Contextual Identities

Abstract

As the number of international students studying at American universities continues to grow (Institute of International Education, 2014), campuses are increasingly becoming social spaces where the local, national, and international meet. Even though students’ identities may still be developing in college (Arnett, 2000) and their environment may influence their identity development (Erikson, 1968), little research has focused on the effects of this unique context on students’ identity formation. This study investigated the change in international and American student roommates’ ethnic and national identities over the course of one semester at three Midwestern universities. The qualitative results from semi-structured interviews with four undergraduate students suggest that these students were still grappling with their identities in different ways as they acted as discoverers, ambassadors, and negotiators and support a contextual approach to studying identity development in college students.

Keywords

Globalization international higher education international students international and American roommates identity development emerging adulthood

Over the past decade, the number of international students studying at colleges and universities in the United States has increased by 436,000 students to 886,052 students (Institute of International Education, 2014). The push to internationalize universities in the United States (Knight, 2004) along with the increased presence of international students creates a multilayered social context in which the local, national, and global meet. This environment may affect the development of international and American undergraduates’ ethnic and national identities as both student groups inhabit a transnational social field where identity is negotiated and transformed (Gargano, 2009). This may be especially true for international and American roommates who navigate this space daily. Because context influences identity formation (Erikson, 1968) and identity is still developing in emerging adults (Arnett, 2000), international and American roommates may experience important changes in their identity. However, few studies have examined identity through a developmental perspective (Arnett, 2006), or how the experience of being an international student can affect a person’s identities (Prazeres, 2013). Therefore, the authors explore ways in which four undergraduate students’ ethnic and national identities developed while living with roommates of different nationalities for one semester.

Focusing on the experiences of international and American roommates is important for two reasons. It can control for the lack of friendships (Sherry, Thomas, & Chui, 2010) and limited social interactions (Rose-Redwood & Rose-Redwood, 2013) between these two student groups across university campuses. It also can increase the likelihood of deep and meaningful intergroup interactions. If intercultural friendships develop, friends may explore and discover their cultures together (Lee, 2008), possibly influencing the way in which they view themselves. As roommates, international and American students may have a significant influence on each other’s identities. Roommates can participate in non-verbal communication (Erlandson, 2012), intimacy building (Trail, Shelton, & West, 2009), and conflict resolution (Bresnahan, Guan, Shearman, & Donohue, 2009). Roommates can also influence the perception of oneself and others, thereby playing a role in how identity is negotiated (McNulty & Swann, 1994). For example, Shook and Clay (2012) observed that minority students with roommates from the majority racial group felt more accepted at their university than students who had roommates of the same race.

In addition to the importance of roommates, age can also be an important factor that may affect students’ identity development. In most industrialized societies, adolescents’ transitions into adult roles are delayed, creating a distinct developmental period called emerging adulthood in which 18- to 25-year-olds continue to explore their identities (Arnett, 2000). Regardless of country of origin, international students who delay adult roles to study may also experience this phase. By synthesizing Arnett’s (2000) theory on emerging adulthood and Erickson’s (1968) psychosocial theory of identity development in which biological and environmental factors interact to influence identity development, the authors developed a framework to examine how college campuses that introduce students to people of different nationalities and cultures may affect students’ identity development in various ways.

According to Phinney (1996), ethnic identity is an identity derived from a group of people with which one shares a cultural heritage. In addition to self-identification, ethnic identity encompasses a sense of belonging, information seeking about one’s ethnic group, and attitudes toward and participation in activities and practices of one’s ethnic group (Phinney, 1990; Phinney & Ong, 2007). Ethnic identity can vary in strength, salience, and meaning across different ethnic groups and within them (Phinney, 1996).

Research concerning the development of students’ ethnic identity as a result of being in a university context is limited (Juang, Nguyen, & Lin, 2006) and inconclusive (Syed, Azmitia, & Phinney, 2007). Although some studies (Juang et al., 2006; Syed et al., 2007; K. M. Tsai & Fuligni, 2012) have not observed an effect of a university’s ethnic concentration on students’ ethnic identities, other studies have noted an effect (Ethier & Deaux, 1994). These results have led K. M. Tsai and Fuligni (2012) to suggest that more personal measures, such as friendships or involvement with multicultural campus groups, may be stronger predictors of ethnic identity than macro-level factors, like a university’s ethnic concentration.

