3211\14 ‘21. 120 ; .vnlliivéi v.5 (.5. 1'3'1533011 III. . 1 V2. 21.6.4.5.7121 1.2.1 la... 4?.) .. .16 13...! 2|)... 1!!! .llyltl . 2.x- 4 f... .. v VA. 2.1. . ”hing. t mHMVHYJ... IQ". . . .w‘... .12.. an» m a g. . ...§»l...azzfiin.nuwni& 3.. . \t..€..l. . ., . . .. ... . . . 2. .7: ~ :2. 2. r... ,. . (Jozio‘lx . {92.4.}: h.“ as 21.. ;§ I E 11w;l.b.‘74l.l1. 14131131.!)g‘tc32 .9. ngfimflufiign gm: . , .3. 2. .v . 2. .. mam rH ‘5‘“ "7" This is to certify that the thesis entitled AMERICAN STUDENTSl CONTACTS WITH AND ATTITUDES TOWARD FOREIGN STUDENTS presented by MAY K00 has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH.D. Educational Psychology _ LIBRARY | Michigan State Univemity 4.. 4;- 1‘ v.11 _.‘.L._4”"AJ’ .__., PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES retum on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE chr‘Tr-f—F— [My :dlflfii‘: MSU Is An AffirmetIve Action/Equal Opportunity lnmitution c:\d ABSTRACT AMERICAN STUDENTS'CONTACTS WITH AND ATTITUDES TOWARD FOREIGN STUDENTS by May Koo Body of Abstract The purpose of thisstudy was to investigate the atti- tudes of American students toward foreign students and the extent of their contacts with foreign students, the possible factors associated with the contacts, and to confirm or re- Ject a few related findings of otiers. The major hypotheses of this study were: I. American students do not avoid the foreiwn students, nor do they seek an Opportunity to know them. Along with this hypothesis, a minor hypothesis was formed, suggesting that the lack of personal contact between the two groups may be due to the following factors: a. American students are not empathic to the foreign students. b. Either the American students or the foreign students are too busy. c. The university does not prov de enough opportunity for personal contact between the American and the foreign students. May Koo ll. American students' attitudes toward the foreign students are related to the degree of their contact rith the foreign students. A minor hypothesis which followed this was that after having asso- ciation with the foreign students, the American students' attitudes toward the countries of foreign students change. III. The American students' contacts with foreign students may be ass00iated with such factors as specific academic field, school level, age, sex, the length of time spent at Michigan State Uni- versity, intellectual inclination, the ability to speak foreign language, interest in foreign countries, amount of travel, and religion. Effort was also made to confirm or reject the findings of others in the followingcases: A. Most of the American students prefer students from the European area to those from other foreign areas. B. Language difficulty is associated with the lack of contact between the American students and the foreign students. C. Personal friendliness, the extra—curricular activities and residence proximity are positively related to contacts with the foreign students. The instrument used in this study was a questionnaire. Questionnaires were answered by El? students at Michigan State University, spring. 1961. Seventy of the sample group were graduate students, and the remaining were freshmen. Chi square ii May Koo was used to treat the data and the following conclusions were derived. 1. The American students at Michigan State University did not avoid foreign students and they sought the oppor- tunity to know foreign students. Possible reasons that some American students lacked contact with foreign students were: 1) that they were indifferent to foreign students, and 2) that either the American students or foreign students wexatoo busy. 2. The degree of American students' contacts with foreign students was positively related to their attitudes toward foreign students. The American students usually became more interested in a specific foreign country after knowing foreign students from that country. 3. School level and interest in foreign countries were significantly related to American students' degree of con— tact with foreign students. Significant relationship be- tween specific academic interest and amount of contact with foreign students existed for American graduate students, but not for freshmen. Among graduate students, those who majored in the fields of education, home economics, agriculture. science and Veterinary medicine had more contact with foreign students than those who majored in the fields of fine arts, language and literature, business, communication arts and social soience. A. In contradiction of the findings of others, it was found that (a) the American students did not prefer association iii May Koo with foreign students from Europe rather than with foreign students from other areas, (b) language difficulty was not related to the lack of contact between the American and the foreign students, and (c) that personal friendliness and participation in extra—curricular activities did not lead to more contact with the foreign students. The finding of the positive relationship between residence proximity and contact with foreign students is confirmed. iv AMERICAN STUDENTS' CONTACTS WITH AND ATTITUDES TOWARD FOREIGN STUDENTS By May Koo A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1962 KM" 3i wigs“. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED The Problem. Definition of Terms Used Limitation of the Study. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . Brief History of Student Exchange. PAGE \OKOCDNl—J Purpose of Student Exchange Program: International Understanding and Personal Advancement. From the point of view of the United States as host nation. From the point of view of foreign students. Personal Benefits from Contact between American and Foreign Students. Benefits to American students Benefits to foreign students. General Formation of Attitudes and Susceptibility to Attitudinal Change Personal Contact and Attitudinal Change. . Personal contact leads to attitudinal change. Personal contact does not lead to attitudinal change General Contacts of American Students with Foreign Students. Surveys made on the American students Surveys made on the foreign students. Summary. 12 I2 14 15 15 16 20 27 27 CHAPTER III. PROCEDURE. Construction of Instrument Description of Population. Statistical Treatment of the Data. IV. FINDINGS American Students Do Not Avoid Foreign Students Nor Do They Seek the Opportunity to Know the Foreign Students. . . . . . . . . . . . American Students' Contacts with Foreign Students and Their Attitudes toward the Foreign Students. Factors Associated with American Students' Contacts with Foreign Students. Confirming or Rejecting the Findings of Others V. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS American Students Do Not Avoid Foreign Students Nor Do They Seek the Opportunity to Know the Foreign Students. . . . . . . American Students' Contacts with Foreign Students and Their Attitudes toward the Foreign Students. Factors Associated with American Students' Con— tacts with Foreign Students Confirming or Rejecting the Findings of Others VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions. Implications of the Study. Additional Research Indicated. BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A, QUESTIONNAIRE. APPENDIX B, LETTER SENT WITH QUESTIONNAIRE P—J OKO f—’ 03 }_J O {U CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED With the constant increase of foreign students in this country in recent years, there has appeared an increased number of studies dealing with the problems of the foreign student and his attitude toward the United States. Very few studies, however, have directed attention to the American student and his reactions to foreign students. Since one of the chief reasons for having a foreign student program is to provide the American student with an opportunity to know and to understand the people and the cultures of other countries, the writer has taken it upon herself to discover if the American student has utilized this oppurtunity and also what his attitude is toward foreign students. Brewster M. Smith pointed out the need for this type of research in his ”A Perspective for Further Research on Cross Cultural Education.” “Research has virtually neglected the reciprocal aspect of cross-cultural education. Little atten- tion has been paid to the impact of exchanges on host nationals or host institution. Aside from the resulting distortion that may result in our view of cross—cultural education as interaction, practical considerations seem to require eVidence that falls within tne gap. As United States edu— cationai institution face tne expected wave of population pressure, they may UE able to accept foreign students only at the cost of limiting their services to their normal constituencies. Proponents of exchange programs may need real evidence about the impact of foreign students on campus life; policy makers will need to make judgements as to the optimal member of foreign students for a campus. Relevant research evidence is lacking at present.” (70:58) The Problem The purpose of this study is to discover the attitudes of American students toward foreign students and the extent of their contactswith those students, as well as some of the factors related to their contacts. The major hypotheses of this study are: I. II. III. American students do not avoid foreign students, nor do they seek the opportunity to know them. American students' attitudes toward foreign students are related to their contacts with them. American students' contacts with the foreign students are associated with such factors as the specific academic field, the school level, the age, the sex, the length of time at Michigan State University, the intellectual inclination, the ability to speak foreign language, the interest in foreign countries, the amount of travel, and the religion. Effort will be made also to confirm or reject a few findings of others in the fOIIOWing instances: 1. Most American students prefer those from the European area to those from other areas. (4:o5) (8:428) (23:29) (40:6) (67:42) Language difficulty is associated with the lack of con- tact between American students and foreign students. (4:65) (23:29) (57:78) (63 151) Personal friendliness, extracurricular activity and residence proximity are positively related to the con- tacts with foreign students. (27:27) (07:38) Personal contact is the best way to know a person and to understand a people. According to reports, a student enjoyed his sojourn in a foreign country more if he had good personal relationships with the people of the host country. (36:215) (44347) (77:108) Long after he returned to his native country, the warm feeling for friends he knew and cherished in the sojourn country became the important bond between him and that country. (63:322) The results of some studies revealed the fact that most foreign students found it difficult to form real friendships with the American stu- dents. They remarked that the American students were polite and helpful, said "hi” to them when they met, but went no further. They believed that most American students were indifferent to foreign students and were impatient with their language difficulties. They believed American stu- dents were too busy with themselves and had no time to develop close friendships with the foreign students. Other studies indicated that most foreign students lived off the campus and the American students did not have an opportunity to know them. Studies also revealed that the problem of language barrier and the difficulty of forming friendships with the American students were more serious for students from Southeast Asia than those from the European area. More European students lived in fraternity houses and dormitories and it was easier for them to become acquainted with American students. Moreover, the Asians and the Africans had to suffer some racial discrimination. (40:6) (57:792) (67:42) These studies were the basis of the first hypothesis. I. American students do not avoid foreign students, nor do they seek the opportunity to know them. Together with this, a minor hypothesis was made; i.e., that the lack of personal contact may be due to the following: a. American students are not empathic with foreign students. b. Either the American students or the foreign students are too busy. c. The university does not provide enough opportunity for personal contact between American and foreign students. Many studies into this problem have shown that attitudes toward people changed through personal contact. For instance, according to James, children's attitudes toward Africans changed after having African teachers. (38:69) In the study conducted by Wilner, Walkley, and Cook, it was found that contact among the racial groups of equal socio-economic class and status roles was a favorable condition for the modification of ethnic attitudes. (79:69) Irish conducted a similar study about contact and attitudes. Data were collected from 154 Caucasian Boulder residents who had had Japanese-Americans as neighbors for more than three years, and 113 similar residents who had not had Japanese-Americans as neighbors. The results were that those who had Japanese- American neighbors had association with them and had better attitudes toward them than those who did not have Japanese— American neighbors. (37:17) These findings were the basis of the second major hypothesis. II. American students' attitudes toward foreign stu- dents are related to their contacuswith them. A minor hypothesis goes with this: after having asso- ciation with the foreign students, the American students' attitudes toward the countries of foreign students change. In addition to attitude, there may be other factors associated with likelihood of contacts with foreign students: a. Intellectual inclination. Dr. A. O. Haller and Barbara Bray at Michigan State University made a study of the ”American Students Differentially Liked by Latin Ameri- can Students.” Haller and Bray found that these foreign students tended to like intellectually oriented American students. (32:219) Studies also indicated that foreign students complained of the lack of intellectual interest of American students. (66:120) b. Age, School Level, Major, Length of Time at a University. Education causes a person to understand and to appreciate the value of foreign culture. A study made by Walter T. Plant pointed out that those who had completed two years college work were not so ethnocentric as those who had not completed two years college work. (58:197) Howard discovered that the college student attitude changes during four years of college life. (35:30) The study conducted by Helen H. Davidson and Lorraine P. Kinglov showed that age, class in college, and area of major interest were signifi- cant influences on the measured personality-attitude characteristics. Older students, those who have spent more years in college, who were more mature in thinking, and who selected a major in the liberal arts field tended ' more flexible, more tolerant in to be more ”democratic,’ their personality characteristics. (18:259) Harlan's study reinforced these findings. (34:82?) c. Sex. The writer believes that sex differences is a factor affecting contact with foreign students. One study showed that among foreign students, females made more contact with American students than males. (50:115) Another study disclosed that females had more favorable attitudes toward Jews than males. (34:827) Still another study showed that more democracy existed among women than among men. (24:486) d. Travel, Religion. In the book ”Two-Way Mirror,” Morris mentioned that among foreign students, the range of contact with American students was lower for those who had not visited other countries. (51:114) Studies made by Allport and Gorden revealed that religious training was related to less prejudice and more companionship. (lz38) Besides the above mentioned factors, the writer believes that one's interest in a foreign land and/or knowledge of a foreign language may be positively related to his contact with foreign students. From the above studies the third hypothesis was formulated. III. American students' contacts with foreign stu- dents may be associated with such factors as specific academic field, school level, age,sex, intellectual in— clination, amount of travel, religion, the length of time spent at Michigan State University, interest in foreign countries, and knowledge of a foreign language. Definition of Terms Used 1. Contact: the term ”contact” used in this study refers to personal association, which may cover a wide range of behavior, from casual conversation to close friend- ship. (13:53) 2. Attitude: the term ”attitude” used in this study re— fers to ”the degree of positive or negative affect associated with some psychological object. By a psychological object is meant any symbol, phrase, slogan, person, institution, ideal, or idea toward which people can differ with respect to positive or negative affect. Positive affect with some psychological object means to like that object or to have a favorable attitude toward the object. An individual who has associated negative affect with the psychological object would be said to dislike that object or to have an unfavor- able attitude toward the object." (22:2) Attitude is ”The sum total of a person's inclination and feelings, prejudice or bias, preceived notions, ideas, fears, threats, and con- victions about any specific topic. Thus a person's attitude about pacifism means here all that he feels and thinks about peace and war. It is admittedly a subjective and personal affair.” (73:67) 3. Foreign Student: the term "foreign student” used in this study refers to students at Michigan State University from countries other than the United States, who are not American citizens. 4. American Student: the terms ”American student” used in this study refers to students at Michigan State University who are American citizens. Limitation of the Study The questionnaire used for the study is open for criticism. Data concerning its reliability and validity are lacking. Information gathered from a questionnaire is a verbal response and may not necessarily reflect how that person actually feels or acts. The sample group of this study was drawn from Michigan State University. The results of the investigation hold true for freshmen and graduate students on this campus only. Most graduate students of the sample were selected from the gradu- ate dormitory, in which many foreign students live. This group may have more contact with foreign students than other graduate students on the campus because of residence proximity. Finally, there may be many other factors associated with an American student's contact with a foreign students. This study did not propose to exhaust the possibilities. