See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269633986

Investigating the Effect of Anxiety, Uncertainty and Ethnocentrism on

Willingness to Interact in an Intercultural Communication

Article  in  Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · November 2014

DOI: 10.1177/0022022114555762

CITATIONS READS

7 506

3 authors, including:

Shanna Logan Caroline Hunt

UNSW Sydney The University of Sydney
14 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS    85 PUBLICATIONS   1,749 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PAVe (Preventing Anxiety and Victimisation through education) View project

Future Fertility Psychological Health Study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shanna Logan on 16 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

555762
research-article2014
JCCXXX10.1177/0022022114555762Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyLogan et al.

Article
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
2015, Vol. 46(1) 39–52
Investigating the Effect of Anxiety, © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Uncertainty and Ethnocentrism sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022022114555762
on Willingness to Interact in an jccp.sagepub.com

Intercultural Communication

Shanna Logan1, Zachary Steel2, and Caroline Hunt1

Abstract
The current research aims to explore the effect of low or high perceived predictability and
anxiety on willingness to interact with a person from another cultural group. How differences
in anxiety, both individual (trait anxiety) and intergroup (anxiety specifically related to an
interaction), influence willingness to engage within an intercultural communication is investigated.
In addition, the contribution of ethnocentrism to willingness to interact is explored. Anxiety,
uncertainty, and ethnocentrism are all important factors that negatively affect willingness to
interact in an intercultural communication. Yet to date, anxiety and uncertainty have been
examined separately to ethnocentrism in the literature. The current study found that an
anxiety-provoking intercultural interaction has a negative impact on willingness to interact
with an intercultural interaction partner. Perceived predictability alone was not found to affect
willingness to interact, contrary to previous research, with results suggesting that intergroup
anxiety may be a better predictor of willingness to interact than perceived predictability and trait
anxiety. Overall results indicate that anxiety and uncertainty are separate but related constructs
in support of current theoretical models. Ethnocentrism was shown to uniquely contribute
to willingness to interact. This novel finding indicates the importance of cultural factors on
willingness to engage in intercultural communication and points to the need for further research
to explore the impact of cultural values on these relationships.

Keywords
communication, cultural psychology, clinical/abnormal, intergroup relations

Increasing cultural diversity in many societies has resulted in a growing need to better understand
the processes that promote and inhibit intercultural communication (Van Oudenhoven, Ward, &
Masgoret, 2006). Research suggests that the activity of new cultural contact and learning can
often be accompanied by stress and intense emotion, manifested as uncertainty, confusion, and
anxiety (Kim, 2008). Consequently, anxiety and uncertainty have been listed as factors that hin-
der cross-cultural engagement and lead to avoidance (Duronto, Nishida, & Nakayama, 2005).

1University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

2UNSW Australia, Sydney, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Shanna Logan, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Brennan MacCallum Building (A18), Sydney, New South
Wales, 2006, Australia.
Email: slog6434@uni.sydney.edu.au

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

40 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46(1)

During an intercultural communication, many individuals experience anxiety and related

negative affect (W. G. Stephan & Stephan, 1985), thought to arise from the perception of threat
or fear of negative appraisal, such as being embarrassed, ridiculed, or rejected (W. G. Stephan
et al., 2002). Intergroup anxiety theory proposes that the anxiety experienced during intercul-
tural interactions gives rise to both behavioral consequences, in that the anxiety will lead people
to avoid or leave the interaction as soon as possible, and emotional consequences, such as
intense feelings of discomfort, fear, resentment, or even indignation and disgust (W. G. Stephan
& Stephan, 1985).
Uncertainty, defined here as the inability to predict or explain the behavior of others, is
strongly linked to the expression of anxiety (Neuliep & Ryan, 1998). An intolerance of uncer-
tainty, where ambiguous situations are perceived as threatening, is regarded as a significant risk
factor for the expression of clinical anxiety (Gosselin et al., 2008; Norton, 2005). It is not surpris-
ing then that anxiety and uncertainty are regarded as related constructs during intercultural com-
munication. Research suggests that when someone is confronted with an interaction with another
person of a different ethnic or cultural background, they will experience communication appre-
hension (MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Donovan, 2002; Neuliep & Ryan, 1998). Specifically,
when the uncertainty associated with an intercultural communication increases, and the interac-
tion partner is viewed as less predictable, anxiety is thought to increase (Duronto et al., 2005;
Greco & Roger, 2003).
Uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) states that one will try to minimize
the aversive state of uncertainty brought about by initial communications with a stranger, through
the utilization of key relationship variables, such as reciprocity and self-disclosure. Berger pro-
vides several axioms and theorems to explain how the level of uncertainty during initial interac-
tions will either increase or decrease depending on the amount of interpersonal communication
or key relationship variables that are utilized. Uncertainty reduction theory has been more
recently adapted to apply to intercultural interactions specifically.
Gudykunst’s Anxiety Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory similarly postulates that man-
aging levels of both anxiety and uncertainty within an intercultural communication is central to
the effectiveness of the communication (Gudykunst & Nishida, 2001) and intercultural adjust-
ment (Gao & Gudykunst, 1990). AUM theory argues that if anxiety and uncertainty are either too
high or low, communication will not occur. High levels of anxiety and uncertainty are thought to
lead to avoidance of intercultural communication or aversive communication when avoidance is
not possible (Gudykunst, 2005). This notion is supported by evidence that high levels of both
anxiety and uncertainty predict avoidance within an intercultural communication (Duronto et al.,
2005) or less effective communication (Hubbert, Gudykunst, & Guerrero, 1999). However, lower
levels of anxiety and uncertainty may lead to a lack of motivation to engage.
More recently, research exploring avoidance, or unwillingness to communicate, has sepa-
rated anxiety into two categories: incidental anxiety, the individual’s affective experience of
anxiety (or trait anxiety), and integral anxiety, the anxiety experienced within an intergroup
situation specifically (Samochowiec & Florack, 2010). Samochowiec and Florack (2010)
manipulated both the perceived predictability of an intercultural interaction partner, as a mea-
sure of uncertainty, and the emotion state of the participants, as a measure of incidental anxiety.
The researchers found that participants generally reported less willingness to engage with an
interaction partner when the interaction partner was perceived as unpredictable, and that those
who experienced more anxiety reported less willingness to interact with an unpredictable inter-
action partner specifically. No significant relationship was reported between willingness to
interact and integral (or intergroup) anxiety; however, it is worth noting that within the study
design, the measure of integral anxiety did not refer to the specific experimental interaction but
relied on a measure based on each participant’s recall of anxiety felt during a previous inter-
cultural experience.