Studies involving immigrants and ethnic minorities add further complexity to the effects of context on ethnic identity. For example, minority group members are generally more cognizant of their group identity than majority group members (Phinney, 1989), and negative perceptions of a group may encourage individuals to positively evaluate their social group and their affiliation to that group (Turner, 1982). Therefore, if the status of students’ ethnic identity changes, so might their awareness and evaluation of and affiliation to that identity. In addition, youth who encounter a variety of cultures in their communities may create hybrid identities that blend multiple cultures (Rao et al., 2013; van Meijl, 2012).

Students’ living situation may also influence their national identities. Building on Turner and Giles’s (1981) definition of social identity, national identity is a type of social identity that an individual derives from a sense of belonging and attachment to a nation. Just like ethnic identity, the meaning and strength of individuals’ national identities depend on multiple contextual factors, such as ethnic group membership (J. L. Tsai, Mortensen, Wong, & Hess, 2002); language, ideology, community demographics (Barceló, 2014); time spent in a country (Barlow, Taylor, & Lambert, 2000); and strength of ethnic identity (Weisskirch, 2005). Although previously conceptualized as mutually exclusive of ethnic identity, more recent scholarship has presented a more nuanced understanding of the interactions between the identities in which multiple relationships between the two can exist (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997; Phinney & Ong, 2007).

Research about the effects of international contexts on students’ national identity is limited (Prazeres, 2013; Sassenberg & Matschke, 2010); however, initial research suggests that students’ experiences may affect their identities. For example, studying abroad may lead to an increased awareness of one’s national identity (Dolby, 2004) and the development of an international student identity (Schmitt, Spears, & Branscombe, 2003). In addition, students may become cognizant of others’ perceptions of their nationality and, therefore, defensively assert their right to exclusively define their national identity or question the relationship between the state and nation (Dolby, 2004). Therefore, international students who come to the United States may experience changes in their identities. By focusing on international and American roommates, this study also investigates whether Dolby’s (2004) findings can apply to American students who live with students of different nationalities.

Method

This study explores how students’ ethnic and national identities changed and developed while living with a student of a different nationality for one semester. This qualitative research is part of a larger mixed-methods study, which was the first author’s master’s thesis.

Participant Selection and Recruitment

Using convenience and purposive sampling, participants were recruited early in the fall semester from three Midwestern universities that had international dormitories. For the quantitative survey (results not reported here), students were invited to participate through emails on the dormitories’ listservs, plus at one university, participants were solicited through several classes that had large groups of international and American roommates. A survey question asked whether students were interested in being interviewed.

Semi-Structured Interviews

All four interested students were interviewed at locations chosen by the participants. All interviews, which lasted 25 min to an hour, were recorded with the participants’ consent. The interviews included 12 semi-structured questions with follow-up questions for exploration of emerging themes. Participants were also encouraged to ask questions.

Data Analysis

Following Creswell’s (2003) generic steps for qualitative data analysis, the first author (a) transcribed the recorded interviews, (b) read through the data to “obtain a general sense of the information and to reflect on its overall meaning” (p. 191; emphasis in original), (c) highlighted responses related to the themes, (d) categorized the highlighted material into codes, (e) re-read the data for other themes and created new codes, (f) re-coded the data, and (g) member-checked by asking all participants to review their interview transcription and confirm its accuracy.

Results

The interviews revealed three themes as possible factors that influence international and American student roommates’ ethnic and national identities: students as (a) discoverers, (b) ambassadors, and (c) negotiators. Before reporting the findings, it is essential to provide brief descriptions of the participants. While most participants consciously chose to live with a student from a different country, one did not. Participants varied in how much time they spent with their roommates and whether they viewed their living situation positively, negatively, or as mixed. Participants also noted a variety of experiences outside their living situations that introduced them to people unlike themselves. These brief participant profiles, including their interpretations of their relationship with their roommate(s), demonstrate the similarities and differences in the students’ living situations which in turn provide an understanding of the context in which the participants navigate their identities. All participant names are pseudonyms.

Participant Profiles

Lijuan, a freshman, was born in China, but grew up in the United States. She reported traveling outside of the United States one to three times and speaks “a little bit the same language” as her Chinese friends. Because of her background, she finds it “hard” to define her national identity, and throughout the interview, she vacillated between identifying as American and Chinese, and as an international and domestic student even though she is not on an international student visa. She actively pursued living with an international roommate to learn about other countries and cultures. Lijuan described her relationship with her Chinese roommate as “friendly” but “not close” because her roommate “spends time at her friends’ house” and “doesn’t want to get to know other people.” However, she has other international friends in her dormitory and participates in multicultural events sponsored by the international dormitory.

