Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
Vol. 41, No. 2, July 2012, pp. 131–151
Measuring Patterns of Self-Disclosure
in Intercultural Friendship: Adjusting
Differential Item Functioning Using
Multiple-Indicators, Multiple-Causes
Models
Yea-Wen Chen & Masato Nakazawa
This study examined how friendship types, levels of friendship, and cultural backgrounds
affected breadth of self-disclosure (BSD). BSD was measured with six self-disclosure topic
items—in which higher scores indicated greater willingness to engage in conversations
about various topics—from three groups with varying experiences with intercultural
friendships. Confirmatory factor analysis was used with Multiple-Indicators, MultipleCauses models to control for the influence of differential item functioning (DIF, groups
responding differently to particular items). Findings in this study found significant
evidence of DIF. These findings highlight the complex role of cultural backgrounds in the
social penetration processes in intercultural friendships.
Keywords: Intercultural Friendship; Self-Disclosure; Taiwanese; Social Penetration
Theory
Most intercultural friendships face challenges that are largely absent in intracultural
friendships (Chen, 2002; Orbe & Harris, 2008). Research on the cultural grounding
of friendship has demonstrated cross-cultural differences in friendship patterns
(Adams & Plaut, 2003; French, Bae, Pidada, & Lee, 2006; Sheets & Lugar, 2005).
Studies also suggest that cultural differences may hinder the initiation and/or
development of intercultural relationships (e.g., Diggs & Clark, 2002; Gareis, 2000;
Yea-Wen ChenYea-Wen Chen (PhD, University of New Mexico, 2010) is an Assistant Professor at the School of
Communication Studies, Ohio University. Masato Nakazawa (PhD, University of New Mexico, 2012) is a
Lecturer at the Department of Psychology, Ohio University. Correspondence to Yea-Wen Chen,
School of Communication Studies, Ohio University, 007 Lasher Hall, Athens, OH 45701.
Email: Yea-Wen.Chen.1@ohio.edu
ISSN 1747-5759 (print)/ISSN 1747-5767 (online) ß 2012 World Communication Association
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2012.670862
132 Y.-W. Chen & M. Nakazawa
Kudo & Simkin, 2003). Several scholars have indicated that intercultural friendship
remains largely understudied (Chen, 2002; Lee, 2006; Morgan & Arasaratnam, 2003);
thus, this study seeks to fill this gap by examining patterns of disclosure topics in
intercultural friendships between Taiwanese and native English speakers.
Communication is the single most frequent activity in which friends engage (Fehr,
1996; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1983). One of the key communicative features of
friendship formation is self-disclosure (e.g., Matsushima & Shiomi, 2002). Selfdisclosure can be understood as the process of revealing personal information that
others might not know otherwise. Self-disclosure is one of the major interactive
techniques utilized to reduce uncertainty and develop intercultural relationships
(Gudykunst, 1985a; Kudo & Simkin, 2003). In particular, Kudo and Simkin (2003)
have identified self-disclosure as a critical indicator of intercultural friendship, third
only to similarity and frequency of contact. Despite the importance of self-disclosure
in developing close friendships, little is known about the ways in which people
disclose personal information in intercultural friendships, and little has been done to
investigate possible relationships between cultures and self-disclosure. Based on his
finding that traditional Japanese friendship patterns seldom involved intimate selfdisclosure, Barnlund (1989) has even contended that self-disclosure might be a
Western concept. Barnlund’s assertion underscores the need to examine cultural
influences on self-disclosure in friendship patterns.
To investigate the development of intercultural friendships, Altman and Taylor’s
(1973) social penetration theory provides the necessary theoretical linkage between
self-disclosure and relationship development. Altman and Taylor asserted that
individuals engaged in progressively intimate self-disclosure as relationships
developed over time. Intercultural communication scholars such as Gudykunst
(1985b, 1989) have validated that predictions derived from social penetration theory
are applicable to intercultural relationships. However, how individuals disclose
information about themselves in intercultural relationships is largely unexplored
(Chen, 2002; Gudykunst, 1985a).
Another issue involved in studying intercultural friendship is that researchers so
far have only examined friendships between individuals from a very limited number
or range of (national) cultures. In particular, researchers have problematically
privileged cross-cultural comparisons between certain Asian and Western cultures
(Gudykunst, 2002) such as those between Japanese and U.S. Americans (see below,
Friendships in Western and Non-Western Cultures). Hence, several researchers have
voiced the need of testing communication framework on understudied populations
other than the dominant white, middle-class North Americans (Gudykunst &
Nishida, 1983; Love & Powers, 2002). Considering that Sarti (1981) emphasized the
necessity to study each country in its own context, this study seeks to shed light on
relationships in Taiwan. Also, as Hofstede (1991) and Olaniran (1996) have stressed
the correlation between cultural dissimilarity and levels of social difficulty, the higher
levels of cultural dissimilarities between Taiwanese and native English speakers might
indicate greater social difficulties, which underscores the focus of this study on
intercultural friendships between Taiwanese and native English speakers.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
133
In sum, considering the paucity of research on intercultural friendship as well as
the gap of knowledge on the impact of cultures on self-disclosure, this study
examines the relationship between self-disclosure topics and intercultural friendship
between Taiwanese and native English speakers. Such focus is important for several
reasons. First, the focus proffered in this study could have practical implications of
promoting positive intercultural encounters between Taiwanese and native English
speakers. Research has found that frequent contact and forming close intercultural
friendships with members of the host cultures can greatly assist sojourners’
adjustment and adaptation in foreign countries (Olaniran, 1996; Ying, 2002;
Zimmermann, 1995). According to Open Doors 2010 Report, Taiwan remained the
fifth top nation that sent many students to study in the United States (IIE, November
15, 2010); at the same time, there is an increasing movement of white-collar
expatriates from Western developed nations migrating to developing nations in Asia,
Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe (Iredale, 2000). Second, the study of
intercultural friendship has theoretical significance in extending theoretical framework of friendship to intercultural settings (Gudykunst, 1985a; Gudykunst, Lee,
Nishida, & Ogawa, 2005). The available research on intercultural friendships have
explored limited areas such as the formation of intercultural friendship (Gareis, 1995;
Kudo & Simkin, 2003), communication competence (Collier, 1996), and sensationseeking factors in making intercultural friends (Morgan & Arasaratnam, 2003). Thus,
the focus proffered in this study addresses the need of expanding theories on selfdisclosure and relationship to intercultural relationships.
Relevant Literature Review
Social Penetration Theory
Social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Taylor & Altman, 1987) serves as
the bridge between the discussions on relationship development and the process of
self-disclosure. The theorists state that relationship development is based on levels of
self-disclosure; in other words, communication changes from relatively shallow to
greater depth of, as well as relatively narrow to greater breadth of personal disclosure
as relationships develop. While it has been speculated that social penetration theory is
applicable to intercultural relationships (Gudykunst, 1985a, 1989), there remains
limited empirical support for how social penetration processes function in
intercultural relationships.