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

Logan et al. 41

To further define the process of anxiety and uncertainty in intercultural settings, a number of
changes could be made to Samochowiec and Florack’s (2010) experiment. As incidental anxiety
is arguably a measure of disposition to experience anxiety, it may be better encapsulated by a
clinically validated measure of anxiety. Other research has used measures of individual disposi-
tion, such as personality, and found that when an intercultural communication was manipulated
to appear more stressful, individuals with high levels of adaptation and openness, defined by the
authors as intercultural traits, experienced less negative affect (van der Zee, van Oudenhoven, &
de Grijs, 2004). Therefore, incidental anxiety, measured as trait anxiety, may show a similar
relationship with an individual’s responses to a stressful intercultural communication. Similarly,
one could also measure the amount of uncertainty that an individual brings to a situation, through
a trait measure of intolerance to uncertainty, to see whether a similar relationship is held.
It is also possible to measure anxiety within an intercultural communication and its impact
on willingness to engage in two ways—first, as the affective experience of anxiety in an inter-
group situation (via self-report) and second, by manipulating the degree of stress or anxiety
associated with that interaction (via experimental manipulation). Moreover, by also manipulat-
ing the perceived predictability of this interaction partner, as has previously (Samochowiec &
Florack, 2010) and more recently (Rohmann, Florack, Samochowiec, & Simonett, 2014) been
implemented, one could then determine how perceived predictability, as a measure of uncer-
tainty, affects the experience of anxiety and willingness to interact. Research has yet to investi-
gate how different forms of anxiety, such as trait or intergroup, are individually related to
perceived predictability or how they may uniquely affect willingness to engage in intercultural
communication.
In considering this, it should be noted that research on willingness to engage in intercultural
interactions has indicated that even when intercultural anxiety and uncertainty are low, commu-
nication may still be ineffective, due in part to the importance of other factors, such as ethnocen-
trism (Neuliep & Ryan, 1998). Ethnocentrism, which can be conceptualized as a preference for
one’s own cultural standing or values (Lin, Rancer, & Trimbitas, 2005), can adversely affect
harmonious intergroup relations (Bozumic, Duckitt, Papadic, Dru, & Krauss, 2009), has been
linked to lower cultural sensitivity (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003; Lin, Rancer, & Lim,
2003), and can increase out-group negativity (Keles, 2013).
Ethnocentrism appears to be related to anxiety and uncertainty in intercultural communica-
tions. Ethnocentrism has been associated with increased anxiety in an intercultural setting (C. W.
Stephan & Stephan, 1992), with the experience of anxiety and uncertainty arising from the eth-
nocentric sentiment of the communicators (Awang-Rozaimie, Sahari, & Ali, 2012). Furthermore,
higher degrees of both ethnocentrism and communication apprehension are related to lower lev-
els of willingness to engage in an intercultural communication (Lin & Rancer, 2003). More
recent research has analyzed the direct relationship between ethnocentrism and intolerance of
uncertainty in intercultural interactions and found that these constructs are associated (Cargile &
Bolkan, 2013). Given there is a significant relationship between ethnocentrism, anxiety, and
uncertainty, ethnocentrism is an important factor which must be considered when investigating
willingness to engage in intercultural communication.
To date, the majority of research documenting interracial interactions and avoidance of inter-
cultural contact has been conducted in America, comparing Anglo-American with African
American participants (Shelton & Richeson, 2006). Little research has been conducted utilizing
an Australian demographic, despite the fact that almost one quarter of Australian residents are
born overseas (Van Oudenhoven et al., 2006). Given the high degree of cultural diversity, it is
important to further explore intercultural communication within an Australian sample, exploring
the factors that might influence willingness to engage in intercultural interactions.
The current study aims to add to previous research by assessing (a) the effect of a low- or high-
anxiety-provoking intercultural interaction on willingness to interact; (b) the effect of low or high