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Brief History of Student Exchange Cross—cultural education is not something new, it can be traced back more than a thousand years. For instance, in 639 A.D. the Chinese emperor T'ai Tsung established an institute of higher education to which the so called ”bar- barian peoples” could come and study. The number of foreign students there was more than eight thousand. Rome also was once a center for foreign students. A special decree was issued in 370 A.D. which governed the conduct of students from Gaul and other outlying provinces. India too, from the fifth to the twelfth centuries A.D., had a university which accommodated as many as 9,000 foreign students and offered a varied curriculum, including law, astronomy, philosophy, philology, and theology. (46:4346) In this country, different organizations have offered their activities or resources for international education exchange for many years. These groups have been Catholic and Protestant missionary organizations, business corpora— tions, and other institutions. Privately sponsored scholar- ship programs have also helped a great number of students to study abroad. The precedent for official participation in international programs of education can be traced back to 10 the Boxer Rebellion in China. (49:313) (82:1) In 1908, the United States used the indemnity money received from the Chinese government to help Chinese students study in this country. Official participation in cultural cooperation with other countries started with the Convention for the Promotion of Inter-American Cultural Relations in 1936. It was ratified by Congress in 1937, and in 1938, integrated programs were carried out for developing the cultural tie of the United States with other countries. In accord with the Good Neighbor Policy in the late 1930's and early 1940's, this country encouraged Latin-American students to come to study. During World War II, many European universities were closed to students who ordinarily would have gone to them, thus they turned to educational institutions in the United ' States. After the war, government-supported exchange pro- grams have been greatly increased and have become an important part of the foreign policy of the United States. (82:8) As a result of these, the number of foreign students in this country has increased rapidly since 1945. From 1930 to 1953, the foreign student population in the United States increased 300 per cent (from 9,643 to 33,647), while the student population in this country during the same period increased only 100 per cent. (20:9) The reason that foreign students selected this country rather than others was a tangle of economic, social, politi- cal and educational considerations. Foreign students who studied English in their native country preferred to con- tinue their education in an English—speaking culture. England was handicapped by internal economic strains. Educational institutions in Europe, as well as elsewhere, had not com- pletely recovered from the devastation of war. The end of the war also brought freedom and independence to many colonial or dependent countries who longed for self-sufficiency and the knowledge to make it possible. The United States took the responsibility of hastening the economic growth and development of these countries, thus changing her interna— tional cultural relationship from one of relative isolation to active leadership in the world. (85:3) The increased prestige of American scholarship and technology has also caused the increase of foreign students in the United States. In addition, many young Americans have brought back from the wartime service abroad a great interest in many foreign countries. For these reasons, the government and other foundations have provided an unprecedented number of finan— cial and administrative programs for large numbers of foreign students from many different countries. (84:1) In summary, the number of foreign students coming to this country has greatly increased since World War II. This expansion is due to many factors, for instance, as a leader in the free world this country becomesactive in cross-cultural programs, and the increasing prestige of technology and scholarship brought more students to this shore. 12 Purpose of Student Exchange Program: International Understanding and Personal Advancement A. From the pOint of view of the United States as host nation. Different groups of 380018 have different goals for student exchang progr ms. DuBols mentions this in his .- ”“3 . - \ "1.! ;: l. 1. “.1 ': 7:; _' .- ‘ ‘ .5- -. . 1.x * s .L. bcxik lrcl%:lg.l.StLuier1ts <1MC.lu_gnl€l‘ BCchaALIOIl in the: Unl_ted. "1,; H ,1 . .. l- ‘ "1 . 1.. , . ‘ States. Tne United States government hopes the foreign student will acquire a better understanding of this country. College administrators hope that through association, the foreign student and the American student will become more liberal and tolerant. Many citizens hope that the foreign student exchange may promote international understanding; however, some people think only in terms of assimilation. (20:12,13) Generally speaking, however, the people have believed that the purpose of the exchange program is to produce greater international understanding. In the article ”Attitudes of Foreign Student,” Norman Kiell said: ”The exchange program is now an integral part of our foreign policy. The United States Government no longer confines the business of foreign rela— tions to government officials alone, but is doing everything possible to assist the American people to have more direct contact with the peoples of other nations. Here is an aspect of foreign policy in which many individual citizens can participate. ”One of the primary objectives of the exchange of young people between nations is the promotion of 13 international freindships which will foster an understanding that transcends frontiers and kindles mutual social and cultural interest.” (39:l93) With the ever expanding college enrollment in the United States, some citizens did not approve of the large number of foreign students coming to this country, especially to state universities, which are specifically educational institutions for American citizens. They feared the foreign students would displace their own sons and daughters, but the government held to its program. Former President Eisenhower gave the follow—- ing explanation: ”The intensified world wide ideological conflict emphasizes the importance of the role of both the government and private organizations in exchanging information, persons and ideas abroad. --—Educa— tional exchange program is the best long range means of bringing about understanding between people.” (17 300) Other official statements concerning student exchange agreed with Eisenhower. In the document ”Twenty Years of United States Government Programs in Cultural Relations,” the following lines were found: ”Generally, as the United States becomes aware of the potential political implications of such activ- ities (student exchange), it decided to support financially an official cultural relations program. The use of cultural relations by unfriendly nations to create anti-American feelings abroad gave this program urgency. The purposes of the cultural rela— tions program are a) international understanding, b) promote the exchange of knowledge and ideas be- tween countries.” (82:1) In l955, the Committee on Educational Interchange Policy summed up ”Goals af Student Exchange”: ”Goals of exchange program may be idealistic and humanitarian, with heavy overtones of emotion. On the other hand, they may be practical and utilitarian, 14 with emphasis on training for specific skills. The purposes are: l) to promote international understanding and good will among the people of the world as a contribution to peace; 2) to develop friends and supporters for the United States by giving persons from other countries a better understanding of the life and culture of the United States; 3) to contribute to the econom- ic, social and political development of other countries; 4) to aid in the educational or pro- fessional development of outstanding individuals; 5) to advance knowledge throughout the world for the general welfare of mankind." (85:4) B. From the point of View of the foreign country and the foreign student. In a survey made on 2138 Pakistani students, 91 per cent wished to study in the United States. Their purpose of study here was primarily to gain knowledge. Some expected to broaden their outlook and to raise their prestige. (61) The Useems report in ”The Western—Educated Man in India” that self-advancement was ranked as the main purpose of the 110 Indian students studied abroad. For some, going to foreign land for an education was an escape from social maladjustment. (75:25,28) DuBois states in ”The Motives of Students Coming to the ” that some foreign students came here to United States, satisfy their curiosity. They wished to see the United States, a dominant world power and leader of the democratic nations. Probably they would have the same intellectual curiosity about the USSR and would be as highly motivated to study in Russia for a year or two were it possible. Some of the stu— dents had the sense of adventure and a desire for travel for its own sake. Some were eager to acquire new skills, which 15 would benefit their countries. Others viewed study abroad in terms of personal advancement and as a social boon on their return. Some came to improve their English. Some were discouraged by their life chances in their homelands and felt that study in the United States might become the first step toward possible emigration. (21:3,4) In 1955, the Committee on Educational Interchange Policy also summed up the personal goals of student exchange. ”Goals for individual participants are: 1) to advance the candidate's personal and professional development, 2) to prepare the candidates for service to his home country through the acquisi— tion of additional knowledge and skills, 3) to promote international understanding, A) to contri- bute to the advancement of knowledge through coop- erative study and research with professional colleagues in the United States. The sponsoring groups emphasize first broad social goals. The applicants themselves are primarily personally oriented toward definite academic achievement and professional development. The degree of emphasis on one objective or another depends upon the back- ground, personality and outlook of the individual himself." (85:4,5) In summarizing the above, the purpose of student exchange programs was found to vary. By and large, the sponsor groups emphasized international understanding and international benefits, while the individual emphasized self advancement. Personal Benefits from Contacts between American and Foreign Students A. Benefits to American Students One of the reasons for having foreign students on the campus is to promote international understanding and to provide 16 an international atmosphere for the campus. Foreign students can contribute to the exchange of ideas and arouse an aware- ness of foreign affairs and the problems of other nations more profoundly than any textbook, but only if the American students associate with them. (84:8) In the academic area, the non—American is a potential source of information in almost every subject. To learn subject matter from a foreign student, particularly facts about his own culture, enriches American students' knowledge. (54:286) Besides, students' eyes need to see more than books and laboratories. They should see people, the living library. (19:812) Surveys or studies of the benefits for the American student in contact with foreign students are few. Most surveys have been based on benefits for the foreign stu- dents. B. Benefit to Foreign Student (From the point of View of the Foreign Student) I When a person comes to a foreign country, he has to leave behind his personal and social environment, and the things by which he can identify himself and his worth. In a foreign country, he finds his status is uncertain and difficult to establish. He even loses his confidence, because to a cer- tain degree, a person's confidence is built on his feeling of belonging, as well as his capacity to make sound judg- ments. (26:5,6) He has to learn new cues and appropriate behavior responses. Upon his arrival here, he feels lonely l7 and isolated. Uprooted from personal and family ties, he needs to substitute close personal contact with Americans and American families. Further, he is curious about Ameri- can family life in comparison with his own. He also needs to find a friendly host figure who can guide him in many strange situations, help him to find some physical and social satisfaction, and give him information about whether his behavior is appropriate and successful. (39:192) (43:60) (83:47) In the book ”Learning Cross Culture: A Study of German 1 Visiting American,l by Waston and Lippitt, the authors dis- closed that: ”The first problem for the stranger in a foreign /’ land is to find some satisfactory way of relating to the people around him. Because he is a stranger many activities and behaviors which were automatic at home suddenly become sources of difficulty. He must speak a foreign tongue. The non-verbal language of gestures, facial expressions and forms of speech is perhaps even more difficult to learn. There are no books, no guide—post, except trial and error. This process takes time, but it is just as important as learning the formal language of the host country. Verbal and non—verbal language go on simultaneously, and are closely interdependent. If a foreigner is not sure how his behavior will be received, he will restrict his own behavior, since the safest thing is to do nothing. Thus he cuts down on his opportunities to get 'feedback' from others-—that is, to find out how they react to him and to learn from their reactions what actions are successful.” (77:102) Elsewhere in the book, the authors made the following statement: ''Many visitors who find themselves unhappy in a strange country cannot think of any good reason why this should be so. They are likely to project l8 the blame unto the hosts in general. It is often helpful if the hosts can help them to see their difficulties objectively.” (77:108) In one study based on the sample of about two hundred Norwegian Fulbright grantees, in the area of personal-social adjustment, five questions were being asked. 1) Did they feel themselves to be different from the Americans? By "different” was meant feeling superior to the Americans. 2) Were they accepted by the Americans? 3) Did they feel it easy to get ”really personal contact” with Americans? 4) Did they think it easy to adjust to American manners and morals? 5) Did they have a good time here? There was a positive relationship among the five items. But the item regarding whether it was easy to get ”really personal con- tact” with Americans appeared to be the most dominant factor in the pattern of generalization in personal-social adjust- ment. This was also true in professional adjustment. It meant that those who had better personal relationships with Americans were more likely to value American education highly. They liked American methods of work and education, they were satisfied with the American teachers and scientists, they would return to the same place if possible, and they were satisfied with the professional benefits of their stay. (AA:45—5l) In other studies concerning the foreign students' ad:// justment, the results showed that overcoming homesickness and loneliness, and forming new personal relationships with 19 the hosts were some of the greatest problems. Their racial and emotional problems were related to their academic achievement. Usually, the members of the Southwest Asia group had more trouble in forming personal relationships than those from Europe. (23:24) (39:193) (64:151) The previous paragraphs indicated that a foreign student needed American friends, that satisfactory personal contact with Americans was positively related to a foreign student's adjustment here. There were those, however, who held dif- ferent views on this subject. They believed that the pro— blems of the foreign students were merely results—-symptoms-- of their more basic problems which could be traced back to their early lives. Living in a foreign culture was but a superficial cause. (59:6—9) Studies supporting this View are lacking. Some people who held the eclectic view thought that the foreign students' problems, by and large, were simply student problems. The pressure of work, the search of personal goals, the need to know what his teacher thought about him, and the desire to find a social root in a big university, all of these and many others had no tag of nationality. Individuals had different ways of coping with them. But there were intrinsic ways in which nationalities differed one from the other. There were some problems inherent in being a foreign student such as winning acceptance by new friends, and communicating adequately. (69:232) (12:91) 20 In summary, both American students and foreign students were benefited by personal contact with one another. Ameri- can students understood other cultures through contact with students from those countries, and become aware of the problems of those people. Satisfactory personal relationship with the American students gave the foreign student a better chance to understand this country and helped them to adjust themselves in this country better. The term adjustment includes social adjustment, emotional adjustment and academic adjustment. General Formation of Attitudes and Susceptibility to Attitudinal Change In his article ”Attitude,” G. w. Allport says that there are four common conditions for the formation of attitudes. The first is the integration of a number of specific ex— periences of a similar type. The second equally important mechanism is individuation, sometimes referred to as dif- ferentiation or segregation. Individuation has the function of segregating the matrix of integrated experiences and sup- plying the person with adequate attitudes for the direction of his adaptive conduct. The third important source of attitudes is the dramatic experience, or trauma. A per- manent attitude might be the result of a single intense emotional experience. The fourth condition under which an attitude can be formed is imitation. These attitudes usually come from the observation of parents, teachers, and playmates. 21 They are often adopted before a child has an adequate back— ground of appropriate experience. Later experiences are often fitted into the uncritically adopted attitude. (3:810) The study of ”The Biography of Attitude” indicates the important factors affecting a person's attitude. The first influence was found to be made by the parents' attitude and the family life, then the community, the schools, and the people with whom the individual associated. (48:123-127) It is generally agreed that the formation of a person's attitude begins in his childhood. Mariam Reiman says in his article ”How Children Become Prejudiced”: // ”Prejudice attitudes are not deliberately taught but r are transmitted Without conscious intention to the growing children. Prejudice flourishes despite the formal ideology of social equality fostered in many public schools.” (762:39) ”For older children, the r objective judgements of Situat OHS involving racial prejudice became more tolerant, but their personal response indicated greater prejudice. Apparently their personal emo- tional responses were somehow immune to their intel- lectualized attitudes.” (62:90) From a review of various studies, the same author made the following conclusions about children's prejudiced attitudes: ”1) Prejudice appears during early childhood, perhaps in the pre-school years, and increases with advancing age. 2) Prejudice seems to be instilled by the unconscious example or teaching of the social environment formed by parents, adults and other children. 3) Prejudice is closely tied to the basic personality of the in— dividual. A) Prejudice is on the whole stronger than the counter-propoganda of democratic teach- ing and the influence of democratic ideology, and it becomes more organized and more rigid as the child grows older.’ (62:92) 22 In the study of children's perception of the social roles of Negroes and Caucasians, 2A0 Negro and Caucasian children of kindergarten, first and second grades were inter—- viewed. The findings made it clear that young children adopted adults‘ attitudes in reactions to race. There was great similarity between their concepts and feelings about race and that of the adults. For instance, it was natural, or almost inevitable, for most Caucasian children to put Negroes in an inferior status. (60:31) Other studies revealed that attitudes were related to some aspects of a person's personality. For instance, child- ren who maintained prejudiced attitudes frequently were rigid conformists, and ethnocentrism was usually found to be highly correlated with authoritarianism. (62:91) The pre- judiced person was not prone to sympathy with the underdog, and a critical attitude toward parental pattern was conducive to freedom from the prejudiced attitude. (1:37) Spilka and Struening found that ethnocentric—thinking persons possessed negative Views of themselves. They were sensitive, schizoid, withdrawing, depressive, and tended to be anti- social. On the other hand, positive self—views and desir- able social and personal adjustment appeared to be related to an anti-ethnocentric stand. (72:70) The findings were varied as to whether a person's atti— tude can be changed or not. Some studies revealed that knowledge of an object or a person led to very little or no change in an already formed attitude. 