on subsequent uncertainty reduction behavior during initial intercultural interaction. Because Berger and Calabrese (1975) did not specify the types of similarity to which their axioms apply, various operationalizations of similarity are observed. While attitudinal similarity has received most attention in intracultural studies, Bishop (1979) argues that, "to understand the ways in which the perception of similarity influences interpersonal relations, it is necessary that the problem be approached from the point of view of a wide variety of types of similarity (p. 461)". Consequently, 9 intercultural scholars have paid special attention to the function of cultural similarity in determining subsequent attributional confidence and interpersonal attraction during an initial interaction. According to the axioms of uncertainty reduction theory, it is expected that persons in intracultural interaction (the culturally similar condition) will report a higher degree of attributional confidence and interpersonal attraction toward their partner when compared to those in intercultural interaction (the culturally dissimilar condition). Nevertheless, results testing uncertainty reduction theory are mixed (Gudykunst, 1985a; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1984; Gudykunst, Yang, & Nishida, 1985). In order to understand the current status of uncertainty reduction theory in intercultural relationships, research findings applying uncertainty reduction theory to the intercultural context will be reviewed briefly. Second, the methodological shortcomings of previous studies will be criticized. Finally, several hypotheses based on the principles of information processing behavior will be advanced to provide alternative explanations of the uncertainty reduction process during intercultural initial interaction. First, several studies documented that there are significant differences between initial intracultural and intercultural interactions (Gudykunst, 1983a; Shuter, 1982; 10 Simard, 1981). For instance, Gudykunst (1983a) found that persons made more assumptions about strangers, preferred to talk less, perceived conversations as developing less easily, asked more questions about a stranger's background, and had less attributional confidence in predicting a stranger's behavior in a different-culture encounter than in a same-culture encounter. Shuter (1982) reports that both males and females vary their patterns of question asking in an initial interaction depending upon the ethnic group membership of their partner. Similarly, Simard (1981) reported that when engaging in interethnic initial interaction, the participants reported more difficulty knowing how to initiate a conversation and in selecting conversation content than when communicating with other members of their own ethnic group. Accordingly, given these differences, scholars endeavor to find the extent to which the process of uncertainty reduction in intercultural encounters is different from that in intracultural encounters. Specifically, they are interested in testing the effect of cultural similarity on subsequent attributional confidence and interpersonal attraction. Research findings generally yield conflicting results, however. In a study of Japanese and North Americans, Gudykunst and Nishida (1984) discovered that cultural similarity did not have a significant effect on attributional confidence. Similarly, with Japanese subjects, 11 Gudykunst et al. (1986) found an insignificant effect of cultural similarity on the uncertainty reduction variables. 0n the other hand, two studies yielded opposite results. In a study comparing intraethnic and interethnic relationships, Gudykunst (1986) reports that there is significantly more attributional confidence in intraethnic relationships than in interethnic ones. This finding is consistent with the prediction based on an axiom of uncertainty reduction theory. Yet, another study by Gudykunst (1985a) revealed a significant effect of cultural similarity on attributional confidence, with the mean score higher for culturally dissimilar acquaintances than for similar ones. In addition, studies reveal that cultural similarity has no impact on interpersonal attraction. Gudykunst and Nishida (1984), for example, report that persons get attracted to their intercultural partners as much as they do to their intracultural partners. Similarly, surveying Japanese subjects, Gudykunst et al. (1986) report that intercultural partners are perceived no less attractive than intracultural partners by the Japanese subjects. At the same time, Gudykunst and Nishida (1984) found a significant attitudinal similarity by cultural similarity interaction effect. The cell of "culturally similar, attitudinally dissimilar" yielded the lowest score of attraction while the other three cells are almost equal. This finding implies that, when engaging in intercultural interaction, persons 12 tend to tolerate attitudinal dissimilarity for intercultural others. On the other hand, this interpretation is not consistent with previous studies which identify the tendency to evaluate (Barna, 1985; Berger, 1986a) and the lack of tolerance (Ruben & Kealey, 1979) as major stumbling blocks in intercultural communication. Moreover, Gudykunst (1985a) reports that the culturally dissimilar condition elicited higher attraction than the culturally similar condition in an acquaintance relationship, a result that is also in conflict with previous findings that ethnic similarity is positively related to interpersonal attraction and relational intimacy during an initial interaction (Allen, 1976; Jones & Diener, 1976; Ting-Toomey, 1981). This study postulates that these seemingly conflicting and negligible effects of cultural similarity on attributional confidence and interpersonal attraction can be attributed to the nature of the methods utilized in previous studies. The majorities of these studies employed the bogus stranger technique to manipulate cultural similarity. For instance, Gudykunst and Nishida (1984) asked subjects how they would behave when introduced to a stranger from their own (the culturally similar condition) or another culture (the culturally dissimilar condition) in a social gathering. In spite of the weak tie between the behavioral intention and actual behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), however, this 13 method suffers from a low degree of experimental realism. As a result, contrary to many findings in intergroup behavior research (Allen & Wilder, 1979; Billig & Tajfel, 1973), persons did not perceive the intercultural partners to be dissimilar to themselves (e.g., Gudykunst, 1985a). This failure to manipulate cultural similarity adequately, therefore, might have contributed to the negligible effect of cultural similarity on attributional confidence and interpersonal attraction. Thus, it is hypothesized that there will be a significant effect of cultural similarity on the perception of similarity if the social actors are given the opportunities to interact with their partners in a face-to—face context. HYPOTHESIS 3 Persons in intercultural interaction will perceive their partners to be significantly less similar to themselves than those in intracultural interaction. Another frequently used method is a retrospective technique in which subjects are instructed to select specific persons with whom they had relationships, and to keep these individuals in mind while answering the questions. But, relying on the subject's retrospective report is also a questionable strategy, as one's ability to remember information in describing past events is neither l4 necessarily accurate (Fiske & Taylor, 1984) nor unbiased (Snyder & Uranowitz, 1978). Given the absence of studies designed to compare systematically intracultural and intercultural face-to-face interactions, the effect of cultural similarity on subsequent attributional confidence and interpersonal attraction is difficult to assess. Moreover, previous studies do not consider the role of many other important variables (e.g., language) for uncertainty reduction in intercultural initial interaction. Berger and Bradac (1982) argue that language plays a multifaceted role in reducing uncertainty. Similarly, Giles and Johnson (1981) suggest that the language, or dialect, spoken is a major factor employed by the member of one group to categorize others into an ingroup—outgroup dichotomy. Consequences of this categorization for subsequent intercultural interaction needs to be addressed. Nevertheless, the role of language in intercultural initial interaction has been overlooked because methods do not allow the issue to be investigated. A study by Imahori (1987) reinforces this contention. After comparing initial intracultural and intercultural interactions, he reported that one of major factors that differentiated intercultural communication from intracultural communication is the language barrier observed in the former. The data revealed that subjects in intercultural interactions were involved far more frequently 15 in clarification acts than those in intracultural settings. Imahori (1987) concluded that the major difference between intracultural and intercultural interactions was the language barrier effect. Similarly, Schneider and Jordan (1981) reported that English proficiency of the nonnative sojourner is one of major predictors of interpersonal attraction in intercultural relationships. Taken together, it is possible that the weak effect of cultural similarity on the uncertainty reduction variables is due to subjects in previous studies responding to their culturally dissimilar partners based on cognitive scripts of automated routines that occur in initial interaction (Street & Giles, 1982) rather than the presence of communication obstacles, such as language. Finally, if the primary goal of the actors involved in the acquaintance process is to process information as a means of assessing the similarity between them so that uncertainty may be reduced, then, the question of the extent to which intercultural and intracultural interactions are similar in information processing behavior is raised. In spite of recurrent claims that social information influences persons' attributions (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) and judgments (Hewes & Planalp, 1982; Sillars, 1982), the process by which intercultural interactants use social information to reduce uncertainty and make important social judgment has been ignored. Put differently, what is lacking 16 in previous studies of uncertainty reduction theory is the effect of group membership upon information processing behavior in an initial interaction. Thus, this study attempts to recast uncertainty reduction theory by examining the process of intracultural and intercultural face-to-face interactions with respect to the type and amount of social information processed to reduce uncertainty. In a cross-cultural study, Gudykunst (1983a) reports that there is cultural variation in the use of information to reduce uncertainty in an initial interaction. Employing Hall's (1976) classification of cultures, it was found that persons in high-context (HC) cultures are more cautious in an initial interaction and have a greater tendency to make inferences based upon a stranger's background than persons in low—context (LC) cultures. Moreover, members of LC cultures demonstrate a stronger tendency to use knowledge of their partner's attitudes to reduce uncertainty. Due to a paucity of data concerning communication behavior by people from HC cultures, therefore, the scope of this study will be limited to information-seeking behavior by people from LC cultures in initial intracultural and intercultural interactions. .An Information-based Approach to Intercultural Interaction It was mentioned earlier that the motivation of social iactors to process information about their partner needs to 17 be addressed to better understand the process of uncertainty reduction. This study contends that there are several reasons to expect the motivational level to reduce uncertainty to be relatively low in intercultural initial interaction. First, if social actors are motivated to generate more knowledge about a target person when rewards are present (Berger, 