Psychological Foundations of Xenophilia: Understanding and Measuring the Motivational Functions of Exploratory Cross-Cultural Contact

Abstract

Two multipart studies (total N = 1,638) were conducted to introduce and test a functional perspective on exploratory cross-cultural contact. Studies 1a and 1b addressed the lack of standardized measures and developed a psychometrically valid inventory of six individual motivational functions: knowledge and understanding, value expression, professional advancement, social development, personal-, and group-image concerns. Studies 2a and 2b produced experimental evidence that different environments offer differing “fulfillment opportunities” such that the motivating potential of a distinct contact function results from a function by environment fit. First, participants were more persuaded by and wanted to visit a cultural center more when it matched their motivational functions (Study 2a). Second, participants showed a preference to choose an intercultural interaction partner with a higher potential over a partner with a lower potential to fulfill their primary cross-cultural contact motivation (Study 2b, preregistered). Theoretical and practical implications of this perspective are discussed.

Keywords

functional approach cross-cultural exploration measurement xenophilia

In times of resurging racism in many countries all around the globe, xenophobia (from the ancient Greek xénos—stranger and phobos—fear) seems a human universal. However, most civilizations also provide pervasive proof of the opposite phenomenon—xenophilia (“xénos”—“stranger” and philía—“friendship, love”) that manifests itself in multiple and peaceful ways of intercultural exchange (as reflected in the arts and sciences, international trading) or humans’ efforts to explore and to understand foreign cultures (as reflected in humans’ historic interests in extinct cultures, their endeavors to uncover and explore “new” cultures, travel industries). The occurrence of forms of positive intergroup behaviors cannot simply be extrapolated from the absence of determinants of intergroup hostility (Pittinsky, Rosenthal, & Montoya, 2011; Stürmer & Snyder, 2010; Tropp & Mallett, 2011). Therefore, after decades of research on the social and psychological roots of prejudice and contact avoidance motivation, intergroup researchers are becoming increasingly interested in studying human attraction to other cultural groups as a phenomenon with a unique evolutionary, cultural and psychological etiology (Barbarino & Stürmer, 2016; Morris, Chiu, & Liu, 2015; Paolini, Wright, Dys-Steenbergen, & Favara, 2016; Pittinsky et al., 2011; Stürmer et al., 2013).

In a very basic psychological sense, xenophilia can be conceptualized as a favorable tendency to seek positive contact with and to explore groups that are perceived as culturally different and unfamiliar on the basis of their language, ethnicity, habits, or customs (e.g., Barbarino & Stürmer, 2016; Stürmer et al., 2013). Interindividual variations in xenophile tendencies are likely to be produced by a complex interplay of multiple factors (e.g., personality traits, individual motives, social influence from in-Group members, group interests, and cultural values). Among these factors, personality traits have received the most attention in the research literature so far. An increasing body of empirical studies suggest, for instance, that individual differences in xenophile tendencies can be (at least partially) explained by individual differences in a distinct subset of major personality traits (especially openness, extraversion, and to some extent also conscientiousness, Barbarino & Stürmer, 2016; Stürmer et al., 2013; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2001; Zimmermann & Neyer, 2013; also Mak & Tran, 2001). In contrast, individual motives that may prepare and propel individuals to seek out contact to members of groups that are perceived as culturally different and unfamiliar have received comparably less attention (see Paolini et al., 2016, p. 451, for a similar conclusion). A main objective of the present research was to address this gap in the research literature utilizing a functional approach. This theoretical perspective is explicitly concerned with the individual motives fulfilled and the functions served by an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and actions (Snyder, 1993). The present research did not set out to differentiate the functional approach to exploratory cross-cultural contact from past functional approaches in other domains of positive behavior (e.g., Clary et al., 1998). Rather, we aimed to explore the potential of existing functional theorizing for uncovering and systematizing individual motivations underlying exploratory cross-cultural contact.

A Functional Approach to Exploratory Cross-Cultural Contact

There is a long and influential tradition of functionalist theorizing in social and personality psychology (Snyder, 1993). At its heart lies an interest in understanding and explaining how humans adapt to their environments by providing a psychological analysis of the goals and ends that individuals pursue. Much of the functionalist theorizing on attitudes is based on the common premise that individuals hold and behaviorally express particular attitudes because they derive psychological benefit from doing so. The perceived type of benefit may however vary both across individuals and situations. Accordingly, different individuals can hold and express apparently similar attitudes for various reasons, in pursuit of distinct ends, and to serve several psychological functions in separate situations (e.g., Clary et al., 1998; Herek, 1986; D. Katz, 1960; Maio & Olson, 2000; Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956). Although studies have uncovered a variety of psychological functions of attitudes, there seem to be some central functions. As noted by other researchers before us (e.g., Clary et al., 1998), these are theoretically connected to major themes of more general theories of human nature: (a) knowledge (or object appraisal) functions in which attitudes help us to understand the world we live in (a major theme in Gestalt psychology); (b) value expression (or quality of expressiveness) functions whereby attitudes help us voice our core values, characteristics, and beliefs (a major theme in self-psychology); (c) ego-related functions where attitudes serve to maintain or enhance a positive sense of the self (a major theme in psychodynamic theory); (d) utilitarian (instrumental) functions whereby attitudes help to maximize material or economic rewards and minimize corresponding losses; and (e) social adjustive functions where attitudes mediate an individual’s social relationships (both issues—utilitarian and social adjustment—resonating with behaviorist perspectives). These functions are described in various combinations, sometimes using different labels, by many authors (e.g., Clary et al., 1998; Herek, 1986; Snyder, 1993) and explicitly appear in the taxonomies offered by D. Katz (1960) and by Smith et al. (1956).

Even though some attempts to exploit functional theorizing to understand and measure individuals’ motivations to travel exist (e.g., Fodness, 1994), systematic research on the psychological functions served by exploratory cross-cultural contact is lacking. To address this gap in the research literature, we first performed an extensive review of the pertinent literature in psychology and its neighboring sciences (e.g., sociology, anthropology, education, tourism, marketing, language, management, and business studies). Building on this review, we then conducted four studies developing and evaluating a psychometrically sound inventory of contact functions that simultaneously allowed us to test some basic tenets of a functional approach to exploratory cross-cultural contact.

Literature Review

A computer-based literature search was performed until April 2015 using PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, and other major databases in economics, education, and humanities provided by EBSCOhost (e.g., Business Source Complete, Education Source, Political Science Complete). Search terms included either “motivations,” “functions,” “motives,” “reasons for,” or “interest in,” and numerous relevant search terms including and related to contact (e.g., intergroup [contact], cross-group [contact], cross-cultural [contact], intercultural [contact]), and potential contact situations (e.g., multicultural*, international, mobility, study abroad, student exchange, travel, tourism, language learning, career). Articles were selected on the basis that they actually discussed motives, motivations, or functions of/for (situations of) intergroup contact. Follow-up searches were undertaken using references of identified articles as starting points. Following this procedure, we identified N = 181 relevant articles published between 1950 and April 2015 on topics as diverse as second-language learning, work placement and retirement abroad, and host students motivations to engage in cross-cultural exchange with foreign students. On the basis of this review, we identified several major and recurring themes that map onto the extant theories of attitude functions (i.e., knowledge and understanding, value expression, maintaining and enhancing a positive sense of the self, reward instrumentality and social relationships).

Knowledge and Understanding

Reflecting the idea of a knowledge function of exploratory cross-cultural contact, many publications focus on learning about and understanding different cultures as key incentives. Examples are provided by research showing that learning orientation (the desire/motivation to learn and gain knowledge in an interaction with a learning object) leads to greater comfort in intergroup contact situations (e.g., Migacheva & Tropp, 2013), that cultural interest is a key motivator to second-language learning (e.g., Dörnyei & Csizer, 2005), that knowledge is a prerequisite of culturally sensitive intercultural service provision (e.g., Álvarez-Pérez, Fernandez-Borrero, & Vázquez-Aguado, 2014), and that intercultural learning is greatest for students when it is based on experiences of intercultural exchange (e.g., King, Perez, & Shim, 2013). Getting to know others also has an effect on the self, however. Concurrently, several publications emphasize that exploratory cross-cultural contact enables personality development by providing new insights about oneself, one’s personal strengths, and weaknesses (e.g., Pan, 2012; Yang & Noels, 2013).