Friendship and Culture
The notion of friendship is constructed within cultural groups and to some extent
varies across cultural contexts (e.g., Collier, 1996; Gareis, 1999; Sheets & Lugar,
2005). Collier (1996) confirmed that what characterized friendship differed across
ethnic groups in the United States: (a) Latinos stressed relational support; (b) Asian
Americans emphasized positive exchanges of ideas; (c) African Americans placed
134 Y.-W. Chen & M. Nakazawa
emphasis on respect and acceptance; and (d) European Americans valued recognition
of individual needs. Gareis’ (2000) found that both the different category width for
the word ‘‘friend’’ and the different extent of public and private personality layers in
German and U.S. American cultures caused confusion and misunderstandings in
friendships between German students and their host U.S. students. However, there
remains limited understanding of what a friend might or might not disclose across
cultures as well as in intercultural friendships. Though G.-M. Chen (1995) found that
U.S. Americans consistently reported higher levels of disclosure than Chinese on
topics such as interests, opinions, work, personality, and body, nonetheless, little is
known about what such cross-cultural disclosure patterns might play out in
intercultural friendships.
Interpersonal Relationships/Friendships in Taiwanese Culture
In the individualism-collectivism dimension, Taiwanese culture is considered
predominantly collectivistic. Triandis (1995) has stated that collectivistic cultures
are societies in which individuals: (a) think of themselves as parts of their collective
groups; (b) place the goals of the group above personal goals; (c) are trained to obey
authority and be good group members, (d) place great emphasis on duty, loyalty,
obligation, respectfulness, hierarchy, and mutual dependence; (e) distinguish
between ingroups and outgroups; and (f) stay close to their collective groups. It is
important to consider Taiwanese culture as a collectivistic culture in its own sociocultural contexts with its own specific implications for personal relationships.
Empirical research supports that traditional Taiwanese interpersonal relationships
place less emphasis on verbal communication and greater premium on sincerity,
spirituality, and practicality (Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998; Gareis, 1995; Yum, 1988).
Cheng (1987) revealed that interaction and communication among Taiwanese (and
Chinese) people followed a natural and spontaneous pattern. That is, communication
skills and interpersonal relationships are regarded as something that cannot be forced
or taught in contrived contexts, and interpersonal relationships are viewed as closely
tied to the development of the society as a whole. Also, in Gareis’ (1995) descriptive
case studies of five Taiwanese-American friendship experiences, the researcher
observed that communication of the participating Taiwanese international students
appeared cautious, introverted, less impulsive and less aggressive, disapproved of
open disagreement, and inhibited expression of emotions. Despite these preliminary
findings about communication patterns and relationship orientations in Taiwanese
culture(s), it remains inclusive how Taiwanese culture(s) influence communication
choices and processes. Thus, more work is needed to systematically examine the
impact of national cultures on communication processes such as self-disclosure.
Friendships in Western and Non-Western Cultures
Broadly defined, Western friendships are considered voluntary, unconstrained and
spontaneous relationships with reciprocated warm and caring feelings (Fehr, 1996;
Gareis, 1995; Pahl, 2000). There is no one agreed-upon definition or meaning of
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
135
friendship. Despite this difficulty in definition, Bell (1981) and more recently Davies,
Tropp, Aron, Piettigrew, and Wright (2011) argued that friendship is increasingly
gaining importance in the U.S. society as many of the kinship ties gradually weaken.
Friendships in Western cultures tend to prioritize self-concerns and interests and play
a more social and casual role. In contrast, friendships in the collectivistic East Asian
cultures focus more on the long-term goals based on sincerity and spirituality (Yum,
1988). For instance, it has been found that U.S. Americans are more open and
receptive to contact with strangers (Barnlund, 1989) and tend to have many friends
of low intimacy (Triandis, 1995); in contrast, Taiwanese tend to form close and
intimate bonds with relatively few friends (Gareis, 1995). However, little scholarship
has examined how such culture-specific orientations may impact the development of
intercultural friendships such as those between native English speakers and
Taiwanese.
Self-Disclosure
Self-disclosure, the process of revealing and sharing personal information about
oneself to another, is one of the most important factors in the development of close
relationships such as intimate intercultural friendships (Barnlund, 1989; Derlega,
Winstead, Wong, & Greenspan, 1987; Kudo & Simkin, 2003; Matsushima & Shiomi,
2002). For the purpose of this study, the concept of self-disclosure is operationalized
in terms of breadth of self-disclosure(BSD) and measured by various topics of
conversations.
With regards to topics of self-disclosure, one of the benchmark studies is Jourard
and Lasakow’s (1958) research on topic-based factors in self-disclosure. Their
contribution is the widely-used Jourard-Lasakow Self-Disclosure questionnaire
including self-report items that asks respondents to report their disclosure to a
specific person under six general subject areas: (a) attitudes and opinions, (b) tastes
and interest, (c) work or studies, (d) money, (e) personality, and (f) body. Research
has confirmed the validity of this scale for measuring past disclosure to a specific
targeted person (Tardy, 1988).
In terms of topics of self-disclosure in cross-cultural comparison of U.S. and
Japanese friendship patterns, Gudykunst and Nishida (1983) found that U.S.
Americans tended to talk more about topics such as marriage, love, and emotions,
while Japanese inclined to talk about topics such as interests/hobbies, school/work,
biographical matters, and physical activities. Similarly, Cahn (1984) concluded that
U.S. Americans preferred to talk about intimate topics such as marriage, love/dating/
sex, and emotions while Japanese tended to talk about superficial topics such as
interests/hobbies, school/work, biographical matters, and physical activities. Not
surprisingly, Cahn argued, when establishing intercultural friendships, it is of great
importance to respect cultural differences in the depth and scope of conversational
topics.
This centrality of cultural influences on the transactional process of self-disclosure
has been empirically demonstrated. For instance, Wheeless, Erickson, and Behrens’
136 Y.-W. Chen & M. Nakazawa
(1986) comparative examination revealed that non-Western cultures were correlated
to greater depth of disclosiveness while Western cultures were correlated to
greater amount. Following Wheeless’ (1978) conceptualization, amount of selfdisclosure means the quantity of personal information that one voluntarily shares.
Chen’s (1993) research showed a consistent lack of emphasis on amount and depth of
self-disclose among Asian students in the United States. Kito’s (2005) study revealed
that Japanese college students engaged in lower level of self-disclosure than their U.S.
counterparts. In addition, a study on junior high friendships in Japan revealed that
self-disclosure positively related to the breadth of friendship rather than the
hypothesized depth of friendship (Matsushima & Shiomi, 2002).
