COUNSELING CENTER

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND

A COMPARISON OF U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

ON ATTITUDES OF TOLERANCE FOR DIVERSITY

Marie L . Miville, Bekele Molla,

and William E. Sedlacek

Research Report #7-92

Data were collected in cooperation with the Orientation Office and were analyzed using facilities of the Computer Science Center, both at the University of Maryland, College Park.

COUNSELING CENTER

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND

A COMPARISON OF U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

ON ATTITUDES OF TOLERANCE FOR DIVERSITY

Marie L. Miville, Bekele Molla, and William E. Sedlacek

Research Report #7-92

The current study examined intercultural attitudes and behaviors of 246 incoming international students using the Cultural Orientation and Awareness Test (Miville, Molla, & Sedlacek, 1992) . The results were also compared with 131 incoming U.S. students. International students were likelier to be older, male, and more extensively traveled than U.S. students. These students additionally tended to hold more tolerant attitudes toward diversity than U.S. students, although, overall, both groups of students were found to be generally tolerant. International students were also more likely to interact with persons of differing cultural groups than U. S. students.

These findings seem to imply that incoming international students have high expectations toward the university setting and its ability to respond to diversity as well as themselves and their ability to adapt to a new and different environment. University programs aimed at facilitating international student adaptation to the university setting may be built upon these expectations, encouraging interaction among international students as a group as well as with U.S. students. Such interaction can aid in the overall development of both groups of students, particularly in maintaining and strengthening initial attitudes of tolerance for diversity expressed by these students.

1

While evidence indicates that the number of international students entering US colleges has grown tremendously in recent decades (Boyan, 1981) , both researchers and student affairs professionals have been somewhat slow in responding to this group's needs. Part of the problem stems from the heterogeneity of the group; students who fall under the label "international student" come from many countries and differ individually on a wide range of problems, such as language proficiency and length of time in the U.S. (Manese, Leong, & Sedlacek, 1985) . Such heterogeneity greatly challenges student affairs professionals to effectively identify what are the needs of international students, so that programming may be developed to address these needs (Charles & Stewart, 1991) .

A lack of research interest and methodological problems seem to have contributed to few studies focusing on international students. Methodological issues have included the difficulty of accurately reflecting the diversity of this group as well as the need to use a comparative group, for example, U. S. students, to place the research in a context (Manese, Sedlacek, & Leong, 1988) . Comparisons between international and US students can also provide information on what common concerns and perceptions all students share, as well as what differences there may be, socially and academically.

A number of issues have been identified as being important to many international students. Some of these have financial, academic, and professional themes, such as improving writing or speaking skills and obtaining practical experience in their chosen fields (Manese, Leong, & Sedlacek, 1985) . Other concerns focus on personal adjustment, particularly feelings of loneliness and social isolation that many international students experience living in the United States.

2

One potential issue is the extent to which international students expect to adjust well to the U.S., particularly to the people with whom these students will be interacting. Problems in adjusting can negatively affect academic performance of international students (Charles & Stewart, 1991) as well as increase feelings of alienation. This may lead a student to leave school prematurely; research has already shown, for example, that making on-campus connections is an important variable in the retention of Black U.S. students (Sedlacek, 1987) .

Additionally, cultural barriers exist which may prevent international students from adjusting to the new surroundings of a university environment. These range from difficulties with English to lack of knowledge about social norms in the U. S. (Brun & David, 1971; Manese, Leong, & Sedlacek, 1985) . Attitudes of U.S. students themselves provide yet another barrier to promoting international students' integration into campus life. Miville, Molla, and Sedlacek (1992) found that U.S. students were somewhat ambivalent in their attitudes toward people from diverse backgrounds. Although some evidence exists to the contrary, international students have been found to be aware of such ambivalence (Carter & Sedlacek, 1986). Discovering international students' expectations of how well they think they will be treated in the U. S. then may provide a partial portrait of the initial adjustment problems these students may face.

The purpose of the current study is to compare intercultural attitudes and behaviors of international students with U. S. students in order to better understand both groups. Comparisons were also made between international and U.S. students on attitudes of general tolerance toward people from different backgrounds (eg., gays, persons with disabilities) - These attitudes

3 were measured through the Cultural Orientation and Awareness Test (COAT), an instrument developed by Miville, Molla, and Sedlacek (1992) . The COAT assesses cognitive and behavioral components on intercultural attitudes as well as a more general tolerance for diversity (eg., people with disabilities) and attitudes toward homosexuality as originally designed by Hansen (1982) . Method

The Cultural Orientation and Awareness Test (COAT) was administered to 131 U.S. students (53% male, 47% female) and 246 international students (70% male, 30% female) during an orientation program for entering students at a large eastern university. The COAT is composed of 60 items assessing both demographic and attitudinal variables. The data were summarized through means, standard deviations,-and percentages. A MANOVA using type of student (U.S. vs. international) as a main effect was conducted for items assessing intercultural attitudes as well as general attitudes of tolerance. The MANOVA involved a smaller sample of international students (n = 79) who were attending orientation programming at the same time as U.S. students. Results

Results are divided into the following themes: demographic information, intercultural attitudes, general attitudes of tolerance, and attitudes toward homosexuality.