23 In the study, ”The Influence of Changed Directions on Stereotypes about Ageing: Before and After Instruction," two questionnaires about old people and old workers were given to 124 graduate students before and after instruction. The results indicated that the attitudes of graduate stu- dents toward old people and old workers changed little after the instruction. (74:128) Another similar study was made on 290 students at Texas Technological College in 1956. A test was given to the students before and after a debate, a lecture, and a discussion period in the area of prejudice. No significant change of attitude was found. Only slight change was in- dicated in the attitudes of the participants in the dis- cussion group. (30:86) Efforts were also made to reduce prejudiced attitudes among people of various nations by increasing their know- ledge of these nations. Grace and Neuhaus's two studies demonstrated that there was a relationship betWeen know— ledge about nations and attitudes toward them, but the re- lationship fell in a curvilinear pattern. Most students thought that they knew more about the nations they either liked or disliked very much. Those who believed that they knew very little about the nations tended to fall into the neutral range of attitudes. (28:169) (29:545) Many reasons were given for why attitudes were hard to modify. Cooper and Johoda said in ”Evasion of PrOpaganda: How Prejudiced People Respond to Anti—Prejudice Propaganda,” that when people were confronted with views different from 24 their own they might choose to fight for their own or to give in to the new. Researches,however, show that they are willing to do neither, prefering not to face the implication of the idea opposed to their own, wishing neither to defend nor to admit their error. According to the authors: ”The reasons for evasion were partly in the dif- ficulties the individual must face to achieve uniformity in the various areas of his everyday experience. To face the contradiction and try to resolve them would undoubtedly set up dis- turbing tensions which would in turn involve dif- ficulties for most individuals.ll (14:24) In addition, the authors said that most people agree with the idea of their own social group. To accept the op— posite idea might create antagonism in inter-personal rela— tionships, and therefore would require considerable adjustment for the individual. (14:24) In Allport‘s book, ”The Nature of Prejudice,” he said that prejudice contained two essential elements: attitudes of favor or disfavor, and an overgeneralized (and therefore erroneous) belief. Knowledge and contact might lead to a truer set of values, but attitudes would not follow propor- tionately. For instance, one may learn that Negro blood is not different from blood of Caucasians without necessarily learning to like the Negro person. Many people who had much knowledge abouta:minority still had a prejudiced attitude toward that minority. (2:268) Although Allport emphasized how difficult it was to change a person's attitude, he also wrote: 25 ”When in a crisis old attitudes are found to be worthless, they no longer offer effective resis— tance to the new. Convention, the shock of grief, economic disaster, and falling in love are typical occasions during which old attitudes are abandoned and new attitudes come into being.” (3:813) There were other studies which maintained that atti- tudes were subject to change; and to a certain degree, could even be formed to a previously determined direction. Corey said: ”Attitude, value, aversion can be taught. One way is a teacher, an editor, or a motion picture pro- ducer can first decide what referent he believes should be valued or aversed, then try to relate the referents he wants valued with existing values, and the referents he wants regarded as aversious with existing aversions. This method means someone else decides what another person should believe, and then proceeds to try to teach him this belief. The second method is to provide the individual with as rich a variety of experience with the referent as possible, and helping him to figure out for him- self in what way this new referent is related to his existing value-aversion system.” (15:125) Change of beliefs and attitudes were also found in college students. In a study held at Michigan State University, IQ— ventory of Belief was administered to 1942 freshmen students in September, 1951. It was administered again during the last week of the spring term of 1952, to a random sample of 569 of these students. Of the latter group, 303 remained at the end of their senior year, and the test was sent to them about a month prior to their graduation. Of this group, 100 responded to the retest. The results revealed that beliefs and attitudes changed significantly during their freshman year and between their freshman and senior years. This suggested that students were receptive to new ideas and also were able to modify their previously held ideas and concepts. (35:300,301) Other studies of change in students' attitudes were also made in educational institutions, and different methods were utilized. One of the experiments was designed to compare the relative effectiveness of two methods of instruction in modifying attitudes associated with racial, religious, and ethnic prejudice. One method was group therapy and socio- drama, and the other was the traditional lecture-discussion method. The result indicated the greater effectiveness of group therapy in comparison with the traditional method in modifying significant intergroup prejudice. (78:332—343) An experimental study involving 250 students was made at the University of Michigan. The test was given before and after a change of procedures for a week. The findings showed that: ”For relatively authoritarian personalities, attitudes of racial prejudice seem most modi— fiable in either an accentuated or diminished direction under an authoritarian suggestion method. A non-authoritarian information method, while effective for non—authoritarian subjects, tends to boomerang for relatively authoritarian subjects." (76:23) Another experiment was designed to test the hypothesis that one's attitudes change in order to achieve valued goals. Three sets of measures were given to 183 experimental sub- jects before and after a change of procedure. Thirty-nine control subjects took the same measures but did not receive 27 the change of procedure. The change of procedure was de— signed to increase the subjects' awareness that nonsegrega- tion would lead to the attainment of some important values, such as democracy and equality. The results showed that the experimental group had more significant change than the control group. (9:261) In summary of the above, attitude was defined as how a person acts and feels toward an object. It was found to be formed when a person is young, even before he has personal experience with the object toward which he holds a certain attitude. Usually, a child was seen to have adopted the at- titudes of adults, especially those of the parents. However, attitudes were determined to be subject to change under certain circumstances, for example, through first hand experience with the object. Personal Contact and Attitudinal Change A. Personal Contact Leads to Attitudinal Change The old assumption that educational exchange under any conditions is a good thing needs to be examined. There is no guarantee that a cross—cultural educational program will breed good will and attitudinal change in the desirable direction. Most studies showed that international—mindedness could only be effectively formed through personal contact. With the intention of forming international understanding, an international college was set up in Denmark. One hundred thirty—two male and female students from thirteen different nations gathered together from the summer of 1946 to the 28 summer of 1947. International relations were dealt with in lectures and discussions each day. The basic international attitudes of the college staff and the international com- ' munity life were expected to influence the attitudes of the students. They were also encouraged to judge other people according to their total personality regardless of different attitudes in politics, religion, or different cultures. The result was that the majority of the students who had been interviewed indicated that the greatest influence toward internationalism in the college was the community life. The friendship among representatives of different nations, private excursions and mutual assistance at various chores were more important in forming internationalemindedness than lectures, discussions and study circles. (36:207-216) A different survey was undertaken to find out the long- range effectiveness of the exchange program. Students from Belgium were selected for this study. Upon these students' return home, they were not only enthusiastic but had many favourable attitudes toward the United States. After a number of years had passec, however the residual effect of their attitude toward this country became a warm personal feeling toward those American individuals whom they came to know as friends. (63:319-327) Another study conducted by Howard Persifor Smith obtained similar results. Conducted in this country, the experimental subject consisted of 310 American secondary and college students who travelled to Europe in the summer of 1950. The controd 29 group included those who had stayed at home plus those who had been in Europe but had not received the pretest. The result was that changes in international—oriented behavior were found in the experimental group but not in the stay-at— home control group. This change occurred among those who had established close friendship with people in a foreign country, for instance, those who continued to correspond and exchange gifts with their European friends. (71:477) Not only college students progressed in international understanding and attitudes through personal contact with the foreign born, but also children and people who were no longer in school. In 1948, Dr. Tenen and Dr. James studied the attitudes of English adolescents toward foreign people. Many said that they could not be certain about their attitudes without personal contact, and that they could not give any opinion about people they had not met. The importance attached to personal contact by these adolescents persuaded Dr. Tenen and Dr. James to concentrate upon the problems of personal contact as a dominant factor in ethnic attitudes. They arranged to have two African women teachers placed in sole charge of a c ass of 13—yeareolds for two weeks. The children were interViewed at intervals of six weeks, twice before and twice after these two weeks. The classes were under observa— tion at all times. The interviews and observations indicated that the re- lation between the African teachers and the children was good. 30 According to the interview, no significant change was found between either the first and the second or the third and the fourth interviews. But significant change in attitudes toward the African were found during the six weeks period between the second and third interviews. Their fears, dis— likes, and distrusts of the Africans were decreased. They found the Africans to be nicer, more likable, better educated, and more like white people than they had realized before. It also could be concluded that the development of friendship between the African teachers and the children led to an in- crease in friendship with the Africans in general. (38:66—70) Studies made outside of educational institutions also proved that personal contact was the basis for friendship and changed one's attitude toward the other person. In one study, the attitudes of Caucasians toward Negroes improved through personal contact with Negro co-workers. (33:28) A housing project, mixing the Japanese-American and Americans as neighbors changed the Americans' attitude toward their Japanese-American neighbors. (37:17) A study based on 234 officers in government agencies and more than 1700 college students showed that the acquaintance with Negroes of re— latively high occupational status changed their attitude toward Negroes in general. (45:441) All the changes were positive. B. Personal Contact Did Not Lead to Attitudinal Change Some studies revealed different results from the above. These indicated that contact with a certain group of people 31 did not necessarily improve or even change the attitudes toward the group. An attitude test was administered to 502 non-Jewish college and university students for the study, "Factors Affecting Attitude Toward Jews." Frequency of contact was found to be related inversely to favorable attitude. Sub- jects who had the greatest opportunity for contact with the Jewish people generally and with Jewish students scored lower on the test than those who had less opportunity for association. Intimate contact, however, was positively related to the attitudes toward Jews. (35:827) Allport and Bramer's study, ”Some Roots of Prejudice," came to the similar conclusion that casual contact with minority groups did not change one's attitude very much, but intimate contact did. (1:37) Another study was designed to evaluate the effect of international experiences on people‘s attitudes. The study included two groups, one an experimental group of 49 female university students who had lived, studied, and travelled in Europe for one year, and a comparable control group from the same college classes who stayed at home. Tests were given to the two groups before the experimental group left for Europe, while they were in Europe, and upon their return home. The results revealed that among 24 factors, living abroad led to only two personality modifications. These were the development of higher social vdues, and the development of more submissive social adjustment. (47:59) 32 In Reimanns' article, "How Children Become Prejudiced,” he made the conclusion that prejudice toward the minorities did not seem to be closely related to personal contact with them. The pattern of prejudice was about the same whether the children were from the South or the North, from the segregated class or the nonsegregated class. (62:92) In one study, the attitudes of 106 Caucasian boys were measured before and after they had associated with Negroes in an interracial camp for a period of four weeks. The findings made it clear that the contact with the Negroes per se did not insure a change of Caucasian children's attitudes toward the Negro. The change was rather dependent on the children's personality structure, such as susceptibility to change. (513440) These studies demonstrated that casual contact in— fluenced attitudes little, but intimate contact with a person usually improved the attitude toward him. In summary, most studies supported the fact that atti— tudes toward people could be improved through personal con- tact, especially if the climate favored the contact and the two parties involved had equal socio-economic status. Some studies indicated that only close contact, rather than casual contact, improved a person's attitude toward other people. General Contacts of American Students with Foreign Students A. Surveys made on the American students 33 As far as the writer knows, the only survey or study made on the American students in this area was undertaken at Cornell. Five hundred eighty-eight students were selected for this study. It was found that those who had personal contacts with the foreign students were more likely to be friendly and active with them and to choose to live with them in the same buildings. (27:26) Nevertheless, people were aware of the lack of contact between the American students and the foreign students. A professor who once visited Pakistan said that the students over there had great interest in the United States. They swarmed to him with all kinds of questions about this country. In contrast, students here often left foreign students alone. (56:85) Others said that the universities had been generous in accepting foreign students, but did not pay much attention to them after their registration. (39:195) This View also held true at Michigan State University. In the editorial in the State News, April 3, 1961, it was said: /1. ”The students from other nations have largely /// been a forgotten element at this university. They are unknown and misunderstood by American students, and they in turn are lacking in understanding of American ideals and ideas. ”A vast number of foreign students at this university spend their years here alone and lonesome. They return to their own nations acquainted only with the outward and super- ficial aspects of the American society. They never have the opportunity for true social intercourse and deep understanding of the American mind. ”The lack of mixing with foreign students outside the classroom results in those students 34 isolating themselves from the university commun— ity and confining themselves to other foreign students, especially those of their native groups. This further inhibits social mixing.' (80:2) From the letters to the editor, we learned that this editorial was favorably received by its readers. Many compli- ments were sent to the editor. Assistant Dean of the Inter- national Program, Mr. Higbee, said "The writer focuses atten- tion on some of the most critical problems in the area of cultural contact between foreign and American students." This is an area in which many researches should be made. B. Surveys Made on the Foreign Student As we already know, the foreign student is in need of security when he arrives in a strange land. When he makes up his mind to have an American friend, he looks for warmth and understanding in the midst of many differences. Often he found the American had an indifferent manner toward him. The foreign student complained that friendship given in a day could be as quickly forgotten on the next day. Impatience with language difficulties often make the American student avoid the foreign student. Even racial discrimination was sometimes experienced by students from Africa and Asia. They might not be excluded from intellectual or extra—curricular activities, but still sensed a social barrier. (8:428) (40:5,6) (42:514) (5919) In a study of the "Problem of the Foreign Student," students from thirty-four nations were included. It was pointed out that one of their personal and social problems 35 was the difficulty of forming personal friendships with the Americans. A rather bitter expression was summarized by one student. ”The people here do not like foreigners. They may smile on their faces but they are not ready at all to be their friends. I tried hard to get real friendship of some Americans, both on campus and outside, but failed.” (57:792) In the article, ”Our Unofficial Ambassadors” by John B. Schmoker, he mentioned: ”One problem that we face is the relationship of the American student to the foreign student. A post graduate Indian student said that 'American students are generous and friendly. They flood you in mails with mimeographed notices to attend square dances, vocational conferences, hiking clubs. You are always a guest and you are always on the receiving end. American students cannot open their minds to what you may have to share." (65:314) A study of students who returned to their homelands also indicated their disappointment in the lack of opportunity to associate with Americans. (65:314) Prabha G. Asar made a study based on twenty-seven Indian students at Michigan State College in the year 1951- 1952. Indian students thought that Americans were friendly, helpful and interested in Indians. But the friendship was ” a greeting used very superficial and was symbolized by ”hi, often but not leading to any further interaction. Most students expressed the idea that a sincere friend was hard to find here. By sincere it meant a warm relationship between two people, such as ”a friend in need is a friend indeed.” The reasons most students gave for lack of 36 sincerity were the "so what" attitudes of Americans, the high mobility of the American society, and the fasttempo of living, in which every man is for himself. This was disappointing for students who craved a warm friendship from the Americans. Some said that the Americans made friends with them because of curiosity, looking for something new, and drifting away when their purpose was served. (5) In the book written by the Useems, ”The Western—Educated Man in India,” the following paragraph was found, a statement made by a returned Indian student. ”You cannot assume that because Americans are friendly, you are fully accepted. You still have to watch what you say. Americans do not give out what they feel; it is very hard to know what is in their mind. Americans are free to talk but their free-ness is a mannerism and Indians often misunderstood.” (75:153) In the study on the Pakistani students, questionnaires were sent to 231 Pakistani students about the contact with the Americans. A comment in the study was: ”There are instances where a Pakistani student in the United States never had the opportunity to get to know Americans other than his col- leagues, or see sections of America other than his campus. It is generally true that a Pakis- tani student on his arrival feels lonely, unsure, and sometimes hostile to American and the Ameri— can people. Thus he does not take the initiative to meet Americans. Even if they get to know their fellow students, too few have the chance to meet and get to know the 'average American.