While these studies ‘‘have’’ demonstrated how self-disclosure is influenced by
cultures, self-disclosure is also believed to be an ongoing and dialectical process that
changes as individuals and relationships develop (Dindia, 1997). For instance,
Gudykunst’ (1985b) study on university students confirmed that self-disclosure was
influenced by the type of relationship, in addition to the degree of cultural similarity.
More importantly, Gudukunst concluded that the only differences between culturally
similar and dissimilar friends were their attributional confidence and shared
communication networks. In other words, cultural dissimilar backgrounds are
becoming less and less significant in established intercultural relationships. These
studies highlight the complex role that self-disclosure plays, with or without cultural
influences, in the development of friendships.
In contrast, a study on junior high friendships in Japan revealed that self-disclosure
positively related to the breadth of friendship rather than the hypothesized depth of
friendship (Matsushima & Shiomi, 2002). On the one hand, these three studies
highlight the role that self-disclosure plays in the development of relationships. On
the other hand, they also point out the centrality of cultural influences on the
transactional process of self-disclosure. For instance, Wheeless et al.’s (1986)
comparative examination revealed that non-Western cultures were correlated to
greater depth of disclosiveness while Western cultures were correlated to greater
amount. Chen’s (1993) research showed a consistent lack of emphasis on amount
and depth of self-disclose among Asian students in the United States. Kito’s (2005)
study revealed that Japanese college students engaged in lower level of self-disclosure
than their U.S. counterparts.
With respect to self-disclosure studies focusing on Taiwanese and Chinese
populations, Chen (1995) discovered that, compared with U.S. students, Taiwanese
university students not only engaged in lower degree of self-disclose but also selfdisclosed less on topics of opinions, interests, work, financial issues, personality, and
body. Anderson, Martin, and Zhong’s (1998) study discovered that Chinese people
tended to communicate and self-disclose to best friends for reasons such as inclusion
needs, similarity in personality and interests, increasing intimacy, alleviating
loneliness, pleasure, and affection. Moreover, they also found that Chinese people
disclosed more to friends than to others. Wong and Bond’s (1999) research on
Chinese university roommates supported the positive correlation between the
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
137
respondents’ friendship rating and the respondents’ amount and intensity of
self-disclosure as well as that of their roommates.
Lastly, among the paucity of research on intercultural friendship, Kudo and
Simkin’s (2003) on intercultural friendship formation of Japanese students in
Australia found self-disclosure to be the third major factor in friendship formation.
Both depth and width of self-disclosure indicated closeness in the friendships, and
self-disclosure in intercultural friendships was affected by the foreign students’
spoken English skills as well as their openness of communication.
These studies mentioned above have given a valuable insight into the relationship
between self-disclosure and the development of intercultural relationship. However,
there is still a dearth of research exploring this relationship, and also little research
has been done to investigate self-disclosing processes in non-Western cultures.
Friendship Development
Relationships are conceptualized to progress in phases or stages toward higher
degrees of intimacy. However, the majority of research on relationship development
focuses on romantic relationships rather than friendships. Researchers interested in
friendship formation tend to focus their analysis on the underlying dimensions of
friendship formation, such as trust, support, and helping behavior, rather than the
processes (Cushman & Cahn, 1985). Also, relationship development models are
rarely applied to cross-cultural or intercultural samples (Korn & Nicotera, 1993). The
few studies that do focus on friendship development tend to examine either stages of
development in friendships or levels of closeness in friendships (Chan & H.-L., 2004;
Finn & Powers, 2002; Johnson, Wittenberg, Villagran, Mazur, & Villagran, 2003;
Korn & Nicotera, 1993).
Different levels of friendship progression have been conceptualized. In Korn and
Nicotera’s (1993) review on conceptualization of friendship levels, they highlighted
Parks’ model of 10 levels from acquaintances to intimate friends as well as LaGaipa’s
model of four levels from social acquaintances to best friends in friendship research.
Specifically, LaGaipa’s (1977) four distinct levels of friendships are (a) acquaintances,
(b) casual friends, (c) good friends, and (d) best friends. Similarly, Johnson et al.
(2003) examined friendships of three intimacy levels: casual, close, and best friends.
Considering the increase of intimacy in friendship development, this study adopts a
classification system similar to that of LaGaipai (1977) and Johnson et al. (2003).
Research Questions
This study seeks to investigate the relationship between self-disclosure and
intercultural friendship between Taiwanese and native English speakers. This task
calls for a comparative examination of friendships between (a) sojourning Taiwanese
in the United States and the host native English speakers as opposed to (b) the
friendships between native English speakers living in Taiwan and the host Taiwanese
people. Ellingsworth’s (1988) theory of adaptation in intercultural dyads provides the
138 Y.-W. Chen & M. Nakazawa
theoretical rationale for this comparative proposal. Adaptation theory proposes that
territorial advantage or ‘‘owning the turf’’ (p. 276) is one of the major factors that
conditions adaptation. Specifically, because the participant with a territorial
advantage has both physical and psychological control of the environment, the
responsibility of adaptation then usually falls on the shoulders of the foreigner and
requires him/her to display adaptation. Therefore, we argue that it is more critical to
examine the foreigners’ experiences of disclosing themselves when making friends
with members of the host culture. While there has been extensive research on
friendship and communication in Western cultural contexts (e.g., Rawlins, 1992,
2009), friendship in the context of Taiwan has not received much attention from
communication scholars. Thus, we consider it necessary to include intracultural
friendship in Taiwan as a reference group for better understanding the experiences of
sojourning Taiwanese. In sum, this study examines comparatively the BSD among
three groups of participants: (a) sojourning native English speakers (SojNES) in
Taiwan, (b) sojourning Taiwanese (SojT) in the United States, and (c) Taiwanese in
Taiwan (TaiIT) who primarily socialize with other Taiwanese. We attend to breadth
rather than depth of disclosure partly because we are confident that the range of selfdisclosure topics is conceptually equivalent across cultures (e.g., tastes and interests,
the body, and personality), whereas we are uncertain if deep or intimate selfdisclosure means the same across cultures. The following research questions are
proposed to guide this study:
RQ1: To what extent do friendship types (i.e., intercultural friendship vs.
intracultural friendship) influence BSD at each level of friendship development,
in the case of SojT vs. TaiIT?
RQ2: To what extent do cultural backgrounds (i.e., from Taiwan vs. from Englishspeaking countries) influence BSD at each level of friendship development, in
the case of SojT vs. SojNES?
Social penetration theory, supposing that self-disclosure increases as friendships
develop, may predict that differences in BSD among the three groups would be
constant across the friendship levels. That is, the group with the highest BSD at the
strangers’ level may still be the highest at the other levels (Figure 1a). In contrast,
the group that had the lowest BSD at the strangers’ level may display BSD closer to
the other two groups at the highest level (Figure 1b). If the latter were the case, the
relationship between self-disclosure and friendship development may be moderated
by types of friendship as well as cultural backgrounds of the participants (e.g.,
cultural socialization; Hughes et al., 2006; Trans & Lee, 2011). By answering our
research questions, we examined which predictions were closer to our findings.