Value Expression

In line with traditional functional theorizing, several studies suggest that favorable attitudes toward exploratory cross-cultural contact might also be motivated by individuals’ desire to affirm deeply held personal values such as tolerance, openness, or solidarity. For instance, individuals who adhere to humanitarian or egalitarian values are not only more likely to express positive rather than negative intergroup attitudes (e.g., I. Katz & Hass, 1988) but are also more strongly internally motivated to control prejudicial reactions that undermine intergroup contact (e.g., Dunton & Fazio, 1997; Pryor, Reeder, Yeadon, & Hesson-Mclnnis, 2004) or to help across group boundaries (e.g., Oliner & Oliner, 1988; Simon, Stürmer, & Steffens, 2000).

Professional Advancement

The business and management literature prominently focuses on the economic instrumentally of international exchange and trading and, relatedly, the increasing requirements for interculturally competent managers and employees (e.g., Remhof, Gunkel, & Schlaegel, 2014). In a globalized world, and in the context of globally operating companies and organizations, exploratory cross-cultural contact may thus serve economic or material functions by providing the individual with the possibility of career advancement (e.g., Nuttman-Shwartz & Berger, 2012) and improved professional performance (e.g., Stierle, van Dick, & Wagner, 2002), which may ultimately pay off in terms of promotion or salary. The same holds true for academia—consider, for instance, the career relevance of postdoctoral stays abroad. In the context of traditional functional theorizing, professional advancement thus seems like a relevant manifestation of an instrumental or economic function for exploratory cross-cultural contact in a globalized world.

Social Development

Several studies point to a social adjustive functions of exploratory cross-cultural contact. The positive effects of intergroup-group friendships on intergroup attitudes are well documented (e.g., Davies, Tropp, Aron, Pettigrew, & Wright, 2011). It is therefore not surprising that making new friends and getting to know people are often mentioned as distinct motivations for exploratory cross-cultural contact (e.g., De Souza Briggs, 2007; Kudo & Simkin, 2003; Lo & Lee, 2011). In addition, the motivation to be socially integrated into a community is discussed as a motivation for minority language TV viewing (e.g., Harwood & Vincze, 2012) and migrant cross-cultural interactions with members of a cultural majority group (e.g., Martinovic, van Tubergen, & Maas, 2009).

Personal-Image Concerns

Crocker and colleagues (e.g., Crocker & Garcia, 2009; Migacheva, Tropp, & Crocker, 2011) have advanced a motivational perspective on the dynamics of intergroup contact in which they argue for the relevance of what they call egosystem goals (i.e., concerns for protecting self-esteem and self-image) and ecosystem goals (i.e., concerns for interaction partners and the interaction itself). Egosystem goals may include or engender prevention focus, performance goals, and avoidance motivation (Murphy, Richeson, & Molden, 2011). Though each of these motivational mind-sets is associated with less successful intergroup interactions, because of the dynamics that come into play in the perception of actors who are focused on personal-image and self-esteem protection, it is nonetheless important to note that people’s desire to maintain and enhance a positive sense of self may be an important function of exploratory cross-cultural contact (see, for instance, Siem & Stürmer’s, 2012, findings on the role of self- or ego-related motivations for cross-group helping).

Group-Image Concerns

Exploratory cross-cultural contact can be conceived as both individual and group behavior, because it involves characteristics of individuals as well as characteristics of their (inter)cultural relationships. Hence, the desire to maintain or enhance a positive sense of self in cross-cultural contact situations may relate to self-construals at different levels of abstraction. Research shows, for instance, that positive individual reactions toward members of other groups systematically increase as in-Group norms and values prescribe positive rather than negative intergroup behavior (e.g., Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1996), and that this phenomenon is particularly pronounced among individuals who feel strongly attached to their in-Group (e.g., Armenta, Knight, Carlo, & Jacobson, 2011). In a similar vein, providing help to out-group members may be motivated by the desire to restore or maintain a positive group image (e.g., Hopkins et al., 2007). Taken together, these findings point to an important refinement of traditional conceptualizations of the self- or ego-related function whereby maintaining and enhancing the positive image and reputation of one’s in-Group can be considered a conceptually distinct source of motivation for exploratory cross-cultural contact.

Next to the six themes outlined above, some articles in our literature review also addressed additional motivations (e.g., a motivation to change or reorientation of personal circumstances, Pali & Schnell, 2013) or pointed to some more general individual differences, such as sensation seeking (e.g., Arasaratnam & Banerjee, 2011; Dunne, 2013) or social curiosity (e.g., Chen & Chen, 2011). We also considered these aspects in the item generation for our motivation inventory.

Study 1a: Identifying and Measuring Motivational Functions

The main objective of our first study was the transition from conceptual issues to the development of an instrument that could assess the motivations underlying exploratory cross-cultural contact identified above. So, we generated a pool of 78 potential items tapping the various aspects of the six functions emerging from our literature review as well as potential additional motivations. We then administered these items to a large and heterogeneous sample of research participants and analyzed their responses using exploratory factor analyses. Our goal was to select a parsimonious set of items that would represent coherent, separate functions and to establish the construct validity and internal consistency of the uncovered inventory. We also wanted to provide first tentative evidence for the criterion validity of our motivation inventory by considering the correlations between our contact motivations and participants’ self-reported habitual engagement in cross-cultural exploration activities. Because previous research has shown that major personality traits, especially openness and extraversion, are significant predictors of people’s tendencies to explore other cultures (e.g., Ponterotto, 2010; Stürmer et al., 2013; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2001), we examined whether the predicted relationships held up when controlling for the relationships between habitual cross-cultural exploration and major personality traits. Demonstrable relationships between the contact functions and habitual cross-cultural exploration above and beyond the contributions of major personality traits would provide particularly convincing evidence for the unique role of contact motivations in exploratory cross-cultural contact. Finally, we also collected data from an independent nonstudent sample to further confirm the hypothesized factor structure of our inventory.

Method

Participants

We recruited 732 (491 female, 236 male, M_age = 34.21 years, SD = 12.24 years, range = 18-85 years) German citizens via social media and the university website. The majority of participants (n = 564) worked professionally in education, social services, and health care (n = 174); administration or law (n = 110); management or retail (n = 115); science and research (n = 51); artistic and cultural professions (n = 53); and technical professions (n = 61). A total of 331 participants were enrolled in distance education programs at our university. Almost all participants reported past experiences with people from foreign cultures, with 48% reporting private and 31% reporting work-related stays abroad that were longer than 4 weeks; 69% of participants reported having one to more than five close friends from a different culture, while 12% of the sample had a partner from a different culture.

Measures

Items were presented as part of an online questionnaire that also contained other exploratory measures that are not described in the following as they are not directly relevant for this report.

Major personality traits

Participants completed an established abbreviated version of the Big Five Inventory (the BFI-10, see Rammstedt, 2007) in which they rated 10 items on the extent to which they were self-descriptive. Previous work on the relations between major personality traits and cross-cultural exploration tendencies has shown that this measure produced virtually identical results as studies using more extensive operationalization of major personality traits (see Stürmer et al., 2013). Each personality dimension was assessed by two items, one of which was reverse coded, on separate 5-point rating scales ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly): Extraversion (“reserved,” “outgoing, sociable,” r = .63, p < .001), Openness to Experience (“has an active imagination,” “has few artistic interests,” r = .42, p < .001), Conscientiousness (“does a thorough job,” “tends to be lazy,” r = .35, p < .001), Emotional Instability (“gets nervous easily,” “is relaxed, handles stress well,” r = .44, p < .001), and Agreeableness (“generally trusting,” “able to act cold and distant,” r = .21, p < .001).

Contact functions

There were 78 items included in the item pool chosen to tap into the six functions emerging from our literature review as well as potential additional motivations. These items were introduced with the following statement:

People associate different expectations and experiences with contact to people from foreign cultures. This contact can be positive, negative, or both positive and negative. On the following pages we are interested in your own personal reasons for having contact with people from foreign cultures.