1979), communication difficulties in intercultural initial interaction (Gudykunst, 1983a; Simard, 1981) may contribute to the lack of motivation to reduce uncertainty, as the cost to reduce uncertainty is high in intercultural interaction. In addition to the language barrier mentioned earlier (Imahori, 1987), interactions with intercultural partners are characterized by a high degree of behavioral uncertainty because the social actors involved do not know what is expected of them and how their intercultural partners will respond to them. Accordingly, the individuals may experience a lack of established norms for appropriate behavior in intercultural interaction due to the high level of behavioral uncertainty, and this Ibehavioral uncertainty may lead to an avoidance of lancertainty reduction in the intercultural contact. Second, Berger (1986b) suggests that initial affective tresponses to surface attributes such as skin color, age, or Iphysical attractiveness may propel or impede further IJncertainty reduction attempts. According to Pettigrew (1986), affective reactions, such as anxiety, are one of the 18 major by-products of intergroup communication. Similarly, Gudykunst (1987) contends that the intergroup relationship is characterized by the high level of anxiety experienced by the participants. Moreover, Stephan and Stephan (1985) posit that anxiety stems from the anticipation of negative consequences of intercultural contacts. Hence, it is proposed that affective reactions toward outgroup members as a function of social categorization tend to discourage the social actors from reducing uncertainty about their intercultural partners, because they fear being evaluated negatively by their intercultural partners. Finally, summarizing studies related to the contact hypothesis, Amir (1969) lists some of the favorable conditions that tend to render positive outcomes in intercultural interactions. The favorable conditions were: (a) When there is equal status contact between members of various ethnic groups. (b) When the contact is between members of a majority and higher status members of a minority group. (c) When an 'authority' and/or the social climate are in favor of and promote the intergroup contact. (d) When the contact is of an intimate rather than a casual nature (e) When the ethnic intergroup contact is pleasant or rewarding. (f) When the members of both groups in the particular contact situation interact in functionally important activities or develop common goals or superordinate goals that are higher ranking in importance than the individual goals of each of their groups. 19 Since most of intercultural initial interaction do not meet these favorable conditions (Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Rose, 1981), the motivational level to reduce uncertainty is expected to be low. Consistent with the previous arguments, Chaikin, Derlega, Harris, Gregorio, and Boone (1973; cited in Chaikin & Derlega, 1976) obtained evidence of restricted communication in interethnic dyads, reporting that there is less self-disclosure within interethnic settings. Word, Zanna, and Cooper (1974) also indicated that subjects were found to be less verbally immediate, to make more speech errors, and to give shorter interviews to the interethnic partner compared to the intraethnic partner in a simulated job interview situation. Based on the previous discussion, therefore, the following hypothesis is posed. HYPOTHESIS 4 Persons will seek less information in intercultural initial interaction than they will in intracultural initial interaction. In addition to quantitative differences in the amount 0f information required for uncertainty reduction, the Present study also posits that the quality of interaction differs in initial intracultural and intercultural interactions. First, regarding information-seeking behavior 20 during intracultural initial interaction, studies generally yield mixed support for Gudykunst's (1983a) contention that the social actors of LC cultures rely more heavily on attitudinal information than demographic information to reduce uncertainty. For example, Berger and Kellermann (1983) report that more than one-half of the questions during an initial interaction were directed at a target's demographic and attitudinal information. Similar results were observed by Calabrese (1975). Douglas (1985) also reports that most information retrieved by subjects concerned interactants' backgrounds, experiences, opinions, and preferences. No significant difference in the amount of demographic and attitudinal information was observed in these studies. Hence, it appears that the social actors focus and process their partner's demographic information as much as they do their attitudinal information. It is also found that the content of questions changes over time (Berger,1973; Calabrese,1975). Initial questions are generally concerned with background or demographic information; later questions are concerned with opinions, preferences, and interests. Several researchers postulate that persons may employ information-gaining scripts when they wish to seek information about others by moving from less consequential information (e.g., one's demographic background) to more intimate information such as one's attitude, opinion, and interests (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Miller & Steinberg, 1975). 21 .On the other hand, in spite of a huge void in our understanding of information-seeking behavior in intercultural initial interaction, there are several reasons to believe that intracultural and intercultural information processing behaviors differ from each other in terms of the type of social information processed during an initial interaction. First, in intercultural settings, the other's physical characteristics such as skin color, dress, or language, tend to stand out and attract the interactant's attention (Langer, Taylor, Fiske, & Chanowitz, 1976). As a result, the interactant will be most likely to categorize the partner as an outgroup member. According to Sherif (1966), outgroup members are responded to in terms of their group identification. One of major consequences of category-based intergroup communication is the deindividuation of outgroup members (Miller & Brewer, 1984; Wilder, 1981). For example, Wilder (1981) shows that subjects recalled fewer individual characteristics of outgroup members than of ingroup members. Accordingly, it is expected that the intercultural contact based on social categorization is apt to be superficial (Amir, 1969), and the range of knowledge acquired about the other in intercultural interaction will be relatively restricted, and remain impersonal, compared to intracultural interaction. Moreover, Rubin (1977, 1979) demonstrates that people process different kinds of information depending on the 22 context in which their interaction occurs. She found that the use of demographic and background questions predominated in ambiguous situations. Recognizing that intercultural communication is characterized by its ambiguity (Ruben & Kealey, 1979), it is expected that demographic information will be used more extensively by social actors. Gudykunst's (1983a) finding that persons ask more questions about their partner's background in intercultural initial interaction is consistent with Rubin's findings. Given that information concerning a target's demographic background is regarded as non-intimate (Altman & Taylor, 1976; Miller & Steinberg, 1975), the following hypothesis is advanced. HYPOTHESIS 5 Persons will seek less intimate information in intercultural initial interaction than they will in intracultural initial interaction. Consequently, because of low motivation to reduce uncertainty, there will be little information available to .intercultural interactants to predict effectively the CTther's future behavior. Furthermore, if the social actors Elrimarily process demographic and non intimate information abcut their intercultural partner, uncertainty will remain hiJQh, and the intercultural relationship will be unlikely to develop to the interpersonal level. This reasoning is 23 consistent with Miller and Steinberg's (1975) developmental theory of interpersonal relationships. According to them communicators need psychological level data (intimate information) in order to move from a non-interpersonal relationship to an interpersonal relationship. Therefore, given the previous argument that information processing behavior in intercultural interaction is characterized by low motivation to reduce uncertainty as well as by relatively non-intimate information transfer, the following hypothesis is advanced. HYPOTHESIS 6 Persons in intercultural interaction will report less attributional confidence and interpersonal attraction toward their partner than those in intracultural interaction. Anticipation of Future Interaction and Uncertaintv Reduction This paper explores the possibility that intercultural initial interactions differ from intracultural ones in the iamount and type of information required to reduce Lnacertainty. Both uncertainty reduction and interpersonal aattraction are affected by the type and amount of 1‘leformation processed during interaction. Given the argument that intercultural interaction is apt to suffer erDm a lack of motivation to reduce uncertainty, it is 24 important to investigate the conditions under which persons actively seek information to reduce uncertainty in intercultural interaction. Researchers suggest that one such situations is when future interaction is anticipated. Berger (1979) contends that persons will increase uncertainty reduction efforts as the perceived probability of future interaction with conversational partners increases. Consistent with Berger's (1979) contention, several researchers report that anticipation of future interaction influences subsequent recall (Douglas, 1985; Harvey, Yarkin, Lightner, & Town, 1980), attention (Berscheid, Graziano, Monson, & Dermer, 1976), and communication behavior (Douglas, 1987). Harvey et al. (1980) found that persons who expected future interaction with a stranger reported higher recall scores than persons who did not anticipate further interaction. Similarly, Douglas (1985) indicates that subjects recalled more information concerning a target's background and opinions/preferences when they anticipate future interaction. Berscheid et al. (1976) also reported that .Persons paid more attention to and recalled more detailed iJiformation about the anticipated date than the nondate. Ifilrthermore, they liked their anticipated date significantly more than they liked their nondate. Hypothesizing that Inicertainty reduction appears most important when the P1?obability of future interaction is not situationally fixed 25 (e.g., instructed by researchers either to anticipate or not to anticipate future interaction), Douglas (1987) found that persons required to negotiate a second interaction asked significantly more questions than those in the other conditions. Moreover, the intergroup contact research suggests that superordinate goals (e.g., the future interaction) override cultural differences, and thus reinforce the positive outcomes of intergroup contact (Amir, 1969; Miller & Brewer, 1984). Hence, it is hypothesized that anticipation of future interaction with an intercultural partner enhances the social actor's motivation to process information. HYPOTHESIS 7 Persons will seek more information in intercultural interaction if they anticipate future interaction with their intercultural partner than if they do not. In addition, several studies have documented that the variable of dyadic composition (i.e., same-sex versus opposite-sex dyad) influences the social actor's communicative behavior in an initial interaction. For instance, a study by Shuter (1982) revealed that people ask more questions, especially demographic types of information, in the opposite—sex dyad than they do in the same-sex dyad. 0n the other hand, Cline(1983) reports that females tend to 26 make more self-disclosure in same-sex dyads. Conversely, employing a retrospective technique, Gudykunst, Sodetani, and Sonoda (1987c) found no significant effect of dyadic composition on the uncertainty reduction variables in intercultural interaction. With a more realistic research design, this study advances the following research question to discern the relative effects of dyadic composition on subsequent uncertainty reduction behavior in initial intracultural and intercultural interactions. RESEARCH QUESTION 1 What are the effects of dyadic composition on attributional confidence, interpersonal attraction, and information-seeking behavior during initial intracultural and intercultural interactions? Finally, this study includes the measure of one's extraversion as it is believed to influence an individual's information—seeking behavior. According to Eysenck (1973) the extravert is a person who is sociable, needs people with whom talk to, and craves excitement. On the other hand, the introvert is a person who is reserved, distant toward other persons, and does not like excitement. Thus, the extravert is apt to ask more questions than the introvert, and the amount of information obtained will subsequently influence attributional confidence, and interpersonal attraction. 