Methods
Prior to conducting this research, the first author obtained an approval from the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the university with which she was affiliated
during the time of conducting this project. All data were collected after obtaining
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
139
Figure 1. Hypothesized Patterns of Changes in Breadth of Self-Disclosure
Across Friendship Levels. (1a). A pattern consistent with social penetration theory;
(1b). A pattern inconsistent with social penetration theory.
informed consent. Additionally, since this project involved respondents from or in
Taiwan who may not be familiar with the English language, we made available an
IRB-approved Mandarin Chinese version of the consent form.
Research Participants
Populations for the present study comprised: (a) SojNES residing in a large city in
Northern Taiwan, (b) SojT residing in a large metropolitan area in the U.S.
Southwest, and (c) TaiIT who primarily socialized with other Taiwanese. Participants
in all three groups were recruited through direct contact by the first author. In
addition, a snowball sampling procedure was also employed. The primary criteria for
the selection of participants were their experiences in making friends as well as their
cultural backgrounds. Also, each SojNES and SojT self-reported to have developed
close intercultural friendships with members of the host culture, while each TaiIT
had developed intimate friendships with other Taiwanese people. The participants in
this study were 56 SojNESs, 49 SojTs, and 67 TaiITs (N ¼ 172).
Most of the SojNESs were English instructors residing at a metropolitan city in
Northern Taiwan during the time of this study. Of the 56 SojNESs, 26 were U.S.
Americans, 15 Canadians, 8 New Zealanders, 5 Britons, 1 Australian, and 1 South
African. In this study, we categorized seven different national cultures into one group
of SojNES, even though there may have been no differences within this group.
140 Y.-W. Chen & M. Nakazawa
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N ¼ 172).
Sojourning
Taiwanese
Characteristic
M
Sample Size (n)
Ageþ
% Male**
% from the U.S.
56
30.4
69.6
26.8
Highest education level completed
High school diploma
Bachelar’s
Master’s
A Ph.D.
Other
Length of Sojourning
Number of Intercultural Friends
Number of Intracultural Friends
3.6
58.9
23.2
3.6
10.7
4.1
2.5
2.8
Sojourning
Native English
Speakers
Taiwanese
in Taiwan
Range
M
Range
M
Range
22–51
49
28.6
32.7
20–60
67
26.6
38.8
18–53
1–7
6–10
6–10
26.5
40.8
14.3
0.0
18.4
4.3
2.0
3.0
14.9
53.7
19.4
0.0
12.0
1–7
1–5
11–15
2.2
1–5
Note: M ¼ mean; þ p ¼ 0.06, **p50.01.
For the purpose of this study, our categorization was justified for both statistical and
contextual reasons. Statistically, a series of one-way ANOVAs with the nationalities
among English speakers as the independent variable revealed that the nationality
variable had no significant effect on any of the demographic variables or indicators
(adjusted ps 4 0.20). Therefore, these English speakers were categorized into one
SojNES group although we recognize potential diversities among peoples from
different English-speaking countries. Contextually, the cultural line in intercultural
friendship in Taiwan as situated in this study was drawn between Western versus
Taiwanese and native English speakers versus non-native English speakers (or native
Mandarin Chinese speakers). For instance, one participant in the larger study that
this research was part of remarked that he often felt like ‘‘a walking English
dictionary’’ in interacting and relating to Taiwanese.
The majority of the SojTs (n ¼ 40) were Taiwanese international students enrolled
in a large university in the U.S. Southwest. Nearly half of the TaiIT (n ¼ 33) were
college students at the time of this research, and the other half (n ¼ 34) were not.
Additional descriptive statistics of demographic and sojourning variables are shown
in Table 1.
The group difference was significant in sex (70/33/39% in SojNES/SojT/TaiIT;
p50.01) and marginally significant in age (30.4/28.6/26.6; p ¼ 0.06). Sex and age
differences are known to influence communication patterns in friendships (e.g.,
Holladay & Kerns, 1999; Mortenson, 2005), so these two variables could have
influenced the observed outcome. Thus, to control for potential sex and age effects,
these background variables were included in the model as covariates.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
141
Procedures and Research Instruments
The authors used a survey questionnaire to measure BSD and its potential change
across three levels of intercultural friendships (strangers,1 casual friends, and good
friends). This questionnaire has been successfully used to measure patterns of selfdisclosure in participants from collectivistic cultures (Chen, 2006). The survey,
derived from Jourard-Lasakow’s Self-Disclosure questionnaire (1958), consisted of
six topic areas: (a) attitudes and opinions, (b) tastes and interests, (c) work or
studies, (d) money, (e) personality, and (f) body and appearance. The survey
questionnaire separately asked participants to indicate their agreement with each
item whether they were ‘‘often willing to talk about’’ a certain topic when talking
with ‘‘strangers,’’ ‘‘casual friends,’’ and ‘‘good friends’’ on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). In total, the survey
questionnaire consisted of 18 items (¼ 6 items 3 scales) and 11 demographic
questions. To assess the internal consistency of the participants’ response to the
survey, Cronbach’s was computed for each group (3) within each friendship level
(3). In all 3 3 ¼ 9 subgroups, participants showed acceptable levels of internal
consistency (s 4 0.70, see Table 2).
There was one version of the survey for each of the three specified groups. The
version for SojNES asked participants to think about themselves talking with
Taiwanese strangers, casual friends, and good friends. The version for SojT asked
when they were talking with U.S. American strangers, casual friends, and good
friends. The version for TaiT asked when they were talking with Taiwanese strangers,
casual friends, and good friends. Thus, the questionnaire asked SojNES and SojT
about their self-disclosure in intercultural friendship, but it asked TaiIT about their
self-disclosure in intracultural friendship. In the case of Taiwanese people who may
not speak English, an equivalent version of the survey in Chinese was proofread and
checked by a native Chinese speaker who spoke Mandarin and Taiwanese. Also, a
bilingual individual fluent in Chinese and English read the Chinese version of the
survey and translated the items back into English to check semantic connotations
of the word choices as it is customarily done with translated surveys (Lin &
Harwood, 2003).
Analysis
We shortened the original self-disclosure scale to ensure that the developed
questionnaire could be reasonably completed within 20–25 minutes to prevent
fatigue. Thus, to test the empirical validity and model fit of the shortened
measurement, the scale along with background variables was submitted to
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the Mplus structural equation modeling
program with maximum likelihood estimation (ver. 6). The confirmatory model
assumed a three-factor solution: BSD with Strangers, Casual Friends, and Good
Friends (see Figure 2). The same set of participants was repeatedly asked to respond
to the same items at different levels of friendship: the obtained data have a repeatedmeasures structure. Therefore, residuals in the model between corresponding
142 Y.-W. Chen & M. Nakazawa
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Item Scores by Group and Friendship Levels.