‘ "There is a good chance for private organizations associated with various campuses to activate their 'hospitality programs.‘ But foreign students do not desire to visit the homes of 'professional- foreign—student-hosts,‘ but would like to meet typical American families. Foreign students 37 would more readily accept an invitation if con- tacted personally rather than asked to 'sign up' or fill out a questionnaire.” (61:62) Another study was made on 399 undergraduate students at twelve Northeastern colleges. Questionnaires were sent and then were followed by an interview. The results re— vealed that, in general, the American students did not have a good opportunity to know the Indian students on the campus. The situation was more apparent in men's colleges. One of the reasons for this was because most of the Indian men were in graduate school and therefore contacts between them were limited. In women's colleges, for example, Smith, Mount Holyoke or Wellesley, the Indian girls might attract great attention from their schoolmates because of the differences in costume and cultures. In some instances, personal contacts between Indian and American students were very casual. As a result, the American student tended to regard the Indian student as ”foreign” or "outsiders." (6:12) The following survey is based on students from the Phillipines. ”Two forms of scales were sent to more than 100 Filipino students out of a total of 600 Filipino students studying in American colleges and uni— versities. Scales were sent to every sixth per— son listed in the Filipino student directory. 75 per cent of the scales were filled out and returned. 47 per cent of the students have Filipino room- mates, 30 per cent have no roommates, and 23 per cent have American roommates. There is no cor- relation between the degree of prejudice and the nationality of the roommate. In regard to living abode, 82 per cent live in private homes, 38 and 18 per cent in boarding houses. Not a single Filipino student responding lived in a college dormitory or fraternity. In regard to college classification, 39 per cent were underclassmen, 47 per cent were upperclassmen, and 14 per cent graduate students. There as no significant differences _n scores according to student clas— sification. The students were asxed to state the nationality of six of their best friends. Fili— pinos were mentioned 203 times, Americans 90 times, and other nationalities 128 times. Al- though the chances of forming friendships with persons of American birth are much greater than with other nationalities, more friendships were reported with other nationalities than with Americans. This seems to suggest that foreigners constitute a somewhat self-contained community, and have more in common though from widely separated countries than do Americans. Or there is an exclusion of foreigners from the social life of the American people. The nationalities which ranked highest in this respect were Japanese, Chinese, Germans, French, Italian, Mexican, Irish, and Spanish." (53:251,252) From the preceding lines, we know that the foreign student has problems in making American friendships. Some- times they took the American's casual friendship seriously and then followed disappointment. For example, it was common for a foreign student to participate in the foreign student program. He often took the impersonal friendliness of the foreign student program seriously, and believed that he was personally valued. Later he found that the friendli- ness though informal, was not a personal response to him- self. It was merely a part of the program and would take 1 place just the same regardless of which foreign student 3) turned up. The program was arranged by a group o: prcles— I . ‘ ' ‘. ..._ . ~ i .. -, m 4.. A‘ . .2 4.1- .3 ..- , a," . q .: A --~. s cnais and tte; were more interested in their groiCss_oh ’—‘, ~ ’_ .-~, .« a . (f‘~" I ,vrx I .._j I. \r‘ +4 .'_. I. ‘1‘ 1‘ E‘_'.‘.‘.~‘. . v ‘ Ci‘lEiJ -_L: il-..i:L CED (J. 9813011. .L‘LJxS YH’CJLS C3. v«.;7(“,CLC L'v' UL e .Lb'xblgr‘.l 1 Student, and caused aim to think the Americans were faith- less and inconsistent. (25zl7) I . 4. ' 'l - i T _" . “ In the book Learning Across Culture: A Study of Germans Visiting America,” German visitors complained of the superficial relationship they had with their hosts. The authors stated possible reasons as the following: ”The host may feel that one should be polite to strangers, especially those whose ways are un- familiar, and avoid both criticism and helpful suggestion. They do not feel the same responsi- bility for guidance and discipline which would exist for a member of their own group. A stranger needs friendship so much that he may exaggerate the friendly responses of others, placing heavier demands upon casual relation— ships than he would usually do. Such overtures get perceived as oversensitive or overdemanding, thus scaring off the unprepared Americans and increasing the original isolation of the visitor. Consequently, they were quick to feel left out, unwanted, and alone, and they were disappointed in their attempts to find friends among the Americans.” (77:102) A major survey in this area took place at 35 colleges and universities, representing three types of educational institutions: the small college in a small town, the non— metropolitan universities and the metropolitan universities. The results were: "The small colleges offer the greatest opportunity for interaction, followed by non—metropolitan universities, with the metropolitan universities lowest. Two-thirds of the students in small col- leges, as compared to one-fourth of metropolitan university students, have roommates or live in fraternities. It was not possible to determine whether the student's presence in these institu- tions was a matter of his own choice or not. "There are other factors which are related to the interaction—potential. They are nationality and 4O academic status. More Europeans than non-Euro- peans live in fraternities, and fewer Europeans than non-Europeans live in apartments or rented rooms. Similarly, more undergraduates than graduate students live in fraternities, and fewer undergraduates live in apartments or rented rooms. (67: 38) The investigators constructed two indices expressing the degree of opportunity for interaction. The first one dealt with living arrangement which ran from the high position of living in a fraternity or having an American roommate to the low position of living alone. The second was based upon the variety of activity in which the student engaged and reflected the frequency of being with American students. (67:42) Other studies seemed to have more favorable results about the contact between these two groups. William and Kungart investigated 168 foreign students from 33 nations. He wished to find out their reactions regarding human relationships, physical properties of the campus, the courses and the pro— grams. In the area of human relationships, 126 out of 168 said that their human relationships were satisfactory. Forty—two out of 168 said the relations were not satisfactory, due to the aloofness of native students. (55:277—280) A more optimistic result was obtained from a survey at Indiana University. This was an experimental study of the adjustment problem of a group of foreign graduate students and a group of American graduate students at Indiana University. According to the responses of both groups, the majority of for- eign students were accepted by American students. Ten per cent of the foreign student group and eight per cent of 41 American student group felt that foreign students were not accepted. The reasons given were lack of contact, lack of understanding, racial prejudice, and the difficulty of com- munication. The majority of foreign students and American students included in this study believed that American stu- dents were generally well accepted by foreign students. Some of them gave negative answers such as, it depends on the individual, some American students were not friendly, and there was a language barrier. (4:65,68) From a study of the American experience of Swedish students, Scott found that although the Swedes had satis— factory contact with American students, even they complained about the superficial friendship of the latter. They felt somewhat superior to their American peers, because of the idea that they were selected from the tough Swedish educa- tional system. Usually they took the initiative in making American friends and participated freely in social activi— ties with the American students. (65:68-71) In conclusion, most of the studies revealed that foreign students had neither satisfactory nor enough personal rela— tionship with the American students. This problem was more serious for the students coming from areas other than Europe; The lack of contact between the American and the foreign students was often caused by language difficulty and also the indifferent attitude of many of the American students toward foreign students. 42 The majority of the studies in this area were made on foreign students. More research should be done on the Ameri- can students. Summary The United States has been active in student exchange programs since 1945. The purposes of the student exchange program differ from one agent to another; the principle purpose, however, is to increase international understanding through association. Studies indicated that personal atti— tudes toward various peoples could be improved through personal contact, especially throngh close personal contact among those of comparative socio-economic status. Studies also revealed that the foreign students were in great need of friendship with Americans. Satisfactory relationships formed with the people of the host country helped the foreigners to have a happy sojourn in the host country. According to the surveys based on foreign students, most foreign students did not have good relationships with the American students. They were more likely to have a group among themselves, either with students from the same country, or from various foreign countries. Some of the reasons given for the lack of contact between American students and foreign students were that the American students were too busy, that they did not care for the foreign students, that they could not communicate well with them, and that the foreign students did not have enough opportunities to know the American students. 43 Surveys based on the American students concerning their reactions toward the foreign students are lacking. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE This chapter describes the methodology used to investi- gate the problem under consideration. The construction and development of the instrument, the source of the data, and the treatment of the data will be discussed. Construction of Instrument In order to test the hypotheses, it was necessary to develop an instrument to assess quantitative information. A questionnaire was made for the purpose. The idea of these questions was mostly derived from the related literature re- viewed. Additional factors believed to affect the American student's contact with the foreign students and attitudes toward them were also included. Most of them were secured from discussions with various people who had made some studies on foreign students and also the chairman of the investiagtor's committee. A forty—nine—item questionnaire was finally constructed. Among these forty—nine items, twenty-four were statements with ”yes” or ”no” as possible answers. The remaining twenty- five items were multiple choice questions. Language con- struction was criticized by an instructor of English. A pilot study was conducted in the middle part of the winter 44 1+5 term in l96l at Michigan State University. Subjects included were forty-three undergraduate students who were taking an education course from the chairman of the committee, and another twenty undergraduate students who were the investi- gator's personal American friends. In the pilot study, space was provided under each item for comments and the last item was one requiring the re— spondent's general comment about the questionnaire as a whole. Since most of the latter group mentioned above knew the investigator personally, their opinion might be biased by their friendship with her, but the first group should be free from this, for they did not know that the investigator was a foreign student. The questionnaires were administered by the instructor in class. Generally speaking, the reaction of both groups to the questionnaire was good. A rather common reaction was that they thought the relationship between an American student and a foreign student was something worthwhile, but, un— fortunately, had been neglected. Their comments were mostly centered on yes-no items. They mentioned that some of the questions were hard to answer ”yes” or ”no,” that some actually contained two questions, and that some of them were overlapping or had negative statements. With all these criticisms in mind, the questionnaire was revised. Over— lapping items were eliminated, double statement items and negative statement items were reconstructed, and new items were added.‘ The final form of the questionnaire consisted of forty-six items. Twenty—one were ”yes” or ”no” questions and the others were multiple choice. These questionnaires were sent to more than two hundred American students at Michigan State University. When they were returned, it was found again that some items were inappropriate for the study. Twelve items were then eliminated from the questionnaire, and only thirty-four remained. In the final questionnaire, four items (1, 2, 3, 19) dealt with the intended or actual contact an American student has with the foreign students. Seven items (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) dealt with possible reasons for contact or lack of contact. Six items (11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22) dealt with attitudes toward foreign students. Thirteen items (15, 16, 17, 18, 2o, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 3o, 31, 32) dealt with possible factors related to the American students' contacts with the foreign students and their attitudes toward. them. Two items (23, 24) dealt with their preference among the foreign students, and one item (33) dealt with the result of contact. The last item of the questionnaire asked for the respondent's comments about the questionnaire. In order to have quantitative data, numbers were given to eaCh response. For yes—no items, 1, 2, and 3 were denoted to different responses. The most favorable response was given 3, the least favorable response was given 1, and 2 was n given if the response was between ”yes” and no,”that is, if both ”yes” and ”no” were checked, or if the item was left unchecked. For multiple choice items, if the choices ranged from favorable ones to unfavorable ones or vice-versa, the 47 highest number was given to the most favorable response and the smallest number was given to the most unfavorable re— sponse. For items having only descriptive functions, numbers were merely given to identify different responses or to indicate how many responses were checked. No number was ' for this response was re- given to the response "others,' classified in the other responses according to the nature of the specification. Description of the Population Two groups were included in this study, freshmen and graduate students. Two hundred and thirty—seven copies of the questionnaire were sent out. Among these, one hundred and forty—three were given to freshmen and ninety-six were given to graduate students. In order to have a higher ratio of the questionnaires returned, most of the questionnaires were not sent by mail, but were distributed in class. Sinceewery freshman at Michigan State University is re— quired to take ”Communication Skills,” sections of this course were considered to be quite representative of the total freshman group. Three sections were taken for this study in the spring term, so most of the students were in the third term of their freshman year. The questionnaires were distributed in all three classes L.‘...‘ ‘ 1 .‘- 1:! ,.. . ' ' 1‘ (.1 _ ‘ ,~, ‘; r -, d ,‘ -,' ~1-_ ..; during the last l fteea minutes oi but 1 ass ALUB oy in— r‘ . _ _ , ,.\.,.1 _ 9““ ,-. . J... r“, _ Ax. _. :1 _ -_ .;__ A .,.j SIC.L'U.'CJUOI’S. Ail. 3'.'(-,:_’C tilled OLIb allw 1°C bLlf‘fleCl 86 L111: k: i=1. C) the hour. The distribution was made by the instructors in order to avoid any affectation which might occur should these American students be aware that they were being ques- tioned on their contacts with and attitudes toward the foreign students by an investigator who was a foreign stu- dent. For the graduate students, twenty-six copies of the questionnaire were distributed to students who were taking an education course from the chairman of the committee. For the reason mentioned above, the instructor of the class administrated the questionnaires. All of the twenty-six copies were filled out and returned. Another seventy graduate students were selected from Owen graduate dormitory on the campus. More than four hundred students, including graduate students, foreign stu- dents and some seniors, were living in the dormitory in the spring term. Seventy names of graduate students were ran— domly selected from every five on the dormitory registered list, exclusive of foreign students and seniors. The questionnaire and a letter indicating the purpose of the study were sent to each of them. Fifty out of seventy, or seventy per cent, were filled out and returned. A point to be mentioned here is that since there were foreign students living in the same dormitory, this group's contact with foreign students and attitudes toward them might be slightly different from the others. 49 Among the two hundred and nineteen questionnaires re— turned, seven were disregarded. Three of them were seniors or juniors, and four of them showed obvious contradictions in their responses. For instance, for the question, "I think that I am aware of foreign students' difficulties and try to help them," the response was positive, but later for the question, ”If a foreign student has difficulties, I will offer my help,’ the response was negative. The same nature of contradictions were found in other items among the disre- garded copies. All the responses of the items were coded then the questionnaires were sent to the computing laboratory on campus for transferring the information to IBM cards. The cards were punched and also verified. Counting and sorting was made on an O82 - lOl machine. Statistical Treatment of the Data Chi square was chosen to test the significance of the relationship of the possible factors associated with AmeriCan students' contact with foreign students. The use of chi Square indicates how likely it is that our sample could have differed from the theoretically expected frequencies. The 2 equation for chi square is X2 2:5 Li§é£§l , ”fo"is the frequency of occurrence of observed or experimentally deter- mined facts, while ”fe” is the expected frequency of occurence on hypothesis. In this study, the contingency table is four— fold, chi square may be calculated without first computing the 50 four expected frequencies, but directly obtained by the 2 V AD — BC . TA?BI)(<(I/D)TA7C))(B/c) ’ N ls the following formula x2 = number of observation. A, B, C, D are four cell entries. When any expected entry in a fourfold table is small, for example, between 5 and 10, Yate's correction for continuity is applied to the above formula. The corrected formula is N X2_ N GAD — Bc1— 2) IA7B)(C/DIIA/Cl(3707 When any of the expected entries in a fourfold table is extremely small, for example, less than five, the Fisher exact probability test is used. Its formula is P ' L—iELLSi;-$—i;—LBZ;——- When the con— I B! C! ! tingency table is more than two by two, for instance, two by three or two by four, another formula is used. It reads 2 0 X2 3 E' — N. "O” is the observed frequency, E is the expected frequency, and N is the number of observation.' If any expected entry is less than five, the adjacent classifi- cations are combined until the expected frequency is equal or larger than five. This combination is done under the condition that it will not distort the meaning of the data. Five per cent level was chosen as the acceptable signifi- cance level for one-tailed tests. (31:228-247) (68:96—98) In addition to chi square, other statistical measures, such as the mean, the standard deviation, and the percentage are also used in testing the first hypothesis. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This chapter is devoted to presenting the results of the study under consideration. Related data were listed in Tables. I. American Students do not Avoid Foreign Students nor do They Seek the Opportunity to Know the Foreign Students. Items 1, 2, 3 and 19 were directed toward a person's intended contact and actual contact with foreign students. The range of score was from four to thirteen, the median score of freshman group was 8.5, the mode was 7, the mean score was 8.8, and the standard deviation was 3.28. roups were categorized: those who scored at nine and below nine belong to the group that had less contact with foreign stu- dents, and those who scored above nine belong to the group that had more contact with foreign students. For graduate group, the median score was 9.5, the mode was 9, the mean score was 9.7, and the standard deviation was 2.64. For the convenience of comparing this group with the freshman group, the same cutting line was set: those who scored at nine and below as the group that had less contact with foreign students, and those who scored above nine as the group that had more contact With foreign students. Data were presented in Table l. 51 52 TABLE I TCDNTACTS WITH FOREIGN STUDENTS (ITEMS 1,2,3,&19) FRESHMAN GRADUATE STUDENT RANGE OF SCORE 4-13 6-13 MEAN 8.8 9.7 MODE 7 9 MEDIAN 8.5 9.5 STANDARD DEVIATION 3.28 2.64 SCORE ABOVE NINE 47 35 SCORE AT & BELOW NINE 95 35 NUMBER OF OBSERVATION 142 7c In the aspect of avoiding foreign students and seeking opportunities to know them, results were indicated in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5. One out of 142 freshman students, or 0.7 per cent, and two out of 70 graduate students or 2.8 per cent, said that they avoided foreign students. In seeking the opportunity to know foreign students, 69 out of 142 freshmen, or 48.6 per cent, and 41 out of 70 graduate stu- dents, Or 58.6 per cent, gave a positive answer. In other words, in seeking opportunities to know the foreign students, freshmen scored above 9, or 0.035 standard deviation above the mean, and graduate students scored above 9.12, or 0.22 standard deviation below the mean. This process was not done in the aspect of those avoiding the foreign students, because of the small percentage of students who did avoid foreign students. Combining these two groups together it indicates that 3 out of 212 (less than 2%) avoid foreign students, and that 110 out of 212 (52%) looked for opportunity to know foreign students. From the data presented in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, no significance was found between contact with foreign students 53 and avoiding foreign students, but significant relationship was indicated for both groups between contact with foreign students and seeking opportunities to know them. Chi squares of 46.75 (freshmen) and 31.91 (graduate students), with one degree of freedom, both gave the significance beyond one—tenth of one per cent level, which is highly significant. AVOIDING FOREIGN STUDENTS (ITEM 1) TmmE2 YES NO _TOTAL _- / FRESH. MORE CONTACT O 47 47 F-o.b7 . . FRESH. LESS CONTACT 1 94 95 Not Significant TOTAL 1 141 142 1 Percentage of freshman group avoiding foreign students = 141 = 0.7% TmnE3 YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT O 35 35 P=O.25 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 2 33 35 Not significant TOTAL 2 68 7O Percentage of graduate student group avoiding foreign 2 students = 70 = 2.8%. SEEKING OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW FOREIGN STUDENTS (ITEM 3) TmnE4 YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 42 5 47 x2246.75 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 27 68 95 DF=1 TOTAL 69 73 142 Significant beyond the one-tenth of one per cent level. Percentage of freshman group seeking opportunity to know b9 foreign students 3142 3 48.6%. TmmE5 YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 34 1 35 x2=31.91 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 7 28 35 DF=1 TOTAL 411,29 7o__ Significant beyond the one—tenth of one per cent level. Percentage of graduate student group seeking Opportunity 41 to know foreign students: 75 3 58.6%. Possible Reasons for Presence or Lack of Contacts A. Empathy To Foreign Students From responses of items 4, 5, 6 and 7, both the fresh- man group and the graduate group showed significant relation— ship between contact with foreign students and empathy toward them. For freshmen, chi square of 13.74 was found, while for graduate group, chi square of 25.30 was found. With one degree of freedom, both were significant beyond one—tenth of one per cent level, which is highly significant. Data of these were listed in Tables 6 and 7. 55 EMPATHY TO FOREIGN STUDENTS (ITEMS 4,5,6 and 7) TABLE 6 -_. YES "NO TOTAE= FRESH. MORE CONTACT 134 54 188 x2=13.74 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 209 171 38c DF= 1 TOTAL 343 225 568 Significant beyond the one—tenth of one per cent level. TABLE 7 ' YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 108 32 140 x2=25.3o GRAD. LESS CONTACT 88 52 I40 DF= 1 TOTAL 196 84 280 Significant at the one- tenth of one per cent level. Among the specific items related to ”empathy,‘ only one item, item 4, awareness of foreign students' difficulties, was found statistically significant for both groups: chi squares of 17.40 was obtained for freshmen and 4.24 for graduate students, with one degree of freedom, the former was signifi—- cant at the one-tenth of one per cent level and the latter, two and one-half per cent level. (Tables 8 and 9) Item 7, American students' concern for foreign students, was found statistically significant for freshmen only. A chi square of 9.92 with one degree of freedom proves that ittgm significant at the five—tenths of one per cent level. Chi square of the same item for graduate group was found as 2.10, which was significant at the ten per cent level. Item 5, American students think that foreign students are lonesome, and item 6, American students think that foreign students need to have some American friends in order to adjust themselves better in this country, were not significant for either group. Item 5 gave a chi square of 1.75 for graduate students. With one degree of freedom, it was Significant at the ten per cent level. Data of the above three items were presented in Tables 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. WARENESS OF FOREIGN STUDENTS' DIFFICULTIES (ITEM 4) TMflE8 YES NO TOTAL— FRESH. MORE CONTACT 39 8‘ 47 x22 17.40 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 44 51 95 DF= 1 TOTAL 83 59 142 Significant beyond the one—tenth of one per cent level. TmmE9 YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 28 7 35 X9: 4.24 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 2O 15 35 DF= 1 TOTAL 48 22 70 Significant at the two and a half per cent level. CONCERN FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS (ITEA 7) TABLE 1O YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 2O 27 47 X9: 9.92 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 17 78 95 DF= TOTAL 37 1O5 142 Significant at the. five-tenths of one per cent level TABLE 11 YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 18 17 35 x2: 2.1a GRAD. LESS CONTACT 12 23 35 DF= 1 TOTAL 3O 40 70 Significant at the ten per cent level 57 FOREIGN STUDENTS ARE LONESOME (ITEM 5) TABLE 12 YES NO‘ITOTAL_ FRESH. MORE CONTACT 29 18 47 X2:O.09 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 56 39 95 DF= 1 TOTAL 85, 57 142 Not significant TABLE 13 YES N67 TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 28 7 35 X2=1.75 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 22 13 35 DF= 1 TOTAL 59 20 70 Significant at the ten per cent level. FOREIGN STUDENTS NEED AMERICAN FRIENDS (ITEM 6) TABLE 14 ’7’ YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 46 1 47 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 92 3 95 P1=O.4u TOTAL 138 _~4 142 Not significant TABLE i5 __ __ 7‘" t “L. GJAD. MORE tolTACT 34 1 35 P1=0.50 GLAD. LESS COniACT 34 1 35 TOTAL w _ 68HMW2_ 7gw_ Not significant _—_- .‘_.. -l._._. ...fi.—~ ...__.. B. Either the American Students or Foreign Students Are Too Busy The relationship between American students' contacts with foreign students and the lack of time of either party to have the contacts was considered. Chi square of 2.86 with one degree of freedom showed a five per cent level signifi- cance for the freshman group. (Table 16) No statistical significance in this aspect was found for graduate students. 58 (Table 17) Data presented in Table 18 showed that for freshmen, chi square of 5.63 was derived from item 8, American students are too busy. With one degree Of freedom, it was significant at the one per cent level. The chi square of the same item for the graduate group was 1.75, with one degree of freedom, was significant at the ten per cent level. (Table 19) No significant relationship was found between American students' contacts with foreign students and the lack of time of foreign students to have the con- tacts. Data related to this were presented in Tables 20 and 21. EITHER AMERICAN STUDENTS OR FOREIGN STUDENTS ARE TOO BUSY (ITEMS 8 and 9) TABLE 16 . YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 10 84 94 X2=2.86 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 35 155 190 DF= 1 TOTAL _ 45 239 _ 284 Significant at the five per cent level TABLE 17 ”7' YES NO‘ TOTAL 2 GRAD. MORE CONTACT 15 55 70 X 30.62 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 19 51 7O DF= 1 TOTAL 34 106 140 Not Significant ) )L- 59 AMERICAN STUDENTS ARE TOO BUSY (ITEM 8) TABLE 18 YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 4 43 47 X2=5.63 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 26 69 95 DF= 1 _TOTAL 30 112 142 _ Significant at the one per cent level TABLE 19 YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 7 28 35 x2=1.75 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 13 22 35 DF= 1 TOTAL 20 5O 70 Not significant FOREIGN STUDENTS ARE TOO BUSY (ITEM 9) TABLE 20 --.——- YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MOREICONTACT 6 41 47 P6=O.l8 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 9 86 95 TOTAL i5_127 142 Not significant TABLE 21 YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 8 27 35 X2=0.O9 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 6 29 35 DF= 1 TOTAL 14 56 70 Not significant C. The University has not Provided Enough Opportunity for Personal Contacts From Tables 22 and 23, no significant relationship was indicated between the American students' contacts with foreign students and the opportunity the university provided for such 60 contacts for either freshmen or graduate students. UNIVERSITY PROVIDES LITTLE CHANCE TO MEET FOREIGN STUDENTS ITEM IO TABLE 22 YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 19 28 47 X220.04 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 4O 55 95 DF= 1 TOTAL 59 ’83 142 Not significant TABLE 23 YES NO TOTAL 2 GRAD. MORE CONTACT 10 25 35 x to GRAD. LESS CONTACT 9 26 35 DF=1 TOTAL 19 51 70 Not significant II. American Students' Contacts with Foreign Students and Their Attitudes toward the Foreign Students Tables 24 and 25 showed that there was a relationship between American students' contacts with foreign students and their attitudes toward them. For freshmen, chi square of 7.92 was found, which with one degree of freedom, was proved to be significant at the five—tenths of one per cent level; for the graduate student, chi square of 3.97, with one degree of freedom, was significant at the two and a half per cent level. 61 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTACTS AND ATTITUDES (ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 19 and ll, 12, 13, i4, 21, 22) TABLE 24 YES NO TOTALI FRESH. MORE CONTACT 43 4 47 X227.92 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 67 28 95 DF= 1 TOTAL 110 32 142 Significant at the five-tenths of one per cent level TABLE 25 77 YEs' NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 31 4 35 x223.97 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 23 12 35 DF= 1 TOTAL 54 16 70 Significant at the two and a half per cent level Turning to the specific items in the area of ”atti— tudes,” item 13, too many foreign students are coming to this country, yielded a probability of 0.09 for freshmen, which was Significant at the ten per cent level. (Table 26) Item 21, offer help to foreign students, and item 22, depth of relationship with foreign students, yielded chi squares of 2.43 and 2.56 for freshmen, both with one degree of freedom, were significant at the ten.per cent level. (Tables 28 and 30) None of these three items was statis- tically significant for graduate group. (Tables 27, 29, and 31) Items 11, foreign students are inferior to American students, and 12, foreign students lack good manners, were not statistically significant for either group. (Tables 32, 33, 34, 35) TOO MANY FOREIGN STUDENTS ARE COMING TO THE USA (ITEM I3) TABLE 26 FRESH. MORE CONTACT FRESH. LESS CONTACT TOTAL ”‘YES NO TOTAL_ 1 46 47 Pl=0.08 9 86 95 PO=O.Ol 10 132 142 P =O.O8 / 0.01 = 0.09 Significant at the nine per cent level TABLE 27 GRAD. MORE CONTACT GRAD. LESS CONTACT TOTAL YES NO”‘TOTAL' 1 34 35 P1=O.38 233 35 3 67 70 Not significant OFFER HELP TO FOREIGN STUDENTS (ITEM 21) TABLE 28 MORE THAN T0 N0 LESS THAN OR SAME AM. STUDENTS AS TO AM. STUDENTS TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT I4 33 47 FRESH. LESS CONTACT IO 79 95 TOTAL 30 112 I42 X2=2.43 DF= 1 Significant at the ten per cent level ' TABLE 29 MORE THAN TO NO LESS THAN OR SAME AM. STUDENTS AS TO AM. STUDENTS TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 4 31 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 0 29 35 TOTAL IO 60 7O X2=O.l2 DF= 1 Not significant 63 DEPTH OF RELATIONSHIP WITH FOREIGN STUDENTS (ITEM 22) TABLE 30 ”7’ OUTSIDE MY NEIGHBORHOOD FRIEND TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 3 44 47 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 17 78 95 TOTAL 2O 122 142 X232.56 DF= 1 Significant at the ten per cent level TABLE 31 OUTSIDE MY NEIGHBORHOOD IFRIEND TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 4 31 35 GRADA LESS CONTACT 6 29 35 TOTAL 1O 6O 7O X2:O.l2 DF= 1 Not significant FOREIGN STUDENTS ARE INFERIOR TO AMERICAN STUDENTS (ITEM II) TABLE 32 YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT O 47 47 FRESH. LESS CONTACT O 95 95 TOTAL 0 I42 I42 TABLE 33 YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT I 34 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT I 34 35 TOTAL 2 68 7O P: I Not significant PI: 0.50 Not significant 64 FOREIGN STUDENTS LACK GOOD MANNERS (ITEM 12) TABLE 34 YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT O 47 47 P=O.67 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 1 94 95 TOTAL 1 141_ 142 Not significant TABLE 35 YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 0 35 35 P=0.5O GRAD. LESS CONTACT l 34 35 TOTAL 1 69 70 Not significant Attitudes Change as a Result Of Having Contacts Item 33, choice one, ”After having a foreign student as my friend, I became more interested in his country,” gave a chi square of 4.84 for freshman group, which with one degree of freedom was significant at the two and a half per cent level. (Table 36) The same choice yielded a chi square of 6.63 for graduate group, which with one degree of freedom was significant at the five-tenths of one per cent level. (Table 37) The other three choices of the same item were found not significant for either group. (Tables 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43) 65 INTEREST IN FOREIGN COUNTRY AFTER HAVING A FOREIGN FRIEND (ITEM 33) TABLE 36 YES NO TOTAL 2 FRESH. MORE CONTACT 3O 17 47 X 24.84 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 42 53 95 DF= 1 TOTAL 72 70 142 Significant at two and a half cent level TABLE 37 YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 29 6 35 X2=6.63 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 19 16 35 DF: 1 TOTAL 48__22 70 Significant at five-tenths of per cent level ATTITUDE TOWARD A FOREIGN COUNTRY BECOME MORE FAVORABLE AFTER HAVING A FOREIGN FRIEND (ITEM 33) TABLE 38 ’"”‘”" YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 18 29 47 x2=i.i2 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 28 67 95 DF= 1 TOTAL 46 96 142 Not significant TABLE 39 YES NO TOTAL 2 GRAD. MORE CONTACT 18 17 35 x 21.45 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 13 22 35 DF= 1 TOTAL 31 39 70 Not Significant the per the one ,. 66 NO CHANGE OF ATTITUDES TOWARD A FOREIGN COUNTRY AFTER HAVING A FOREIGN FRIEND (ITEM 33) - TABLE 40 YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 4 43 47 X230.2O FRESH. LESS CONTACT 12 O3 95 DF= I _M“_TCT§L 16 126 142 Not significant TABLE 4I __ YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 34 I 35 P1= 0.25 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 32 3 35 TOTAL 66 4 70 Not significant CHANGE OF ATTITUDE TOWARD A FOREIGN COUNTRY VARIES AFTER HAVING A FOREIGN FRIEND (ITEM 33) TABLE 42 ::3 YES NO. TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 13 34 47 x220.01 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 27 68 95 DF= 1 TOTAL 40 102 142 Not significant TABLE 43 YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 8 27 35 X920 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 9 26 35 DF=1 TOTAL 17 53 70 Not significant III. Factors Associated with American Students' contacts With Foreign Students A. Specific academic interest: This was not found significant for freshmen, but a chi square of 5.85, with three degree freedom, was significant at the ten per cent o7 level. A chi square of 8.31 was found for graduate students. With three degrees of freedom, it was significant at the two and a half per cent level. Data were listed in Tables 44 and 45. SPECIFIC ACADEMIC INTEREST (MAJORS) TABLE 44 7AG,ENGI FINE ART, LIT ED & SCI & BUS, COM.ARTS H.EC. V.M. & SOC.SCI. NON—P TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT l3 13 10 ll 47 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 13 21 28 33 95 TOTAL 26 34 38 44 142 x2: 5.85 DF= 3 Significant at the ten per cent level TABLE 45 AG., FINE ARTS BUS., ED a ENGI, a COM.ARTS a H.EC. SCI. LIT. SOC. SCI. TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT l9 9 l 6 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT l3 5 8 9 35 TOTAL 32 14 #32 15 70 X23 8.31 DF= 3 Significant at the two and a half per cent level B. School level: Significant differences were found in this area. Chi square of 5.65 with one degree of freedom, indicated the significance at one per cent level. Results were listed in Table 46. 68 SCHOOL LEVEL TABLE 46 IFROSH. GRADUATES TOTAL MORE CONTACT 47 35 82 X235.65 LESS CONTACT 95 35 130 DF- 1 TOTAL 142 370 212 Significant at the one per cent level C. Sex: Data presented in Tables 47 and 48 indicated no significant relationship between sex difference and con- tact with foreign students of either group. SEX TABLE 47 M F TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 25 22 47 x2=O.004 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 5O 45 95 DF= 1 TOTAL 75 67 142 Not significant TABLE 48 M F TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 2O 15 35 X230.O6 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 21 14 35 DF= 1 TOTAL 41 29 70 Not significant D. Number of years spent at Michigan State University: No significant relationship was found for either group between number of years at Michigan State University and contacts with foreign students. Data were presented in Tables 49 and 50. 