27 However, due to the paucity of empirical studies to draw a specific hypothesis, the following research question is posed. RESEARCH QUESTION 2 What are the effects of one's extraversion on attributional confidence, interpersonal attraction, and information-seeking behavior during initial intracultural and intercultural interactions? CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY Subjects Eighty undergraduate students (U.S.citizens) at a midwestern university participated in the experiment. They received extra credits for their participation. Procedure Upon arriving at the laboratory each subject was matched randomly with one of four confederates. Prior to interaction, all subjects were informed that they would participate in a two-part experiment, the first part concerning impression making. They were asked to conduct two interviews (one with an intracultural partner, the other with an intercultural partner) to form an impression of them. Subjects were also told that their conversation would be audiotaped, and they could end the interview whenever they wished. The experimenter then described the experiment in one of two ways. For the future interaction condition, subjects were told that they would be working with their interviewees on a small group problem-solving task after completing the interview. For the no future interaction condition, subjects were led to believe that the second phase of the study was a separate 28 29 social perception experiment in which they would be working independently on different tasks. After the instructions subjects were taken to a room where their interview was audiotaped. In order to control for a possible order effect, one-half of the subjects interviewed the intracultural partner first, while the other half interviewed the intercultural partner first. Upon completion of each interview, subjects were asked to fill out a questionnaire measuring their perceptions of similarity, attributional confidence, interpersonal attraction, the introvert-extravert scale, and demographic information. Design This study employed a 2 X 2 X 2 mixed factorial design with a covariate (the introvert-extravert scale) in which anticipation of future interaction (anticipate versus do not anticipate future interaction) and dyadic composition (same-sex versus opposite-sex dyad) are between-subjects factors and cultural similarity (intracultural versus intercultural interaction) is a within-subjects factor. In manipulating cultural similarity, four students (two Americans and two Koreans) previously unknown to the subjects were used as confederates. Each subject was matched with both an American confederate (intracultural interaction) and a Korean confederate (intercultural 30 interaction). Confederates were trained to standardize their verbal and nonverbal behaviors during the interview. Specifically, they were trained to answer in 3 sentences or less per question and were also asked not to provide any unnecessary information or nonverbal behaviors. A check of the confederates' interviewing behavior was made by a rater, and it was found that 98 percent of the statements made by the confederates conformed to the instructions. Anticipation of future interaction was manipulated by differing instructions given to the participants before they interacted with the confederate. Finally, one-half of the subjects were matched with same-sex partners, while the other one—half were paired with opposite-sex partners. A total of 160 dyads were formed and analyzed for the study. Ipstrumentation The perception of similarity was assessed by five, seven-point Likert items developed by Parks and Adelman (1983). The mean of this distribution was 20.28 with a standard deviation of 5.18. The scores were distributed normally. The reliability of this index was estimated by coefficient alpha, and found to be .83. Attributional confidence was measured by six, seven-point Likert items developed by Parks (1978). The mean of this distribution was 18.59 with a standard deviation of 6.64. This distribution showed slight positive skewness. Coefficient alpha was .82. 31 Interpersonal attraction was assessed by two, seven-point Likert items from Byrne's (1966) Interpersonal Judgment Scale. The mean of this distribution was 10.81 with a standard deviation of 1.84. The scores were negatively skewed. The reliability of this index was found to be .76. Finally, a subject's degree of extraversion was measured by Eysenck's (1973) short version of the introvert-extravert scale. The mean of the distribution was 8.65 with a standard deviation of 2.49. The scores were negatively skewed. The reliability coefficient alpha was .52. Identification of Questions Recordings of the interviews were transcribed and analyzed by a specially designed coding scheme. Two independent judges listened to each of the conversations and identified all questions requesting information from the interviewee. Only the participants' verbal behavior was included in the data analysis. The judges identified 2199 questions for intracultural interaction and 2167 questions for intercultural interaction, respectively. Assignment of Questions into Categories The coding scheme utilized in this study is based, with minor modifications, on Rubin's (1977). After 32 numerous refinements, the following eight-part scheme was ultimately derived. First, questions dealing with requests for information known to most people and unrelated to the interviewee are classified, "Request for General Knowledge Information" (e.g., What is the population of New York city?). The second category, "Request for Demographic Background Information", includes a wide variety of questions dealing with the partner's demographic background, family background, and roles (e.g., Where are you from?). The third category, labeled, "Request for Activity/Experience Information", concerns questions about the partner's past and present activities and experiences (e.g., Have you been to France?). Questions regarding the partner's specific ability (e.g., Can you speak Spanish?) or preference (e.g., Do you like sports?) are classified, "Request for Ability/Preference Information". The next category, "Request for Explanations of Past/Future Intentions", concerns questions requesting explanations for the partner's past behavior or future plans (e.g., What made you decide to go to Michigan State University?). The sixth category, "Request for Attitude/Opinion Information", includes questions dealing with the partner's attitudes or opinions (e.g., What do you think about American politics?). The seventh category is labeled, "Request for Personality Characteristic Information", and includes questions dealing with the partner's personality (e.g., Do 33 you like to interact with others?). In addition, questions dealing with the identification of meaning or clarification of the previous responses are classified, "Request for Clarity" (e.g., Could you repeat what you said before?). The judges independently coded all the questions into one of the eight categories. Using Scott's(1955) formula, the inter-coder reliabilities were .95 for the intracultural data, and .94 for the intercultural data. CHAPTER THREE RESULTS Manipulation Check The manipulation of cultural similarity was checked by asking the participants to indicate on a seven-point Likert scale the extent to which they perceived the culture of their interview partner to be similar to or different from their own. The data were broken down by the culture of confederates and the participant's gender. Subsequently, an analysis of variance was performed. The results of the test revealed a substantial main effect of cultural similarity, such that the participants perceived the intracultural partners much more similar to themselves than the intercultural partners L£=220.67; df=1, 78; p < .000). All other effects were trivial in magnitude. Because this study used multiple confederates to manipulate cultural similarity, it is necessary to break down these data by confederates to check for confederate effects. The results of Tukey's test indicate no main effect for confederates at either level of cultural similarity. Thus, the manipulation of cultural similarity in this study was successful. The participants were also asked to indicate whether or not they would be interacting with their current partner in the second phase of the study as a means of checking the manipulation of anticipation of future interaction. None 34 35 of the participants failed to conform to the instructions of the anticipation of future interaction manipulation. In addition, because this study involves a repeated measure, the effect of the order of interaction on information-seeking behavior was assessed in order to delineate the possible testing effect. There was no main effect of the order of interaction LE < 1; df=1,78; p=n.s.). Moreover, order did not interact with cultural similarity (F=1.82; df=1, 78; p=n.s.). Thus, the order of interaction did not influence the participants' information-seeking behavior. Finally, as judgments of physical attractiveness are believed to influence the process of first impressions (Maruyama & Miller, 1981), this study employed the perception of the partner's physical attractiveness as a covariate to assess its effect on information-seeking behavior. No significant covariate effect was observed, indicating that the perception of physical attractiveness does not influence the social actors' information-seeking behavior in this study. Perceptions of the Uncertainty Reduction Variables As seen in Table 1, a positive relationship between perceptions of similarity and information-seeking behavior was observed L;=.216; p=.027). Moreover, the perception of similarity was positively related to attributional 36 confidence (p=.464; p=.000), and interpersonal attraction (p=.504; p=.000). On the other hand, the total amount of information obtained was not related to attributional confidence, while a positive but moderate relationship exists between the amount of information and subsequent interpersonal attraction 1_=.167; p=.069). Finally, a moderate but positive relationship is observed between attributional confidence and interpersonal attraction 1;=.175; p=.061). In order to examine whether uncertainty reduction behavior in intracultural interaction can be extended to the intercultural context, the correlations among perceptions of similarity, information-seeking behavior, attributional confidence, and interpersonal attraction in intercultural interaction are presented in Table 2. The data showed that the perception of similarity is negatively related to subsequent information-seeking behavior 1;=-.221; p=.024). Moreover, there was a moderately negative relationship between the total amount of information processed and interpersonal attraction (;=-.126; p=.133). These findings are quite opposite to intracultural interactions. Like intracultural 37 interaction, the amount of information obtained does not help the participants to enhance attributional confidence toward their partners. In addition, strong positive relationships are obtained between the perception of similarity and attributional confidence (p=.310; p=.003) and interpersonal attraction (p=.476; p=.000). Finally, the