Next, respondents rated each item on 7-point rating scales ranging from 1 (not important) to 4 (medium) to 7 (very important). All items completed the following item stem “Contact to people from foreign cultures is important to me, to . . .,” for example, “ . . . find new friends” (social development); “. . . learn something new” (knowledge and understanding); “. . . attain professional qualifications” (professional advancement); “. . . make a statement against discrimination” (value expression); “. . . receive recognition from friends and family” (personal-image concerns); “. . . highlight the meaning of my culture” (group-image concerns). All contact function items were presented in random order.

Habitual cross-cultural exploration

In keeping with Stürmer et al.’s (2013; also Barbarino & Stürmer’s, 2016) research on the links between personality traits and xenophile tendencies, participants were asked to indicate how much time they had previously spent on the following pastimes: (a) reading travel magazines or reports about long distance travel, (b) reading nonfictional books about other cultures, (c) learning a foreign language in their leisure time, (d) watching or listening to Radio and TV programs in a foreign language, (e) consuming exotic fruits, dishes, and beverages from foreign cultures, (f) listening to music from foreign cultures, (g) visiting intercultural festivals and events, (h) studying philosophical or religious ideas of foreign cultures, (i) engaging with foreign ways of life, and (j) contact to people from other countries and cultures. Respondents rated each item on separate 7-point rating scales ranging from 1 (no time at all) to 7 (very much time). The 10 items formed an internally consistent scale (α = .82).

At the end of the questionnaire, participants were thanked and debriefed. Finally, they had the opportunity to sign up for a follow-up investigation (Study 1b) by providing their email address.

Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis

After an initial inspection of item descriptives, we subjected all 78 items to a provisional principal axis factor analysis (PAF) with direct oblimin rotation to identify items in the set that formed coherent and relatively independent subsets (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2014). PAF yielded 10 factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1.00, accounting for 64.14% of the total item variance. Inspection of the scree plot suggested a six-factor solution (Cattell, 1966). Furthermore, inspection of the pattern matrix revealed one factor that was only defined by one item with a loading of −.32 (Factor 8) and several items that loaded below .30 on any of the factors. After deleting these items and those with multiple loadings or redundant content, PAF uncovered a clear six-factor solution accounting for 68.43% of the total item variance. For the first eight factors resulting from this analysis, the eigenvalues of the unrotated solution were (percentage of variance in parentheses) 12.84 (31.32%), 6.80 (16.59%), 3.14 (7.66%), 2.21 (5.40%), 1.74 (4.25%), 1.32 (3.21%), .80 (1.96%), and .65 (1.59%), also suggesting six factors. Based on this evidence and to achieve a good level of parsimony, we selected the five items with the highest loadings on each component.

A PAF with direct oblimin rotation on the remaining 30 items replicated six factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1.00. These components explained 70.89% of the total variance. Visual inspection of the individual loadings in the pattern matrix indicated a readily interpretable simple structure in which each factors was defined by five items (see Table 1 for items and factor loadings). The first factor was defined by social development (getting to know new people, making friends); the second factor reflected the opportunity for knowledge and understanding (new perspectives, discovery, personal development, self-insights); the third factor concerned professional advancement (new career perspectives and opportunities, extension of one’s professional qualifications); the fourth factor described the opportunity for value expression (tolerance, equality, rejection of discrimination and stereotypes); the fifth factor was defined by group-image concerns (representing views and perspectives of the cultural in-Group, contributing to a positive group image); and the sixth factor incorporated personal-image concerns (distracting from own shortcomings, fulfilling familial expectations). All items showed substantial loadings on their primary factor with individual loadings ranging from |.49| to |.91| and a mean value of .75. Furthermore, items did not show loadings exceeding |.30| on a secondary factor. Subsequent separate PAFs confirmed the unidimensional structure of each factor.

Table 1.

Scales, Items, and Factor Loadings of the 30-Item Motivation Inventory (Study 1a).

Contact to people from foreign cultures is important for me to	Factors
	1	2	3	4	5	6
Social development
[. . .] find new friends.	.91
[. . .] establish friendships.	.78
[. . .] get to know new people	.73
[. . .] get connected.	.57
[. . .] live out my sociability.	.49
Knowledge and understanding
[. . .] learn something new.		−.84
[. . .] find out more about other cultures.		−.83
[. . .] broaden my horizon.		−.83
[. . .] picture other people’s lives.		−.80
[. . .] experience a different lifestyle.		−.75
Professional advancement
[. . .] attain professional qualifications.			−.90
[. . .] be successful in my profession.			−.88
[. . .] improve my professional profile.			−.86
[. . .] access new career perspectives.			−.86
[. . .] further my professional competencies.			−.85
Value expression
[. . .] make a statement against discrimination.				−.81
[. . .] reject discrimination.				−.80
[. . .] enable a peaceful and safe life together.				−.77
[. . .] contribute to societal cohesion.				−.72
[. . .] solve problems that affect all groups in our society together.				−.70
Group-image concerns
[. . .] highlight the meaning of my culture.					.80
[. . .] bring my culture closer to others.					.77
[. . .] show what constitutes my culture.					.77
[. . .] represent the views of my cultural group.					.72
[. . .] extend the influence of my culture.					.59
Personal-image concerns
[. . .] receive recognition from friends and family.						.69
[. . .] meet family expectations.						.68
[. . .] distract from my own deficits.						.67
[. . .] avoid feeling guilty.						.66
[. . .] comply with the wishes of people who are important to me.						.61
Eigenvalue	9.02	5.06	2.60	1.83	1.52	1.24
Percentage of variance	30.06	16.88	8.66	6.10	5.07	4.12

Note. PAF extraction, direct oblimin rotation. Only factor loadings exceeding |.40| are displayed. PAF = principal axis factor analysis.

Reliabilities, Descriptive Statistics, and Subscale Correlations

We tested the internal consistency of each function by computing Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. We then computed scale scores for each of the six functions by averaging over the corresponding items. Table S1 in the online supplement presents alpha coefficients, means, standard deviations, and correlations for the six subscales. The reliability estimates for the six functions all exceeded .83, indicating a satisfactory degree of internal consistency. Furthermore, we observed the highest scores on the knowledge and understanding scale (M = 5.62, SD = 1.17) and the lowest scores on the personal-image concerns scale (M = 1.83, SD = 0.98), with the scores for value expression (M = 4.59, SD = 1.55), social relationships (M = 4.47, SD = 1.43), professional advancement (M = 3.30, SD = 1.70), and group-image concerns (M = 2.56, SD = 1.31) ranging in between. The average subscale correlation was a medium size .31, with the smallest correlation between knowledge and understanding and personal-image concerns, r = −.03, p = .38, and the largest correlation between personal-image concerns and group-image concerns, r = .58, p < .001.

Correlations to Self-Reported Habitual Cross-Cultural Exploration

Correlation analyses confirmed significant and positive relationships between each of the six contact functions and participants’ reports of their habitual cross-cultural exploration. The average correlation between contact functions and habitual cross-cultural exploration was of a medium size r = .30, ranging from a medium-sized correlation with knowledge and understanding, r = .45, p < .001, to a small correlation with personal-image concerns, r = .14, p < .001, with the correlations involving social development, r = .43, p < .001, value expression, r = .36, p < .001, professional advancement, r = .25, p < .001, and group-image concerns, r = .16, p < .001, ranging in between.