Keaira, a sophomore, is an African American woman from Ohio. She has never traveled outside the United States and has only left Ohio once. She chose to live in the international dormitory after living with a Jamaican student over the summer, stating “it was just like really interesting to like see all the different things and see how she lived and everything.” She describes living with her current Japanese roommate as “good” but sometimes “weird” and “awkward” because of language difficulties. However, “I try to explain it differently or use a lot of hand movements . . . we’ll go on Google or something and we’ll show each other pictures.” They spend time together and “talk and watch videos and listen to music and watch movies and stuff.”

Ali, a sophomore from Saudi Arabia, spent 1 year at a community college before transferring to a 4-year institution where he lives with an American and a Colombian. He has traveled outside of Saudi Arabia more than 10 times. Ali chose to live with an American citizen to improve his English: “If you still live with people like from my country, the people say I will not improve my language . . . I will always speak like Arabic Arabic [sic], so I will not improve anything.” He and his roommates “have, I can say it, like every day a conversation for like a half-hour.”

Takeshi is an international student from Japan. He is a sophomore and has traveled outside of Japan more than 10 times. His experience is different than other participants’ because he did not choose to live with an American. He lived in southern California for about 3 years where he enjoyed its diversity, but now in the Midwest, he finds the “white culture . . . kind but . . . not welcome to the others.” He currently lives with two Americans and one Saudi Arabian. He likes one American because of their similar experiences: “He went to a California university so that’s why he knows about California and diversity and culture.” They talk “a lot” about “history,” “social issues,” “human rights,” “vegetarians,” and “We always try to go against each other. If he goes this way, I go against his argument. It’s kinda fun.” But he is not fond of his other roommates because the other American is “quiet,” and the Saudi Arabian “has a totally different background,” is “messy,” and “selfish.” Therefore, Takeshi shows a preference for the roommate who is most like him, even stating that he “cannot adjust to [the Saudi Arabian’s] life.”

Students as Discoverers

By living and interacting with different ethnic and national groups on a daily basis, all participants discovered something about these groups that uniquely affected their own identities. For Lijuan, it is important to learn from other cultures to create an inclusive society:

. . . because the United States has been more for international people to come in and learn and see not only the culture here but the different cultures coming in here. After we graduate, we need to understand their culture, too, so we can make them feel at home here.

Learning from people of different nationalities in the international dormitory helps her appreciate the similarities and differences she shares with others. She explained, “It’s like kinda nice to have a little bit similar but not a whole lot similar.” Lijuan describes herself as a “big-heart person” who “accept[s] people no matter what.” Still, living in an international dormitory “opened [her] mind a lot:

It’s [international dormitory] change like different view of different culture. Like growing up my grandma talking about how certain Japan’s [sic] bad because of the war. The fighting part and like kinda changed a lot. Like there is certain parts bad, but it’s part of the world how every country is fighting over certain stuff like power . . .

Lijuan’s exposure to students of different nationalities helped her critically examine her and her grandmother’s preconceived notions of the Japanese and recognize the universality of power struggles that cause all people—not just Japanese—to engage in harmful acts.

Keaira also changed her opinions of different group members based on her living situation. Previously, she had noted self-segregation among international students on campus and “thought it was always because they felt they were better than everyone else.” However, she now realizes “that it’s because they feel like no one can understand that they’re saying, and it’s hard for them to voice their opinions when everyone’s always like what?” She specifically references her roommate to explain why her perception changed:

I know when I talk to my roommate a lot, she’s always like asking me for help on our homework because she can’t understand the wording, and she’s like, oh my gosh, I’m so stupid, and I’m like, you’re not stupid. It’s just this is English, and English isn’t your first language.

In her interactions with diverse groups, Keaira also discovered “We’re together one, but we’re still different.” However, this belief creates difficulty for her also:

Like if I were to be in a group of diverse people . . . but they were to say well I’m this and I’m this and I’m this and I’m just like what’d that make me? Would that make me one of them, or would that make me separate?

Keaira appears to struggle with the idea of her identity—is it a separating or unifying factor? Thereby, she questions the function of her identity in a socially diverse environment.