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

42 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46(1)

perceived predictability of an intercultural interaction partner on the willingness to interact; (c) the
unique contribution that both individual differences in anxiety (trait), and the experience of anxi-
ety within a cultural communication (intergroup) have on the willingness to interact, alongside
perceived predictability; and (d) the contribution of ethnocentrism alongside trait anxiety and
uncertainty measures on the willingness to interact with an intercultural communication partner.
Based on the current literature, we hypothesize the following:

1. Participants will be less willing to interact with the intercultural interaction partner when
they have been assigned to the low versus high predictability condition and high- versus
low-anxiety condition, with those assigned to both the low predictability and high-anxi-
ety conditions being the least willing to interact.
2. Intergroup anxiety (self-reported) and perceived predictability will each make a unique
contribution to willingness to interact.
3. Trait anxiety and perceived predictability will each make a unique contribution to will-
ingness to interact.
4. Ethnocentrism, trait anxiety, and intolerance of uncertainty will each make a unique con-
tribution, after controlling for intergroup anxiety, to willingness to interact with someone
from a different cultural background.

Method
Participants and Design
The study was a 2 (predictability manipulation) × 2 (anxiety manipulation) design. Dependent
variables were perceived predictability and willingness to interact. The Beck Anxiety Inventory
(BAI; Beck & Steer, 1990) was used as a screening tool to stratify participants by low (scores
falling within the mild–minimal range) or high anxiety (scores within the moderate–severe
range), to ensure an equal distribution of anxiety symptoms across each of the four experimental
conditions. Participants were then randomized to condition (within both the low- and high-
anxiety groups) through the use of sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes (Doig &
Simpson, 2005).
A total of 143 participants commenced the study. Three participants did not successfully com-
plete all the manipulations, as they did not adequately follow instructions, and were excluded
from further analyses, with one participant completing the trial but omitting some demographic
information. The resulting 140 participants (94 females [67%]; Mage = 20 SD = 3.9) were under-
graduate psychology students at the University of Sydney who received course credit for partici-
pation. Country of birth groupings (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011) indicated that
participants represented a wide range of cultural or ethnic groups, including 81 from Australia,
New Zealand, or Pacific Islands (termed Oceania); 28 Northeast Asian; 15 Southeast Asian; 2
Southern and Central Asian, 3 North African and Middle Eastern; 4 European; 2 Sub-Saharan
African; and 5 people of the Americas. Of these participants, 92% (n = 132) had previously trav-
eled overseas, 76% (n = 108) had at least one parent born outside of Australia, and 64% (n = 91)
reported that English was their first language. The Human Research Ethics Committee at the
University of Sydney granted ethics approval for the study. Exclusion criteria were current treat-
ment for anxiety or disturbance in mood.

Dependent Measures
Intergroup anxiety. The modified version of the Intergroup Anxiety Scale (W. G. Stephan &
Stephan, 1985) is a six-item self-report questionnaire measuring how participants feel

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

Logan et al. 43

when interacting with a member from another cultural group, with each item rated on a 10-point
Likert-type scale (0 = not at all; 10 = extremely). The anxiety-related terms assessed by the items
are as follows: comfortable, uncertain, confident, awkward, anxious, and at ease. These items are
reverse-scored where necessary and summed to generate a single score, with higher scores indicat-
ing increased anxiety. This measure reports high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .83-.92) in
previous samples (W. G. Stephan et al., 2002) and within the current sample (Cronbach’s α = .81).

Trait anxiety. The State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) for Adults trait measure (Spielberger,
1983) is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that measures trait levels of anxiety (e.g., “I feel
nervous and restless”), rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all; 4 = very much so).
This measure has previously demonstrated high internal consistency (average Cronbach’s α >
.89) and good test–retest reliability (average r = .88) in previous samples (Gros, Antony,
Simms, & McCabe, 2007). Within the current sample, internal consistency was also high
(Cronbach’s α = .87).

Intolerance of uncertainty. The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS) is a 27-item self-report

questionnaire (Freeston, Rhéaume, Letarte, Dugas, & Ladouceur, 1994), which assesses the
degree to which one experiences uncertainty as intolerable (e.g., “Uncertainty stops me from liv-
ing a full life), rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all true; 5 = extremely true). This
measure has shown excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .94) and good test–retest reli-
ability (r = .74) within a previous sample (Buhr & Dugas, 2006). In the current sample, internal
consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = .94).

Ethnocentrism. The revised Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale (GENE) assesses the degree to
which participants judge another culture solely on the values and standards of their own culture
(Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997). This self-report questionnaire contains 22 items, 7 of which act
as filler items and are dropped, and 3 are reverse-scored, leaving a remaining 15 items which are
balanced in the number of positively (e.g., “Lifestyles in other cultures are just as valid as those
in my culture”) and negatively (e.g., “I have little respect for the values and customs of other
cultures”) worded questions. The items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = disagree; 5 =
strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher ethnocentrism. This scale reports high inter-
nal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .84-.94) across previous samples (Neuliep, 2002) and adequate
consistency within the current sample (Cronbach’s α = .77).