Controlling for major personality traits

A series of separate hierarchical multiple regression analyses with habitual cross-cultural exploration as the criterion were performed while controlling for the influences of major personality traits. In each analysis, the five major personality traits were entered into the regression model in a first step, while one of the six distinct contact functions was entered as an additional predictor in a second step. Replicating previous findings (Stürmer et al., 2013, Study 2), when entered in a first step, extraversion, β = .16, p < .001, and openness to experience, β = .26, p < .001, emerged as significant and positive predictors of habitual cross-cultural exploration, while the predictive values for Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness were all nonsignificant, all ps > .395, R² = .10, F(5, 726) = 16.59. Importantly, each of the six individual contact functions significantly added variance in habitual cross-cultural exploration in the second step of the model, all ΔR²s ≥ .02, ΔF(1, 725)s ≥ 18.30. Individual βs for the six functions were all significant and ranged from a medium-sized relationship involving knowledge and understanding, β = .39, p < .001, to a small-sized relationship involving group-image concerns, β = .15, p < .001, with the relationships involving social development, β = .38, p < .001, value expression, β = .30, p < .001, professional advancement, β = .25, p < .001, and personal-image concerns, β = .17, p < .001, ranging in between.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To determine whether the 30 items included in our measure would also fit a hypothesized six-factor measurement model, and to further substantiate the generalizability of our results, we also conducted a confirmatory factor analysis in an independent and nonstudent sample of research participants. Participants were 568 German citizens (282 women, 285 men, 1 other, M_age = 36.82 years, SD = 12.04 years, range = 16-65 years) recruited via the Clickworker online marketplace. The majority of participants (n = 443) worked professionally in education, social services, and health care (n = 54); administration or law (n = 91); management or retail (n = 79); science and research (n = 52); artistic and cultural professions (n = 84); and technical professions (n = 83). Participants were informed that they would be taking part in a study regarding individual reasons for partaking in cross-cultural contact and that they would be remunerated at minimum wage level, if they completed the survey attentively and without interruptions. They then completed some demographic information followed by the 30-item inventory in random order. To ensure data quality, four attention checks were included in the study; participants were excluded if they failed any of these attention checks. After completion participants were thanked and, if successfully attentive, they received a code to be used for remuneration. Using MPlus Version 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2013) we tested a six-factor model with MLR estimators constraining items to load on the factor indicated in the exploratory PFA reported above. As shown in Table S3 in the online supplement, this model fit the data well, χ²(390) = 779.07, p < .001; CFI = .94; TLI = .93; RMSEA = .06. All individual items loaded significantly on the assigned factor, with all loadings ≥ .64, ps < .001, Figure S1 in the online supplement. We also tested two theoretically viable alternative models. In Alternative Model 1, we collapsed personal and group-image concerns into an overall ego-concern function, while we collapsed knowledge and understanding with professional advancement into an overall instrumental function in Alternative Model 2. Both models showed a significantly worse fit to the data than the hypothesized model (see Table S2 in the online supplement). In addition, the internal consistencies and the descriptive statistics obtained in this independent sample were comparable to those in the initial sample: knowledge and understanding (α = .94, M = 5.27, SD = 1.41), value expression (α = .91, M = 4.75, SD = 1.51), social development (α = .91, M = 4.25, SD = 1.48), professional advancement (α = .96, M = 3.17, SD = 1.64), personal-image concerns (α = .89, M = 2.05, SD = 1.19), and group-image concerns (α = .91, M = 3.16, SD = 1.40). Again, the average subscale correlation was a medium size, .37, with the smallest correlation between knowledge and understanding and personal-image concerns, r = .03, p = .51, and the largest correlation between knowledge and understanding and value expression, r = .70, p < .001.

Discussion

The results of this first investigation confirmed that the six contact functions derived from our conceptual analyses and extensive literature review can be separately measured with reliable five-item scales. Furthermore, correlational analyses between the contact functions and measures of participants’ self-reported habitual cross-cultural exploration provide evidence that the contact functions identified in our analyses meaningfully relate to participants’ cross-cultural exploration activities. These relationships held up even when we controlled for Big Five personality traits as potential alternative predictors of habitual cross-cultural exploration. Replicating previous findings using an abbreviated version of the Big Five Inventory (Stürmer et al., 2013, Study 2) analyses revealed that among personality traits extraversion and openness were significant predictors of habitual cross-cultural exploration. These findings are also in line with studies using more extensive measures of major personality traits (e.g., Barbarino & Stürmer, 2016; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000; Zimmermann & Neyer, 2013).

Confirmatory factor analyses in an independent nonstudent sample further corroborated that the items included in our measure fit a six-factor measurement model. Moreover, the six-factor model proved superior to theoretically viable alternative five factor models. Taken together, the results from these analyses are encouraging in that they suggest we have uncovered a distinctive and valid inventory, which relates to other constructs (personality, cross-cultural exploration) in expected ways. We do not claim that our inventory captures all possible functions of exploratory cross-cultural contact. Nonetheless, the set of functions we identified seems conceptually broad enough to cover some of the perhaps more nuanced reasons for getting engaged in intergroup contact in distinct contexts (e.g., learning about aspects of a culture, gaining specific intercultural skills).

It is important to note that we observed significant variation in the personal importance that participants assigned to each of the six functions. Specifically, we found that participants considered more self-oriented motives (professional advancement, personal and group-image concerns) to be less important than more other-oriented motives (knowledge and understanding of other cultures, humanitarian value expression, and cross-cultural social development). This is in line with research investigating the role of individual motivations in helping, which shows, that despite lower endorsement rates, self-oriented motives may emerge as significant and theoretically important predictors of future behavior or future behavioral intentions (Clary et al., 1998; Omoto & Snyder, 1995; Siem & Stürmer, 2012). Our correlational analyses, which showed small but significant relationships between participants’ habitual cross-cultural exploration and professional advancement, personal-image concerns, and group-image concerns, respectively, point in a similar direction. However, any evaluation of the relative meaning of the individual functions identified in our first study has to await the results of further empirical testing in our subsequent studies.

Study 1b: Stability, Predictive Validity, and Causal Direction

A main objective of Study 1b was to provide further information about our inventory’s psychometric properties (stability and predictive validity) and to clarify the directionality of the relationship between individual contact motivations and cross-cultural exploration. Theoretically, we assume a causal influence of individual motivations on future cross-cultural exploration. However, reversed effects, such as feedback effects from cross-cultural exploration on future motivations, also seem possible. To shed light on this issue, we contacted participants who had signed up for a follow-up investigation via email approximately 4 weeks after completion of Study 1a, and asked them to complete a questionnaire including the measures of the six contact functions and indicators of their actual cross-cultural exploration in the period between the two points of measurement. We used these measures in a series of cross-lagged panel analyses (CLPA; Heise, 1975) exploring the causal direction of the relationship between contact motivations and cross-cultural exploration.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We were able to contact 102 German citizens (73 women, 28 men, 1 other, M_age = 35.02 years, SD = 11.40 years, range = 19-67 years) who had provided their email address at T1. A comparison of participants included in Study 1b with participants who only partook in Study 1a (N = 630) with regard to the Big Five personality dimensions, contact functions, and habitual cross-cultural exploration showed that respondents who also participated at T2 scored higher on conscientiousness, t(730) = −2.38, p = .017, and gave greater importance to value expression, t(730) = −2.04, p = .042, and social development as reasons for exploratory cross-cultural contact, t(730) = −1.97, p = .049; for all other tests, ps ≥ .07. This suggests that our 102 participants were representative of the overall sample with regard to our main variables within these limits. Recruitment for Study 1b started 4 weeks after completion of Study 1a. Thus, the minimum time lag between completion of the first and second questionnaire was 4 weeks (rising to a maximum of 4 months for early participants of Study 1a). Participants’ responses were matched using an individualized six-digit mass testing code that participants created along several specified criteria (e.g., second letter of mother’s first name).

Measures

Composite measures were created by averaging across the corresponding scale items. Higher scores indicate higher levels on the relevant dimension. Questionnaires included additional items which are not relevant for this report and are not discussed further. The scales were presented in the following order: demographics, personality scales, contact functions, additional items, cross-cultural exploration.

Contact functions (measured at T1 and T2)

We used the six five-items scales developed in Study 1a: knowledge and understanding (T1 α = .91, T2 α = .90), value expression (T1 α = .88, T2 α = .87), social development (T1 α = .85, T2 α = .90), professional advancement (T1 α = .94, T2 α = .95), personal-image concerns (T1 α = .82, T2 α = .86), and group-image concerns (T1 α = .86, T2 α = .87).

Cross-cultural exploration (measured at T1 and T2)

In Study 1a, participants indicated how much time they had spent on 10 activities aimed to explore other cultures (α = .81, see Study 1a’s Method section for details). In Study 1b, participants indicated for each of the 10 activities how much time they had actually devoted to the activity in the period between T1 and T2 (α = .83).