69 NUMBER OF YEARS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY (ITEM 16) TmmE49 LESS THAN I YEAR I—3 YEARS TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 44 3 47 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 92 3 95 TOTAL 136 6 142 P1: 0.22 Not significant TABLE 50 ALESS THAN MORE—THAN 1 YEAR 1-3 YEARS 3 YEARS TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 16 8 ll 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 19 7 9 35 TOTAL 35 15 2O 70 X2: 0.52 DF= 2 Not significant E. Intellectual inclination: Item 17, the grade point average, item 18, the purpose of going to college, and items 29 and 30, ambition in education, belong to this category. Grade point average was found non—significant for either group but a probability of 0.07 was obtained for graduate students which was significant at the seven per cent level. Item 18 was found not significant for either group. The possibility of going on for a master's degree was found significant for neither group, but a chi square of 4.14 with two degrees of freedom was significant at the ten per cent level for graduate students. The possibility of going on for a Ph. D. was not significant for either group, but a chi square of 3.45, with two degrees of freedom was significant at the ten per cent level for freshmen. Com- hihihc fhp thVP anr itnmq tnmothon nhi cnnowo AP Q 2? 70 for freshmen and 1.36 for graduate students, with two de— grees of freedom, did not indicate a significant relation- ship between contact with foreign students and the degree of intellectual inclination. (See Tables 51 through 60) GRADE POINT AVERAGE (ITEM 17) TABLE 51 _1—2 2-3 ABOVE 3 TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 9 31 7 47 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 24 56 15 95 TOTAL 33 87 22 142 X21 0.77 DF= 2 Not significant TABLE 52 "‘”‘f”* W~_wwm___g:3,_ ABOVE 3 _TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 2 33 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 7 27 34 TOTAL 9 6O 69 P2: 0.06 Pl= 0.01 PO: 0.001 P: 0.06 / 0.01 / 0.001 = 0.071, or 0.07 Significant at the seven per cent level 7i PURPOSE OF GOING TO COLLEGE (ITEM 18) _ _ TABLE 53 SOCIAL LIFE & “”"BRUAD JOB QUALIFICATION EDUCATION TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 7 4O 47 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 13 82 95 TOTAL ‘_ _h 20 122 142 x2: 0.004 DF= 1 Not significant TmmE54 ‘"“‘”"‘““””’ SOCIAL LIFE & '77 BROAD ' ‘— JOB QUALIFICATION EDUCATION TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 4 31 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 4 31 35 TOTAL _h_, - 8 W62 70 X2: 0 DF= 1 Not significant POSSIBILITY FOR GETTING A MASTER'S DEGREE (ITEM 29) TABLE 55 ”'""“' VERY LITTLE, NOT VERY .11- LITTLE SURE GREAT GREAT TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 7 24 9 7 47 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 21 46 20 8 95 _JIQIAL. _._ ___2§_ _.- ,__ 70. -29 15 111121.. x2: 2.18 DF= 3 Not significant TABLE 56 “IIWILFIIIWTRHFSURE: " ._.__ GREAT _ VERY GREAT HAVE IT TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 5 23 7 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 12 lo 7 35 TOTAL 17 ___39 14 7O X23 4.14 DF= 2 Significant at the ten per cent level 72 POSSIBILITY FOR GETTING A PH. D. DEGREE (ITEM 30) TABLE 57 77—77"”' "‘7 VERY” 7'“"7""77NOT7SURE7777777—”""77—; _ "W _ LITTLE LITTLE GREAT, VERY GREAT TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 12 5 3O 47 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 34 16 45 95 TOTAL 46 _ 21 75 142 x2: 3.45 DF= 2 Significant at the ten per cent level TABLE 58 VERY LITTLE, NOT GREAT, LITTLE SURE VERY GREAT TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 9 14 12 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 15 10 10 35 TOTAL 24 24,, 22 70 x22 2.35 DF= 2 Not significant INTELLECTUAL INCLINATION (ITEMS 17, 18, 29, 30) TABLE 59 1-2 PTS. ABOVE 3 PTS. JOB,SOCIAL BROAD ED. VERY LITTLE GREAT LITTLE 2—3 PTS. VERY GREAT VERY LITTLE NOT SURE GREAT LITTLE NOT SURE VERY GREAT TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 40 79 69 188 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 108 139 133 380 ,1 TOTAL 148 218 202 568 X‘= 3 DF= 2 Not significant TABLE 60 '7' JOB,SOCIAL ABOVE 3 NOT SURE BROAD ED (4.4.) 2—3 PTS. GREAT,VERY VERY LITTLE NOT GREAT,HAVE LITTLE (PH.D) SURE(FH.D.) IT(MA) GREAT TOTAL VERY GREAT (PH.D.) GRAD. MORE CONTACT 15 16 109 140 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 2O 19 100 139 TOTAL .35 35 209 319 X2: 1.36 DF= 2 Not significant 73 F. Foreign language: Statistically, no significant relationship was found for either freshmen or graduate students between the ability to speak foreign language and having the contacts with foreign students. But a chi square Of 2.20 was obtained for graduate students, With one degree of freedom, which was significant at the ten per cent level. Data were presented in Tables 61 and 62. ABILITY TO SPEAK FOREIGN LANGUAGE (ITEM 26) TABLE 61 YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 26 21 47 x2: 1.32 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 62 33 95 DF- 1 TOTAL 88 54 142 Not significant TABLE 62 YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 25 10 35 x2: 2.20 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 19 16 35 DF= 1 TOTAL 44 26 70 Significant at the ten per cent level G. Travel: Data presented in Tables 63 and 64 showed that travel was not significantly related to contact with foreign students of either group. TRAVEL ABROAD (ITEM 27) TABLE 63 YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 6 41 47 X2: 0.06 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 12 83 95 FF: 1 TOTAL 18 124 142 Not significant TABLE 64 YES NO TOTAL‘ GRAD. MORE CONTACT 9 26 35 X2: 1.06 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 13 22 35 DF= 1 TOTAL 22 48 70 Not significant H. Interest in foreign countries: Results derived from the data (see Tables 65 and 66) indicated a significant relationship between interest in foreign countries and con— tact with foreign students. Chi square of 6.74 and 4.93 were found for freshmen and graduate students respectively. With one degree of freedom, the former was significant at the five—tenths of one per cent level and the latter at the two and a half per cent level. 75 INTEREST IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES (ITEM 25) TABLE 65 ONLY IF RELATED To COURSE SOMEWHAT MUCH TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 9 38 47 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 39 56 95 TOTAL 48 94 142 ‘_ X23 6.74 DF= 1 Significant at the five—tenths of one per cent level TABLE oo .. . _.. ~o—M :ONLY-IFTRELATED TO COURSE"””_ __—._.-——.__- --..‘_ _—_ -_. —_.__.___._.‘....~. . __ ___S_L_;lv’1EVJHAT ‘ f-‘IUC H TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 2 33 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 10 25 35 TOTAL 12 58 70 X22 4.93 DF= 1 Significant at the two and a half per cent level I. Religion: From the data listed in Tables 67 and 68, no significant relationship was found between contact with foreign students and attending church of either group of American students. 76 CHURCH ATTENDANCE (ITEM 32) TABLE 67 NEVER ONCE A ONLY ON ONCE A TWICE A WEEK OR HOLIDAY MONTH MONTH MORE TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 8 4* 8 26 46 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 23 14 16 4O 93 TOTAL 31 18 24 66 139 x2: 2.89 DF= 3 Not significant TABLE 68 NEVER ONCE A ONLY ON ONCE A TWICE A WEEK OR HOLIDAY MONTH MONTH MORE TOTAL__ GRAD. MORE CONTACT 8 5 7 15 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 10 7 4 13 34 TOTAL 18 12 11 28 69 x2: 1.5 DF= 3 Not significant J. Age: From Tables 69 and 70, no significant rela- tionship was indicated between difference in age and contact with foreign students. 77 AGE TABLE 69 ::"..: m 18 and below 19 and above TOTAL —' FRESH. MORE CONTACT 27 2O 47 “— FRESH. LESS CONTACT 61 34 95 ' TOTAL 88 54 142 x2: 0.61 DF= 1 Not significant TABLE 70 30 and below 31 and aBove TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 23 I2 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 27 8 35 TOTAL 50 2O 70 x2: 1.12 DF= 1 Not significant IV. Confirming or Rejecting Some Findings of Others A. Preference in contacts with foreign students: Item 23 indicated that freshmen picked Europeans 125 times and picked students from other various areas 379 times (from 63 times to 86 times). The least preferred group was African. Graduate students picked Europenas 65 times and picked students from other various areas 242 times (from 46 times to 52 times). Students from the Middle East were least pre— ferred by the graduate students. No significant relationship was found among either freshmen or graduate students between their contact with foreign students and their choice among the foreign groups. As for cross-cultural marriage, fresh- men who had more contact with foreign students were more likely to give a positive answer. Chi square of 3.70, with 78 one degree of freedom, was significant at the five per cent level. The graduate students who had less contact with the foreign students were more likely to give positive answers . Contact with foreigners lent no statistical significance to the marriage question for either group. Related data were listed in Tables 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76. PREFERENCE OF FOREIGN STUDENTS (ITEM 23) TABLE 71 EUROPEAN OTHERS TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 41 145 186 x2=1.21 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 84 234 318 DF= 1 TOTAL 125 379 504 Not Significant TABLE 72 EUROPEAN OTHERS TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 31 120 151 x2: 0.07 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 34 122 156 DF= 1 TOTAL 65 242 307 Not significant CROSS CULTURAL MARRIAGE (ITEM 24) TABLE 73* YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 37 10 47 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 59 35 94 TOTAL _96 45 141 TABLE 74 YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 17 18 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 24 11 35 TOTAL 41 29 70 x2: 3.70 DF= 1 Significant at the five per cent level X2: 2.68 DD: 1 Not signficant 79 PREFERENCE IN CROSS CULTURAL MARRIAGE (ITEM 24) TABLE 75 EUROPEAN OTHERs' TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 37 67 104 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 53 85 138 TOTAL 90 152 242 KB: 0.20 DF= 1 Not significant TABLE 76 EUROPEAN OTHERS " TOTAL‘ GRAD. MORE CONTACT 14 44 58 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 22 63 85 TOTAL 36 107 143 X2: 0.06 DF3 1 Not significant B. Language difficulty: Data shown in Tables 77 and 78 did not indicate a significant relationship between language difficulty and contact with foreign students for either group. Probabilities of 0.14 and 0.16 were found for freshmen and graduate students respectively. LANGUAGE DIFFICULTY (ITEM 20) TABLE 77 YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 1 46 47 Pl: 0.12 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 8 87 95 TOTAL 9 133 142 Not significant TABLE 78 YES NO TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 2 33 35 P2= 0.16 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 5 30 35 TOTAL 7 63 70 Not significant 80 0. Personal friendliness: Chi square of 1.05 and 0.58, with one degree of freedom, indicated no significant relationship between personal friendliness and contact with foreign students for either group. (Data shown in Tables 79 and 80.) PERSONAL FRIENDLINESS TABLE 79 “_ YES NO TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 21 26 47 x2: 1.05 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 34 61 95 DF= 1 TOTAL 55 87 142 Not significant TABLE 80 YES NO TOTAL 2 GRAD. MORE CONTACT 13 22 35 x z 0.58 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 10 25 35 DF= 1 TOTAL 423 47 70 Not significant D. Participation in extra-curricular activities: Chi squares of 1.90 and 2.13 were obtained for freshmen and grad- uate students respectively. With three degrees of freedom neither of them suggested any significant relationship be— tween participation in activities and contact with foreign students. Data were presented in Tables 81 and 82. EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES (ITEM 31) TABLE 81 O 1 2 ,3-5 TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 9 lo 10 12 47 RRESH. LESS CONTACT 23 25 27 2O 95 TOTAL 32 41 37 32 142 X2: 1.90 DF= 3 Not significant TABLE 82 O 1 2 3-8 TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 5 12 7 11 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 10 10 6 9 35 TOTAL 15 22 13 20 70 x22 2.13 DF= 3 Not significant E. Residence proximity: Data from Tables 83 and 84 gave a chi square of 3.14 for freshmen, which with one degree of freedom was significant at the five per cent level. Chi square of 11.10 was found for the graduate group, with two degrees of freedom, it was significant beyond the five-tenths of one per cent level. 82 RESIDENCE PROXIMITY (ITEM 28) TABLE 83 ROOMMATE, CO—WORKER FRIEND'S LIVE IN BELONG FRIEND, SAME TO SAME CLASSMATE BUILDING ORGANIZATION NONE TOTAL FRESH. MORE CONTACT 4O 7 47 FRESH. LESS CONTACT 71 24 95 TOTAL 111 31 142 x2: 3.14 DF= 1 Significant at the five per cent level TABLE 84 ROOMMATET" CO—WORKER FRIEND'S LIVE IN BELONG FRIEND, SAME TO SAME CLASSMATE BUILDING ORGANIZATION NONE TOTAL GRAD. MORE CONTACT 22 9 4 35 GRAD. LESS CONTACT 25 4 6 35 TOTAL 47 13 10 70 X9: 11.10 DF: 2 Significant beyond five-tenths of one per cent level CHAPTER V DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS The purpose Of this chapter is to present a discussion of the results Obtained in the investigation as reported in the preceding chapters. The discussion takes the order from hypothesis one through the findings of others. I. American Students do not Avoid Foreign Students Nor do They Seek an Opportunity to Know Them. For freshmen, data indicated that the median score was 8.5, the mode was 7, the mean score was 8.8, and the standard deviation was 3.28. For graduate students, the median score was 9.5, the mode was 9, the mean score was 9.7, and the standard deviation was 2.64. The data also indicated that one only out of 142 fresh— men and two only out of 70 graduate students avoided foreign students; that sixty—nine out of 142 freshmen and forty—one out of 70 graduate students sought the opportunity to know foreign students. This information leads to the conclusion that less than two per cent of American students at Michigan State University avoid foreign students and that fifty—two per cent of American students at Michigan State University seek the opportunity to know the foreign students. The findings confirmed the first part of the first hypothesis, that American students do not avoid foreign 83 84 students. The findings rejected the latter part of the hypothesis, namely, that American students do not seek the opportunity to know the foreign students. More graduate students than freshmen sought the opportunity to know foreign students. This might be because graduate students like to associate with foreign students more than freshmen. As for American students avoiding foreign students and contact with foreign students, there was no statistical significance. However, a one per cent level of confidence was obtained for both freshmen and graduate students between the amount of contact with foreign students and seeking opportunities to know the foreign students. More than half of the sampling group were seeking the opportunity to know the foreign students. They might do this for the sake of curiosity, or because of the rising interest Of the university in foreign students, or merely because of the increased number of foreign students on the campus. Augmented activities for the foreign students on the campus and increased interdependence among nations could also be important factors. The lack of relationship between the avoiding of foreign students and the amount of contact with the foreign students might be due to the extremely small number of American stu— dents who did avoid foreign students. Possible Reasons for the Lack of Contact A. Empathy toward foreign students: Chi square value significance beyond the one-tenth of one per cent level for 85 both freshmen and graduate students rejected the null hypo- thesis that contact with foreign students is independent of one's empathy toward foreign students. The hypothesis that the American students who have less contact with the foreign students are more likely to be less empathic toward the foreign students is accepted for both freshmen and graduate students. In specific items, item 4, ”I think that I am aware of foreign students‘ diff culties and try to held them.” yie‘o-G UhE”L5mpi L; ;_e )6? 06;; level 3 gulf cance and two and a half per cent level Slgnlflcance for freshmen and graduate students respectively. They rejected the null hypothesis that American students' contacts with foreign students is independent of their awareness of foreign stu- dents' difficulties and their willingness to help them. Item 8, ”I feel a real concern for some foreign student to the extent that I do not hesitate to talk with them about their (or my) personal affairs,“ yielded a chi square of 9.92 for freshmen which was significant at the five-tenths of one per cent level. This rejected the null hypothesis and indicated a relationship existing between American students' contacts with foreign students and their real concern for foreign students. But the same item did not give the confidence for the graduate group to reject the null hypothesis. The reason for this could be that graduate students are older than the freshmen, they might not feel as free as theyounger people to Show their enthusiasm in Q) OW another's personal affairs or to tell other peOple their personal affairs. Besides, more graduate students than freshmen have their own families and would talk over thier personal affairs with their own families. B. Either the American students or the foreign students are too busy to promote contact with each other. Chi square of 2.86 for fresqmen with one degree 01 freedom indicated a five per cent levei significance. This is sufficient to reject the null bypctnefls for freshmen that contact with foreign students is independent of the lack of time of either party involved. The hypothesis that freshmen contact with foreign students is related to whether either party is busy or not is accepted. The chi square obtained for gradu— ate students was significant at the ten per cent level, not significant enough to reject the null hypothesis. The reason for the lack of relationship between the American graduate students' amount of Contact with the foreign stu- dents and the lack of time of either party involved could be because more foreign students were of the graduate level. These American graduate students not only met their foreign friends in class but frequently worked with them in the department. Many foreign graduate students, as well as American graduate students are assistants in their depart— ments, so lack of time might not influence the contact be— tween these two groups. This could also be why no significant relationship was obtained for graduate students' contact with foreign students and item 8, ”I have so many things around to 87 keep me busy that I do not have time to make friends with foreign students.” This item yielded a chi square of 5.63 for freshmen, with one degree of freedom, being significant at the one per cent level. The null hypothesis that no re— lationship exists between the freshmen's Contact with the foreign student and the freshman's lack of time is rejected. The accepted hypothesis is that there is a relationship between whether the freshman is busy and the amount of contact with the foreign student. C. The university has not provided enough opportunity for personal contact with foreign students. No significant relationship was found for either group between the American students' contact with the foreign students and the oppor— tunities the university provided. The null hypothesis that the American students' contact with the foreign students is independent from the opportunities the university provided, is accepted. The data indicated that those who had the most contacts with the foreign students were the ones who com- plained that the university had not provided enough chance for cross-cultural contacts. This is probably because these students found, through association with foreign students, interesting friends and information concerning foreign cul- tures and