Ali wanted to live with an American to learn English, to “. . . get, uh, information from the right person, from the good source,” and as a “good opportunity to know about other culture.” Through conversations with his roommates, Ali discovered similarities between Americans and Saudi Arabians: “I think we have a lot in common between back home, my country, and here, but I think the difference is just in school.” He also strived to further his understanding about different cultural groups through various interactions. For instance, he went to different churches with his friends, despite questions from his own religious group:

Many people told me, cus I’m a Muslim, so to me, why you want to [sic]? I told them, look, let me see how the other people worshipping God. Let me see, and many my friends invite me to go there and I went.

Of one church, he said, “The majority, believe me, I saw the old people, and I was shocked. I say, how about the other?” And, of another he stated, “I see that all them young people and I was shocked. I guess because the preacher is like young and in the same age, so he can engage the people to come to church.” Ali’s interactions with his roommates and friends led him to not only discover new information about Americans but also recognize the similarities that exist between two different national groups.

Takeshi’s experience differs from the others because he never mentioned learning anything new about a different ethnic or national group. Takeshi stated:

. . . I came over to the United States, and I see so many Asians culture. Asians, you know what I mean? I feel like that’s why I don’t like them. I see a lot of persons, a lot of behavior that I don’t like, so I think that if I come to the United States, Japanese get more stronger, like nationalist.

Takeshi’s dislike of Asian behavior in the United States causes him to more strongly identify with his national identity and reinforced his pre-existing perceptions. He stated, “We don’t like the China, South Korea. We don’t like its culture, so like always we go against them.” Instead of changing his attitude, intergroup contact strengthened Takeshi’s perceptions of Chinese and South Koreans.

Lijuan, Keaira, and Ali’s comments suggest that through their experiences with their roommates, other students in the international dormitory, and in the broader society (for Ali), they learned about other countries and cultures, which sometimes challenged pre-existing notions that they had of specific groups of people. These three students also recognized the similarities that they shared with other cultural groups, leading Keaira to question the construction of her identity and Ali to challenge others who believed that his identity limited him from experiencing different religious practices. Takeshi, however, did not express discovering aspects of different cultures through his experience abroad. Instead, his experience reinforced his negative view of other Asian countries and increased the strength of his national identity. Therefore, this suggests that students’ personal experiences and preconceived ideas of others may influence how their identities develop while interacting with individuals of different nationalities.

Students as Ambassadors

All participants were aware of perceptions of their national and/or ethnic groups by their community members. Most students used intercultural contact to serve as an ambassador by correcting inaccurate, and oftentimes negative, assumptions about their national and/or ethnic group. However, Takeshi did not conform to this pattern, and instead, he used these perceptions to guide his behavior. Although almost all students acted as ambassadors, this role affected each student’s identities differently.

Lijuan mentioned that she enjoyed having Americans in the international dorm and appreciated learning about other groups’ perception of her group:

It’s really nice to have them in our group [international dormitory] because like it will let us like share our culture with them and also like have their view on us and it’s like learning from each other and helps us grow a lot.

Although Lijuan grew up in the United States, in this statement, she is most likely identifying more with her Chinese than American heritage. She uses the shared, international space to share her own culture with “Americans,” including dispelling stereotypes, thereby serving as an ambassador to educate other groups about her own:

Some of the stuff they say isn’t true. Like some people think that we go to school 365 days a year, but we don’t. We do take off summer days like what American schools do . . . It’s like some parts awkward, some parts not awkward like telling them what’s right and what’s wrong.

Similarly, Keaira acknowledges others’ attitudes toward African Americans; however, she purposefully identifies with her group to improve its image. Instead of verbally correcting stereotypes, she serves by example, emulating strength and poise to teach others about her ethnic group. Keaira stated,

I’ve felt like I’ve had to identify with African Americans mostly at the beginning of the semester when I signed up for all these different organizations, and they were talking about all these things that were happening in African American communities and stuff like that . . . There were so many problems. As a strong African American woman, it would be important for me to identify as that to at least make it look better than what people normally think of it as.

Ali also used cultural diplomacy in his interactions. At his university’s orientation for international students, “Nobody participated from Saudi Arabia . . . for different activity, join different group,” so he volunteered to help. The event organizer reacted to Ali’s offer: “She look at me. She told me, where I’m from. Saudi Arabia. She was shocked. She told me, believe me, nobody from Saudi Arabia they want to [volunteer]. She told me she didn’t know one.” After recognizing the administrator’s negative perception, he actively attempts to change it by becoming an international ambassador on-campus and joining a group that provides services to international students. “I’m trying to change the thought about Saudi Arabia as a different thought” and again, “I’m proud of that—to change the thought.”