Results

Means and standard deviations for all relevant variables, as well as their intercorrelations, are presented in Table S3 in the online supplement. The subscales of the contact function inventory showed acceptable test–retest reliability over the time interval between point of measurements (minimum 4 weeks, maximum 4 months): social development: r = .70; knowledge and understanding: r = .55; value expression: r = .55; professional advancement: r = .54; group-image concerns: r = .52; personal-image concerns: r = .44. Cross-cultural exploration at T1 was a significant predictor of cross-cultural exploration at T2 (up to 4 months later) and contact functions at T1 were significant predictors of contact functions at T2. To explore the causal direction of the relationships between contact functions and cross-cultural exploration, we conducted a set of two-variable-two-wave CLPA (Heise, 1975) using a structural equation modeling approach in MPlus Version 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2013).

In line with the hypothesized causal effect of motivations on subsequent behaviors, the cross-lagged coefficient for knowledge and understanding (T1) on subsequent cross-cultural exploration (T2) was significant, β = .25, p = .001. We also observed a significant reversed causal path from cross-cultural exploration (T1) on knowledge and understanding (T2), β = .23, p = .009, suggesting a pattern of reciprocal causation. The effects of value expression, β = .14, p = .062, professional advancement, β = .13, p = .07, social development, β = .11, p = .125, personal-image concerns, β = .09, p = .201, and group-image concerns, β = .13, p = .07, on subsequent behavior were less articulated or not statistically reliable. Importantly, however, there was no indication that the reverse causal pathway from cross-cultural exploration measured at T1 on the individual functions was stronger than the hypothesized pathway in any of the models, all Δχ²s (1) ≤ 1.50, ps > .05.

Discussion

Study 1b demonstrated that contact motivations are antecedents of future cross-cultural exploration not just mere outcomes or reflections of past behavior. In fact, with regard to the knowledge function CLPA suggested an interesting pattern of reciprocal causation whereby individuals’ contact motivations may stimulate future cross-cultural exploration which, in turn, feeds back into future motivation to explore foreign cultures. By controlling for past cross-cultural exploration (i.e., baseline estimates), we effectively tested the predictive power of contact motivations with regard to changes (i.e., residual gains) in cross-cultural exploration in the period between the two points of measurement (Cronbach & Furby, 1970). From a methodological point of view, our findings also highlight the psychometric qualities of our inventory, specifically its predictive validity (by predicting cross-cultural exploration). Finally, our correlational analyses on the T1 and the T2 motivation measures also established satisfactory test–retest reliability of our inventory over a time span of up to 4 months. Taken together, these results provide support for the potential of a functional approach to cross-exploratory cultural contact, and the ability of our inventory to measure these underlying functions.

Study 2a: Functions and Situational Affordance

A main objective of Study 2a was to explore the role of contact motivations in exploratory cross-cultural contact using our inventory under more controlled conditions. According to the functional approach, individuals hold and behaviorally express favorable attitudes toward exploratory cross-cultural contact because they derive different psychological benefits from doing so. On the contrary, different environments afford different psychological benefits to the individual. As a result, individuals’ reasons for seeking exploratory cross-cultural contact should vary not only across different individuals but also with the perceived features of cross-cultural contact opportunities (i.e., with the degree of Function × Environment fit). To test this hypothesis, we devised an experimental study modeled on a paradigm developed by Clary et al. (1998, Study 4). We created six advertisements inviting readers to visit an open day at a cultural center each corresponding to one of the psychological functions of exploratory cross-cultural contact in our inventory. Participants rated the advertisements’ persuasive appeal and their inclination to personally visit the center. Our main hypothesis was that scores on the corresponding individual function should be predictive of how persuaded (inclined) participants would be by reading a particular advertisement, while scores on the other functions should not be predictive, or at least less predictive.

Method

Participants, Measures, and Procedure

Participants were 211 German citizens (147 female, 63 male, M_age = 32.07 years, SD = 9.28 years, range = 19-66 years) recruited via the university website and social media. The majority of participants worked professionally (n = 158) in education, social services, and health care (n = 63); administration or law (n = 26); management or retail (n = 32); science and research (n = 11); artistic and cultural professions (n = 16); and technical professions (n = 10). A total of 199 participants were enrolled in distance education programs at our university. Study 1 confirmed small- to medium-sized correlations between functions and indicators of cross-cultural exploration. Therefore, the sample size in the current study was determined to provide sufficient power (power ≥ .80, alpha = .05) to identify a medium- to small-sized effect of our functional advertisement manipulation.

The study utilized a 1 × 6 within-subjects design. It was introduced to participants as being concerned with the persuasiveness of advertising messages. After consenting to participation, participants completed a battery of questionnaires containing the contact function inventory (with items presented in randomized order) and several other measures as filler material (e.g., items regarding participants’ media usage, personality, creativity, and problem solving style; 64 items in total). They then evaluated six advertising texts supposedly developed to promote an upcoming open day at a cultural center. To control for sequence effects, presentation of the six advertisements was randomized. Each text was presented on a separate page. While the format of the advertisements was held constant, each advertisement contained a unique message that advocated visiting the center as a way to satisfy one of the inventory’s six functions of exploratory cross-cultural contact. Using the knowledge and understanding advertisement translated from German as an example, the advertisement read as follows (the experimental statements that are unique to this advertisement are highlighted):

Our cultural center aims to be a meeting place for people from different cultures. It is our goal to foster intercultural learning experiences. Our visitors tell us time and again how new horizons have opened through the contacts they made in our center. Why don’t you make use of our diverse offers and events and gain knowledge about the life and culture of foreign countries, too! Interested? Then come on down to our open day on Saturday—we look forward to meeting you!

After each advertisement, participants rated two evaluative questions pertaining to the cover story inserted among filler questions: (a) How persuasive do you personally find this invitation? (1 = not at all, 7 = very), (b) How likely is it that you would visit the center described here yourself? (1 = not at all, 7 = very). At the end of the study, participants were thanked, fully debriefed, and provided with the opportunity to withdraw their data from the study.

Results

Inclination to Personally Visit the Cultural Center

We computed six composite measures for the individual functions of our inventory: knowledge and understanding (M = 5.56, SD = 1.26, α = .95), value expression (M = 4.83, SD = 1.36, α = .89), professional advancement (M = 3.22, SD = 1.64, α = .95), social development (M = 4.36, SD = 1.41, α = .91), personal-image concerns (M = 1.88, SD = 1.01, α = .87), and group-image concerns (M = 2.76, SD = 1.31, α = .90). To test our predictions, we then ran six separate hierarchical regression analyses in which we regressed the inclination to personally visit the cultural center on the corresponding function in a first step, adding the remaining functions as additional predictors in a second step. The results of the six analyses were in line with our predictions (Table 2). For each advertisement, the corresponding function was a significant predictor in the first step of the model, R²s ≥ .08, Fs(1, 209) ≥ 18.68, p ≤ .001. Furthermore, each individual function remained a significant predictor of participants’ inclination to visit the center after including the remaining functions in the second step. For three advertisements, adding the remaining functions to the models led to a significant improvement of the prediction (social development, professional advancement, and personal-image concerns), ΔR²s ≥ .06, ΔFs(5, 204) ≥ 2.89, p ≤ .015. For the social development and professional advancement advertisements, this improvement resulted mainly from positive contributions of the value function to the prediction of participants’ inclination to visit the cultural center. For the personal-image concerns advertisement, the contribution of the knowledge and understanding function emerged as a unique and positive predictor.

Table 2.

Predictive Value of Individual Functions by Type of Advertisement for the Cultural Center (Study 2a).

	KU		VE		PA		SDEV		PIC		GIC
	Step 1	Step 2	Step 1	Step 2	Step 1	Step 2	Step 1	Step 2	Step 1	Step 2	Step 1	Step 2
Predictors
KU	.39***	.26**		.02		.12		.10		.18		−.05
VE		.14	.44***	.42***		.17*		.27**		.07		.03
PA		−.10		−.09	.39***	.31***		−.16*		−.19*		.02
SDEV		.07		.001		−.08	.36***	.20**		.06		.13
PIC		.09		−.04		.14		.07	.29***	.30**		.09
GIC		.09		.14		−.05		.01		.08	.33***	.23*
R²	.15***		.19***		.15***		.13***		.08***		.11***
ΔR²		.04		.02		.06*		.10***		.08**		.02

Note. Coefficients are standardized regression coefficients β. Advertisement conditions: KU = knowledge and understanding; VE = value expression; PA = professional advancement; SDEV = social development; PIC = personal-image concerns; GIC = group-image concerns.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Analogous hierarchical regression analyses using the persuasive appeal of the advertisements as the criterion variable generally reproduced these findings (Table S4 in the online supplement). For each advertisement, the corresponding function was a significant predictor in the first step of the regression model. Furthermore, for each analysis the relevant functions retained its significant and positive predictive value when the other functions were entered as additional predictors of the brochures’ persuasive appeal.