therefore looked for more opportunities to have more contacts with the foreign students, while those students who did not have much contact with the foreign students did not have their interests kindled and therefore did not care whether the university provided the opportunity or not. 88 II. American Students' Contacts with Foreign Students and Their Attitudes Toward the Foreign Students: Chi square of 7.91 and 3.96 were obtained for freshmen and graduate students respectively. With one degree of freedom, the former was significant at the five-tenths of one per cent level, and the latter at the 2.5 per cent level. The null _hypothesis that the American students' contacts with the foreign students are independent of their attitudes toward the foreign student is rejected. The accepted hypothesis is that the American students' contacts with the foreign stu- dents are associated with their attitudes toward the foreign students. In other words, those who had better attitudes were likely to have more contacts with foreign students or vice versa. Whether more Contact with the foreign students leads to better attitudes toward them or whether better attitudes toward foreign students lead to more Contact with them is beyond the limit of this study. ‘ Attitude Change as a Result of Having Contact Item 33, choice one, ”After having a foreign student as my friend, I became more interested in his country," gave a chi square of 4.84 and 6.62 for freshmen and graduate stu- dents respectively. The former was Significant at the two and a half per cent level and the latter was significant at the five-tenths of one per cent level. The null hypothesis that the American students' contact with the foreign students is not related to interests created through association is 89 rejected for both groups. The accepted hypothesis is that ‘contact with a foreign student is related to becoming more interested in his country. However, increased interest in the foreign country did not lead to the conclusion that the American student became more favorably or unfavorably impressed toward that country. III. Factors Associated with American Students' Con- tacts with Foreign Students. A. Specific academic interest: chi square of 8.31 with three degrees of freedom was found significant at the two and a half per cent level for graduate students between specific academic interest and contacts with foreign stu- dents. No Significant relationship was indicated in this area for freshmen. The null hypothesis that academic interest is independent Of the American students' contact with the foreign students is rejected for graduate students, but not rejected for freshmen. For graduate students, those who majored in education, home economics, agriculture, engineering, science and veterinary medicine tended to have more contact with foreign students while those who majored in fine arts, language and literature, business, communica- tion arts and social science tended to have less contact with foreign students. The reasons for the relationship between American students' major interest and their contact with foreign students is not included in this study. An explanation for this relationship could be that more foreign students were studying in the fields of education, home 9O economics, agriculture, engineering, science, and veterinary .medicine than were studying in other fields. However, only additional investigation could prove this point. This significant relationship between academic interest and contact with foreign students is lacking for freshmen, but the same trend is as true for freshmen as it is for graduate students. The lack might be due to the fact that more than one-third of the freshmen did not indicate their academic interest, and so were classified as non—preference. B. School level: Chi square of 5.65 with one degree Of freedom indicated a significant relationship between school level and the American students' contact with the foreign students. The null hypothesis that school level is independent from the American students' contacts with the foreign students is rejected. The accepted hypothesis is that school level is associated with the American students' contacts with the foreign students. There could be several reasons for graduate students having more contact with foreign students. For example, more of the foreign students were studying in graduate level than were studying in fresh— men level. The small size of the graduate class also provides more opportunity for the American graduate students to have personal contact with the various foreign students. Moreover, higher levels of education continue to broaden a person's scope and this might account for more eagerness on the part of the graduate students to associate with the foreign student. 91 C. Sex: No significant difference was found between sex differences and contact with foreign students for either group. The null hypothesis that the American students' contacts with the foreign students is independent of sex difference is accepted. The findings indicated that school level rather than sex difference made the difference in cross-cultural personal contacts. D. Number of years spent at Michigan State University: No significant relationship was found for either group between contact with foreign students and the number of years spent on this campus. The null hypothesis that the American students' contact with the foreign students is independent of the time spent at Michigan State University is accepted for both groups. The lack of relationship between these two variables might be that most freshmen have spent a year or- less on the campus, and half of the graduate students have spent less than a year on the campus. The graduate students who have been on the campus longer tended to have more con- tact with the foreign students, though the relationship was not significant. E. Intellectual inclination: With two degrees of freedom, chi square of 3.03 for freshmen and chi square of 1.36 for graduate students indicated some relatinnship be- tween the American students' contacts with the foreign students and their intellectual inclinations. It is not significant enough to reject the null hypothesis that no association exists between the American students' intellectual 92 inclinations and their contacts with foreign students. This discovery reveals the fact that although other studies showed that foreign students tended to like intellectually oriented American students; but the reverse, however, is so slight that it is not significant. The reason for this might be that intellectually oriented students attend fewer social gatherings, thereby meeting fewer foreign students. F. Foreign language: No significant relationship was Obtained for either group between the American students' knowledge of the foreign language and contact with foreign students. However, a ten per cent level significance was found for graduate students. The null hypothesis that the American students' knowledge of the foreign language is not associated with their contact with the foreign students is accepted. The majority of American students understand a foreign language by reading and writing only. To converse with people native to that language is quite a different thing. Furthermore, the foreign languages best known by Americans are French, German and perhaps Spanish. The number of stu- dents from France, and Germany is small in comparison to those from Asia and Africa. They are also more difficult to identify as foreign students by their appearance, so even if an American student wants to get in touch with these foreign students, he may fail to identify them. Thus, knowledge of a foreign language does not motivate and is not in any way significantly associated with the American stu- dents' contacts with the foreign students. 93 G. Travel: No significant relationship was found between travel and the American students' contacts with the foreign students. The null hypothesis that contact with foreign students is independent of his amount of travel is accepted. The lack of relationship between travel and contact with foreign students might be explained as follows: Most students go to various foreign countries as tourists, and for a short period of time. Most of them go to Europe. As mentioned in the last paragraph, Europeans are not as easily identified as foreigners as are students from other areas. Therefore, the tour in Europe is not apt to lead the American student to have more Contact with the foreign students on the campus. Visiting other countries might cause the American students to seek more contact with the people in those other countries. It is to be hoped that in the future, the American student will add Asia, Africa and other in- frequently visited countries to his touring schedule. H. Interest in foreign countries: Chi square of 6.74 and 4.93 were found for freshmen and graduate students re- spectively. With one degree of freedom, the former was significant at the five-tenths of one per cent level, and the latter at the two and a half per cent level. Both were significant enough to reject the null hypothesis that the American students' contacts with the foreign students are independent of their interest in the foreign countries. The accepted hypothesis is that interest in the foreign countries per se is a factor associated with the American students‘ 94 contacts with the foreign students on the campus. It is natural for anyone to get close to something in which he is interested. If a person is interested in a foreign country and is not there, he could seek contact with the .peOple who are from that country. It could also be true that con- tact with a foreign student in turn brings about interest in that foreign country. I. Religion: No significant relationship was indicated between the American students' contacts with the foreign student and their church attendance. This held true for both the freshmen and the graduate groups. The null hypo- thesis that being religious is not associated with the American students' contacts with the foreign student is accepted. The lack of relationship could be due to the fact that going to church does not necessarily mean that a person is religious, nor that he believes in or practices brother- hood. However, the data did show that those who went to church often tended to have more contact with foreign students. J. Age: There was no statistical significance between the age of the American student and contact with the foreign student for either group. The null hypothesis that the American students' contacts with the foreign student is independent of the age difference is accepted. T—\ IV. Confirming or Rejecting the Findings of Others CIA FL I— A. The A-er;can S udentis Preference in Centact x: Foreign Students: The A ergcan student, both freshman and graduate groups, prefers students from Europe, not only as friends but also as partners in cross—cultural marriage. Both groups least prefer the Africans in marriage. Graduate students least prefer students from the Middle East for friendships, while freshmen least prefer the African student. No significant relationship was indicated between the amount of contact and the preference of various foreign students for either group. Therefore, the null hypothesis that additional con- tact is not related to the American students' preference in foreign students is accepted for both freshmen and graduate students. In cross-cultural marriage, however, a chi square of 3.70 with one degree of freedom gave a five per cent significant level for freshmen. No significant relationship was obtained for graduate students. The null hypothesis that no relationship exists between the American students' amount of contact with the foreign student and his acceptance of cross-cultural marriage is rejected for freshmen. It is accepted for graduate students. The lack of relationship for graduate students in this aspect could be that many graduate students gave a negative answer regarding cross- cultural marriage because they were already married. The preference of Europeans as friends and as partners in 1, .‘,l cross—cultural marriage night be because: (1) among ioreign countries, European culture has most to common with the culture of this oountry, and (2) racuai pre— judice. D. Language difficulties: Probabilittes of 0.14 ano .1 were oOtnfined for freshmen and graduate students respectively between language difficulties and the amount of contact. They were not significant enough to reject the null hypothesis that language difficulties are not related to the American students' contacts with the foreign student, though a rela- tionship does exist. This fact might be explained in two ways: either foreign students on the campus speak English fairly well, or even if they do not it does not keep the American students away if they really want personal contacts with foreign students. C. Personal friendliness: Chi squares of 1.05 and 0.58 for freshmen and graduate students respectively did not give enough statistical significance to reject the null hypothesis that personal friendliness is independent of the amount of contacts the American students have with the foreign students. There is, however, a positive relationship between them. The lack of a signficant relationship between personal friendliness and the American students' amount of contacts with the foreign student could be due to the fact that some American students developed friendships with foreign students because they did not have many friends among their own countrymen. D. Participation in extra-curricular activities: Chi square of 1.90 and 2.13 were obtained for freshmen and gradu- ate students. No significance for either group was indicated. The null hypothesis that participation in extra—curricular activities is independent of the amount of Contact with the foreign students is accepted. The lack of signficant rela— tionship might be due to the fact that many extra—curricular activities were more or less exClu81ve to tne foreign stu— (l; ;.e;: 43, Lain: allifix) '4.;. t l e.. ;t3;~e- :1. F CtLi the same extra—curricular activities in wh ch most American students participated. E. Reeldence proxinlty: Chi square of 3.14 with one degree of freedom was significant at the five per cent level for freshmen between residence proximity and the amount of contact with the foreign students. Chi square of 11.10 was found for graduate students, With two degrees of free- dom, it was significant beyond the five-tenths of one per cent level. The null hypothesis that residence proximity is independent of the amount of contact the American students have with the foreign students is rejected for both freshmen and graduate students. The high significant relationship between graduate students' residence proximity and their amount of contact with the foreign students might be because the majority of the graduate students in this study lived in the graduate dormitory, where many foreign students also resided. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The purpose of this study was to investigate the atti— tudes of American students toward foreign students and the extent of their contacts with foreign students, the possible factors associated with the contacts, and to confirm or re— ject a few related findings of others. The major hypotheses of this study were: I. American students do not avoid the foreign students, nor do they seek an opportunity to know them. Along with this hypothesis, a minor hypothesis was formed, suggesting that the lack of personal contact between the two groups may be due to the following factors: a. American students are not empathic to the foreign students. b. Either the American students or the foreign students are too busy. c. The university does not provide enough opportunity for personal contact between the American and the foreign students. II. American students' attitudes toward the foreign students are related to the degree of their contact 98 99 with the foreign students. A minor hypothesis which followed this was that after having asso- ciation with the foreign students, the American students' attitudes toward the countries of foreign students change. Ill. The American students' contacts with foreign students may be associated with such factors as specific academic field, school level, age, sex, the length of time spent at Michigan State Uni- versity, intellectual inclination, the ability to speak foreign language, interest in foreign countries, amount of travel, and religion. Effort was also made to confirm or reject the findings of others in the following cases: A. Most of the American Students prefer students from the European area to those from other fonagn areas. B. Language difficulty is associated with the lack of contact between the American students and the foreign students. C. Personal friendliness, the extra—curricular activities and residence proximity are positively related to contacts with the foreign students. From the reviews of literature, it was indicated that one of the purposes of exchange programs is to promote inter— national understanding by providing students an opportunity to know people from other countries. Studies also indicated that international—mindedness could be achieved through personal IOO contact with foreigners and that satisfactory relationship with people of the host country was highly related to the happiness of the foreigner's sojourn. Most of the above studies were based on foreign students. No study has been made of American students concerning the ideas undertaken in this investigation. The instrument used in this study was a questionnaire. A pilot study was first made. The revised questionnaires were then sent to two hundred and thirty-seven subjects, one hundred and forty-three of whom were freshmen, and the remaining ninety-six were graduate students. All were students at Michigan State University, spring, 1961. From two hundred and nineteen returned questionnaires, seven were disregarded. Three of them were juniors and seniors, and the other four showed obvious contradictions in their responses. Chi square was used to treat the data. The signifi— cant level obtained from the two—tailed test was halved to obtain the significant level for the one-tailed test. Five per cent level was chosen as the accepted level of signifi- cance. When any of the expected entries in the fourfold table was between five and ten, Yate's formula for cor- rection was used. When any of the expected entries in the fourfold table was less than five, Fisher's exact probability formula was used. In addition to chi square, other statistical measures such as mean score, standard deviation and percentage were used to test the first hypothesis. ZlCl Conclusions 1. The American students at Michigan State University did not avoid foreign students and they sought the oppor- tunity to know foreign students. Possible reasons that some American students lacked contact with foreign students were: I) that they were indifferent to foreign students, and 2) that either the American students or foreign stu— dents were too busy. 2. The degree of American students' contacts with foreign students was positively related to their attitudes toward foreign students. The American students usually became more interested in a specific foreign country after knowing foreign students from that country. 3. School level and interest in foreign countries were significantly related to American students' degree of con— tact with foreign students. Significant relationship be- tween specific academic interest and amount of contact with foreign students existed for American graduate students, but not for freshmen. Among graduate students, those who majored in the fields of education, home economics, agriculture, science and veterinary medicine had more contact with foreign students than those who majored in the fields of fine arts, language and literature, business, communication arts and social science. A. In contradiction of the findings of others, it was found that (a) the American students did not prefer associa- tion with foreign students from Europe rather than with 5.02 foreign students from other areas, (b) language difficulty was not related to the lack ofcpntact between the American and the foreign students, and (c) that personal friendliness and participation in extra—curricular activities did not lead to more contact with the foreign students. The finding of the positive relationship between residence proximity and contact with foreign students is confirmed. Implications of the Study 1. If the significant relationship between school level and contact between American and foreign students can be explained on the grounds of higher education, then higher education may become the promoter of international—minded— ness or at least help a person to arouse interest in foreign people and thus promote world understanding and peace. 