With Strangers
Items
M
SD
Skew
With Casual Friends
K
M
Sojourning Native English Speakers (n 56)
Attitude 3.50 1.11 0.45 0.38 3.79
Tastes
3.89 1.04 1.19
1.45 4.21
Studies
4.07 0.87 1.51
3.03 4.32
Money
2.25 1.19
0.89
0.02 2.70
Personalit 3.30 1.06 0.27 0.40 3.77
Body
1.98 1.17
0.89 0.46 2.48
Cronbach’s 0.75
Sojourning Taiwanese (n 49)
Attitude 2.98 1.03 0.08
Tastes
3.49 1.10 0.61
Studies
3.61 1.00 0.46
Money
1.90 0.92
1.55
Personalit 3.12 1.20 0.24
Body
2.16 1.14
0.80
0.88
0.56
0.83
3.61
1.01
0.13
in Taiwan (n 67)
2.95 0.90
0.05 0.47
3.12 0.98 0.25 0.20
3.00 1.00
0.19 0.85
2.07 0.89
0.77
0.74
2.45 1.02
0.77
0.18
2.40 0.91
0.61
0.10
Cronbach’s a 0.83
Skew
K
0.95
0.73
0.79
1.29
1.04
1.28
0.48
0.04
0.94
1.39
1.11
0.98
0.33 1.02
0.60 0.35
0.47 0.77
Mean
SD
Skew
K
4.34
4.45
4.45
3.29
4.23
2.93
0.79
0.81
0.81
1.32
0.89
1.19
1.60
2.08
1.43
0.36
1.75
0.01
4.32
5.88
1.48
1.03
4.38
0.94
Cronbach’s 0.75
3.49
4.00
4.02
2.47
3.61
2.49
Cronbach’s 0.75
Taiwanese
Attitude
Tastes
Studies
Money
Personalit
Body
SD
With Good Friends
0.84
0.71
0.72
0.98
0.79
1.06
0.29 0.52
0.74
1.34
0.72
1.16
0.99
0.40
0.52 0.03
0.08 1.20
Cronbach’s 0.71
4.08
4.29
4.27
3.08
4.10
2.96
Cronbach’s 0.73
3.43
3.51
3.52
2.73
3.01
2.84
0.86 0.38
0.02
0.86 0.02 0.58
0.82 0.58 0.40
0.79
0.71 0.41
0.91
0.59 0.43
0.81
0.31 0.47
Cronbach’s 84
0.70
0.65
0.67
1.08
0.68
1.00
0.11
0.35
0.37
0.04
0.54
0.31
0.90
0.64
0.73
1.00
0.76
0.70
Cronbach’s 0.70
4.19
4.25
4.09
3.52
3.88
3.55
0.72 0.56
0.70 0.67
0.73 0.38
0.89 0.07
0.84 0.55
0.84 0.41
Cronbach’s
0.00
0.33
0.28
0.69
0.07
0.38
0.83
Note: M ¼ mean; SD ¼ standard deviation; K ¼ kurtosis.
indicators were allowed to be correlated (e.g., the Money indicator with BSD with
Strangers with the Money Indicator with BSD with Casual Friends; Brown, 2006;
Ledbetter, 2010).
The model was evaluated based on two sets of criteria. First, the overall fit of the
model was evaluated using the following fit indices: (a) the ratio of 2 to degrees of
freedom (2/df); (b) the comparative fit index (CFI); (c) the Tucker-Lewis index
(TLI); (d) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA); and (e)
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). An acceptable model fit was defined
as meeting at least four of the above criteria (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Field, Tyre,
Jonzen, Rhodes, & Possingham, 2004; Kline, 2011; Ledbetter, 2010): 2/df53.0,
RMSEA50.08, and CFI/TLI 4 0.90, and SRMR50.10.2 Second, each individual
indicator was evaluated using the following criteria: (a) an indicator needed to have a
significant standardized factor loading; and (b) the standardized residual variance of
an indicator was less than 1.96 (Brown, 2006).
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
143
Figure 2 Hypothesized Model of Factorial Structure of Breadth of Self-Disclosure. Latent
constructs are shown in ellipses, and observed variables are shown in rectangles.
BSD ¼ breadth of self-disclosure; S1/CF1/GF1 ¼ attitude; S2/CF2/GF2 ¼ tastes; S3/CF3/
GF3 ¼ studies; S4/CF4/GF4 ¼ money; S5/CF5/GF5 ¼ personality; S6/CF6/GF6 ¼ body;
Pre-DIF ¼ standardized factor loadings before controlling for DIF; Pre-DIF ¼
standardized factor loadings after controlling for DIF. All factor loadings significant at
¼ 0.01 level.
Since we were interested in measuring the latent factor of BSD and comparing its
means across preexisting cultural groups, we needed to test whether these groups
similarly responded to items of the measuring instrument (i.e., measurement
invariance; Byrne, 2008; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). There are two common
approaches for testing measurement invariance: multiple-groups CFA and multipleindicators, multiple-causes (MIMIC) models (Brown, 2006).
While the first approach is more versatile, allowing researchers to examine all
potential aspects of invariance across groups, we chose MIMIC models for the
following reasons. First, MIMIC models require smaller sample size than multiple
groups CFA, especially when a study involves three or more groups (Brown, 2006).
Second, MIMIC models allow us to compare factor means and indicator intercepts
across groups, our primary interest. Third, they enable us to detect differential item
144 Y.-W. Chen & M. Nakazawa
functioning (DIF): participants from different groups with the same latent-factor
score responding differently to specific items (Zumbo, 2007). One advantage of
MIMIC models is that one can compare latent-factor means across groups while
controlling for DIF effects.
We first ensured that the three-factor model of BSD with Stranger, Casual Friends,
and Good Friends with the three covariates of Sex, Age, and Group was reasonable
and good fitting in the full sample using on the criteria described above. Second, we
examined the evidence of DIF by fixing all direct effects between the Group covariate
and the indicators to zero. Afterward, we allowed the direct effects with modification
indices greater than 4.0 to be freely estimated (Brown, 2006). Finally, to answer our
Research Questions (RQs), we performed contrast tests comparing SojNES with SojT
for RQ1 and SojT with TaiIT for RQ2 while controlling for potential DIF effects.