Willingness to interact. Willingness to interact with someone from another cultural background
generally (at Time 1) and with an assigned intercultural interaction partner specifically (named
“Yon” at Time 2 and 3) was assessed by four questions (“Would you be willing to spend half a day
with this person/Yon?” “Could you imagine learning more about this person/Yon?” “If this person/
Yon sought contact with you, would you respond?” “How much would you be interested in a dia-
logue with this person/Yon?”) rated on an 11-point Likert-type scale (0 = not at all; 10 = very
much), which were then averaged to create a single score, with higher scores indicating more
willingness to interact. This measure has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .85) in previ-
ous research (Samochowiec & Florack, 2010) and within the current sample (Cronbach’s α = .90).

Perceived predictability. The perceived predictability of the intercultural interaction generally (at
Time 1) and to an assigned intercultural interaction partner (at Times 2 and 3) was assessed by
two questions (“How well can you predict this person’s/Yon’s behavior in different situations?”
“How well can you predict this person’s/Yon’s reactions to your own behavior?”), rated on an
11-point Likert-type scale (0 = not at all; 10 = very much). These two scores were averaged to
create a single score for perceived predictability, with high values indicating that Yon was

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

44 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46(1)

Time Point 1 Time Point 2 Time Point 3

-Demographic Information
-Trait Anxiety and
Uncertainty Measures
-Ethnocentrism Scale
-Intergroup Anxiety Scale
-Perceived Predictability
-Willingness to Interact
-Predictability - Anxiety
Manipulation Manipulation
-Intergroup Anxiety Scale -Intergroup Anxiety Scale
-Perceived Predictability -Perceived Predictability
-Willingness to Interact -Willingness to Interact

Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of measures and tasks completed by all participants during the
three main time points within the study procedure.

perceived as more predictable. This measure has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .81)
in previous research (Samochowiec & Florack, 2010) and within the current sample (Cron-
bach’s α = .91).

Control variables. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) was used to assess for cur-
rent mood state across all conditions (Watson, Clark, & Tellegan, 1988). The PANAS consists of
two 10-item self-report mood scales that measure positive (PA; for example, “Inspired”) and nega-
tive (NA; for example, “Distressed”) affect states, rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = very
slightly or not at all; 5 = very much). The PANAS reports high internal consistency for both the PA
(Cronbach’s α = .89) and NA (Cronbach’s α = .85) subscales (Crawford & Henry, 2004), and these
were also high within the current sample (PA Cronbach’s α = .90; NA Cronbach’s α = .88).
Previous intercultural interaction information was also attained to adequately capture the sam-
ple characteristics and check for group differences. Participants were asked to report their level
of contact, how likely they were to interact, and willingness to interact with someone from a
different cultural background, both in the past and currently. All intercultural interaction vari-
ables were measured on an 11-point Likert-type scale (0 = none/not at all; 10 = a lot/very much).

Procedure
Recruitment and demographic information. Participants were recruited through an advertisement
on an online student recruitment website. They were informed at the commencement of the study
that they may interact with someone from a different cultural background and were given a
paper-based copy of the BAI to be stratified for random assignment to an experimental condition.
They then completed all self-report measures on a single computer in a survey format (Time 1;
see Figure 1 for study procedure).

Predictability manipulation. Participants were then informed that based on the demographic informa-
tion they had provided, they would be matched with an intercultural interaction partner, named Yon.
They were instructed that this matching process would take place while they completed a paper-
based copy of the GENE. Participants were then sent a hyperlink for one of the four experimental
conditions via student email. Participants were presented with 20 scenarios and asked to guess how
they believed Yon would respond to each of these, or the behavior that Yon would expect from
them, by choosing from a list of four responses. After completing all scenarios, participants were
given feedback on whether their answers were right or wrong. In the low predictability condition,
participants were informed that their responses were correct 20% of the time. In the high

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

Logan et al. 45

predictability condition, participants were informed that their responses were correct 80% of the
time. To control for the impact of perceived performance on participant’s motivation or self-esteem,
participants were told that the mean response for the low predictability condition was 25% ± 15%
and that the mean response for the high predictability condition was 75% ± 15%. This procedure
has been used in previous research (Samochowiec & Florack, 2010) and has been shown to suc-
cessfully produce significant differences in perceived predictability between two groups.
Directly following the predictability manipulation, participants completed the perceived pre-
dictability, willingness to interact, and intergroup anxiety measures the second time (Time 2),
using the same computer-based survey format.