association between attributional confidence and interpersonal attraction is slightly stronger in intercultural interaction (p=.274; p=.007) than in intracultural interaction. A 2 X 2 X 2 (the culture of the interviewee X dyadic composition X anticipation of future interaction) analysis of covariance (introversion-extraversion) was the basic analysis performed to discern the effects of the treatments on the dependent variables. First, as shown in Table 3, the participants perceived the intracultural partners much more similar to themselves (M=23.19) than the intercultural partners (M=17.38) when they engaged in a face-to-face interaction 1£=76.64; df=1,76; p < .000). Moreover, the data indicated a significant main effect of cultural similarity on attributional confidence (F=67.86; df=1,76; p < .000) as the participants reported a higher degree of 38 attributional confidence for the intracultural partners 1M=21.38) than for the intercultural partners 1_=15.81). Table 4 also reveals that persons report a higher degree of attributional confidence when they are interacting with the same-sex partner (_=19.83) than with the opposite-sex partner (M=17.39), a difference statistically significant at the .05 level 1§=5.27; df=1,75; p=.024). Finally, as seen in Table 5, the participants perceived the intracultural partners more attractive (M=11.64) than the intercultural partners (_=9.99) LF=56.44; df=1,76; p < .000). Additionally, this study asked the participants to report on a seven-point Likert scale the extent to which they liked the interview. Table 6 reveals that a cultural similarity by dyadic composition interaction effect approaches significance (F=3.88; df=1,76; p=.052). People in the intracultural condition with the opposite-sex dyad liked the interview most 1M=5.20), while those in the intercultural interaction with the opposite-sex partners liked the interview least 1_=4.33). Overall, respondents .liked the interview with the intracultural partners 39 (M=5.15) more than they did with the intercultural partners 1M:4.85) (2:14.27; df=1,76; p < .000). Consequently, when asked to estimate the probability that they would develop a future relationship with their current partners, the participants reported that the probability is much greater with the intracultural partner L_=29.85) than with the intercultural partner 1_=10.49), as Table 7 illustrates LE=47.37; df=1,76; p < .000). Almost 40% of the participants answered that there is 0% probability that they would develop an interpersonal relationship with the intercultural partner. Table 7 also reports the significant effect of dyadic composition 1F=5.21; df=1,75; p=.025), as participants in same-sex dyads foresee a greater chance of developing a future relationship with their partners (_=24.46) than those in opposite-sex dyads 1n=15.88). Tables 6, 7 about here Number and Types of Questions Asked For each interview, the total number of questions asked was calculated and decomposed into 8 sub-categories in order to assess the role of information-seeking behavior in mediating the similarity-attraction relationship. Table 8 shows that for the intracultural data the most frequently " — . ‘ ' -- ”yards”! 40 asked questions were demographic background information (30%), followed by activity/experience information (30%), and attitude/opinion information (17%). On the other hand, as presented in Table 9, participants mostly asked for demographic background information (31%), activity/experience information (20%), and general request information (15%) from the intercultural partner. Regardless of the culture of the interviewees, questions dealing with the partner's personality are rarely asked. Tables 8, 9 about here It was hypothesized that persons will process less information in intercultural interaction due to the lack of motivation to reduce uncertainty. Table 10, however, reveals no difference in the total number of questions asked between the intracultural interaction (_=27.45) and intercultural interaction 1_=26.04) conditions. The only factor approaching significance is the dyadic composition effect 1£=3.40; df=1,75; p=.069) with more questions being asked in opposite-sex dyads (_=29.05) than in same-sex dyads (M=24.44). To investigate whether participants were motivated to process more information when they anticipate future interaction, the data are broken down by the culture of the interviewee, and an analysis of covariance was 41 performed for the intercultural dyads. No significant effect of anticipation of future interaction was observed LE=1.50; df=1,75; p=.224), although people in the anticipation of future interaction condition asked slightly more questions 1_=27.63) than those in the no anticipation condition (_;24.45). The data also show that most information-seeking behavior in intercultural interaction occurred when the participants anticipate future interaction with the opposite-sex partners (M=31.30). As for the intracultural data, a similar pattern was observed, that is, participants did not change their information-seeking behavior as a function of anticipation of future interaction 1_=27.13 for the no anticipation condition; M=27.78 for the anticipation condition). The data did indicate a significant effect of dyadic composition L§=3.97; df=1,75; p=.05). When persons interacted with opposite-sex partners they asked significantly more questions 1_=30.50) than they did with same-sex partners (_=24.40). Given the insignificant effect of cultural similarity on the total number of questions, the data were broken down by the eight sub-categories to see if persons ask different 42 types of questions depending upon the culture of their interview partners. Analyses of covariance were performed for each type of question to elicit the qualitative effects of cultural similarity on information-seeking behavior. First, as indicated in Table 11, a significant main effect of cultural similarity on general request type of information was observed (E=31.21; df=1,76; p < .000). Persons asked general request type of information 1_=3.94) more frequently in intercultural interaction than in intracultural interaction (_=1.73). Second, an equal number of demographic background questions was asked in intercultural 1_=8.50) and intracultural (M=8.35) interactions. Table 12 also shows that participants asked more demographic background questions (F=9.74; df=1,75; p=.003) when they interacted with opposite—sex partners 1M=9.26) than with same—sex partners L_=7.61). Third, Table 13 indicates, participants in intracultural interaction sought an extensive amount of information concerning the partner's activities and experiences (_=8.06) when compared to those in the intercultural interaction context (_=5.39) 13:17.70; df=1,75; p < .000). Tables 11,12,13 about here 43 A significant main effect of cultural similarity was also observed on abilities and preferences type of information. From Table 14, it can be observed that intercultural interaction generated more of this type of information (_=2.61) than intracultural interaction (M=1.95) (£=7.10; df=1,76; p=.009). Moreover, an anticipation of future interaction by dyadic composition interaction effect was also significant 1E=4.36; df=1,75; p=.04). The data revealed that when anticipating future interaction persons in the opposite-sex dyad condition increased the number of questions concerning the partner's abilities and preferences, while those in the same-sex dyad condition decreased the number of such questions. On the other hand, Table 15 illustrates that persons interacting with intercultural partners asked more of questions dealing with the intentions of the partner's past behavior or future plans than those in the intracultural context (M=2.36 for intercultural interaction; M=1.46 for intracultural interaction; F=21.65; df=1,76; p < .000). Tables 14, 15 about here In addition, as seen in Table 16, questions dealing with the partner's attitudes and opinions were observed more frequently in the intracultural condition (M=8.65) 44 than in the intercultural condition 1_=4.66), as the participants sought almost twice as much attitudinal information from the intracultural partner as from the intercultural partner 12:14.17; df=1,76; p < .000). Likewise, Table 17 shows that respondents asked more questions concerning the partner's personality in intracultural interaction (_=1.00) than in intercultural interaction (_=.38), although overall persons rarely asked for this type of information 1£=11.23; df=1,76; p=.001). It was also found that when the participants interacted with opposite-sex partners they asked more questions concerning their partner's personality 1_=.97) than when they interacted with same—sex partners (M=.42) 1§=7.36; df=1,75; p=.ooa). Tables 16,17 about here Finally, the data indicated that in intercultural interaction participants experienced more difficulties understanding their partners, as more clarification questions were observed in the intercultural condition 1M=1.14) than in the intracultural condition (_=.24) LE=32.10; df=1,75; p < .000). Table 18 about here 45 Summary of the Tests of Hypotheses and Research Questions First, the data are consistent with Hypothesis One which states that persons will be motivated to process more information if they perceive their partner to be similar to themselves in intracultural interaction. On the other hand, the amount of information processed was not related to attributional confidence, and a moderate, yet positive, relationship existed between the amount of information and interpersonal attraction. Hence, the data provide only partial support for Hypothesis Two, which predicts that the amount of information obtained will be positively related to subsequent attributional confidence and interpersonal attraction. As for the effects of cultural similarity on the uncertainty reduction variables, the data are generally consistent with the hypotheses proffered. As predicted in Hypothesis Three, a significant effect of cultural similarity on the perception of similarity was observed, such that participants found the intracultural partners more similar to themselves than the intercultural partners when given the opportunities to interact with them in a face-to-face context. Contrary to Hypothesis Four, however, cultural similarity was not related to subsequent information-seeking behavior. It was found that respondents asked an equal number of questions regardless of their interview partner's cultural background. 