Results
Descriptive statistics (M, SD, skewness, kurtosis) for each subgroup is shown in
Table 2. Because some subgroups showed evidence of extreme skewness
(|skewness| 4 2.0) and kurtosis (|kurtosis| 4 3.0), we suspected that the multivariate
normality was likewise violated. Therefore, we used Mardia’s test of multivariate
normality to confirm a significant violation of multivariate-normality (p5.001). To
obtain accurate parameter estimate under multivariate non-normality, we used the
robust maximum-likelihood estimator based on the Satorra-Bentler scaled 2 (SB2)
(Satorra & Bentler, 1994).
We first evaluated the overall fit of a CFA model with three-factor solution. The
five fit indices were above the recommended benchmarks: SB2 (159,
N ¼ 172) ¼ 267.39, p50.01, SB2/df ¼ 1.68, CFI ¼ 0.92, TLI ¼ 0.90, RMSEA ¼ 0.06,
SRMR ¼ 0.09. All standardized factor loadings were significant at the ¼ 0.01 level
while none of the standardized residual variances was greater than 1.96. These results
together indicated that the three-factor solution fit the data acceptably well.
We subsequently evaluated the effect of the three covariates. The direct effect of
Group was significant on all BSD factors: on BSD with Strangers: Standardized
coefficient (Standard error in parentheses) 0.49 (0.09), p50.01; with Casual
Friends: 0.52 (0.09), p50.01; with Good Friends: 0.21 (0.10), p ¼ 0.04. This
significant Group indicates that groups significantly differed in the BSD. The Age
effect was significant only on BSD with Casual Friends (p ¼ 0.01) while Sex was not
significant on any of the factors (ps 4 0.20).
It is possible that these significant group effects may have been caused by certain
item bias, indicated by significant DIF. To detect DIF, all direct effects from Group to
all 18 indicators were fixed to 0 in the model, and modification indices were
examined. The model showed that Group had significant direct effects on Studies and
Body indicators for BSD with Stranger (ps50.01). Specifically, given the same BSD
factor score, SojNESs self-disclosed significantly more about work and studies with
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
145
strangers than TaiITs (p50.05). On the other hand, they self-disclosed significantly
less about their body and appearance than both SojTs and TaiITs (ps50.05).
To determine whether the effect of Group was still significant while controlling for
these DIF effects, a new model was fit with the direct effects of Group on the Studies
and Body indicators for the BSD-with-Stranger factor. The five fit indices again were
above the recommended benchmarks with slightly better model fit: SB2 (157,
N ¼ 172) ¼ 256.07, p50.01, SB2/df ¼ 1.63, CFI ¼ 0.93, TLI ¼ 0.90, RMSEA ¼ 0.06,
SRMR ¼ 0.09. Again all standardized factor loadings were significant at ¼ 0.01 level
while none of the standardized residual variances was greater than 1.0. These results
together indicated that the three-factor solution with DIF effects fit the data
acceptably well. Most importantly, all the Group effects remained significant, and
their effect sizes were nearly unchanged: BSD with Strangers: 0.46 (0.09), p50.01;
with Casual Friends: 0.52 (0.09), p50.01; with Good Friends: 0.21 (0.10),
p ¼ 0.04.
To answer our Research Questions, we performed contrast tests, comparing latentfactor means for SojNES with SojT and SojT with TaiIT. SojNESs had significantly
greater latent factor means than SojT in BSD with Strangers (0.46 [0.22], p ¼ 0.03)
but only marginally in BSD with Casual Friends (0.34 [0.19], p ¼ 0.08) and with
Good Friends (0.36 [0.21], p ¼ 0.08). SojTs had significantly greater latent factor
means than TaiIT in BSD with Strangers (0.45 [0.22], p ¼ 0.04) and with Casual
Friends (0.67 [0.19], p50.01) but not with Good Friends (0.07 [0.20], p 4 0.20).
Overall, our result supports the model inconsistent with social penetration theory
(Figure 1b) rather than the consistent model (Figure 1a).
Discussions and Conclusions
This study attempted to bridge gaps among self-disclosure, friendship development,
and types of friendship as well as cultural backgrounds. Three groups with varying
intercultural friendship experiences were studied: sojourning Taiwanese (SojT) in the
United States, sojourning native English speakers (SojNES) in Taiwan, and Taiwanese
in Taiwan (TaiIT) who primarily socialize with other Taiwanese.
This study concludes the following findings. First, cultural backgrounds (i.e.,
native English speaking vs. Taiwanese) influenced patterns of self-disclosure in
intercultural relationships. Specifically, sojourning native English speakers had
significantly broader self-disclosure when talking with strange Taiwanese than
sojourning Taiwanese talking with strange U.S. Americans. On the other hand, this
cultural difference was not significant when they were talking with casual or good
intercultural friends, suggesting that the effect of cultural backgrounds may be
depending on the degree of friendship. Second, friendship types (i.e., intercultural vs.
intracultural) influenced patterns of self-disclosure. Specifically, sojourning
Taiwanese had significantly broader self-disclosure when talking with U.S.
Americans who were strangers or casual friends than Taiwanese in Taiwan talking
with Taiwanese who were strangers or casual friends. This group difference was not
146 Y.-W. Chen & M. Nakazawa
significant when they were talking with good friends. Again, suggesting that the effect
of friendship types may also be dependent on degrees of friendship. These findings
highlight a complex interplay among cultural backgrounds, friendship types, and
degrees of friendship in influencing patterns of self-disclosure.
Our study also found evidence of DIF on certain topics in a context-specific
manner. Specifically, sojourning native English speakers had tended to disclose more
about studies and work but less about body and appearance than their Taiwanese
counterparts, but this difference was significant only when they were talking with
strangers. There was no such effect when self-disclosure involved casual or good
friends. These findings together suggest that the context (i.e., degrees of friendship)
modifies the extent to which cultural backgrounds and friendship types influence
participants in self-disclosing about certain topics.
Our findings suggest that cultural dissimilarities influence early stages of
relationship development more than later stages, not just in the early stages of
relationship development. Differences between the three groups examined further
sheds lights on the self-perceived influences of cultural backgrounds (i.e., Taiwanese
vs. English speaking) and types of friendships (i.e., intra- vs. intercultural) on the
social penetration processes in intercultural friendships.
When comparing SojTs and TaiITs’ self-reported self-disclosure, SojTs consistently
revealed themselves more to strangers than TaiITs as indicated by greater factor
means for breadth of self-disclosure. Notions of insider-outsider dichotomy and
implicit communication (Gao, 1996; Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998) help to explain
TaiITs reservation toward strangers. As Confucius’ principles of faithfulness (i) and
propriety (li) indicates, it is only socially appropriate for a Taiwanese person to
refrain from self-disclosing to a stranger. Empirically, Barry (2003) identifies the
phenomenon of guarded self-disclosure among Asians based on his study of 170 East
Asian immigrants in the United States. In contrast, SojTs self-reported disclosing
more to strangers might be the results of accommodating to the targeted Western
strangers or assimilating to the social norms of disclosure in the host U.S. society.