Discussion

Study 2a offers further support for the potential of a functional approach to exploratory cross-cultural contact. Our experimental study confirmed that the best predictor of how persuaded and motivated participants were to visit a cultural center by reading a particular advertisement was their score on the corresponding individual function, while scores on the other functions were less predictive. In other words, participants were persuaded and motivated to the extent that the advertising matched their individual motivation. Our experiment provides a straightforward conceptual replication of Clary et al.’s (1998, Study 4) research on the role of individual functions in motivating people to volunteer, speaking strongly and persuasively to the validity of our findings.

The results of Study 2a also put us in a better position to evaluate the relative contribution of individual functions in stimulating exploratory cross-cultural contact (an issue already raised in the discussion of Study 1a). Across our samples, we observed significant variations in the personal significance that our research participants assigned to the six contact functions. Nevertheless, the present study in which we experimentally varied cross-cultural contact opportunities confirms that each of the six individual functions identified in our inventory has the potential to reliably predict cross-cultural exploration as long as the social context promises the fulfillment of the underlying needs or motives. The relative importance of a specific function in predicting exploratory cross-cultural contact can therefore not simply be extrapolated from the size of its mean score or absolute level. Rather its relevance in a specific situation results from the fit between the function and specific properties of the social context.

It is important to recall that we took several precautions to reduce demand characteristics and hypothesis guessing in the design of our study: Items measuring contact functions were presented in randomized order, contact function measures were presented among a large number of distracters, all participants were presented with all six advertisements sequentially and at random. Still, due to the relative close proximity between the measurement of functions and the measurement of the perceived persuasive appeal of the advertisement (or participants’ inclination to visit), an additional study that separates the measurement of contact functions from measurement of indicators of exploratory cross-cultural contact would further strengthen our confidence in the validity and generalizability of our results. Study 2b was designed to address this issue.

Study 2b: Functions and Preference for Cross-Cultural Interaction Partner

Study 2a provided a first experimental test of the assumption that the motivational appeal of a specific environment depends on the extent to which it seems to provide psychological benefits desired by an individual (Function × Environment fit). Study 2b, preregistered with aspredicted.orgman (#2540), was designed to further corroborate this assumption. Toward this end, we included the following amendments into the design and conduct of Study 2b. First, we separated the measurement of individual functions from the session in which we assessed cultural exploration tendencies. Second, we examined a more behavioral outcome, namely choosing between two individuals from another culture who addressed different potential functions for cultural exploration. Third, and finally, to further increase ecological validity, we tested our specific hypotheses in a real-world context, namely a virtual study-buddy program, in which bachelor freshmen at a distance learning university were matched on a one-on-one basis to one other freshman at the beginning of the academic year (e.g., Stürmer, 2014). For the purpose of our investigation, the study-buddy program provided a particularly intriguing setting, because some students are actually matched with students from other cultural backgrounds. The study was introduced to participants as a study to improve an automated matching routine to build study-buddy pairs that would allegedly be implemented in following semesters. In a first testing session, participants were asked to rank six reasons for cross-cultural contact in order of personal importance (each reason reflecting the content of items used to measure one of the six contact functions). In a second session, starting 2 days later, we asked students to choose a future buddy from two (fictitious) individuals from another culture proposed by the matching routine, each addressing different potential functions for cultural exploration. One offered the opportunity for fulfillment of their highest ranked function (higher fit) while the other offered the opportunity for fulfillment of the lowest ranked function (lower fit). Our main hypothesis was that when asked to choose a buddy for future interaction, participants would choose the former over the latter.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 127 psychology distance education students (107 female, 20 male, M_age = 35.17 years, SD = 11.49 years, range = 18-63 years) who had conscientiously completed both time points of this two-wave study on February 20, 2017, without interruptions and had agreed to use of their data after debriefing. They were recruited via two online forums, one specifically for all first-year psychology students and one in the “Psychology café” that routinely posts requests for research participation. The majority of participants worked professionally (n = 93) in education, social services, and health care (n = 40); administration or law (n = 18); management or retail (n = 17); science and research (n = 5); artistic and cultural professions (n = 6); and technical professions (n = 7). The sample size in the current study provided excellent power to identify medium to large effects (power = .99, alpha = .05).

The study utilized a 1 × 2 within-subjects design with 2 time points of measurement at least 48 hr (2 days) apart (M_hours = 80, SD = 58, range = 48-479.5 hr). In the first session, students were informed that they would be required to feed the “test-version” of the automated matching routine with personal information so that the routine could find a suitable buddy from a pool of interested individuals at a later date. After consenting to participation, participants completed demographic information and stated their preferences for a study-buddy. They were reminded that study-buddies may come from a different cultural background. Therefore, they were also asked to rank six reasons for cross-cultural contact (each pertaining to one of our contact functions, presented in random order) in order of personal importance. The wording of the items, translated from German, was approximately as follows: “To learn something new about foreign cultures” (knowledge and understanding); “To take a stand for inner values (tolerance, justice) and to counter xenophobia” (value expression); “To make friends” (social development); “To extend professional competences (e.g., acquire intercultural competencies, use foreign languages)” (professional advancement); “To give people from other cultures an understanding of the culture I come from” (group-image concerns); “To receive acknowledgment from people who are important to me for my commitment and worldliness” (personal-image concerns).

Finally, participants answered further questions about themselves as filler material (e.g., personal interests, openness to new experiences, perfectionism) and left their email so that the “test-version” could automatically contact them once a match had been made. A mail-trigger then caused an automated, anonymous, and individualized invitation to be sent to the email address provided after 2 days. Email addresses were automatically deleted from the system using a recode-trigger. The second part informed participants that the routine had retrieved two potential buddies, whose information was summarized in a short profile. Although participants were led to believe that these individuals were real and that they could actually communicate with one of them in a later phase of the evaluation, all information participants received was fictitious. To further aid psychological realism, they were also told that the test-version was still limited in terms of the characteristics/information it could use for matching and regarding its layout. They were advised that they would be asked to provide feedback to each of the suggestions and to the overall matching process. Participants then saw two profiles matched to their own gender. To control for sequence effects, presentation of the targets was randomized. Each target was presented on a separate page. The four profiles (two male targets—Ayaan P. and Rishan V.—and two female targets—Ayana P. and Prisha V.) were carefully developed to minimize confounds: They were held constant in terms of format and contained only first names (matched for length and sound) and initials, gender, age (31 vs. 32) and cultural background (South Asian). The profiles were combined with short statements (displayed in boxes used in the first questionnaire, typed in lower case and including typos to aid realism) about the target’s wishes for the interaction. To manipulate Function × Target fit the statement of one person provided information that fulfilled participants’ highest ranking motivational function for exploratory cross-cultural contact from Time 1 (Target A, higher fit) while the statement of the other person provided information that fulfilled the lowest ranking motivational function from Time 1 (Target B, lower fit). The six statements (each offering promise to fulfill a distinct function, matched in length to 156 characters, translated from German) were as follows (functions in parentheses):

Learning together with a buddy provides an opportunity to expand one’s own views. I would like to have an exchange about cultural and philosophical differences. (knowledge and understanding)

Since living here I have made different experiences and I am worried about the current social atmosphere. I would like a tolerant and worldly partner. (value expression)

As I am a sociable and outgoing person, I am hoping for an intense contact with the study-buddy and that a friendship will develop while learning together. (social development)

I want to bring my intercultural competences to the common learning experience in the study-buddy program, so that others will have a real professional benefit from it. (professional advancement)

I love Germany! I am looking forward to learning more about the German culture and arrive more fully in Germany by learning together. (group-image concerns)

I really appreciate that there are students who get involved in improving well-being and course satisfaction for others. This should be acknowledged and supported. (personal-image concerns)

After each target presentation participants rated perceived interpersonal fit. They then indicated a preference for one of the targets. At the end of the study, participants were thanked, fully debriefed, and provided with the opportunity to withdraw their data from the study.