46 The effect of cultural similarity was more powerful for types of information processed. First, the data showed that demographic background information is equally important in both intercultural and intracultural interactions. Second, activity/experience information was more frequently requested in intracultural interaction, while general request questions predominated the intercultural context. Finally, the data revealed that persons rarely asked questions concerning their partner's attitude/opinion/personality in intercultural interaction. The goal of uncertainty reduction seems to be fulfilled by somewhat less intimate types of information such as questions that deal with the partner's ability/preference/intentions in intercultural interaction. In sum, the data are consistent with Hypothesis Five which predicts that persons request less intimate information in intercultural initial interaction. Consequently, participants reported less attributional confidence toward the intercultural partners, and they perceived them less attractive than the intracultural partners, findings consistent with Hypothesis Six. The data also show that the effect of anticipation of future interaction on information-seeking behavior is minimal in a face-to-face interaction. Contrary to Hypothesis Seven, inducing participants to anticipate future interaction with their conversational partners does not motivate them 47 to process more information in either intercultural or intracultural interaction. Finally, as for the research questions, the data indicated that respondents reported less attributional confidence in the opposite-sex dyad condition. As a result, they tended to ask more questions when they interacted with Opposite-sex partners. Specifically, they asked more questions dealing with demographic background and personalities of their partners in the opposite-sex dyad. Although the effect of anticipation of future interaction on information-seeking behavior is very limited in this study, it is worthwhile to note that when expecting future interaction the participants interacted with opposite-sex partners tended to process more information while those who interacted with same-sex partners asked for slightly less information in intercultural interaction. Finally, the degree of one's extraversion was found to be unrelated to subsequent information-seeking behavior. CHAPTER FOUR DISCUSSION This study approached the uncertainty reduction process during an initial interaction from an information processing perspective. In particular, efforts were made to learn the function of information-seeking behavior on the perception of similarity, attributional confidence,and interpersonal attraction in initial intercultural and intracultural interactions. Faced with the high level of uncertainty at the onset of interaction, the participants were engaged in extensive information-seeking behavior. The consequence of information-seeking behavior, however, is quite different depending upon the culture of the interviewees. For the intracultural relationship, the amount of information obtained tend to facilitate the discovery of actual similarity between interactants. This result could be due to the fact that both the interviewers and the interviewees belong to the relatively homogeneous culture of university students. But, in the intercultural context a negative relationship between the perception of similarity and the total amount of information indicates that the social actors are apt to discover their intercultural partners to be different from them as they receive more information from them. 48 49 While the amount of information leading to the perception of similarity in intracultural interaction enhances the perception of interpersonal attraction, the amount of information leading to the perception of dissimilarity in intercultural interaction decreases the perception of interpersonal attraction. It is plausible to speculate that social actors do not necessarily perceive the intercultural partners to be different from them if not involved in a face-to-face interaction. If allowed to interact with them, however, the cultural difference between them becomes evident. Consequently, they perceive their intercultural partners to be less similar, and less attractive, than the intracultural partners. The data did not provide evidence that the amount of information obtained would reduce uncertainty, as no relationship exists between the two variables. This finding raises a serious question concerning the validity of the construct of attributional confidence as a measure of uncertainty reduction in an initial interaction. When developing this measure, Clatterbuck (1979) questioned whether uncertainty and attributional confidence are identical constructs. He speculated that attributional confidence is a state reached in a relationship. The present data are consistent with his speculation. In spite of the fact that the participants were allowed to interview 50 their partners until they felt comfortable enough to form an impression of them, the participants reported a very low degree of attributional confidence (the grand mean was 3.10 on a seven-point scale). Moreover, the distribution of attributional confidence is positively skewed, indicating that most participants did not reach a high level of attributional confidence. Hence, it is necessary for future studies to develop an alternative measure to tap the level of uncertainty especially during the initial stage of relationship development. This study also reveals that the participants found the intercultural partners to be less similar to themselves, and consequently, reported less attributional confidence and interpersonal attraction. These findings indicate strongly that the effect of cultural similarity on the uncertainty reduction variables, such as perceptions of similarity, attributional confidence, and interpersonal attraction, is robust when the social actors are engaged in a face-to-face interaction. These findings help clarify the conflicting results of previous studies concerning the effect of cultural similarity on the uncertainty reduction variables. The present findings are not only consistent with many of the interaction-based intergroup studies (Allen & Wilder, 1979; Billig & Tajfel, 1973), but based on a more realistic research design. 51 The effect of cultural similarity on subsequent information-seeking behavior was found to be very limited, as the participants asked almost an equal number of question to same- and different-culture interviewees. This finding is surprising, given the argument that intercultural communication will be characterized by little motivation to seek information due to communication difficulties (Imahori, 1987; Simard, 1981) and high uncertainty at the onset of interaction (Gudykunst, 1983a). It is possible that at least two factors are responsible for the present finding. First, the task of impression-making may override the effect of cultural similarity. Many intergroup contact studies advocate the role of context for intergroup behavior (Amir, 1969; Hewstone & Brown, 1986). These studies generally indicate that intergroup discrimination is most evident when the subjects are led to compete with outgroup members. For instance, Word et al. (1974) report that the subjects gave shorter interviews to culturally dissimilar partners in a job interview situation. Given the fact that the participants in this study were faced with a non-competitive task, an impression-making interview, the weak effect of cultural similarity on the amount of information-seeking behavior is understandable. In other words, in spite of evident cultural differences, the participants seem to process information about their 52 interviewees continuously to fulfill the task of impression-making. Second, on the average, the impression-making interview lasted less than five minutes. Thus, the interaction may have been too short to discern the effect of cultural similarity on information-seeking behavior. If participants were forced to interact longer, there might have been a significant effect of cultural similarity on information-seeking behavior. On the other hand, the effect of cultural similarity is evident when the data are broken down by the type of question asked. First, information concerning the partner's demographic background is equally important for both the intercultural and the intracultural partners. Moreover, regardless of the conditions of cultural similarity, demographic background information was most frequently asked. This finding challenges the assertion by Gudykunst (1983a) that people in LC cultures rely more heavily on the knowledge of their partner's attitudes to reduce uncertainty. Second, while the participants tend to reduce uncertainty about the intracultural partners by asking direct questions about what they are doing (activity/experience information), they approach the intercultural partners more indirectly by asking questions about what most people do (general request information). Hence, it appears that participants employ a generalization 53 process in intercultural interaction, as they draw inferences from the knowledge of the typical behavioral patterns of outgroup members. Third, the social penetration process in intercultural interaction is more difficult than in intracultural interaction. It was found that the participants asked significantly fewer questions concerning the partner's attitudes, opinions, and personalities in intercultural interaction. The process of social penetration reached only up to the point where participants requested somewhat less intimate information such as questions concerning the partner's abilities, preferences, and behavioral intentions. These findings are consistent with many social penetration studies of the intercultural relationship (Gudykunst, 1985b; Gudykunst et al., 1987a). Finally, as Imahori (1987) observed intercultural interaction can be characterized by communication difficulties as the participants in the intercultural interaction condition were involved in far more frequent clarifications than those in the intracultural condition. To summarize, the effects of cultural similarity on qualitative features of subsequent information-seeking behavior are most striking. Even though the participants require an equal amount of information for uncertainty reduction, they use different types of information to reduce uncertainty depending upon the culture of their 54 partners. Thus, these findings reinforce the necessity of approaching the process of uncertainty reduction from an information processing perspective to better understand the consequence of group memberships upon information processing behavior during an initial interaction. Next, contrary to Berger's (1979) contention that anticipation of future interaction will elevate the social actor's motivation to seek information from the partner, this study reports that the effect of anticipation of future interaction on several uncertainty reduction variables is minimal in both intercultural and intracultural interactions. A few comments are necessary to interpret this null result. First, as Tedeschi (1981) suggests, individuals expecting future interaction with a stranger are likely to be concerned with impression management. Therefore, anticipation of future interaction with conversational partners is apt to bind social actors to social norms, and constrain non-normative behavior (Kellermann, 1986). According to Berger, Gardner, Parks, Schulman, and Miller (1976) there are limits on the extent to which persons can use interrogation as a means to gaining knowledge about each other during an initial interaction. Asking too many questions to a stranger violates a social norm of initial interaction. Although this study allowed the participants to ask as many questions as they wished, it is possible 55 that when social actors have reached an upper limit of interrogation in the no anticipation of future interaction condition, there is not much room for anticipation of future interaction to have an impact on interrogation in this study. Moreover, Shaffer and Ogden (1986) report that social actors rated themselves as being less comfortable and less relaxed during an initial interaction if they anticipate future interaction with their partners. Taken together, the weak effect of anticipation of future interaction in this study can be attributed to the fact that the participants in the anticipation of future interaction condition might have been more cautious in conducting their behavior not to violate appropriate social norms of initial interactions. Second, even though none of the participants misunderstood the anticipation of future interaction induction, they somehow did not believe strongly that they would be actually interacting with their partners in the second part of the study. In fact, during the debriefing session several participants reported that they guessed that there would be no second part of the study despite the instructions. This observation raises a serious question concerning the validity of the manipulation of anticipation of future interaction in an artificial experimental setting. Kellermann (1986) comments that, "problems with the operationalization of the 56 construct of anticipation of future interaction suggest its limited value in understanding interaction behavior (p.69)". Therefore, further research is required to develop an operationalization of anticipation of future interaction with a more realistic research design. This study also explores the possibility that persons manifest different patterns of uncertainty reduction behavior depending upon the gender of their partners. The data show that the participants felt less confident in understanding their partner's behavior in the opposite-sex dyad condition. Accordingly, they asked more questions to cope with the high degree of uncertainty. In particular, it was shown that information concerning the partner's demographic background and personalities