Anxiety manipulation. Participants were assigned to either a high- or low-anxiety-provoking condi-

tion. Participants were informed that they were about to interact with Yon over the Internet, via live
chat. They were then provided with written statements and told that these were direct feedback from
previous participants who had interacted with the same person. In the high-anxiety condition, the
interaction was defined as difficult and anxiety provoking, while in the low-anxiety condition the
interaction was defined as easy and pleasant (see the appendix). These descriptions were based on
research, indicating that specific factors of an interaction between cultural groups increase anxiety,
including the knowledge of subjective culture, feared negative consequences, perception of differ-
ence, expectations, and amount of structure (W. G. Stephan & Stephan, 1985).
Directly following the anxiety manipulation, participants then completed the perceived pre-
dictability, willingness to interact, and intergroup anxiety measures the third time using the sur-
vey format (Time 3). Finally, all participants were informed that the study had used deception and
that they would not be interacting with this person.

Results
Preliminary Analyses
Analysis of the results was conducted using SPSS program version 21. The significance level of
all tests was set at p < .05. Data were initially analyzed to detect potential univariate outliers and
assumptions of normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic. A logarithm transformation
was performed on the IUS variable to correct for significant skewness at p < .001. Chi-square
analysis and ANOVA conducted to assess for condition differences on baseline measures reported
no significant findings.

Manipulation check. Independent-samples t tests were run on both perceived predictability and
intergroup anxiety measures to assess the impact of experimental manipulations. A significant
condition difference directly following the predictability manipulation was found on the measure
of perceived predictability at Time 2, t(138) = 10.43, p < .001; participants assigned to the low
predictability condition reported their interaction partner to be less predictable (M = 3.17, SD =
1.88) compared with participants assigned to the high predictability condition (M = 6.23, SD =
1.59). A significant condition difference was also seen directly following the anxiety manipula-
tion on intergroup anxiety at Time 3, t(138) = −3.64, p < .001, with participants assigned to a
high-anxiety condition reporting more anxiety (M = 28.63, SD = 9.83) compared with those
assigned to the low-anxiety condition (M = 23.01, SD = 8.34).

Tests of Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1. To test Hypothesis 1, two-way ANOVAs were run to explore the impact of the predict-
ability and anxiety manipulations on willingness to interact (Time 3). Dummy coding was used to

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

46 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46(1)

Table 1. Two-Way ANOVA for Anxiety and Predictability Conditions and Standardized Regression
Coefficients on Willingness to Interact.

df F p K2p
Anxiety and predictability conditions
Anxiety (3, 136) 4.46 .036 .032
Predictability 0.81 .370 .006
Anxiety × Predictability 1.08 .302 .008

E t p
Intergroup anxiety and perceived predictability
Intergroup anxiety −.68 −9.09 <.001
Perceived predictability −.09 −1.18 .241
Intergroup anxiety × Perceived .06 0.83 .406
predictability
Trait anxiety and perceived predictability
Trait anxiety −.14 −1.69 .94
Perceived predictability .21 2.59 .011
Trait anxiety × Perceived .14 1.70 .092
predictability
Ethnocentrism, trait anxiety, and intolerance of uncertainty
Step 1
Intergroup anxiety −.61 −8.98 <.001
Step 2
Intergroup anxiety −.57 −8.52 <.001
Ethnocentrism −.32 −4.71 <.001
Trait anxiety −.01 −0.05 .959
Intolerance of uncertainty .02 0.22 .838
Ethnocentrism × Intergroup −.13 −2.01 .047
anxiety

assign participants to both the predictability (0 = high predictability, 1 = low predictability) and anxi-
ety (0 = low anxiety; 1 = high anxiety) manipulation conditions. In partial support of Hypothesis 1, a
significant main effect was seen for anxiety condition on willingness to interact (Table 1), with par-
ticipants assigned to both the low predictability and high-anxiety conditions reporting least willing-
ness, as predicted (means displayed in Figure 2). However, contrary to expectations, the main effect
between predictability condition and willingness to interact (Table 1) was not significant.
To explore this finding, the data were split by low or high predictability condition and inde-
pendent t tests were run to test for differences between the high- and low-anxiety conditions,
within each predictability condition, on willingness to interact. Analyses revealed a significant
difference between anxiety conditions within the low predictability manipulation, t(68) = −2.15,
p = .035, but not between anxiety conditions within the high predictability condition, t(68) =
−.79, p = .433, on willingness to interact.

Hypothesis 2. Multiple regression was used to assess whether intergroup anxiety (Time 3) and
perceived predictability (Time 3) made unique contributions to willingness to interact (Time 3),
with all measures converted to standardized scores. The regression model significantly pre-
dicted willingness to interact, R2 = .42, F(3, 136) = 32.75, p < .001; however, intergroup anxi-
ety alone made a significant contribution (see Table 1), providing partial support for
Hypothesis 2.

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

Logan et al. 47

9
8
7

Willingness to Interact
6
5 Low Anxiety

4 High Anxiety

3
2
1
0
Low Predictability High Predictability

Figure 2. Willingness to interact with an intercultural interaction partner by anxiety and predictability
conditions.