Dependent Measures

Perceived interpersonal fit

To measure this variable for each target, five items were used: likely fit, likability, met expectations (these three items were rated on separate 7-point rating scales ranging from 1 disagree to 7 agree), satisfaction with choice, and expectation of pleasant interaction (both items rated on separate 7-point rating scales ranging from 1 not at all to 7 very). These items formed internally consistent scales (Target A Cronbach’s α = .94; Target B Cronbach’s α = .91).

Participant’s choice

Participants were asked to choose which partner they would like to work with for the study-buddy program, if they had the choice: Target A (higher fit, coded 1) or Target B (lower fit, coded 2). This variable was our dependent variable.

Results

Perceived Interpersonal Fit

One-sample t tests on the perceived interpersonal fit measures revealed that participants perceived Target A and Target B as relatively fitting, for both targets means were significantly above the midpoint “4” of the 7-point rating scale, Target A (M = 5.09, SD = 1.21), Target B (M = 4.63, SD = 1.10), both ts(126) ≥ 6.44, ps < .001. Importantly, however, in line with our expectations, a repeated measures ANOVA on perceived interpersonal fit showed that participants perceived significantly higher fit with Target A than with Target B, F(1, 126) = 19.11, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .13.

Distribution of Target Choice

A chi-square test supported our main hypothesis. Specifically, results showed that participants chose Target A (higher fit, n = 83) more frequently than Target B (lower fit, n = 44) and that this distribution differed significantly from an equal distribution between Target A and Target B, χ²(1) = 11.98, p = .001, Cohen’s d = .65. A further breakdown of this analysis by highest ranked function showed that participants ranked social development highest most often (n = 38), followed by knowledge and understanding (n = 36), value expression (n = 27), professional advancement (n = 22), and individual and group-image concerns (both n = 2). Importantly, separate chi-square replicated the effect for knowledge and understanding, χ²(1) = 7.11, p = .008, and value expression, χ²(1) = 8.33, p = .004. With regard to social development a similar though nonsignificant trend was visible, χ²(1) = 2.63,p = .105. The chi-square test for professional advancement showed a perfectly equal distribution with 11 people choosing each target. Group n was too small to undertake separate analyses for group-image concerns and personal-image concerns (both ns = 2).

Discussion

Study 2b offers further support for the potential of a functional approach to exploratory cross-cultural contact. Specifically, and in line of the general idea of a Function × Environment fit, we found that participants in an ecologically valid real-world context (i.e., a virtual study-buddy program) perceived higher fit between themselves and a target from a different cultural background when the target’s statements held the promise of fulfilling an important cross-cultural contact motivation in a future interaction. Moreover, when asked to actually choose a future buddy among two alternatives, they showed a clear overall preference to choose the buddy with the higher potential over the buddy with the lower potential to fulfill the cross-cultural contact motivation. As with all research in natural environments, there are natural constraints to experimentation. For instance, as only very few participants ranked personal-image concerns or group-image concerns highest in the context in which we tested our hypotheses (a program designed to foster student interactions), we were not able to demonstrate the role of Function × Environment fit for all individual functions (e.g., personal and group-image concern). Furthermore, and related, we were also not able to systematically use (or counterbalance) all six functions in the fit versus nonfit comparisons because participants generally tended to assign higher (or lower) importance to some functions than others. Still, and keeping these potential limitations in mind, the convergence of evidence from a combination of two studies addressing the role of Function × Environment fit using different experimental paradigms, within and between experimentation, different contexts, and different outcome measures significantly strengthened our confidence in the validity and generalizability of our perspective.

General Discussion

In recent years, manifestations of human xenophilia are of increasing interest to intergroup researchers (Barbarino & Stürmer, 2016; Morris et al., 2015; Paolini et al., 2016; Pittinsky et al., 2011; Stürmer et al., 2013). The main objective of the four studies presented in this article was to further develop this emerging perspective by introducing and testing a functional perspective of the individual motives fulfilled and the psychological functions served by actively engaging in exploratory cross-cultural contact. Our investigations suggest that six conceptually distinct individual motivations for exploratory cross-cultural contact can be identified. Each of the six motivations has clear conceptual links to previous functional analyses in diverse domains of individual and social behavior (e.g., Clary et al., 1998; Herek, 1986; D. Katz, 1960; Maio & Olson, 2000; Smith et al., 1956). Moreover, there are clear parallels between this set of functions and findings in the intergroup literature examining determinants of positive (rather than negative) reactions toward members of other groups (see, for instance, the literature on cross-group helping, Stürmer & Snyder, 2010).

Because standardized measures of individual contact motivations were lacking, a primary concern of Study 1a was to develop a reliable and valid inventory of the individual functions served through exploratory cross-cultural contact. In support of the results of our conceptual literature review, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirmed a congruent and replicable solution of six related though distinct factors (Study 1a). Furthermore, in our research the individual motivation scales showed satisfactory internal consistency (Studies 1a, 1b, & 2a) and temporal stability (Study 1b) testifying the inventory’s reliability. The inventory also produced theoretically meaningful and statistically significant results in these studies supporting both incremental (Studies 1a and 1b) and predictive validity (Studies 1b 2a and 2b).

Our contact functions inventory enabled us to systematically examine some central predictions of a functional approach to exploratory cross-cultural contact. A unique contribution of a functional approach is its focus on a Function × Environment fit. Concurrently, Study 2a and 2b showed that different environments offer differing “fulfillment opportunities” such that the motivating potential of a distinct contact function results from the fit afforded by an environment. The perspective put forward by our functional analysis also has important implications, we believe, for the design of practical interventions aiming to foster cross-cultural exploration (e.g., in the context of recruiting people in work or nonprofit organizations for cross-cultural endeavors). Specifically, our findings suggest that such attempts will be particularly promising if they consider both individual contact motivations and the context’s potential to fulfill these motivations. All things considered, then, we feel that the present research makes a compelling case for the potential of a functional approach to exploratory cross-cultural contact, and we hope that our studies will stimulate future research that further test and elaborate this perspective.

The present research focused primarily on individual functions of exploratory cross-cultural contact. Benevolent cross-cultural contact may also serve some more ulterior collective interests or functions, however, such as enhancing intergroup dominance, superiority, exploitation, or exchange. Some aspects of such collective functions are tapped by the group-image concern subscale of our inventory. Still, the development of an instrument to identify and measure collective-level functions of exploratory cross-cultural contact more systematically remains an interesting task for future research. Further research in that direction would also be an important future step in a more extensive research endeavor investigating the determinants of xenophile tendencies in humans. Previous studies (including the studies presented here) have focused on individual-level determinants of people’s tendencies to seek out contact with foreign cultures (e.g., personality traits, motives). What is needed next is research on the collective-level that complements and extends these individual-level perspectives.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank our colleagues Mark Snyder and Stephen C. Wright for valuable comments on our work.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was made possible by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Grant STU 250/5-1, 2 to Stefan Stürmer.

Supplemental Material

Supplementary material is available online with this article.

References

Álvarez-Pérez

Fernandez-Borrero

M. A.

Vázquez-Aguado

(2014). When knowledge is not enough: Elements to strengthen intercultural sensitivity among professionals of social services in Andalusia (Spain). Journal of Social Service Research, 40, 353-366. doi:10.1080/01488376.2014.901278

Arasaratnam

L. A.

Banerjee

S. C.

(2011). Sensation seeking and intercultural communication competence: A model test. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 226-233. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.07.003

Armenta

B. E.

Knight

G. P.

Carlo

Jacobson

R. P.

(2011). The relation between ethnic group attachment and prosocial tendencies: The mediating role of cultural values. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 107-115. doi:10.1002/ejsp.742

Barbarino

M.-L.