In contrast to the other participants, Takeshi did not become an ambassador. Instead, he wants to learn Americans’ opinions of the Japanese: “If I come to the outside of Japan, I can see, I can understand how Americans think about Japanese . . . It’s very important how they look me.” He does not actively challenge Americans’ perceptions of Japanese, perhaps because “Sometimes it’s not [correct], but most of the case, I think so.” Instead, he values these perceptions to guide his behavior. He believes “international students or people are supposed to try to adjust to American society” and American perceptions of Japanese provide him “feedback” for “how [he’s] supposed to behave.”

Again, Takeshi interprets the purpose of his intercultural interactions differently from the other students, further suggesting that individual views and beliefs may mediate the effects of context on identity development. While Takeshi “adjusts” his behaviors to “American society,” Lijuan, Keaira, and Ali all identify with their ethnic or national groups to dispel negative or incorrect perceptions of those groups. In the case of Lijuan, she demonstrates that in a multicultural society, like the United States, she sometimes identifies and is identified as not being American, showing that her identity can change based on context and the people with whom she is interacting.

Students as Negotiators

When encountering diversity, most participants negotiated their ethnic and national identities as they were contested within an international social space, such as the dormitory or classroom. These experiences affected each individual differently, yet each participant negotiated his or her identity in a context in which multiple identities exist.

Lijuan often noted a complex, fluid relationship between her American and Chinese identities. When asked how she would define her national identity, she responded:

That’s so hard. That’s like, it’s hard for me to answer cus like I kinda grew up here [United States], but at the same time, I was born in China. I have mixed feelings. What I say to people sometimes, like I don’t know what to say when people ask me that.

She vacillates between her two identities. To her, the two identities are exclusionary, “I’m kinda American, but at the same time, I’m not because I’m not really technically American person. I’m Chinese,” yet also they can be blended, “I guess like having different cultures and having my cultures combined make me who I am today.” Living in an international dormitory can decrease this internal conflict because “it’s like open-minded and to see like what you really come from and who you really are.” Because international students were also born in a different country but live in the United States, they welcome her bi-cultural background, help her discover her heritage, provide her with a sense of belonging, and create a safe space to explore her bi-cultural identity.

Living in an international dormitory has also prompted Keaira to explore her ethnic and national identities but in a more critical way. This experience has exposed her to students who identify with a group and are able to explain why:

Being in [the international dormitory] and seeing like how people are like, I’m this, and I’m proud of it, I’m just like I don’t know if I can say something like that . . . because when you ask someone what they identify as they can usually say why it is or attach something to it.

These students cause her to reflect and question what constitutes her own identity. If she cannot define why she identifies with a group, should she identify with it? She specifically uses her roommate’s identity to frame her internal debate:

For instance, my roommate, she’s like ok, I’m from Japan, and I eat this kind of food and all that, but if I say like, I’m African American, but it’s like I don’t really know what I’m supposed to eat as an African American . . . Since I feel like I don’t have anything to attach to it, it’s like I don’t think I want to identify with it.

Her roommate provides her with a criterion for identifying with a group: food; yet she cannot think of a food that is characteristic of her ethnic group. Therefore, she doubts her identification with African Americans and exposes the problematic categorization of individuals based on race.

Keaira also uses her roommate as a foil to critically explore her American national identity. In comparison to other national identities, American identity is:

Weaker . . . because there’s so many different branches off of America. I guess like because they want you to say you’re Mexican American or Asian American or African American, that makes it harder to say ok, we’re all together, whereas like in Japan, they’re not saying ok I’m eastern Japanese or something silly like that. They’re just all Japanese and that’s it.

Keaira uses her roommate’s Japanese identity to explain the “silly” nature of American national identity caused by a societal context that urges ethnic and/or racial categorization that she perceives fragments and undermines a solitary national identity. This other identity facilitates Keaira’s reflection of her own identity and serves as a comparison as she negotiates the meaning of her own identity.

Ali similarly navigates his Muslim identity in new social contexts. Even though he explored different churches, Ali still retains his own religious practices:

. . . Back at home, I went to the mosque like five times a days, but here mosque is far away, so I went to the mosque once a week . . . I also want to participate on Friday, but I have class, unfortunately. So just once a week here.