Hypothesis 3. Multiple regression was run to assess whether trait anxiety and perceived predict-
ability (Time 3) made unique contributions to willingness to interact (Time 3), with all measures
converted to standardized scores. The regression model significantly predicted willingness to
interact, R2 = .08, F(3, 136) = 4.385, p < .001, with perceived predictability alone making a sig-
nificant contribution (see Table 1), providing partial support for Hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 4. Hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess the contribution of ethnocen-
trism, trait anxiety, and intolerance of uncertainty on willingness to interact (Time 3), after
controlling for the influence of intergroup anxiety (Time 3), with all measures converted to
standardized scores. Intergroup anxiety (Time 3) was entered at Step 1, making a significant
contribution to willingness to interact (Time 3), R2 = .38, F(3, 133) = 80.62, p < .001. After
entering ethnocentrism, trait anxiety, and intolerance of uncertainty at Step 2, the model
remained significant, R2 = .47, F(3, 129) = 24.67, p < .001. Intergroup anxiety (Time 3), ethno-
centrism, and the interaction between ethnocentrism and intergroup anxiety (Time 3) each made
a significant contribution to the model (see Table 1) providing partial support for Hypothesis 4.

Discussion
The current study aimed to explore how perceived predictability of an intercultural interaction
partner and an anxiety-provoking intercultural interaction affect participant’s willingness to
engage in a dialogue with someone from a different cultural background. This is the first study to
experimentally manipulate both the predictability and anxiety associated with an intercultural
interaction within an experimental paradigm. The study also aimed to explore the relationship
between two forms of anxiety (trait and intergroup), intolerance of uncertainty, perceived pre-
dictability, and willingness to interact. This study adds to previous research by further exploring
the effect of different aspects of anxiety on intercultural interactions. In addition, the study aimed
to examine the unique contribution of ethnocentrism relative to anxiety and uncertainty to add to
current theoretical models of intercultural contact.
In support of Hypothesis 1, participants assigned to a high-anxiety-provoking condition
reported less willingness to interact. However, contrary to expectations, those assigned to a low
predictability condition did not report less willingness to interact compared with those assigned
to a high predictability condition. Post hoc analyses revealed a significant difference in willing-
ness to interact between high- and low-anxiety conditions only when considering those assigned

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

48 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46(1)

to the low predictability condition, indicating that anxiety was more important in predicting
willingness to interact when predictability was low compared with when it was high. This post
hoc finding suggests that with a larger sample size, a significant interaction effect between anxi-
ety and predictability on willingness to interact may have been found.
The results indicated that intergroup anxiety and perceived predictability significantly con-
tributed toward willingness to interact; however, only intergroup anxiety made a unique contri-
bution, providing partial support for Hypothesis 2. Similarly, Hypothesis 3 was partially
supported, in that while both trait anxiety and perceived predictability significantly predicted
willingness to interact, perceived predictability alone made a significant contribution. Finally, the
study hypothesized that ethnocentrism, trait anxiety, and intolerance of uncertainty would each
contribute to willingness to interact after controlling for intergroup anxiety (given this variable
had been subject to manipulation). Again this finding was partially supported, with ethnocen-
trism, intergroup anxiety, and the interaction between ethnocentrism and intergroup anxiety each
providing a unique contribution to the model.
The findings of the present study highlight that the degree to which anxiety is provoked in an
intercultural situation is integral to willingness to engage in communication. This finding sup-
ports AUM theory (Gudykunst, 2005), which states that when anxiety regarding an intercultural
communication is high, people will avoid intercultural communication. The current study did not
find that higher degrees of uncertainty alone were directly related to willingness to interact, as
AUM would suggest. However, post hoc analyses indicated that when uncertainty is high, anxi-
ety may be a more important predictor of willingness to engage. This relationship has been sup-
ported in previous research by Samochowiec and Florack (2010). In this way, the current study
highlights that both uncertainty and anxiety are important, interrelated, yet separate constructs,
which must be managed successfully for engagement to occur.
A notable aspect of the current study was the way in which both trait and intergroup anxiety
were analyzed separately, to better understand how different anxiety modalities affect willing-
ness to interact. When trait anxiety was considered with predictability, predictability alone made
a unique contribution to willingness to interact, suggesting that in this scenario the uncertainty of
the interaction partner was more important. However, the opposite relationship was seen when
considering the anxiety that is experienced within an intercultural situation alongside predict-
ability. In this instance, intergroup anxiety was the only significant predictor of willingness to
interact. These findings highlight that the anxiety regarding an intercultural communication spe-
cifically may be more influential in predicting willingness to interact, over and above the anxiety
an individual may bring with them to a situation in the form of a trait or temperament.
Another unique aspect of the study was to investigate the contribution of ethnocentrism to
willingness to interact in an intercultural interaction. After controlling for the effect of intergroup
anxiety, ethnocentrism made a significant contribution to the model investigating willingness to
interact, while both trait anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty did not. This finding is consistent
with literature that highlights the importance of ethnocentrism on engagement in intercultural
contact (Lin & Rancer, 2003).
Despite the significant findings, the current study has a number of limitations that need men-
tion. As the study used an anticipated interaction, caution must be exercised when comparing
these findings with an interaction that is currently happening or one that has previously occurred.
In addition, as the study utilized volunteer participants, a sampling bias may have occurred,
where only those who were generally willing to interact chose to participate. The willingness to
interact with a person from a different culture may also have been high in the youthful university
sample. When utilizing a convenience sample, any attempts to apply findings to the general
population should be done with caution.
The study was designed in such a way as to measure the perceived predictability initially, fol-
lowed by the anxiety of the same intercultural interaction partner. Although participants were