After all, self-disclosing is a dyadic and transactional activity (e.g., Dindia, 1997).
On the other hand, this study found that TaiITs disclosed substantially more
broadly to good friends than SojTs. The insider-outsider dichotomy also supports the
Taiwanese’s treating close friends as sibling or family members to whom they could
disclose more freely and openly without worries (Gao, 1996; Gao & Ting-Toomey,
1998). In comparison, SojTs disclosing less to good intercultural friends might be due
to factors such as cultural dissimilarities, English language competency, intercultural
communication competence, social difficulties, or discontentment with their
American friendships as suggested by previous literature (Collier, 1996; Kudo &
Simkin, 2003; Olaniran, 1996; Zimmermann, 1995).
The effects of both friendship types and cultural backgrounds appear to have
decreased as friendship develops (i.e., from strangers to good friends). While
Gudykunst et al. (e.g., Gudykunst, 1985a, 1985b, 1989; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1983)
indicate that communication in intimate intercultural relationships tend to be more
personalized and synchronized, the substantial difference between SojTs and TaiITs
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
147
in this study suggests that communication in close intercultural friendship may not
be as personalistic as that in close intracultural friendship and may be more complex.
As Chen (2002) and Collier (2002) argue, issues such as stereotypes, social power,
unearned privilege, cultural identities, and social perceptions are often implicated in
intercultural relationship communication processes and need to be taken into
account when considering the social penetration processes of intercultural
relationships.
When comparing SojTs and SojNESs, one significant difference was found.
SojNESs in this study disclosed more to strangers in various topics than SojTs.
Similarly, G.-M. Chen’s (1995) study of 200 U.S. American students and 144
Taiwanese international students in the United States found that the U.S. Americans
consistently self-disclosed more than Taiwanese/Chinese on the same six topics
examined in this study. Also, Chen concluded that the U.S. students in his study
disclosed substantially more than Taiwanese/Chinese students to target persons such
as strangers, parents, and intimate friends. This study found that SojNESs disclosed
more on topics than SojTs only to strangers, but not to causal or good friends. This
finding may be inclusive and needs further verification partly because of the
heterogeneity of population within the SojNESs from five different English-speaking
countries and partly because of the confounding factor of sojourning.
Several methodological limitations in this study should be noted. First, the
sojourning subjects used in this study were mostly overseas Taiwanese students and
an overwhelming number of male native English speakers teaching English in
Taiwan. Besides the demographic differences between the two groups of sojourners,
the sample represented a small range of socioeconomic backgrounds and age groups.
Moreover, as teachers of English, the sojourning native English speakers were most
likely surrounded by Taiwanese who were already interested in Western cultures and
thus may not have been required to adapt in the same manner required for
businessmen or missionaries. Second, measuring self-disclosure through self-reports
is open to a number of biases, among which is a tendency to either underreport or
overestimate levels of disclosure with friends for reasons of impression management.
Despite these methodological limitations, this is a unique exploratory study that
attempts to shed light on an understudied yet valuable phenomenon in this
increasingly globalized world today.
Taken together, our findings add to the growing evidence that cultural factors
influence the development of socialization practices (Hughes et al., 2006), including
friendship (Trans & Lee, 2011). Future research should strive for a more
comprehensive understanding of the dyadic nature of self-disclosure and the
complex influences of cultures on the social penetration processes in developing and
maintain intercultural friendships. Specifically, the authors recommend the following
to better understand the social penetration processes in intercultural friendships: (a)
including more levels or stages of friendship, (b) investigating culturally specific
conceptions of self-disclosure using qualitative research methods, (c) using
longitudinal studies with multiple methods, or (d) employing an experimental
study involving pairs of intercultural friends for verification and cross examination.
148 Y.-W. Chen & M. Nakazawa
Notes
[1]
[2]
As friendship typically developed from relationships with individuals who were first
considered strangers, communication with strangers served as the baseline for understanding intercultural friendship development in this study.
While a range of cut-off values have been proposed for each index, we chose less
conservative values because, given the exploratory nature of our study, we wished to reduce
the chance of committing Type II errors (Field et al., 2004).
References
Adams, G., & Plaut, V. C. (2003). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: Friendship in
North American and West African worlds. Personal Relationships, 10, 333–347.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Anderson, C. M., Martin, M. M., & Zhong, M. (1998). Motives for communicating with family and
friends: A Chinese study. The Howard Journal of Communication, 9, 109–123.
Barnlund, D. C. (1989). Communicative styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and realities.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Barry, D. T. (2003). Cultural and demographic correlates of self-reported guardedness among East
Asian immigrants in the U.S. International Journal of Psychology, 38, 150–159.
Bell, R. R. (1981). Worlds of friendships. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford
Press.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways to assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk
through the process. Psychothema, 20, 872–882.
Cahn, D. D. (1984). Communication in interpersonal relationships in two cultures: Friendship
formation and mate selection in the U.S. and Japan. Communication, 13, 31–37.
Chan, D. K.-S, & Cheng, G. H.-L. (2004). A comparison of offline and online friendship qualities at
different stages of relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21,
305–320.
Chen, G.-M. (1993). Self-disclosure and Asian students’ abilities to cope with social difficulties in
the United States. Journal of Psychology, 6, 603–610.
Chen, G.-M. (1995). Differences in self-disclosure patterns among Americans versus Chinese: A
comparative study. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26, 84–91.
Chen, L. (2002). Communication in intercultural relationships. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody
(Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 241–257).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chen, Y.-W. (2006). Intercultural friendship from the perspectives of East Asian international
students. China Media Research, 2(3), 43–58.
Cheng, C.-Y. (1987). Chinese philosophy and contemporary human communication theory. In D.
L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 23–43).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Collier, M. J. (1996). Communication competence problematic in Ethnic friendships.
Communication Monographs, 63, 314–336.
Collier, M. J. (2002). Intercultural friendships as interpersonal alliances. In J. N. Martin,
T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in intercultural communication: experiences and
contexts (2nd ed., pp. 301–310). Boston, MA: McGrew Hill.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
149
Cushman, D. P., & Cahn, D. D. (1985). Communication in interpersonal relationships. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Piettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships
and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15,
332–351.
Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., Wong, P. T. P., & Greenspan, M. (1987). Self-disclosure and
relationship development: An attributional analysis. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.),
Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 172–187). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Diggs, R. C., & Clark, K. D. (2002). It’s a struggle but worth it: Identifying and managing identities
in an interracial friendship. Communication Quarterly, 50, 368–390.
Dindia, K. (1997). Self-disclosure, self-identity, and relationship development: A transactional/
dialectical perspective. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research
and interventions (pp. 411–426). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Ellingsworth, H. W. (1988). A theory of adaptation in intercultural dyads. In Y. Y. Kim & W.