Demographic information. Sixty-seven per cent of international students surveyed were graduate students, while 33% were undergraduate. In contrast, 100% of the U.S. students included in this study were undergraduate. The racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. sample was: 86% White, 7% Black, 3% Asian-American, 3% Latino, and 0.08% American Indian. The racial/ethnic makeup of the international sample was: 58% Asian, 21% White, 7% Latino, 6%

4 Black, and 8% Other. The mean age for international students was 25 years while the mean age for U.S. students was 18 years. Forty-six per cent of international students's parents had earned a four-year degree or higher, while for 27% of these parents, the highest degree earned was a high school diploma. Over seventy per cent of U . S . students' parents had completed a four-year college degree or better.

In response to the question, "Have you lived in a country other than your own," only 5% of U.S. students stated that they had, while 30% of international students said they had lived in another country. This latter percentage is surprisingly low, given that all of these students were not U. S.

citizens. Fifty-nine per cent of international students and 62% of U.S. students, however, said they had traveled in another country. Most U.S. students (74%) had traveled less than a month, while the mean length of stay for international students was approximately five months. Sixteen per cent of U.S. students and 32% of international students stated that they had studied abroad.

When asked what had contributed most to their knowledge of international affairs, both U.S. and international students identified news organizations or the media (44% and 38%, respectively) as their primary source. In another series of items, 62% of U.S. students and 76% of international students stated that they watched television news daily or often . Sixty-eight per cent of international students stated that they read a newspaper often or daily as compared with 52% of U . S . students. Seventy-seven per cent of international students also said that they read a news magazine often or occasionally while 52% of U.S. students read news magazines occasionally (25% seldom or never read a news magazine) - And 46% of U.S -students and 45% of international

5 students listened to radio news daily or often .

Tables 1 through 3 summarize the means and standard deviations of the remaining COAT items for both US and international students.

Intercultural attitudes. Overall, international students were significantly more likely on all intercultural behavior items to be interactive (see Table 1) . That is, they were more likely than U . S . students to have meals with someone from another country, attend social events where people from different countries participate, invite people from another country to visit, and obtain information about events outside the U.S.

Insert Table 1 about here

In contrast, U.S. and international students agreed on most attitudinal items. Members of both groups stated that they were usually comfortable interacting with people from other countries. Students from these groups also tended to disagree with the statement, "Traveling abroad does not usually help foster respect for other cultures." These students also tended to disagree that cultural differences were so overwhelming that conflicts among nations were inevitable .

Where there were significant differences between the groups, international students tended to show the more positive attitude. For example, these students tended to more strongly endorse the item, "Traveling in other countries helps one appreciate different cultures" than did U.S. students. International students also more strongly disagreed with the item, "There is no other culture as good as my own. " Finally, international students were more likely to prefer living with a family when traveling in another country than

6

U.S. students. This contrasts, however, with the finding that U.S. students found traveling more pleasurable when visiting places with a group as opposed to oneself than did international students.

Attitudes of tolerance. As with intercultural attitudes, U.S. and international students tended to agree on most items assessing attitudes of tolerance. Again, where differences on individual items existed, international students, for the most part, expressed the more tolerant attitude (see Table 2) . Members from both groups, for example, tended to believe that differences of opinions often lead to better solutions. Both groups of students also tended to disagree with the item, "People from a different generation often don't know what is really important." International and U.S. students also tended disagree with the statement, "I could probably never marry someone from another culture because the differences would be too much to overcome. "

Insert Table 2 about here

Differences on items revealed that international students were more optimistic than U.S. students that people could tolerate each other's viewpoints. They were also more optimistic that problems can be solved through negotiation. International students were additionally more likely than U.S. students to believe that they could adjust to life in a wheelchair. This contrasted, however, with the finding that U.S. students were more comfortable than international students when seeing someone with a disability.

Attitudes toward homosexuality. International and U.S. students also tended to hold fairly similar attitudes in this category as well (see Table 3) . Both groups tended to agree, for example, that job discrimination against gays was wrong.

7 Students from both groups also tended to disagree with the statement, "Homosexuals should be isolated from heterosexuals." They also tended to agree that gays were "like everyone else, they simply chose an alternate lifestyle."

Insert Table 3 about here

Differences between international and U.S. students revealed a more positive attitude by international students on two of three items. International students tended to more strongly agree that sexual preference should not be a factor in employment; they also tended to believe that gays do not corrupt young people. On the third item, however, U.S. students more strongly disagreed with the statement, "Homosexuals should not hold leadership positions" than did international students.