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

Logan et al. 49

prompted to respond 3 times throughout the study on perceived predictability and intergroup
anxiety, there was a low likelihood that participants were motivated to provide purely consistent
responses, given the significant pre- and post-manipulation effects. However, it is likely that the
later anxiety manipulation was influenced by predictability. As anxiety and predictability are
related constructs, it is possible that within this experimental design a relatively pure predictabil-
ity manipulation was followed by one that manipulated both anxiety and predictability. As such,
the anxiety manipulation regarding the interaction partner may have had a direct effect on the
perceived predictability of the interaction. However, despite these difficulties, the findings do
provide partial support for AUM theory, in that the addition of heightened anxiety within an
intercultural communication can lead to less willingness to interact.
Another possible limitation is the way in which the intercultural interaction partner was uti-
lized as a manipulation within the study. The majority of the current sample was female; how-
ever, the interaction partner was male. Although previous research has shown no significant
gender effects while also reporting a female majority sample and utilizing a male interaction
partner (Samochowiec & Florack, 2010), other research suggests that gender influences the way
in which people respond to initial interactions (Lin et al., 2003; MacIntyre et al., 2002).
Consequently, more recent research (Rohmann et al., 2014) has adapted the predictability manip-
ulation to match the gender of each participant to rectify this possible confound. Future research
may benefit from similarly adapting this predictability task to match the gender of participants or
make the interaction partner gender neutral to avoid this difficulty.
Given that significant differences in intergroup anxiety are shown to influence uncertainty
(measured by perceived predictability) and willingness to interact culturally within an experi-
mental setting, future research should aim to investigate these factors in a real-world setting.
Given the increasing multiculturalism seen globally, it is important to further explore how anxi-
ety and uncertainty affect real-world intercultural interactions. In addition, given that ethnocen-
trism has been reported to be a defining factor of willingness to interact, further research should
be undertaken to better understand the influence of cultural values on engagement within inter-
cultural communication.

Conclusion
This study has assisted in further defining the processes of engagement within an intercultural
communication and provides partial support for intercultural communication models. Results
indicate that when an intercultural situation appears anxiety provoking, one is less willing to
interact. The higher anxiety that is experienced by an individual, regardless of how anxiety pro-
voking a situation is, the less willing that person will be to engage in intercultural communica-
tion. Personal attributes of anxiety and uncertainty that one brings to an intercultural
communication, such as trait anxiety or intolerance of uncertainty, are less predictive of engage-
ment. However, this study has shown that ethnocentrism is an important factor that significantly
affects willingness to engage within this context and needs to be further investigated.

Appendix
High-Anxiety Condition
You are now going to interact with Yon over the Internet via live chat. The person who partici-
pated in this study before you was also able to interact with Yon. To facilitate your interaction,
you will be provided with some information they provided on how this previous interaction went.
Based on their interaction, the previous participant reported that the communication with Yon
was highly anxiety provoking. They stated,

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

50 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46(1)

I was embarrassed and I felt really uncomfortable. I feel like I performed poorly in the interaction.
Yon behaved really negatively. I had never interacted with someone like Yon before. I was unaware
of his values and social norms. I felt that Yon was really different to me. I found the interaction to be
unstructured and uncooperative.

Low-Anxiety Condition
You are now going to interact with Yon over the Internet via live chat. The person who partici-
pated in this study before you was also able to interact with Yon. To facilitate your interaction,
you will be provided with some information they provided on how this previous interaction went.
Based on their interaction, the previous participant reported that the communication with Yon
was not at all anxiety provoking. They stated,

I was not at all embarrassed and I felt really comfortable. I feel like I performed well in the interaction.
Yon behaved really positively. I have interacted with someone like Yon before. I was aware of his
values and social norms. I felt that Yon was really similar to me. I found the interaction to be structured
and cooperative.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Australian standard classification of cultural and ethnic groups
(2nd ed.). Canberra: Author.
Awang-Rozaimie, A.-S., Sahari, S.-H., & Ali, A. J. (2012). Toward harmonious urban communities from
the inside out: Validating a Multicultural Awareness Scale. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences,
36, 732-741. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.080
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1990). Manual for the Beck Anxiety Inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some exploration in initial interaction and beyond: Toward
a developmental theory of communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
Bozumic, B., Duckitt, J., Papadic, D., Dru, V., & Krauss, S. (2009). A cross-cultural investigation into
a reconceptualization of ethnocentrism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 871-899.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.589
Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2006). Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of uncertainty and
its unique relationship with worry. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 222-236. doi:10.1016/j.janx-
dis.2004.12.004
Cargile, A. C., & Bolkan, S. (2013). Mitigating inter- and intra-group ethnocentrism: Comparing the effects
of culture knowledge, exposure, and uncertainty intolerance. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 37, 345-353. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.12.002
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct
validity, measurement and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. The British Psychological
Society, 43, 245-265. doi:10.1348/0144665031752934
Doig, G. S., & Simpson, F. (2005). Randomization and allocation concealment: A practical guide for
researchers. Journal of Critical Care, 20, 187-193. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.04.005
Duronto, P. M., Nishida, T., & Nakayama, S.-i. (2005). Uncertainty, anxiety, and avoidance in commu-
nication with strangers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 549-560. doi:10.1016/j.
ijintrel.2005.08.003

