A cross‐cultural comparison of ethnocentrism among Japanese and United States college students

By J. Neuliep, M. Chaudoir, J. Mccroskey. 2001

118 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2cab9005c3c643bea7ff7e5fc6b2c4feaa51ca72

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Yangjing Lin
2. Andrew S. Rancer

In Social Psychology

1. J. Neuliep
2. Yangjing Lin
3. Andrew S. Rancer
4. R. Kim
5. Susan B. Goldstein
6. Guo-ming Chen

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Yangjing Lin
2. Andrew S. Rancer
3. J. Neuliep

Citations in the corpus

• Ethnocentrism, intercultural communication apprehension, intercultural willingness‐to‐communicate, and intentions to participate in an intercultural dialogue program: Testing a proposed model (2003, methodology): “Three traits that would appear central to understanding motivations to engage in intercultural communication are ethnocentrism, intercultural communication apprehension, and intercultural willingness-to-communicate (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997; Kassing, 1997; Neuliep et al., 2001; Neuliep & Ryan, 1998; Ro”
• The Relationship among Intercultural Communication Apprehension, Ethnocentrism, Uncertainty Reduction, and Communication Satisfaction during Initial Intercultural Interaction: An Extension of Anxiety and Uncertainty Management (AUM) Theory (2012, background): “Neuliep et al. (2001) and others (c.f. Gudykunst & Kim 2004; Neuliep & Ryan, 1998) have argued that high levels of ethnocentrism negatively influence intercultural communication.”