2. The significant relationship between the American students' attitudes toward the foreign students and the amount of contacts with them should encourage school administrators to provide more opportunities for cross—cultural contacts. 3. The high relationship between American students' lack of contact and their indifference to foreign students implies that providing the opportunity for the two parties to meet each other is not enough. It appears necessary to stimulate the Awerican students' concern for the foreign students and help the foreign students realize that a more satisfying sojourn in this country is partially dependent on how well they can get along with the native students, and that one of the purposes for their coming to the United 103 States is to understand people here as well as to give the people of the United States a chance to know them better. A. The lack of significant relationship of American students' contacts with foreign students and communicative difficulty indicates that if an American student really wants to make a friend with a foreigner, language difficulty will not stop him! 5. Comments on the questionnaire used indicated that more should be done on the campus to promote cross—cultural relationship. Many freshmen commented that they had not realized before how little contact they had with the foreign students. Others said they were not even aware of the pre- sence of foreign students on campus. This defeats the purpose of cross-cultural education. Additional Research Indicated 1. In the limitation of the study, it was mentioned that the questionnaire used is open for criticism. A recognized instrument for such investigations should be deveIOped, since this is a field in which more research should be done. 2. This study deals with the American students' contacts with the foreign students and their attitudes toward the foreign students. The same type of study could be made to extend from the university campus to the community in general, for example, investigations could be made of the impact of foreign students on the community and what contact people in the community have with the foreign students. 104 3. A comparison of the American students' contacts with and attitudestoward the foreign students, and the for- eign students' contacts with and attitudes toward the American students would shed more light on relationships of American and foreign students. 10. ll. 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, Gordon W., ”Some Roots of Prejudice," Journal of Psychology, 22:9—39, 1946. Allport, Gordon W., ”The Nature of Prejudice,” Addison- Wesley Publishing Company, Cambridge 42, Massa- chusettes, 1954, 537pp. Allport, Gordon N., ”Attitudes,” Handbook of Social ngchologY. Edited by Carl Huchison, Humphrey Milford, Oxford Unitersity Press, 1935. 1195 pp. Arjona, Adoracion Q., An Experimental Study of the Adjustment Problems of a Group of Foreign Graduate Students and Group of American Students at Indiana University, Ed.D., Indiana University, 1956, p.665—68. Asar, Prabha G., Images of India and America Held by Students from India at MSU, M.A., Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State College, 1952. Balasundaram, Palayam N., What Do American Students Think about India, New York, 1957, 28pp. Bennett, John N., ”Misunderstandings in Communication Between Japanese Students and Americans,” Social Problems, 3:243-256, April, 1956. Berbusse, D. N., "The Foreign Student on the American Catholic Campus,” National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin, 56zfl28—34. Carlson, Earl R., ”Attitude Change Through Modification of Attitude Structure,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 52:256-61, March, 1956. Carrnon, Garland, ”The Foreign Student in the U.S.,” American Association of University Professors Bulletin, A5:539-SA2, 1959. Chatterjee, Bishws D., "Some Problems of Adjustment," The Asian Student, p. 5, November 19, 1960. Cieslak, Edward C., The Foreign Students in Americag Colle es, Wayne University Press, Detroit, 1955, 159 pp. \)l 1O 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2A. 25. 26. 106 Cook, Stuart N., ”Some Factors Which Influence the Attitudinal Outcomes of Personal Contact," International Social Science Bulletin, 7:51-58, 1955. Cooper, Eunice, ”The Evasion of Propaganda: How Prejudice People Respond to Anti—Prejudice Propaganda,” Journal of Psyphology, 23:15—25, 1947. Corey, Stephen M., ”Attitude, Values, and Aversions,” Teachers College Record, 56:121-8, 1954. Davis, James N., ”Is Too Much Being Done for the Foreign Student," Institution of International Education News Bulletin, 33:7-12, November 1957. “— Davis, James N., ”Will the Foreign Student Be Squeezed Out,” School and Society, 85 299—301, 1957. Davidson, Helen H., ”Some Background Correlates of Per- sonality and Social Attitude,” Journal of Social Psyphology, 38:233—240, 1953. Deutsch, Monroe C., ”The Open Door,” Vital Speech of the DuBois, Cora, Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States, American Council on Education, Washington D.C., 1956, 210 pp. DuBois, Cora, ”Motivations of Students Coming Into the U.S.,” Institute of International Education Newg Bulletin, 29:2-7, June 1954. Edwards, Allen L., Techniques of Attitude Scale Construc- tion, New York, Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1957, 256 pp. Forstat, Reisha, "Adjustment Problems of International Students,” Sociology and Social Research, 36:25-30, 256 pp. Freehill, Maurice F., ”The Democratic College Student,” qurnal of Educational Psychology, A6zu77-87, 1956. Friedenberg, E.Z., ”Ambiguities in our Foreign Student Program,” Institute of International Education News Bulletin, 33:13-17, November 1957. Gardner, John N., ”The Foreign Students in American," Institute of International Education News Bulletin, 28:3—13, January 1955. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 107 Goldsen, Rose K., ”Factors Associated with the Develop- ment of Cross Cultural Social Interaction,” Journal of Social Issue, 12:26-32, 1956. ”*fi Grace, Harry A., Education and the Reduction of Pre- judice," Educational Research Bulletin, 33:169-75, 1954. Grace, Harry A., ”Information and Social Distance as Predictors of Hostility Toward Nations," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47:540—545, 1952. Greenberg, Herbert, ”The Effects of Single-Session Education Techniques on Prejudice Attitudes," Journal of Educational Sociology, 31:82-86, 1957. Guilford, J. P., Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, New York, McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1956. 565 pp. Haller, A. O., and Bray, Barbara, ”Attitudes of American Students Differentially Liked by Latin American Students," Personnel and Guidance, 38:217—221, 1959. Harding, John, ”Attitudes of White Department Store Employees Toward Negro Co-Workers,” Journal of Social Issue, 8:18—28, 1952. Harlan, Howard H., ”Factors Affecting Attitude Toward Jews," American Sociology Review, 7:516—827, 1942. Howard, Victor, ”The Inventory of Beliefs: Changes in Beliefs and Attitudes and Academic Success Predic- tion," Personnel and Guidance, 37 299-302, 1958. Iisager, Holger, ”An Evaluation of an Attempt to Form International Attitudes," Journal of Social Psychology, 30:207-216, 1949. Irish, Donald D., ”Reactions of Caucasian Residents to Japanese—American Neighbors," Journal of Social Issue, 8:10—17, 1952. James, H. E. 0., ”Personal Contact in School and Change in Intergroup Attitudes," International Social Sciencg Bulletin, 7:66-70, 1955- Kiell, Norman, ”Attitudes of Foreign Students," Journal of Higher Education, 22:188-194, 1951. Kuhn, Ferdinand, ”Why They Become Cases,” Asian Student, pp. 5—6, October 22, 1960. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. \fl LO 54. 108 Lagey, Joseph C., ”Social Factors Related to Attitude Change in Students,” Sociology and Social Research, 39:401-403, 1955. Linton, Clarence, "Counseling Student From Overseas,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, pp. 501-521, 1948. Lippitt, Ronald and Watson, J., ”Some Special Problems of Learning and Teaching Process in Cross Cultural Education," International Social Science Bulletin, 7:59-55, 1955. Lysgaard, Suerre, ”Adjustment in A Foreign Society: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees Visiting the U.S.," International Social Science Bulletin, 7:45-51, 1955. MacKenzie, Barbara K., ”The Importance of Contact In Determining Attitudes Toward Negroes,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43:417—441, 1948. Mandelbann, David G” "Comments,” Journal of Social Issue, 12:45-51, 1956. MeGuigan, F. J., ”Psychological Changes Related to Intercultural Experiences,” Psychological Repprts, 4:55—60, 1958. Mead, A. R., ”The Biography of an Attitude," Journal of Educational Research, 48:123-128, 1954. Miller, Helen A., ”U.S. Government Programs of Inter- national Exchange: 1952,” Educational Record, pp. 313-316, October 1953. - Morris, Richard T., The Two—Way Mirror, Minneapolis, The University of Minnesota Press, 1960, 215 pp. Mussen, Paul H., ”Factors Changing Children's Attitudes Toward Negro," Journal of Abnormal and Social ngchology, 44:423:E41, 1950. Nelson, R. L., ”The Psychiatric Needs of Foreign Students,’ Institute of International Educational News Bulletins 33:13-17, 1958. Nystrom, A. H., "The Measurement of Filipino AttitudesH Toward America by Use of the Thurstone Technique, qurnal of Social Psychology, 4:249-252, 1933. Ohles, John F., ”A Look at Foreign Students,” Association of American Colleges Bulletin, 44:285-288, 1958. I 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 61. 62. 63. 65. 66. 67. O\ CO 109 Olsen, Lionel R., ”F Foreign Student' s Reactions to American College Life," Journal of Educational Sociology, 31: 277- 280, 1958. Owen, John E., "American and Pakistan Students," Journal of Higher Education, 30:82—86, 1959. Peterson, James A. and Neumeyer, Martin H., "Problems of Foreign Students,” Sociology and Social Research, 32:787-797, 1948. Plant, Walter T., "Changes in Ethnocentrism Associated with a Two-Year College Experience," Journal of Genetic Psychology, 92:189—197, 1958. Pratt, Dallas, ”Adjusting the Foreign Student--To What," Institute of International Educational News Bulletin, 30:6—9, January 1955. Radke, Marian J. and Cca(el, helen G., ”Chllcttn s Perceptions of the Social Roles of Negroes and Whites,“ Journal of Psycholpgy, 30:3—33, 1950. Rathore, Nagen, The Pakistan Student, American Friends of the Middle East, Incorporated, New York, 1958. Reimann, Mirian, ”How Children Become Prejudiced," Cpmmentagy, 11:88-94, 1951. Riegel, O. W., ”Residual Effects of Exchange-of—Persons,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 17:319-27, 1953. Ryerson, K. A., "Inside and Outside our Gates,” College and University, 33:415-426, 1958. Schmoker, John B., ”Our Unofficial Ambassadors,” Phi Delta Kappan, 35:312-14, 1954. Scott, Franklin D. The American Experience of Sweddish Students, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1956, 129 pp. Selltie, Claire and Hopson, Anna Lee, "The Effects of Sit- uational Factors on Personal Interaction Between Foreign Students and Americans," Journal of Social Issues, 7:33—44, 1956. Siegel, Sidney, Nonparametric Statistics, New York, McGraw— Hill Book Company, 512 pp. Smith, Brewster M., ”Some Features of Foreign Student 4 n- an ii . r L djuSLment,” Journal 01 higher Education, 26:231—241, IOU-1L ’1 . 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 111 ‘5‘”- .‘, "-7 1A 14“” ,‘xf.’ ‘0 -'— A" '3 X! ‘ I.) 1'. ‘L— -' rx 7‘ A I— ~ “’- J- -\ - A r - ~‘ Smith, gJ-Jbbcp H., A lerspecC1Ve lor Further Research On '»'- FV c1 " 1 '- '.‘- .1 ‘ ,3 r 4- -' -n ‘I: — - f\ - A 1" m —' -_ I beD») vital 0111 (1-1- .L-J. 1,.«,cio_:_Oll, «J oul’fllal 01 00618.1 18811.6 , r“ . :‘x 7 ” '3. 1 A 7 _LC - ’j‘x-.'_‘-.'x./ j _J/ K-,) o ‘7‘.. .3 L74 . "‘T."' '1/5 t" H , “- ---'--'—- — .- 1 -'— - r — ‘~ - -' ’ QMth, uUddit H., Do intercultural Experiences Affect Attitudes,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 513469-77, 1955. Spilka, Bernard and Struening, E.L., ”A Questionnaire Study of Personality and Ethnocentrism,” Journal of Social Psychology, 44:65-67, 1956. Thurstone, L.L., and Chave, E. J., The_Mgasurement of Attitude, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1937. 959p. Tuckman, Jacob, ”The Influence of Changed Directions on Stereotypes about Aging, Before and After Instruction," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 14:128-132, 1954. Useem, John, The Western—Educated Man in India, New York, The Dryden Press, 1955. Wagman, Morton, l'Attitude Change and Authoritarian Per- sonality,” Journal of Psychology, 40:3-24, 1955. Watson, Jeanne and Lippitt, Ronald, Learning Across Cul- tures: A Study of German Visitinngmerican, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1955. Wieder, Gerald 8., ”Group Procedures Modifying Attitudes of Prejudice in the College Classroom,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 45:332-44, 1954. Wilner, Daniel; Walkley, Rosabelle P.; and Cook, Stuard W., ”Residential Proximity and Intergroup Relations in Public Housing Project,” Journal of Social Issues, 8:45-69, 1952. Documents Editorial, Michigan State News, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 2, April 3, 1961. Letters to the Editor, Michigan State News, East Lansing, Michigan, P. 2, April 7, 1961. ”Twenty Years of United States Government Programs in Cultural Relations,” Committee on Educational Inter— change Policy, East 67th Street, New York 21, New York. January 1959. 111 83. "Report on the National Conference on Exchange of Persons: Leaders for a Free World," Institution of Inter- national Education, New York, February1955.“ 84. "Educational Exchanges: Aspects of the American Experience," Committee on International Exchange of Persons of the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils. Washington D.C., 1956. 85. "The Goals of Student Exchange: An Analysis of Goals of Programs for Foreign Students,” Committee on Educa- tional Interchange Policy, New York, 1955. APPENDICES 112 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 113 114 QUESTIONNAIRE A small number of students on campus have been selected to answer this questionnaire. The purpose of the study is to learn from the students what kind of contact they have with foreign students and their attitude toward them. Please answer the following items as completely as possible. Major School Level Age Sex Check Yes No 1. I usually avoid meeting foreign students. 2. I pay more attention to foreign students than I do to American students. 3. I seek opportunities to become acquainted with foreign students. 4. I think that I am aware of foreign students' difficulties and try to help them. 5. I think that foreign students are rather lonesome. 6. Foreign students need to have some American friends in order to adjust themselves better in this country. 7. I feel a real concern for some foreign students to the extent that I do not hesitate to talk with them about their (or my) personal affairs. 8. I have so many things around to keep me busy that I do not have time to make friends with foreign students. 9. Foreign students study so hard that they do not have time to develop friendships with Americans. 10. The University provides little chance for us to meet foreign students. Yes No 11. 12. __ 13. 14. 15. Check one or I feel that foreign students are inferior to the American students. Usually foreign students lack good manners. Too many foreign students have come to this country when there are not really enough schools for our own citizens. I like people of other races less than people of my own race. I find it easier to make friends than most people do. more where appropriate 16. I have been at MSU 8.. be 17. My grad \ ,.‘.‘1 a r.“ 7 "'Ldrw 11\/. .1..le .livt3 less than a year 1 to 2 years 2 to 3 years above 3 years e point average is l..__J Ci‘ 0 1’0 t important thing in college is to get a broad cultural education. enjoy the social life. obtain better qualifications for a job. other. (specify, please) 19. 20. 21. 22. During my stay at MSU, I have personally come into contact with ___a. no foreign students. ___b. l to 3 foreign students. ___c. 3 to 6 foreign students. ___d. 6 foreign students or more. I hesitate to make friends with foreign students. Yes___ No___ If ygs, it is because a. they are generally rather reserved. b. language difficulty. c. they are not interested in associating with Americans. d. they are so different. e. they do not appreciate my friendship. f. they have low academic abilities. g. they are snobbish. If a foreign student has difficulties, I will offer my help. Yes No If yes, I will offer it a. as willingly as I do to an American friend. b. more willingly than I do to an American. ___c. less willingly than I do to an American. I would have foreign students a. as regular friends. b. as co—workers. 0. in my neighborhood. d. merely as speaking acquaintances. e. live outside my neighborhood. 117 23. Among foreign students, I prefer contact with those from ___a. Africa. ___b. Asia. ___c. Australia. ___d. Europe. ___e. Latin America. .___f. Middle East. ___?. other. (specify, please) 24. I would feel free to marry a foreigner. Yes__* 1¢_H; if EBB: 1 would prefer to marry a foreigner from _____a . 11:5- 1. JC . _nw9- Asia. ..__ih‘- luJS1LIEllfLa. ___}. Europe. _*_e. Latin Amefiloa. __15- Middle East. ___g. other. (specify, please) 25. Foreign countries interest me a. not at all. b. somewhat. c. only if they relate to a particular course or personal plan. very much. 26. 27. 28. 29. F1 F: O.) I know some foreign language. Yes__~ No___ Number of years studied If ygs, which ones? A. B. C. D. I have traveled abroad. Yes No Duration of trip If yss, which country or countries? A. B. C. D. There is (was) one or more foreign students a. sharing a room with me. b. in the building where I am living. 0. in an organization to which I belong. d. who is a friend of my friends. e. at the place where I am working. f. in one of my classes. The possibility for me to go on for my Master‘s degree is a. very little. b. little. 0. not sure. d. great. e. very great. 119 30. The possibility for me to go on for my Ph.D. is ___a. very little. ___b. little. c. not sure. ”—- d. great. ___e. very great. 31. I participate in the following activities: ___a. student government. b. fraternity or sorority. 0. professional organizations. d. religious activities. e. departmental clubs. f. athletic activities. g. international club. h. campus UN. 1. other. (Specify, please) 32. I go to church a. once a week or more b. about twice a month. 0. about once a month. d. only on important holidays. e. never, or almost never. r , _ 1 33. 34. 128 After having a foreign student as my friend a. I became more interested in his country. b. my attitude toward his country is more favorable than before. c. my attitude toward his country has not been changed. d. the influence of my attitude toward a student's country depends on what kind of person he is. e. other. (specify, please) If you have any comments on any of the preceding items, or on the questionnaire as a whole, please write them briefly in the space below. APPENDIX B LETTER SENT WITH THE QUESTIONNAIRE 121 122 Dear The foreign student enrollment at the university has been rising steadily in recent years. This study is to gather information regarding the contact and attitudes of American students on campus toward foreign students. A group of students was randomly selected to answer the questionnaires. The enclosed copy is for you. All your responses will be treated confidentially. Your COOperation is highly desired and will be very much appreciated. I shall be very grateful if you would kindly return the completed form in the enclosed self—addressed envelop on or before May lO.- You could either give it to the switchboard or drop it in Mr. Parker's office. Thank you. Sincerely yours May Koo ROOM USE ONLY FEB 10 1965 I , . “231.5%?" MH- U G V. LIBRQRIES lfN STRTE UNI llWlllHlHHlllllllllll HUI” IH 293103 7 1 554- 6fil2 HICHI :3