Ali goes to Mosque, but he is negotiating what being a Muslim means in a majority Christian context. He can no longer go to Friday prayer, so he modifies his religious practices without losing his Muslim identity.

When Takeshi describes his experience with negotiating his identity, he situates it in the larger context of living in the United States rather than the international dormitory. He states that his culture is incompatible with American culture, so he must adjust his behavior and learn when using his Japanese culture is appropriate: “My background, my, like our culture cannot share to the American culture, so that’s why I think we have to adjust first, and then I’m gonna find which part I can share.” For Takeshi, the culture he uses “depends on the situation.” “If I go out drink alcohol, I cannot be Japanese Japanese [sic]. I have to be American behavior cus it’s easy to get friends or easy to enjoy in the United States.” However, Takeshi does not lose his Japanese identity:

In the classroom . . . we don’t say opinion too much. We don’t tell any opinion in class. At least that’s Japanese culture . . . I think my way it’s like a Japanese culture, but I can use in the American class too.

Therefore, depending on the situation, he maintains his Japanese identity while simultaneously incorporating aspects of an American identity. Therefore, Takeshi negotiates his identity as he moves through diverse social contexts that provide him an opportunity to identify with both American and Japanese behavior.

In their encounters with diverse social situations and groups of individuals, all students negotiated the meaning of their identities whether it was through the adjustment of their behaviors or the questioning of their affiliation with a certain group. The students’ responses demonstrate that their identities are not fixed and stable. Instead, they are fluid and contested as students navigate the complex environments in which they live.

Discussion

Change in Ethnic Identity

The international and American student participants showed a simultaneous commitment to and exploration of their ethnic identity by acting as ambassadors and discoverers throughout the semester. These results paint a complex picture of a fluid ethnic identity after having lived with a roommate of a different nationality for one semester. In support of K. M. Tsai and Fuligni’s (2012) suggestion that personal measures, like friendships, may affect the strength of students’ ethnic identity, the intimate relationship between American and international student roommates appeared to influence their ethnic identity. Lijuan and Keaira both examined, explored, questioned, and identified with their ethnic groups as a result of their interactions with their roommates. Also, Lijuan felt accepted while living in an international dormitory. She believes international students can understand her unique identity because they were born in other countries, too; therefore, the acceptance she feels from international students may have allowed her to explore and strengthen her ethnic identity. However, Ali and Takeshi’s relationships with their roommates appeared to have not affected their identities as strongly. One possible reason for this finding could be that living with an American student may have increased international students’ sense of belonging in the community. For example, both Takeshi and Ali had a positive relationship with at least one of their American roommates and were able to converse with their roommates about many things, so they may not have needed to develop a stronger ethnic identity to compensate for feelings of perceived discrimination (Umaña-Taylor, 2011). The short duration of the study may have also contributed to the lack of influence on Takeshi and Ali’s identities.

Although students’ micro-level interactions with their roommates may have increased their sense of belonging, it did not insulate them from stereotypes that existed against their ethnic group at the macro-level, much like the students in Dolby’s (2004) study. These stereotypes affected students’ identities in different ways. For Ali, Keaira, and Lijuan, serving as an ambassador for their ethnic groups strengthened their ethnic identities in specific situations as they purposefully identified with their group and actively worked to change what they viewed as inaccurate stereotypes. However, Takeshi’s reaction differed. While he did not dissociate from his Japanese identity to protect himself against potentially negative stereotypes, he also did not attempt to increase the status of his group by addressing stereotypes of his group. These findings problematize Turner’s (1982) theory that individuals tend to positively assess their social groups to increase their self-esteem. Takeshi’s personal belief that “international students or people are supposed to try to adjust to American society” may have influenced him to learn how others perceive his group and adjust his behavior accordingly instead of challenging stereotypical images of his group. This suggests that how students react to negative portrayals of their group may depend on the beliefs and previous experiences of the individual.

Ali, Keaira, and Takeshi’s reaction to their exposure to other ethnicities further complicates their ethnic identities. While identifying as a “strong African American woman” to improve the image of her ethnic group, Keaira also used her roommate’s ethnic identity to explore and question how she wanted to identify as an African American. While this could suggest a weakening of Keaira’s ethnic identity, it could also signify a greater awareness of the construction of her ethnic identity that does not change her overall African American identity. Ali, however, never questioned his ethnic identity. He utilized his inter-ethnic friends to explore different religions, but he still remained committed to his own ethnic identity.