Stürmer

(2016). Different origins of xenophile and xenophobic orientations in human personality structure: A theoretical perspective and some preliminary findings. Journal of Social Issues, 72, 432-449. doi:10.1111/josi.12175

Cattell

R. B.

(1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10

Chen

J. S.

(2011). The motivations and expectations of international volunteer tourists: A case study of “Chinese Village Traditions.” Tourism Management, 32, 435-442. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.01.009

Clary

E. G.

Snyder

Ridge

R. D.

Copeland

Stukas

A. A.

Haugen

Miene

(1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1516-1530. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516

Crocker

Garcia

J. A.

(2009). Downward and upward spirals in intergroup interactions: The role of egosystem and ecosystem goals. In Nelson

T. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 229-245). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Cronbach

L. J.

Furby

(1970). How we should measure “change”: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68-80. doi:10.1037/h0029382

10.

Davies

Tropp

L. R.

Aron

Pettigrew

T. F.

Wright

S. C.

(2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 332-351. doi:10.1177/1088868311411103

11.

De Souza Briggs

(2007). “Some of my best friends are . . .”: Interracial friendships, class, and segregation in America. City & Community, 6, 263-290. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6040.2007.00228.x

12.

Dörnyei

Csizer

(2005). The effects of intercultural contact and tourism on language attitudes and language learning motivation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 327-357. doi:10.1177/0261927X05281424

13.

Dunne

(2013). Exploring motivations for intercultural contact among host country university students: An Irish case study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 567-578. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.06.003

14.

Dunton

B. C.

Fazio

R. H.

(1997). An individual difference measure of motivation to control prejudiced reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 316-326. doi:10.1177/0146167297233009

15.

Fabrigar

L. R.

Wegener

D. T.

(2014). Exploring causal and noncausal hypotheses in nonexperimental data. In Reis

H. T.

Judd

C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 504-533). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Fodness

(1994). Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 21, 555-581. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(94)90120-1

17.

Harwood

Vincze

(2012). Undermining stereotypes of linguistic groups through mediated intergroup contact. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 157-175. doi:10.1177/0261927X12438358

18.

Heise

D. R.

(1975). Causal analysis. Oxford, UK: John Wiley.

19.

Herek

G. M.

(1986). The instrumentality of attitudes: Toward a neofunctional theory. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 99-114. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1986.tb00227.x

20.

Hopkins

Reicher

Harrison

Cassidy

Bull

Levine

(2007). Helping to improve the group stereotype: On the strategic dimension of prosocial behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 776-788. doi:10.1177/0146167207301023

21.

Jetten

Spears

Manstead

A. R.

(1996). Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: Distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1222-1233. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1222

22.

Katz

(1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163-204. doi:10.1086/266945

23.

Katz

Hass

(1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.893

24.

King

P. M.

Perez

R. J.

Shim

(2013). How college students experience intercultural learning: Key features and approaches. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6, 69-83. doi:10.1037/a0033243

25.

Kudo

Simkin

K. A.

(2003). Intercultural friendship formation: The case of Japanese students at an Australian university. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24, 91-114. doi:10.1080/0725686032000165351

26.

A. S.

Lee

C. Y. S.

(2011). Motivations and perceived value of volunteer tourists from Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 32, 326-334. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.03.002

27.

Maio

G. R.

Olson

J. M.

(2000). Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

28.

Mak

A. S.

Tran

(2001). Big five personality and cultural relocation factors in Vietnamese Australian students’ intercultural social self-efficacy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 181-201. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(00)00050-X

29.

Martinovic

van Tubergen

Maas

(2009). Changes in immigrants’ social integration during the stay in the host country: The case of non-western immigrants in the Netherlands. Social Science Research, 38, 870-882. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.06.001

30.

Migacheva

Tropp

L. R.

(2013). Learning orientation as a predictor of positive intergroup contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 426-444. doi:10.1177/1368430212455854

31.

Migacheva

Tropp

L. R.

Crocker

(2011). Focusing beyond the self: Goal orientations in intergroup relations. In Tropp

L. R.

Mallett

R. K.

(Eds.), Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations (pp. 99-115). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12319-005

32.

Morris

M. W.

Chiu

Liu

(2015). Polycultural psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 631-659. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015001

33.

Murphy

M. C.

Richeson

J. A.

Molden

D. C.

(2011). Leveraging motivational mindsets to foster positive interracial interactions. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 118-131. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00338.x

34.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2013). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

35.

Nuttman-Shwartz

Berger

(2012). Field education in international social work: Where we are and where we should go. International Social Work, 55, 225-243. doi:10.1177/0020872811414597

36.

Oliner

S. P.

Oliner

P. M.

(1988). The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. New York, NY: Free Press.

37.

Omoto

A. M.

Snyder

(1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 671-686.

38.

Pali

Schnell

(2013). Pilgrimage today: The meaning-making potential of ritual. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 16, 887-902. doi:10.1080/13674676.2013.766449

39.

Pan

(2012). Motivations of volunteer overseas and what have we learned—The experience of Taiwanese students. Tourism Management, 33, 1493-1501. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.02.003

40.

Paolini

Wright

S. C.

Dys-Steenbergen

Favara

(2016). Self-expansion and intergroup contact: Expectancies and motives to self-expand lead to greater interest in outgroup contact and more positive intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 72, 450-471. doi:10.1111/josi.12176

41.

Pittinsky

T. L.

Rosenthal

Montoya

R. M.

(2011). Measuring positive attitudes toward outgroups: Development and validation of the Allophilia Scale. In Tropp

L. R.

Mallett

R. K.

(Eds.), Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations (pp. 41-60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

42.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2010). Multicultural personality: An evolving theory of optimal functioning in culturally heterogeneous societies. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 714-758. doi:10.1177/0011000009359203

43.

Pryor

J. B.

Reeder

G. D.

Yeadon

Hesson-Mclnnis

(2004). A dual-process model of reactions to perceived stigma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 436-452. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.436

44.

Rammstedt

(2007). The 10-item Big Five Inventory: Norm values and investigation of sociodemographic effects based on a German population representative sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 193-201. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.23.3.193

45.

Remhof

Gunkel

Schlaegel

(2014). Goodbye Germany! The influence of personality and cognitive factors on the intention to work abroad. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 2319-2343. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.884613

46.

Siem

Stürmer

(2012). Cross-cultural volunteerism: Examining the effects of intercultural (dis)similarities on volunteers’ motivations to support international students. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 544-557. doi:10.1080/01973533.2012.727316

47.

Simon

Stürmer

Steffens

(2000). Helping individuals or group members? The role of individual and collective identification in AIDS volunteerism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 497-506. doi:10.1177/0146167200266008

48.

Smith

M. B.

Bruner

J. S.

White

R. W.

(1956). Opinions and personality. Oxford, UK: John Wiley.

49.

Snyder

(1993). Basic research and practical problems: The promise of a “functional” personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 251-264. doi:10.1177/0146167293193001

50.

Stierle

van Dick

Wagner

(2002). Success or failure? Personality, family, and intercultural orientation as determinants of expatriate managers’ success. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 33, 209-218. doi:10.1024//0044-3514.33.4.209

51.

Stürmer

(2014, September). Diversity inclusion in distance education: Evaluating the effects of a virtual study-buddy program. Paper presented at the 49th Congress of the German Psychological Society, Bochum.

52.

Stürmer

Benbow

A. E. F.

Siem

Barth

Bodansky

A. N.

Lotz-Schmitt

(2013). Psychological foundations of xenophilia: The role of major personality traits in predicting favorable attitudes toward cross-cultural contact and exploration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 832-851. doi:10.1037/a0033488

53.

Stürmer

Snyder

(2010). Helping “Us” versus “Them”: Towards a group-level theory of helping and altruism within and across group boundaries. In Stürmer

Snyder

(Eds.), The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping (pp. 33-58). Oxford, UK: Wiley & Blackwell.

54.

Tropp

L. R.

Mallett

R. K.

(2011). Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

55.

Van der Zee

K. I.

Van Oudenhoven

J. P.

(2001). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: Reliability and validity of self- and other ratings of multicultural effectiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 278-288. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.2320

56.

Yang

R. P.

Noels

K. A.

(2013). The possible selves of international students and their cross-cultural adjustment in Canada. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 316-323. doi:10.1080/00207594.2012.660161

57.

Zimmermann

Neyer

F. J.

(2013). Do we become a different person when hitting the road? Personality development of sojourners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 515-530. doi:10.1037/a0033019

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.47 MB