Discussion

Results seem to indicate that for the most part, international students and U . S . students were similarly tolerant in their attitudes toward diversity. When these two groups differed, international students tended to present the more tolerant attitudes. This differences can be seen both in items measuring cognitive components of attitudes as well as those items measuring behaviors. In fact, international students were significantly more likely to have interacted with people of different cultures than U.S. students as measured on all behavior items.

There are a several possible reasons that can be given for these findings. International students are by virtue of their status in the position to have interactions with persons from another country, particularly the U.S.

8

The COAT did not specify the term "country" so it is likely that international students interpreted this to include Americans. By being in a foreign country, then, these students are more likely to interact with persons who are not of the same cultural background.

But cognitive items also revealed a similarly tolerant portrait of international students. For example, they stated that they were comfortable interacting with people from diverse backgrounds. These students also expressed a less ethnocentric attitude than did U. S. students, and were more optimistic that differing viewpoints could be tolerated. These findings are in line with Manese, Leong, and Sedlacek (1985) who found that international students expected an environment responsive to their needs as well as high expectations about their abilities to do well within this environment. Part of the network of these expectations would seem to entail students' expectations about the environment's (here the university) responsiveness to diversity as well as their own ability to adapt to a new environment.

Thus, if international students are to survive and succeed on U.S. campuses, it would seem critical for them to have positive attitudes about how the environment will respond to them, i.e., their differentness, as well as how they will be able to handle these new situations. The current study seems to suggest that entering international students are indeed optimistic about the university's and their own tolerance levels. It would be interesting to discover whether these attitudes change over the course of attendance at the university. It would also be interesting to discover if U.S. students studying abroad share these initially tolerant expectations about their environment as well as their comfort levels. Another question might focus on whether portraits of international students (including U.S. student abroad) might demonstrate some

9

important similarities among the members of this group, such as openness to diversity, in addition to differences (for eg., reasons for studying abroad).

Demographically, U.S. and international students represented quite different groups. For example, the mean age differed by several years, international students being older. Implications for the current study may focus on the potential incomparability of these two samples. That is, perhaps the findings resulted because of the groups' differing ages, rather than student status. However, data were collected for both groups during orientation, that is, at the initial entry into the university, and the samples are representative of the overall student population. Thus, the comparisons are still likely to be relevant since they involve entering students' perceptions, regardless of age. What may be concluded from this finding is that international students represent a different population than U.S. students, so that programming will need to reflect these differences. Part of these differences stem from differing values (Story, 1982) , which may be represented here in the more tolerant attitudes expressed by these students.

International and U.S. students were similar on most attitudinal items, suggesting that both groups share generally tolerant attitudes toward each other. But as Miville, Molla, and Sedlacek (1992) noted, these attitudes are marked by ambivalence at the interactive level, especially for U . S . students . Thus, it becomes imperative for institutions to initiate programming encouraging interaction; such interaction may be viewed as a critical step in a student's development because it promotes the development of adaptive skills in the context of celebrating cultural differences. Interaction could also aid in an international student's ability to cope with his or her new surroundings. Previous research (Manese, Leong, and Sedlacek, 1985) has shown these

10

students have limited opportunity to meet other students and make on-campus connections, a factor which may be critical in these students' retention. For the development of individuals from both groups, then, universities and colleges need to devise programming that will maintain and strengthen initially tolerant attitudes of both international and U. S. students.

11

References

Boyan, D. R. (1981). Open doors: 1980-1981. New York: Institute of

International Education.

Brun, M., & David, K . H . (1971) . Intercultural communication and the

adjustment of the sojourner. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 215-230.

Carter, R. T., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1986). Needs and characteristics of

undergraduate international students. Counseling Center Research Report # 1-86 . College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

Charles, H., & Stewart, M. A . (1991) . Academic advising of international

students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,19, 173-181.

Hansen, G . L . (1982) . Measuring prejudice against homosexuality

(homosexism) among college students: A new scale. Journal of Social Psychology,117, 233-236.

Manese, J. E., Leong, F. T. L.- (1985). Background, attitudes, and needs of

undergraduate international students. College Student Affairs Journal, 6, 19-28.

Manese, J. E., Sedlacek, W. E., & Leong, F. T . L. (1988) . Needs and

perceptions of female and male international undergraduate students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 16, 24-29.

Miville, M. L., Molla, B., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1992) . Attitudes of tolerance

for diversity among college students. Journal of The Freshman Year Experience, _4, 95-110.

Sedlacek, W . E . (1987) . Black students on white campuses: Twenty years of

Research. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 484-495.