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

Logan et al. 51

Freeston, M., Rhéaume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J., & Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do people worry?
Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 791-802. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)90048-5
Gao, G., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1990). Uncertainty, anxiety, and adaptation. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 14, 301-317. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(90)90017-Q
Gosselin, P., Ladouceur, R., Evers, A., Laverdiere, A., Routhier, S., & Tremblay-Picard, M. (2008).
Evaluation of intolerance of uncertainty: Development and validation of a new self-report measure
[Comparative Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 1427-1439.
doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.02.005
Greco, V., & Roger, D. (2003). Uncertainty, stress, and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 34,
1057-1068. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00091-0
Gros, D. F., Antony, M. M., Simms, L. J., & McCabe, R. E. (2007). Psychometric properties of the State-
Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA): Comparison to the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory (STAI). Psychological Assessment, 19, 369-381. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.14.4.369
Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of effective communication:
Making the mesh of the net finer. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communi-
cation (pp. 281-322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (2001). Anxiety, uncertainty, and perceived effectiveness of communi-
cation across relationships and cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 55-71.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(00)00042-0
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercul-
tural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421-443. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4
Hubbert, K. N., Gudykunst, W. B., & Guerrero, S. L. (1999). Intergroup communication over time.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 13-46. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0147-1767(98)00024-8
Keles, Y. (2013). What intercultural communication barriers do exchange students of Erasmus program
have during their stay in Turkey, Mugla? Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1513-1524.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.219
Kim, Y. Y. (2008). Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 32, 359-368. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.04.005
Lin, Y., & Rancer, A. (2003). Ethnocentrism, intercultural communication apprehension, intercultural will-
ingness-to-communicate, and intentions to participate in an intercultural dialogue program: Testing a
proposed model. Communication Research Reports, 20, 62-72.
Lin, Y., Rancer, A., & Lim, S. (2003). Ethnocentrism and intercultural willingness to communicate: A
cross-cultural comparison between Korean and American College Students. Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research, 32, 117-128.
Lin, Y., Rancer, A., & Trimbitas, O. (2005). Ethnocentrism and intercultural-willingness-to-communi-
cate: A cross-cultural comparison between Romanian and US American College Students. Journal of
Intercultural Communication, 34, 138-151.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness
to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French
immersion students. Language Learning, 52, 537-564. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00194
Neuliep, J. (2002). Assessing the reliability and validity of the generalized ethnocentrism scale. Journal of
Intercultural Communication Research, 31, 201-216.
Neuliep, J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The development of a U.S. and generalized ethnocentrism scale.
Communication Research Reports, 14, 385-398.
Neuliep, J., & Ryan, D. (1998). The influence of intercultural communication apprehension and socio-com-
municative orientation on uncertainty reduction during initial cross-cultural interaction. Communication
Quarterly, 46, 88-99. doi:10.1080/01463379809370086
Norton, P. J. (2005). A psychometric analysis of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale among four
racial groups [Comparative Study Evaluation Studies]. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 699-707.
doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.08.002
Rohmann, A., Florack, A., Samochowiec, J., & Simonett, N. (2014). “I’m not sure how she will react”:
Predictability moderates the influence of positive contact experiences on intentions to interact with

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

 52 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46(1)

a host community member. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 39, 103-109. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.10.002
Samochowiec, J., & Florack, A. (2010). Intercultural contact under uncertainty: The impact of predict-
ability and anxiety on the willingness to interact with a member from an unknown cultural group.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 507-515. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.05.003
Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2006). Interracial interactions: A relational approach. Advances in experi-
mental social psychology, 38, 121-181. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38003-3 .
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Mind
Garden.
Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. G. (1992). Reducing intercultural anxiety through intercultural con-
tact. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 89-106. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/0147-1767(92)90007-H
Stephan, W. G., Boniecki, K. A., Ybarra, O., Bettencourt, A., Ervin, K. S., Jackson, L. A., . . . Renfro,
C. L. (2002). The role of threats in the racial attitudes of Blacks and Whites. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242-1254. doi:10.1177/01461672022812009
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 1242-1254.
doi:10.1177/01461672022812009
van der Zee, K., van Oudenhoven, J. P., & de Grijs, E. (2004). Personality, threat and cognitive and emo-
tional reaction to stressful intercultural situations. Journal of Personality, 72, 1069-1096. doi:10.1111/
j.0022-3506.2004.00290.x
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Ward, C., & Masgoret, A.-M. (2006). Patterns of relations between immigrants
and host societies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 637-651. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.09.001
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegan, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive
and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com by guest on December 16, 2014

View publication stats