seemed to be most useful for the participants to reduce uncertainty toward the opposite—sex partners. Contrasting this finding with the Cline's (1983) report that persons tend to self-disclosure more in same-sex dyads, it is possible that persons use more subtle ways of acquiring such information in the same—sex dyad, while they are direct in their information-seeking behavior in the opposite—sex dyad. More future research needs to be done to scrutinize this possibility. Finally, this study did not support the hypothesis that extraverts would be more active than introverts in their information—seeking behavior. Introverts were not 57 different from the extraverts in their information processing behavior both quantitatively and qualitatively. This finding can be attributed to the fact that this study use a structured context, a formal interview, for information-seeking behavior. It is possible that introverts felt more comfortable in a well—structured situation, because there are specified rules for appropriate behavior. Several limitations of this study, and the corollary recommendations for future studies are in order. First, this study investigates social actors' information-seeking behavior by interrogation only. According to Berger (1979) persons can use other interactive strategies, such as self-disclosure, to acquire information from their partners during an initial interaction. In particular, given the small effect of anticipation of future interaction in this study, it may be fruitful for future studies to investigate whether the prospect of future interaction would produce any impact on subsequent frequencies and intimacy of self-disclosure in initial intercultural and intracultural interactions. Research findings by Shaffer and Ogden (1986) are in support of this argument, finding that male participants became more intimate and emotionally invested in their disclosures when they expected to interact with their partners in the future. 58 Second, the context utilized also needs to be scrutinized carefully. As illustrated earlier the intergroup contact literature consistently advocates the importance of context in intergroup behavior. Thus, it should be emphasized that an impression—making interview is a non-competition situation, and it may be important to find out how social actors vary their information-seeking behavior in more competitive situations. In addition, the role of the prospect of future interaction in such a context deserves attention in the future studies. Third, based on Hall's (1976) distinction, this study investigated information-seeking behavior for uncertainty reduction in LC cultures only. Several researchers speculate that uncertainty reduction strategies might vary depending upon one's cultural background. For instance, Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) suggest that persons in HC cultures tend to reduce uncertainty about the target person from ingroup relationships, rather than from frequency of communication. Moreover, nonverbal aspects of communication are more valued than verbal communication in HC cultures (Condon, 1984; Kang & Pearce, 1983; Yum, 1987). Thus, it is important to find out the roles and patterns of information-seeking behavior for the uncertainty reduction process in HC cultures such as Korea, Japan, and China. To conclude, the significance of the present study is that it has made efforts to compare and contrast the 59 patterns of uncertainty reduction behavior between intercultural and intracultural interactions from an information processing perspective. The data are believed to have higher external validity because they are obtained from a face-to-face interaction. In particular, given the fact that an understanding of the uncertainty reduction process in initial intercultural and intracultural interactions is not yet clear mainly due to the low degree of both experimental and mundane realism of the research methods employed in previous studies, more future studies are needed to investigate uncertainty reduction behavior from an information processing perspective in numerous contexts. By so doing, we not only enhance our knowledge of how social actors use information for the purpose of uncertainty reduction, but also provide useful guidelines of conducting one's behavior during the initial stages of relationship development. BI BLI OGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Pretice-Hall, Inc. Allen, B. (1976). Race and physical attractiveness as criteria for white subjects' dating choices. Social Behavior and Personality, A, 289-296. Allen, V., & Wilder, D. (1979). Group categorization and attribution of belief similarity. Small Group Behavior, 19, 73-80. Altman, I., & Taylor, D.A. (1973). Social penetration: The development pf interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 1;, 319-342. Barna, L. (1985). Stumbling blocks in intercultural communication. In L.A. Samovar and R.E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Berger, C.R. (1973). The acquaintance process revisited: Explorations in initial interaction. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, New York. Berger, C.R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. In H.Giles and R. St. Clair (Eds.), Lanquaqs and social psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Berger, C.R. (1986a). Social cognition and intergroup communication. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intergroup communication. Edward Arnold. Berger, C.R. (1986b). Uncertain outcome values in predicted relationships: Uncertainty reduction theory then and now. Human Communication Theor , 1;, 34-38. «\Berger, C.R. & Bradac, J.J. (1982). Language and Social Knowledge: Uncertainty ip interpersonal relations. London: Edward Arnold. 60 61 V/ i Berger, C.R., & Calabrese, R.J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112. Vgerger, C.R., Gardner, R.R., Parks, M.R., Schulman, L., Miller, G.R. (1976). Interpersonal epistemology and interpersonal communication. In G.R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations ip interpersonal communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Berger, C.R., & Kellermann, K. (1983). To ask or not to ask: Is that a question? In R. Bostrom (Ed.,), Communication Yearbook 1. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Berscheid, E., Graziano, W., Monson, T., & Dermer, M. (1976). Outcome dependency: Attention, attribution, and attraction. Journal pf Personality and Social Psychology, Q1, 978-989. Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior. European Journal pf Social Psychology, Q, 27-52. Bishop, G. (1979). Perceived similarity in interpersonal attitudes and behavior. Journal pf Applied Social Psychology, 2, 446-465. Brown, R., & Turner, J. (1981). Interpersonal and intergroup behavior. In J. Turner, & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup Behavior. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York and London: Academic Press. Byrne, D., & Clore, G.L. (1966). Predicting interpersonal attractions toward strangers presented in three different stimulus modes. Psychology Science, A, 239-240. Calabrese, R.J. (1975). The effects of privacy and probability of future interaction on initial interaction patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University. Chaikin, A.L., & Derlega, V.J. (1976). Self-disclosure. In J.W Thibaut, J.T. Spence, & R.C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics ip social psychology. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. 62 Chaikin, A.L., Derlega, V.J., Harris, M.S., Gregorio, D., & Boone, P. (1973). Self-disclosure in biracial dyads. Unpublished manuscript, Old Dominion University. \/Clatterbuck, G.W. (1979). Attributional confidence and uncertainty in initial interaction. Human Communication Research, 5, 147-157. Cline, R.J. (1983). The acquaintance process as relational communication. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1, 396-413. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Clore, G.L., & Byrne, D. (1974). A reinforcement model of attraction. In T. Hudson (Ed.), Foundations pf Interpersonal Attraction. NY: Academic Press. Condon, J.C. (1984). With respect pp the Japanese: A guide for Americans. Intercultural Press Inc. Douglas, W. (1985). Anticipated interaction and information seeking. Human Communication Research, 1;, 243-258. Douglas, W. (1987). Question-asking in same- and opposite-sex initial interactions: The effect of anticipated future interaction. Human Communication Research, 13, 230-245. Duck, 8. (1976). Interpersonal communication in developing acquaintance. In G.R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations ip Interpersonal Communication. Sage pub., Beverly Hills.‘ Eysenck, H.J. (1973). Eysenck pp extraversion. New York: Wiley. Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House. Giles, H. & Johnson, P. (1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations. In J. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gudykunst, W.B. (1983a). Similarities and dissimilarities in perceptions of initial intracultural an intercultural encounters: An exploratory investigation. Southern Speech Communication Journal, gs, 49-65. 63 / Gudykunst,WW.B.fl «983pfia Uncertainty reduction and predictabil"‘ ” behavior in high and low context cultures. Communication Quarterly, 31, 49-55. 'Gudykunst, W.B. (1985a). The influence of cultural similarity, type of relationship, and self-monitoring on uncertainty reduction processes. Communication Mono ra hs, p2, 203-217. Gudykunst, W.B. (1985b). An exploratory comparison of close intracultural and intercultural friendships. Communication Quarterly, 3;, 270-283). Gudykunst, W.B. (1986). Ethnicity, type of relationship, and intraethnic and interethnic uncertainty reduction. In Y.Kim (Ed.), Interethnic Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gudykunst, W.B. (1987). Uncertainty and anxiety. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, Boston, Mass. Gudykunst, W., Chua, E., & Gray, A. (1987a). Cultural dissimilarities and uncertainty reduction processes. In M.McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 19. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gudykunst, W., & Hammer, M. (1988). The influence of social identity and intimacy of interethnic relationships on uncertainty reduction processes. Human Communication Theory, lg, 569-601. Gudykunst,W., & Nishida, T. (1983). Social penetration in Japanese and North American friendships. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication Yerabook 1. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. VGudykunst, W.B., & Nishida, T. (1984). Individual and cultural influences on uncertainty reduction. Communication Mono ra hs, 51, 23-36. Gudykunst, W., Nishida, T., & Chua, E. (1987b). Perceptions of social penetration in Japanese-North American dyads. International Journal pf Intercultural Relations, 11, 171-190. 64 Gudykunst, W., Nishida, T., Koike, H., & Shiino, N. (1986). The influence of language on uncertainty reduction: An exploratory study of Japanese-Japanese and Japanese-North American interactions. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 2. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gudykunst, W., Sodetani, L., & Sonoda, K. (1987c). Uncertainty reduction in Japanese-American/Caucasian relationships in Hawaii. Western Journal pf Speech Communication, p1, 256-278. Gudykunst, W., Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond Cultures. Garden city, NY: Doubleday. Harvery, J.H., Yarkin, K.L., Lightner, J.M., & Town, J.P. (1980). Unsolicited interpretation and recall of interpersonal events. Journal of Personality gpg Social Psychology, 38, 551-568. Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology p: Interpersonal Relations. NY: Wiley. Hewes, D.E., & Planalp, S. (1982). There is nothing as useful as a good theory ...: The influence of social knowledge on interpersonal communication In M.E., Roloff and C.R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and ppmmunication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hewston, M., & Brown, R.J. (1986). Contact and conflict 1p intergroup sncounters. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Imahori, T.T. (1987). Intercultural interpersonal epistemology: Behavioral comparison of intimacy and interrogative strategies between initial intracultural and intercultural interactions. Paper presented at Speech Communication Association annual convention in Boston. Jones, 8., & Diener, E. (1976). Ethnic preference of college students for their own and other racial groups. Social Behavior and Personalit , 5, 225-231. Kang, K.W., Pearce, W.B. (1983). Reticence: A transcultural analysis. Communication, p, 79-106. 65 Kellermann, K. (1986). Anticipation of future interaction and information exchange in initial interaction. Human Communication Research, 1;, 41-75. Langer, E.J., Taylor, S.E., Fiske, S.T., & Chanowitz, B. (1976). Stigma, staring, and discomfort: A novel stimulus hypothesis. Journal pf Experimental Social Psychology, 1;, 451-463. Maruyama, F., & Miller, N. (1981). Physical attractiveness and personality. In B.Maher & W. Maher (Eds.), Progress ip experimental personality research (vol. 10). New York: Academic Press. Miller, G.R., & Steinberg, M. (1975). Between people: A new analysis pf interpersonal communication. Palo Alto, CA: Science Research Associates. Miller, N., & Brewer, M.B. (1984). Groups ip contact. Orlando: Academic Press. Osterkamp, M.B. (1980). Communication during initial interactions: Toward a different model. Western Journal pf Speech Communication, 44, 198-113. Parks, M.R. & Adelman, M.B. (1983). Communication networks and the development of romantic relationships: An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory. Human memunication Research, 19, 55-79. Pettigrew, T. (1986). The intergroup contact hypothesis reconsidered. In M. Hewstone and R. Brown (Eds.), Contact spg conflict 1p intergroup encounters. Oxxford: Basil Blackwell. Planalp, S., Hewes, D.E. (1982). A cognitive approach to communication theory: Cogito ergo dico? In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook p. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in interpersonal relationships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593-604. Prisbell, M. & Anderson, J.P. (1980). The importance of perceived homophily, level of uncertainty, feeling good, safety, and self-disclosure in interpersonal relationships. Communication Quarterly, pg, 22-33. 66 Rose, T.L. (1981). Cognitive and dyadic processes in intergroup contact. In D.L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes ip stereotyping and intergroup behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ruben, B.D., & Kealey, D.J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal pf Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-47. Rubin, R.B. (1977). The role of context in information seeking and impression formation. Communication Monographs, ii, 81-90. Rubin, R.E. (1979). The effect of context on information seeking across the span of initial interactions. Communication Quarterly, 21, 13-20. Schiffrin, D. (1977). Opening encounters. American Sociological Review, 4;, 679-691. Schneider, D.J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 12, 294-309. Schneider, M.J., & Jordan, W. (1981). Perceptions of the communicative performance of Americans and Chinese in intercultural dyads. International Journal pf Intercultural Relations, 5, 175-191. Scott, W.A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-325. Shaffer, D.R., & Ogden, J.K. (1986). On sex differences in self-disclosure during the acquaintance process: The role of anticipated future interaction. Journal pf Personality gpg Social Psychology, 51, 92-101. Sherblom, J., & Rheenen, D. (1984). Spoken language indices of uncertainty. Human Communication Research, 1;, 221-230. Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and co-operation. London: Routledge and Degan Paul. Shuter, R. (1982). Initial interaction of American blacks .and whites in interracial and intraracial dyads. JOurnal pf Social Psychology, 117, 45-52. 67 Sillars, A.L. (1982). Attribution and communication: Are people "naive scientists" or just naive? In M.E. Roloff and C.R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition gpg communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Simard, L.M. (1981). Cross-cultural interaction: Potential invisible barriers. Journal pf Social Psychology, 113, 171-192. Snyder, M., & Uranowitz, S.W. (1978). Reconstructing the past: Some cognitive consequences of person perception. Journal pf Personality spg Social Psychology, pp, 941-950. Stephan, W.G., & Stephan, C.W. (1984). The role of ignorance in intergroup relations. In N. Miller & M. Brewer (Eds.,), Groups ip contact. New York: Academic Press. Street, Jr. L., & Giles, H. (19820. Speech accommodation theory: A social cognitive approach to language and speech behavior. In M.E. Roloff and C.R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition gpg communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Sunnafrank, M.J. & Miller, G.R. (1981). The role of initial conversations in determining attraction to similar and dissimilar strangers. Human Communication Research, s, 16-25. Tedeschi, J.T. (1981). Impression management theory and social psychological research. New York: Academic Press. Ting-Toomey, S. (1981). Ethnic identity and close friendship in Chinese-American college students. 338-406. Wilder, D.A. (1981). Perceiving persons as a group: Categorization and intergroup relations. In D.L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes ip stereotyping and intergroup behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Word, C.O., Zanna, M.P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal pf Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109-120. 68 Yum, J.O. (1987). Korean philosophy and communication. In D.L.Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory from eastern and western perspectives. NY: Academic Press. Zunin, L., & Zunin, N. (1972). Contact: The First Four Minutes. NY: Ballantine Books TABLES 69 Table 1. Correlations among Perceptions of Similarity, Total Amount of Information-seeking, Attributional Confidence, and Interpersonal Attraction in Intracultural Initial Interaction. Items 1 2 3 4 1. Perceptions of similarity 2. Total amount of .216 information-seeking (p=.027) 3. Attributional .464 -.048 confidence (p=.000) (p=.337) 4. Interpersonal .504 .167 .175 attraction (p=.000) (p=.069) (p=.061) 70 Table 2. Correlations among Perceptions of Similarity, Total Amount of Information—seeking, Attributional Confidence, and Interpersonal Attraction in Intercultural Initial Interaction. Items 1 2 3 1. Perceptions of similarity 2. Total amount of -.221 information-seeking (p=.024) 3. Attributional .310 .009 confidence (p=.003) (p=.470) 4. Interpersonal .476 -.126 .274 attraction (p=.000) (p=.133) (p=.007) 71 Table 3. An Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Perceptions of Similarity. Source SS DF MS F P Between—Subjects Effects COVARIATE 15.70 1 15.70 .78 .380 VFI * .17 1 .17 .01 .926 VSC ** 39.79 1 39.79 1.98 .164 VFI X VSC .32 1 .32 .02 .901 ERROR (B) 1511.03 75 20.15 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD *** 1351.42 1 1351.42 76.64 .000 VFI X DYAD .31 1 .31 .02 .896 VSC X DYAD 9.52 l 9.51 .54 .465 VFI X VSC X DYAD .16 1 .16 .01 .925 ERROR (W) 1340.12 76 17.63 Total 4268.54 159 26.85 * VFI: the anticipation of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor 72 Table 4. An Analysis Of Variance Of the Effects Treatments on Attributional Confidence. Source SS Of Between-Subjects Effects 110.31 43.59 278.30 .10 52.77 1237.66 1.06 49.51 .16 18.24 2.09 .83 5.27 .00 67.86 .06 2.71 .01 .152 .366 .024 .965 .000 .810 .104 .926 COVARIATE 110.31 VFI * 43.59 VSC ** 278.30 VFI X VSC .10 ERROR (B) 3957.81 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD *** 1237.66 VFI X DYAD 1.06 VSC X DYAD 49.51 VFI X VSC X DYAD .16 ERROR (W) 1386.12 Total 7064.62 * VFI: the anticipation Of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor 73 Table 5. An Analysis Of Variance Of the Effects of Treatments on Interpersonal Attraction. Source SS DF MS F P Between-Subjects Effects COVARIATE .13 l .13 .04 .844 VFI 6.11 1 6.11 1.77 .188 VSC 2.14 1 2.14 .62 .434 VFI X VSC 12.23 1 12.23 3.53 .064 ERROR (B) 259.72 75 3.46 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD 108.90 1 108.90 56.44 .000 VFI X DYAD .23 1 .23 .12 .734 VSC X DYAD .00 1 .00 .00 1.000 ‘ VFI X VSC X DYAD .22 1 .22 .12 .734 ERROR (W) 146.65 76 1.93 Total 536.33 159 3.37 * VFI: the anticipation of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor 74 Table 6. An Analysis Of Variance Of the Effects Of Treatments on Liking of the Interview. Source SS DF MS F P Between-Subjects Effects COVARIATE 4.19 l 4.19 1.90 .173 VFI * 4.48 1 4.48 2.02 .159 VSC ** 2.44 1 2.44 1.10 .297 VFI X VSC 4.82 1 4.82 2.18 .144 ERROR (B) 165.96 75 2.21 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD *** 13.23 1 13.23 14.27 .000 VFI X DYAD .10 1 .10 .11 .743 VSC X DYAD 3.60 1 3.60 3.88 .052 VFI X VSC X DYAD .63 1 .63 .67 .414 ERROR (W) 70.45 76 .93 Total 269.9 159 1.70 * VFI: the anticipation of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor 75 Table 7. An Analysis Of Variance of the Effects of Treatments on Perceptions of Future Relationship Development. Source SS DF MS F P Between-Subjects Effects COVARIATE 108.92 1 108.92 .19 .668 VFI 77.48 1 77.48 .13 .717 VSC 3054.62 1 3054.62 5.21 .025 VFI X VSC 795.06 1 795.06 1.36 .248 ERROR (B) 43945.86 75 585.94 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD 14996.26 1 14996.26 47.37 .000 VFI X DYAD 49.51 1 49.51 .16 .694 VSC X DYAD 31.51 1 31.51 .10 .753 VFI X VSC X DYAD 223.26 1 223.26 .71 .404 ERROR (W) 24059.97 76 316.58 Total 87342.45 159 549.32 * VFI: the anticipation Of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor 76 Table 8. Frequency Distribution of Questions Asked across Question Categories in Intracultural Interaction. N Of Questions Category % General Request 138 (1.73) * 6.28 Demographic Background 668 (8.35) 30.38 Activities/Experiences 646 (8.06) 29.38 Abilities/Preference 156 (1.95) 7.09 Past/Future Intentions 118 (1.46) 5.37 Attitude/Opinion 374 (4.66) 17.01 Personalities 80 (1.00) 3.64 Request for Clarity 19 (0.24) 0.86 Total questions asked N = 2199 (27.49) % = 100.00 * Within the parenthesis is the mean number of questions for each categories. 77 Table 9. Frequency Distribution of Questions Asked across Question Categories in Intercultural Interaction. N of Questions Category % General Request 314 (3.94) * 14.49 Demographic Background 680 (8.50) 31.38 Activities/Experiences 429 (5.39) 19.80 Abilities/Preference 207 (2.61) 9.55 Past/Future Intentions 188 (2.35) 8.68 Attitude/Opinion 230 (2.88) 10.61 Personalities 28 (0.38) 1.29 Request for Clarity 91 (1.14) 4.20 Total questions asked N = 2167 (27.20) % = 100.00 * Within the parenthesis is the mean number of questions for each categories. 