The students also negotiated their identities as they navigated new social contexts that challenged their ethnic identities; however, they differed in their attempts to reconcile their contested identities. Takeshi viewed his Japanese and American characteristics as incompatible and commented that in certain instances, like partying, he behaved like an American, but under other circumstances, like in the classroom, he was Japanese. However, Keaira and Lijuan struggled to merge their ethnic identities with what they viewed as an exclusionary American national identity. Ali differed from the others in that he included his religion as part of his ethnic identity and interchanged the terms Saudi Arabian and Muslim; therefore, his identity negotiation was framed by a social context that differed not only in nationality but also in religion. Although Ali explored the new religious context, he did not identify with Christianity; instead, he adapted his own religious practices to the new social space.

Change in National Identity

The results regarding national identity similarly suggest that students’ identities were developing in unique ways as they acted as discoverers, ambassadors, and negotiators in different contexts. All participants expressed awareness of and struggled with their national identities. Lijuan’s confusion about how to define her nationality, as Chinese or American, appeared to be a continual struggle for her. Living in the international dormitory may have created an empathetic environment where she had the opportunity to explore and share her Chinese heritage while attempting to merge it with her American identity. For Keaira, her roommate influenced her awareness of her American identity, supporting Dolby’s (2004) findings that living in a social context where her nationality is no longer the majority, she actively—instead of passively—constructed and critically examined her national identity. Keaira questioned how her identities are made and why an American identity can be fragmented. However, Takeshi’s experience reflected the blind patriotism observed in Dolby’s (2004) study, as challenges to his Japanese identity influenced him to identify more strongly with his national identity without critical reflection. By more strongly identifying as Japanese, he may have been attempting to separate himself from the homogeneous and pan-ethnic term, Asian, that is commonly used in the United States and that he himself used derogatorily. Finally, Ali was aware of his Saudi Arabian, Muslim identity, but he appeared to easily adjust his religious practices to the majority American, Christian context while also learning about his peers’ religious practices.

Conclusion

Although it is difficult to determine which factors affected students’ identities the most, one pattern did appear. The American students, Keaira and Lijuan, framed their changes in ethnic and national identities with their roommates or other residents of the international dormitory, while the international students, Ali and Takeshi, mentioned other settings, such as churches, bars, and classrooms. Therefore, living with a roommate of a different nationality may not affect international students as strongly as American students because international students interact with individuals from different nationalities daily in the broader society, regardless of their living situation. However, for American students, living with a roommate from another background may provide them with an otherwise rare opportunity to interact with international students and, thus, more strongly influence their identities due to the potential of these relationships to challenge the status quo or “normalcy” of their identities in their broader social interactions.

The results from this study suggest that identity development in international and American student roommates merits further exploration to fill the gap in the literature surrounding this area. This study was limited with only four participants and a short time-span of one semester. A longitudinal study including more participants could investigate whether this study’s findings are generalizable over time and people. In addition, researchers should continue to investigate the interactions of different types of identities. Students’ identities did not develop in isolation. International students oftentimes merged their ethnic and national identities.

As universities push to internationalize their campuses (Knight, 2004), students increasingly have the potential to come in contact with individuals from different nationalities. Unfortunately, these interactions may be largely superficial as few international and American students form friendships (Sherry et al., 2010). International dormitories provide an opportunity for American and international students to deepen their understanding of other national groups as well as examine their own identities through increased contact, and hopefully friendships, with individuals from diverse backgrounds. Especially for American students with little experience of traveling abroad, an international dormitory may provide students with some of the benefits of studying abroad without actually leaving the country.

Footnotes

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.

Author Biographies

Jessica Batterton received a dual bachelor’s degree in history and Spanish from the University of Virginia in 2005 and a master’s degree in cross-cultural and international education from Bowling Green State University in 2015. Her research interests include bilingual education, educational development in sub-Saharan Africa, and the internationalization of higher education.

Sherri L. Horner is an associate professor at Bowling Green State University, and the first author’s advisor. She teaches Cross-Cultural Human Development and educational psychology courses. Her research interests include literacy development, and the development of self-regulation and motivation in young children through college-age students.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

Arnett

J. J.

(2006). The psychology of emerging adulthood: What is known, and what remains to be known. In Arnett

J. J.

Tanner

J. L.

(Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 303-330). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Barceló

(2014). Contextual effects on subjective national identity. Nations and Nationalism, 20, 701-720.