B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 259–279). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Field, S. A., Tyre, A. J., Jonzen, N., Rhodes, J. R., & Possingham, H. P. (2004). Minimizing the cost
of environmental management decisions by optimizing statistical thresholds. Ecology Letters, 7,
669–675.
Finn, A., & Powers, W. G. (2002). The value of instrumental and affective communication skills in
different relational stages. Communication Quarterly, 50, 192–203.
French, D. C., Bae, A., Pidada, S., & Lee, O. (2006). Friendships of Indonesian, South Korean, and
U.S. college students. Personal Relationships, 13, 69–81.
Gao, G. (1996). Self and other: A Chinese perspective on interpersonal relationships. In W.
B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey, & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communication in personal relationships
across cultures (pp. 81–101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gao, G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1998). Communicating effectively with the Chinese. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Gareis, E. (1995). Intercultural friendship: A qualitative study. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.
Gareis, E. (1999). Adult friendship: Examples of intercultural patterns. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.),
Communication Yearbook (Vol. 22, pp. 430–468). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gareis, E. (2000). Intercultural friendship: Five case studies of German students in the USA. Journal
of Intercultural Studies, 21, 67–91.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1985a). An exploratory comparison of close intracultural and intercultural
friendships. Communication Quarterly, 33, 270–283.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1985b). The influence of cultural similarity, type of relationship, and selfmonitoring on uncertainty reduction progress. Communication Monographs, 52, 203–217.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1989). Culture and the development of interpersonal relationships. In J.
A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 12, pp. 315–354). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B. (2002). Issues in cross-cultural communication research. In W. B. Gudykunst &
B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 165–182).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., Lee, C. M., Nishida, T., & Ogawa, N. (2005). Theorizing about intercultural
communication: An introduction. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural
communication (pp. 3–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1983). Social penetration in Japanese and American close
friendships. In R. N. Bostrom & B. H. Westley (Eds.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 7,
pp. 592–610). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw Hill.
150 Y.-W. Chen & M. Nakazawa
Holladay, S., & Kerns, K. S. (1999). Do age differences matter in close and casual friendships?: A
comparison of age discrepant and age peer friendships. Communication Reports, 12(2),
101–114.
Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006).
Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future
study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747–770.
IIE. (November 15, 2010). Open Doors 2010 fast facts: International students in the U.S. Institute of
International Education. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/
Open-Doors/Data/~/media/Files/Corporate/Open-Doors/Fast-Facts/Fast%20Facts%202010
.ashx
Iredale, R. (2000). Migration policies for the highly skilled in the Asia-Pacific region. International
Migration Review, 34, 882–906.
Johnson, A. J., Wittenberg, E., Villagran, M. M., Mazur, M., & Villagran, P. (2003). Relational
progression as a dialectic: Examining turning points in communication among friends.
Communication Monographs, 70, 230–249.
Jourard, S. M., & Lasakow, P. (1958). Some factors in self-disclosure. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 56, 91–98.
Kito, M. (2005). Self-disclosure in romantic relationships and friendships among American and
Japanese college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 127–140.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Korn, C. J., & Nicotera, A. M. (1993). Friend and mate relationship literature, empirical
propositions, and methodology. In A. M. Nicotera (Ed.), Interpersonal communication in friend
and mate relationships (pp. 13–42). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kudo, K., & Simkin, K. A. (2003). Intercultural friendship formation: The case of Japanese students
at an Australian university. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24, 91–114.
LaGaipa, J. J. (1977). Testing a multidimensional approach to friendship. In S. Duck (Ed.), Theory
and practice in interpersonal attraction (pp. 249–270). London: Academic Press.
Ledbetter, A. M. (2010). Assessing the Measurement Invariance of Relational Maintenance Behavior
When Face-to-Face and Online. Communication Research Reports, 27, 30–37.
Lee, P.-W. (2006). Bridging cultures: Understanding the construction of relational identity in
intercultural friendship. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 3–22.
Lin, M.-C., & Harwood, J. (2003). Accommodation predictors of grandparent-grandchild relational
solidarity in Taiwan. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 537–563.
Love, D. E., & Powers, W. G. (2002). Communicating under uncertainty: Interaction between Arab
students and Western instructors. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31,
217–231.
Matsushima, R., & Shiomi, K. (2002). Self-disclosure and friendship in junior high school students.
Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 515–526.
Morgan, S. E., & Arasaratnam, A. (2003). Intercultural friendships as social excitation: Sensational
seeking as a predictor of intercultural friendship seeking behavior. Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research, 3, 175–186.
Mortenson, S. T. (2005). Toward communication values in friendship: Self-construal and mediated
differences in sex and culture. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34(2), 88–107.
Olaniran, B. A. (1996). Social skills acquisition: A closer look at foreign students on college
campuses and factors influencing their levels of social difficulty in social situations.
Communication Studies, 47, 72–88.
Orbe, M. P., & Harris, T. M. (2008). Interracial communication: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Pahl, R. (2000). On friendship. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. New York:
Aldine De Gruyter.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
151
Rawlins, W. K. (2009). The compass of friendship: Narratives, identities, and dialogues. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sarti, I. (1981). Communication and cultural dependency: A misconception. In E. G. McAnany,
J. Schnitman, & N. Janus (Eds.), Communication and social structure: Critical studies in mass
media research (pp. 317–334). New York: Praeger.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance
structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variance analysis: Applications for
developmental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sheets, V. L., & Lugar, R. (2005). Sources of conflict between friends in Russia and the United
States. Cross-Cultural Research, 39(4), 380–398.
Tardy, C. H. (1988). Self-disclosure: Objectives and methods of measurement. In C. H. Tardy (Ed.),
A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and instruments for observing,
measuring, and assessing communication processes (pp. 323–346). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Taylor, D. A., & Altman, I. (1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social
penetration processes. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New
directions in communication research (pp. 257–277). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Trans, A. G., & Lee, R. M. (2011). Cultural socialization as a moderator of friendships and social
competence. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 456–461.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boston: Westview.
van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure and
interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4, 143–157.
Wheeless, L. R., Erickson, K. V., & Behrens, J. S. (1986). Cultural differences in disclosiveness as a
function of locus of control. Communication Monographs, 53, 36–46.
Wong, S. C. H., & Bond, M. H. (1999). Personality, self-disclosure and friendship between Chinese
university roommates. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 201–214.
Ying, Y.-W. (2002). Formation of cross-cultural relationships of Taiwanese international students
in the United States. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 45–55.
Yum, J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication
patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55, 374–388.
Zimmermann, S. (1995). Perceptions of intercultural communication competence and international student adaptation to an American campus. Communication Education, 44, 321–335.
Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is
now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 223–233.
Copyright of Journal of Intercultural Communication Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.