78 Table 10. An Analysis Of Variance Of the Effects Of Treatments on Information-seeking Behavior. Source SS DF MS F P Between-Subjects Effects COVARIATE 107.46 1 107.46 .49 .485 VFI * 117.77 1 117.77 .54 .465 VSC ** 742.46 1 742.46 3.40 .069 VFI X VSC 175.63 1 175.63 .80 .373 ERROR (B) 16399.96 75 218.67 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD *** 79.81 1 79.81 1.25 .267 VFI X DYAD 63.76 1 63.76 1.00 .321 VSC X DYAD 88.51 1 88.51 1.39 .242 VFI X VSC X DYAD 158.01 1 158.01 2.48 .120 ERROR (W) 4847.42 76 63.78 Total 22780.79 159 143.28 * VFI: the anticipation Of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor Number Of Questions Asked across Conditions: Means and Standard Deviations. Intercultural Intracultural Interaction Interaction Same-sex Opposite-sex Same-sex Opposite-sex No Future 25.00 23.90 24.20 30.05 Interaction (8.45) (13.89) (9.92) (16.24) Future 23.90 31.30 24.60 30.95 Interaction (10.09) (8.30) (14.44) (10.89) 79 Table 11. An Analysis Of Variance Of the Effects of Treatments on General Request Type Of Information. Source SS DF MS F P Between-Subjects Effects COVARIATE 1.07 1 1.07 .11 .739 VFI 15.13 1 15.13 1.58 .212 VSC 19.82 1 19.82 2.07 .154 VFI X VSC 32.11 1 32.11 3.36 .071 ERROR (B) 716.55 75 9.55 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD 195.81 1 195.81 31.21 .000 VFI X DYAD 4.56 1 4.56 .73 .397 VSC X DYAD 6.01 l 6.01 .96 .331 VFI X VSC X DYAD 20.31 1 20.31 3.24 .076 ERROR (W) 476.82 76 6.27 Total 1488.19 159 9.36 * VFI: the anticipation Of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor Number Of Questions Asked across Conditions: Means and Standard Deviations. Intercultural Intracultural Interaction Interaction Same-sex Opposite-sex Same-sex Opposite-sex NO Future 3.70 3.20 1.50 1.65 Interaction (2.87) (4.36) (1.57) (1.79) Future 3.05 5.80 1.60 2.15 Interaction (2.70) (3.72) (2.33) (1.84) 80 Table 12. An Analysis Of Variance Of the Effects of Treatments on Demographic, Roles, and Background Type Of Information. Source SS DF MS F P Between-Subjects Effects COVARIATE .32 1 .32 .03 .865 VFI 29.22 1 29.22 2.63 .109 VSC 108.15 1 108.15 9.74 .003 VFI x VSC 2.63 1 2.63 .24 .628 ERROR (B) 832.48 75 11.10 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD .90 1 .90 .17 .684 VFI x DYAD 3.60 1 3.60 .67 .416 VSC X DYAD .00 1 .00 .00 1.000 VFI X VSC X DYAD .90 1 .90 .17 .684 ERROR (W) 408.60 76 5.38 Total 1386.88 159 8.72 * VFI: the anticipation Of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor Number of Questions Asked across Conditions: Means and Standard Deviations. Intercultural Intracultural Interaction Interaction Same-sex Opposite-sex Same-sex Opposite-sex NO Future 7.15 8.70 7.45 8.70 Interaction (2.01) (3.06) (2.86) (3.06) Future 8.20 9.95 7.60 9.65 Interaction (2.22) (2.42) (3.41) (3.47) 81 Table 13. An Analysis Of Variance of the Effects Of Treatments on Activities, and Experiences Type Of Information. Source SS DF MS F P Between-Subjects Effects COVARIATE 68.41 1 68.41 2.50 .118 VFI 6.26 l 6.26 .23 .634 VSC 8.74 1 8.74 .32 .573 VFI X VSC 1.33 1 1.33 .05 .826 ERROR (B) 2050.54 75 27.34 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD 286.23 1 286.23 17.70 .000 VFI X DYAD 7.23 1 7.23 .45 .506 VSC X DYAD 44.10 1 44.10 2.73 .103 VFI X VSC X DYAD 19.60 1 19.60 1.21 .274 ERROR (W) 1228.85 76 16.17 Total 3721.29 159 23.40 * VFI: the anticipation Of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor Number Of Questions Asked across Conditions: Means and Standard Deviations. Intercultural Intracultural Interaction Interaction Same-sex Opposite-sex Same-sex Opposite-sex No Future 5.80 4.80 7.15 9.65 Interaction (4.15) (3.96) (4.89) (7.74) Future 5.35 5.60 7.25 8.20 Interaction (3.45) (3.66) (3.73) (4.50) 82 Table 14. An Analysis of Variance Of the Effects Of Treatments on Abilities, and Preferences Type of Information. Source SS DF MS F P Between-Subjects Effects COVARIATE 4.84 1 4.84 1.06 .308 VFI .38 l .38 .08 .774 VSC .99 1 .99 .21 .644 VFI X VSC 19.96 1 19.96 4.36 .040 ERROR (B) 343.69 75 4.58 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD 17.56 1 17.56 7.10 .009 VFI X DYAD 1.81 1 1.81 .73 .395 VSC X DYAD 2.26 1 2.26 .91 .342 VFI X VSC X DYAD .06 1 .06 .02 .880 ERROR (W) 187.83 76 2.47 Total 579.38 159 3.63 * VFI: the anticipation Of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor Number of Questions Asked across Conditions: Means and Standard Deviations. Intercultural Intracultural Interaction Interaction Same-sex Opposite-sex Same-sex Opposite-sex No Future 3.05 2.25 1.90 1.65 Interaction (2.50) (2.36) (1.62) (1.39) Future 2.20 2.95 1.55 2.70 Interaction (2.17) (1.64) (1.32) (1.66) 83 Table 15. An Analysis of Variance Of the Effects of Treatments on Past and Future Intention Type Of Information. Source SS DF MS F P Between-Subjects Effects COVARIATE .06 1 .06 .02 .881 VFI .07 l .07 .03 .874 VSC 1.67 1 1.67 .61 .438 VFI X VSC 1.01 l 1.01 .37 .546 ERROR (B) 205.11 75 2.73 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD 31.51 1 31.51 21.65 .000 VFI X DYAD .06 1 .06 .04 .845 VSC X DYAD 1.06 1 1.06 .73 .397 VFI X VSC X DYAD .31 1 .31 .21 .648 ERROR (W) 110.57 76 1.45 Total 351.43 159 2.21 * VFI: the anticipation Of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor Number Of Questions Asked across Conditions: Means and Standard Deviations. Intercultural Intracultural Interaction Interaction Same-sex Opposite-sex Same-sex Opposite-sex NO Future 2.45 2.25 1.35 1.65 Interaction (1.76) (1.52) (1.14) (1.81) Future 2.20 2.50 1.20 1.65 Interaction (1.67) (1.10) (1.28) (0.99) 84 Table 16. An Analysis Of Variance Of the Effects of Treatments on Attitudes, and Opinions Type of Information. Source SS DF MS F P Between-Subjects Effects COVARIATE 1.43 l 1.43 .09 .767 VFI 2.80 1 2.80 .17 .678 VSC 12.18 1 12.18 .75 .388 VFI X VSC .21 1 .21 .01 .910 ERROR (B) 1210.10 75 16.13 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD 127.81 1 127.81 14.17 .000 VFI X DYAD 8.56 1 8.56 .95 .333 VSC X DYAD .76 1 .76 .08 .773 VFI X VSC X DYAD 2.76 l 2.76 .31 .582 ERROR (W) 4847.42 76 63.78 Total 6214.03 159 39.08 * VFI: the anticipation of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor Number Of Questions Asked across Conditions: Means and Standard Deviations. Intercultural Intracultural Interaction Interaction Same-sex Opposite-sex Same-sex Opposite-sex No Future 2.45 2.55 4.30 5.20 Interaction (1.70) (2.74) (3.21) (5.16) Future 2.85 3.65 4.30 4.85 Interaction (2.08) (2.60) (5.06) (3.98) 85 Table 17. An Analysis Of Variance Of the Effects Of Treatments on Personalities Type Of Information. Source 88 DF MS F P Between-Subjects Effects COVARIATE 5.13 l 5.13 2.64 .108 VFI 4.58 1 4.58 2.35 .129 VSC 14.32 1 14.32 7.36 .008 VFI X VSC .95 1 .95 .49 .487 ERROR (B) 145.92 75 1.95 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD 15.63 1 15.63 11.23 .001 VFI X DYAD .40 1 .40 .29 .593 VSC X DYAD 3.60 l 3.60 2.59 .112 VFI X VSC X DYAD 5.63 l 5.63 4.04 .048 ERROR (W) 105.75 76 1.39 Total 301.91 159 1.90 * VFI: the anticipation Of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor Number Of Questions Asked across Conditions: Means and Standard Deviations. Intercultural Intracultural Interaction Interaction Same-sex Opposite-sex Same-sex Opposite-sex NO Future .40 .15 .25 1.35 Interaction (.60) (.37) (.55) (2.28) Future .10 .85 .90 1.50 Interaction (.31) (1.31) (1.55) (1.82) 86 Table 18. An Analysis Of Variance Of the Effects Of Treatments on Clarity Type Of Information. Source SS DF MS F P Between-Subjects Effects COVARIATE 1.67 1 1.67 1.04 .312 VFI .11 1 .11 .07 .798 VSC .34 1 .34 .21 .647 VFI x VSC 2.65 1 2.65 1.64 .204 ERROR (B) 120.83 75 1.61 Within-Subjects Effects DYAD 32.40 1 32.40 32.10 .000 VFI X DYAD .40 1 .40 .40 .531 VSC X DYAD .90 1 .90 .89 .348 VFI X VSC X DYAD 1.60 l 1.60 1.59 .212 ERROR (W) 76.70 76 1.01 Total 239.20 159 1.50 * VFI: the anticipation Of future interaction factor ** VSC: the dyadic composition factor *** DYAD: the cultural similarity factor Number of Questions Asked across Conditions: Means and Standard Deviations. Intercultural Intracultural Interaction Interaction Same-sex Opposite-sex Same-sex Opposite-sex NO Future 1.15 .95 .30 .20 Interaction (1.57) (1.47) (.47) (.89) Future .85 1.60 .20 .25 Interaction (1.35) (1.57) (.52) (.55) APPENDIX APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE Based on the conversation you just had with your partner, we would like you to indicate how you PERCEIVE HIM/HER NOW. You may answer the following items based on what he/she said as well as how he/she communicated with you. For example, if you agree very strongly to a certain statement, you would place an "X" toward the "Strongly agree" end Of the continuum as follows. Strongly disagree : : : : z : X Strongly agree __—.———._.r—-._. There are, Of course, no right or wrong answers. We are only interested in your genuine Opinion. Also, since the results Of this study will be reported as a group data, your anonymity will be fully ensured. 1. My partner and I like a lot of the same things. Strongly disagree : : : : : : Strongly 2. We share a lot Of the same attitudes about things. Strongly disagree : : : : : : Strongly 3. The two Of us have very different values. Strongly disagree : : : : : : Strongly 4. The two Of us are very similar. Strongly disagree : : : : : : Strongly 5. The two of us have a similar outlook on life. Strongly disagree : : : : : : Strongly 6. I am confident Of my ability to accurately predict partner's behavior. Strongly disagree : : : : : : Strongly 87 agree agree agree agree agree my agree 88 7. I have a very good idea Of what my partner's values and preferences are. Strongly disagree : : : : : : Strongly agree 8. I do not know my partner very well. Strongly disagree : : : : : : Strongly agree 9. I can accurately predict what my dating partner's attitudes are. Strongly disagree : : : : : : Strongly agree 10. I can usually tell what my partner is feeling inside. Strongly disagree : : : : : : Strongly agree 11. I can accurately predict how my partner will respond to me in most situation. Strongly agree Strongly disagree : : MY PARTNER'S ENGLISH WAS: 12. GRAMMATICAL : : : : : UNGRAMMATICAL 13.INCOMPREHENSIBLE : : : : : : COMPREHENSIBLE 14. FLUENT : : : : : : NONFLUENT 15. POOR ENGLISH : : : : : : GOOD ENGLISH The following items are concerned with YOUR PRESENT FEELING. Please indicate how you feel RIGHT NOW by marking an "X" to the appropriate space. 1. Personal feeling (check one) I feel that I would probably like my partner very much. I feel that I would probably like my partner. I feel that I would probably like my partner to a slight degree. I feel that I would probably neither particularly like nor particularly dislike my partner. I feel that I would probably dislike my partner to a slight degree. I feel that I would probably dislike my partner. I feel that I would probably dislike my partner very much. 89 2. Working together in an experiment (check one) I believe that I would very much dislike working with my partner in an experiment. I believe that I would dislike working with my partner in an experiment. I believe that I would dislike working with my partner in an experiment to a slight degree. I believe that I would neither particularly dislike nor particularly enjoy working with my partner in an experiment. I believe that I would enjoy working with my partner in an experiment to a slight degree. I believe that I would enjoy working with my partner in an experiment. I believe that I would very much enjoy working with my partner in an experiment. 3. Physical attraction (check one) I find my partner very much attractive. I find my partner attractive. I find my partner a slightly attractive. I find my partner neither particularly attractive nor particularly unattractive. I find my partner a slightly unattractive. I find my partner unattractive. I find my partner very much unattractive. Please answer the following items. 1. How much similar is your partner's culture compared to yours? Very different : : : : : : Very similar 2. How much do you think is your partner a typical member Of his (her) cultural group? 1) Very much typical ) Somewhat typical ) Somewhat atypical ) ( (2 (3 (4 Very much atypical 90 3. Will you be interacting with your current partner in the second part Of the study? (1) Yes (2) No 4. What is the probability that you will develop a personal relationship with your interview partner after the experiment? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% chance Of future interaction 5. How much were you concerned about the appropriateness of your interview? Not at all : : : : : : Very much 6. How much did you like the interview with your partner? Not at all : : : : : : Very much Now, we would like to ask you some demographic information. Again, your anonymity will be fully ensured. 1. Your age is: 2. You are: (1) Freshman (2) Sophomore (3) Junior (4) Senior 3. You are: (1) Male (2) Female 4. Your major is: 91 Please answer the following items by circling the appropriate number. There is, Of course, no right or wrong answer. We are only interested in what you think of yourself. 1. (1) 2. (1) 3. (1) 4. (1) 5. (1) 6. (1) DO you prefer action to planning for action? Yes (2) No (3) Not sure Are you happiest when you get involved in some project that calls for rapid action? Yes (2) No (3) Not sure Do you usually take the initiative in making new friends? Yes (2) No (3) Not sure Are you inclined to be quick and sure in your actions? Yes (2) NO (3) Not sure Would you rate yourself as a lively individual? Yes (2) No (3) Not sure Would you be very unhappy if you were prevented from making numerous social contacts? Yes (2) NO (3) Not sure ”T UNIv LIBRQR , I|II|IIIII|IIII||IIIIIIIIIIIIII 62III|I|I III