12

Story, K . E. (1982) . The student profession and the foreign student: A

conflict of values? Journal of College Student Personnel, 23, 66-70.

13

Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Items on Intercultural Behavior and Contact
	Group 1a		Group 2
Item	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
1. I have a meal with a person from another country.*	2.05	0.96	2.65	1.06
2. I attend a social event where people from different countries participate.*	2.06	0.91	2.42	0.96
3. I invite people from another country to visit me at my residence.*	1.81	0.95	2.3	1.02
4. I try to get information about events outside the U.S.*	2.51	1.06	3.52	1.11
5. Traveling in other countries helps one appreciate different cultures.*	1.66	0.92	1.4	0.69
6. There is no other culture as good as my own.*	3.41	1.19	3.84	0.93
7. I am usually comfortable interacting with people from other countries	2.24	0.76	2.25	0.87
8. When I travel, I prefer to take a guided tour with groups of people.	3.27	1.05	3.16	1.14
9. I would prefer to watch information on TV than be a part of an audience.	3.27	0.93	3.3	1
10. Traveling abroad does not usually help foster respect for other cultures because citizens of many countries do not like foreigners	3.71	0.93	3.92	1.01
11. Traveling is often more pleasurable if I visit places by myself than if I go with a group.*	3.13	1.15	2.75	1.2
12. Cultural Differences are so overwhelming that conflict between nations is inevitable.	3.24	0.95	3.01	1.03
13.When I travel, I do not expect to get respect from people whose culture is different than my own.	2.3	0.88	2.13	0.85
14. When I travel in another country, I would prefer to live with a family from that country than stay in a hotel room.*	3.4	1.16	2.47	1

Note: Responses to items 1-4 were based on the following choices 1=Never, 2=Seldom, 3=Occasionally, 4=Often, 5=Daily. Responses to items 5-14 were based on the following choices: 1=Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Neutral, 4=Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree. AGroup 1=U.S. Students and Group 2=International Students.

*Means were significantly different between U.S. students and International students (p<.05).

Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Items of General Tolerance
	Group 1a		Group 2
Item	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
1. Differences of opinion can often lead to better solutions.	2.18	0.8	2.07	0.8
2. It saddens me that others cannot possibly understand me because I am unique.	3.37	0.97	3.3	1.08
3. I could adjust to life in a wheelchair.*	3.86	1.05	3.21	0.9
4. I do not like to discuss social issues.	3.9	0.94	3.8	0.81
5. People from a different generation often don't know what is really important.	3.39	0.97	3.4	1.04
6. It embarrasses me to see a person who is disabled try to open a door.*	3.9	1.02	3.56	1.01
7. I'd rather convince people to agree with my viewpoint than to be aware of theirs.	3.65	0.93	3.84	0.91
8. I could probably never marry someone from another culture because the differences would be too much to overcome.	3.5	1.1	3.49	1.29
9. I am optimistic that people can tolerate each other's viewpoints.*	2.24	0.88	1.61	0.69
10. It's overoptimistic to think that the world's problems will be solved through negotiations.*	3.2	0.98	3.57	1.2
11. I have several friends that are quite a bit older than I am.	2.11	0.95	1.99	0.96
12. It can be overwhelming, even disturbing, when one considers the many differences that exist among people.	2.8	1.03	2.81	0.8

Table 3: Means and Standard Deviations for Items of Attitudes Toward Homosexuality
	Group 1a		Group 2
Item	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
1. Sexual preference should not be a factor in employment opportunity.*	2.24	1.17	1.81	0.98
2. Homosexuals are just like everyone else, they simply chose an alternate lifestyle.	2.76	1.27	2.95	1.41
3. Homosexuals should be isolated from heterosexuals.	3.52	1.14	3.37	1.23
4. Homosexuals should not be discriminated against because of their sexual preference.	2.51	1.17	2.77	1.23
5. Homosexual acts should be illegal.	3.33	1.24	3.15	1.28
6. Homosexuals are a danger to our young people.	3.11	1.27	2.97	1.45
7. I would not like to work with a homosexual.	2.85	1.16	2.91	1.15
8. Homosexuals should not hold high government offices.	3.31	1.12	3.14	1.08
9. Job discrimination against homosexuals is wrong.	2.45	1.1	2.54	0.96
10. Homosexuals should not hold leadership positions.*	3.48	1	3.1	1.19
11. Homosexuals do not corrupt young people.*	2.82	1.05	3.1	1.1
12. I would not want a homosexual to live in the house (apartment) next to mine.	2.76	1.15	2.81	1.21
13. If I found out my friend was a homosexual, our friendship would be damaged.	3.1	1.15	3.15	1.86
14. I would never have anything to do with a person if I knew he/she was a homosexual.	3.5	1.09	3.23	1.13
15. Apartment complexes should not accept homosexuals as renters.	3.68	1.06	3.6	1.1