Barlow

K. M.

Taylor

D. M.

Lambert

W. E.

(2000). Ethnicity in America and feeling American. The Journal of Psychology, 136, 581-600.

Bresnahan

M. J.

Guan

Shearman

S. M.

Donohue

(2009). Roommate conflict: Does race matter? The Howard Journal of Communications, 20, 294-412.

Creswell

J. W.

(2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dolby

(2004). Encountering an American self: Study abroad and national identity. Comparative Education Review, 48, 150-173.

Erikson

E. H.

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Erlandson

(2012). Stay out of my space! Territoriality and nonverbal immediacy as predictors of roommate satisfaction. The Journal of College and University Student Housing, 38(2), 46-61.

10.

Ethier

K. A.

Deaux

(1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 243-251.

11.

Gargano

(2009). (Re)conceptualizing international student mobility: The potential of transnational social fields. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 331-346.

12.

Institute of International Education. (2014). Open doors data: International students. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/International-Students.

13.

Juang

L. P.

Nguyen

H. H.

Lin

(2006). The ethnic identity, other-group attitudes, and psychosocial functioning of Asian American emerging adults from two contexts. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 542-568.

14.

Knight

(2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, 5-31.

15.

Lee

(2008). Stages and transitions of relational identity formation in intercultural friendship: Implications for identity management theory. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1, 51-69.

16.

McNulty

S. E.

Swann

W. B.

Jr. (1994). Identity negotiation in roommate relationships: The self as architect and consequence of social reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1012-1023.

17.

Phinney

J. S.

(1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34-49.

18.

Phinney

J. S.

(1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.

19.

Phinney

J. S.

(1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean? American Psychologist, 51, 918-927.

20.

Phinney

J. S.

Devich-Navarro

(1997). Variations in bicultural identification among African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 3-32.

21.

Phinney

J. S.

Ong

A. D.

(2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 271-281.

22.

Prazeres

(2013). International and intra-national student mobility: Trends, motivations and identity. Geography Compass, 7, 804-820.

23.

Rao

M. A.

Berry

Gonsalves

Hastak

Shah

Roeser

R. W.

(2013). Globalization and the identity remix among urban adolescents in India. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 9-24.

24.

Rose-Redwood

C. R.

Rose-Redwood

R. S.

(2013). Self-segregation or global mixing: Social interactions and the international student experience. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 413-429.

25.

Sassenberg

Matschke

(2010). The impact of exchange programs on the integration of the hostgroup into the self-concept. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 148-159.

26.

Schmitt

M. T.

Spears

Branscombe

N. R.

(2003). Constructing a minority group identity out of shared rejection: The case of international students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-12.

27.

Sherry

Thomas

Chui

W. H.

(2010). International students: A vulnerable student population. Higher Education, 60, 33-46.

28.

Shook

N. J.

Clay

(2012). Interracial roommate relationships: A mechanism for promoting sense of belonging at university and academic performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1168-1172.

29.

Syed

Azmitia

Phinney

J. S.

(2007). Stability and change in ethnic identity among Latino emerging adults in two contexts. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 7, 155-178.

30.

Trail

T. E.

Shelton

J. N.

West

T. V.

(2009). Interracial roommate relationships: Negotiating daily interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 671-684.

31.

Tsai

J. L.

Mortensen

Wong

Hess

(2002). What does “being American” mean? A comparison of Asian American and European American young adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(3), 257–273.

32.

Tsai

K. M.

Fuligni

A. J.

(2012). Change in ethnic identity across the college transition. Developmental Psychology, 48(1), 56-64.

33.

Turner

J. C.

(1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In Tajfel

(Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Turner

J. C.

Giles

(1981). Introduction. In Turner

J. C.

Giles

(Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 1-32). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

35.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2011). Ethnic identity. In Schwartz

S. J.

Luyckx

Vignoles

V. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 791-809). New York, NY: Springer.

36.

van Meijl

(2012). Multicultural adolescents between tradition and postmodernity: Dialogical self theory and the paradox of localization and globalization. In Herman

H. J. M.

(Ed.), Application of dialogical self theory: New directions for child and adolescent development (pp. 39-52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

37.

Weisskirch

R. S.

(2005). Ethnicity and perceptions of being a “typical American” in relationship to ethnic identity development. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 355-366.