Research shows that interaction across cultures is beneficial to both local and international members in many ways, ranging from the development of language skills to fostering positive attitudes [20]-[22]. Other studies reveal that intercultural engagement improves sociocultural [23] and psychological adjustment [24]. In a recent study on intercultural interaction willingness, Zheng, Ding, Liu and Xing found several factors that influence interaction engagement [25]. First, language proficiency, culture, and environment have a positive effect on interaction willingness, while racism and discrimination have a negative correlation. Second, interaction willingness is also positively correlated with social connection. Third, interaction willingness plays a mediating role between cultural factors (language, culture, racism and discrimination) and social connection. This means that a supportive environment is crucial for interacting across cultures.

Cultural differences in a mixed culture group show up in both overt and covert ways. Rozin is of the view that cultural differences or the impressions thereof, stem from the physical or social artifacts created by the culture [26]. Rozin identified five important principles for understanding cultural differences [26]. They are summarized as follows: cultural differences often appear larger than the actual differences between individuals within those cultures; differences between individuals in different cultures are generally larger in behavior than in thoughts or feelings; cultural differences often show up as default preferences in responses, rather than entirely different alternatives; much of what we perceive as cultural difference stems from the physical and social artifacts (such as environments and institutions) shaped by culture. In the contemporary world, differences between cultures will generally be larger in older generations than in the younger generations.

Interaction confidence refers to the level of comfort, self-assurance, and reduced anxiety individuals experience when communicating across cultures. Several empirical studies indicate that individuals with higher interaction confidence participate more actively in intercultural discussions and demonstrate greater awareness of appropriate communication behaviors in culturally diverse settings [13][17][18][27]. Furthermore, Logan and others found that intercultural anxiety negatively affects willingness to interact. This suggests that confidence plays a critical role in successful intercultural interactions [28].

Interaction confidence emphasizes that individuals who feel assured in intercultural encounters are more likely to participate actively and effectively in dialogue. This construct also highlights the ability to manage anxiety and uncertainty when interacting with culturally diverse groups. Hofhuis, Schilderman, and Verdooren demonstrated that personality traits such as emotional stability and social initiative significantly influence confidence levels, particularly in simulated intercultural training environments [29]. Their findings suggest that proactive communication strategies and stress management are critical in fostering confidence during intercultural exchanges. Similarly, Dai argued that interactional competence in professional intercultural settings depends on balancing inference (assumptions about others) with practice (observable communicative behaviors) [30]. Confidence emerges when individuals can interpret cultural cues accurately and respond with appropriate language.

Interaction enjoyment refers to the positive feelings, satisfaction, and emotional comfort individuals experience during intercultural communication. Some empirical studies found that individuals who enjoy intercultural interactions are more likely to communicate [13][17][18]. They develop positive intercultural relationships and adapt effectively in culturally diverse environments. Similarly, Mahon and Cushner and Fritz and others observed that positive emotional experiences during intercultural encounters contribute significantly to intercultural openness, empathy, and communication competence [31][32].

Interaction enjoyment emphasizes that intercultural encounters are not only cognitive or behavioral but also emotional. Enjoyment reflects whether individuals feel satisfaction, enthusiasm or discouragement when interacting across cultures. It thus serves as a critical indicator of openness to diversity. Fritz, Möllenberg and Chen, in their confirmatory factor analysis of German students, confirmed interaction enjoyment as part of the intercultural sensitivity construct [32]. They, however, noted an overlap between enjoyment and attentiveness. The overlap suggests that enjoyment is closely tied to attentiveness.

The literature further indicates that enjoyment is influenced by both personality and situational factors. Positive effect, openness to experience, and prior intercultural exposure increase the likelihood of enjoyment in diverse interactions [33]. Conversely, stress, uncertainty, or ethnocentric attitudes can diminish enjoyment, leading to discouragement or withdrawal. In faith-based contexts, enjoyment particularly plays a pivotal role. Church members who find intercultural encounters rewarding are more likely to sustain engagement, build friendships, and contribute to inclusive associations.

Interaction attentiveness refers to the degree of mindfulness, careful observation, and sensitivity individuals demonstrate during intercultural communication. It includes efforts to understand other cultures, pay attention to verbal and non-verbal cues, and interpret subtle meanings during interaction. Empirical studies by Chen and Starosta, Coffey and others, Tamam, and Feng indicate that interaction attentiveness contributes significantly to effective intercultural communication, intercultural openness, and the development of intercultural sensitivity [13][18][27][34]. Furthermore, Coffey and others found that interaction attentiveness was the most influential dimension in enhancing intercultural sensitivity outcomes [34].

Interaction attentiveness stresses that interpreting verbal and nonverbal cues, contextual signals, and implicit meanings shapes communication across cultural boundaries. An empirical study by Fritz, Möllenberg, and Chen confirmed that attentiveness is one of the five factors of intercultural sensitivity, although it is closely related to enjoyment [32]. Nevertheless, attentiveness remains a distinct and essential factor as it captures the intentionality behind intercultural learning. Other studies have highlighted the role of attentiveness in effective intercultural communication. Wiseman, Hammer, and Nishida identified attentiveness to cultural cues as a predictor of intercultural competence [35]. They noted that individuals who actively monitor and interpret subtle meanings are better equipped to avoid misunderstandings. Similarly, Spitzberg and Cupach emphasized attentiveness as part of interpersonal communication competence that is linked to empathy [36]. These findings underscore that attentiveness is not merely passive observation but an active, interpretive process that enhances intercultural understanding.

In summary, the literature points to the important role of intercultural sensitivity in building relations across cultures in different contexts. Intercultural sensitivity interventions highlight that confidence is not merely a personality trait but a skill that can be cultivated through intentional practice. In faith-based social contexts, confidence takes on added significance, as members of congregations are expected to engage respectfully and openly in discussions that bridge cultural and spiritual diversity.

Taken together, these studies underscore that intercultural sensitivity is both a psychological disposition and an experiential phenomenon. It is shaped by personality, reinforced through training, and expressed in the ability to use language appropriately in intercultural encounters. For this study, intercultural sensitivity is examined to provide insight into how Seventh-day Adventist youths navigate social interactions and discussions as well as how they demonstrate awareness of cultural differences among themselves.

The sampling process combined purposive and random selection in a clear sequence. First, a purposive pool was defined by identifying members who met the study’s inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria entailed Adventist youth from different cultural backgrounds who are active in intercultural church discussions and who also have demonstrated awareness of language use. From this purposively identified pool, a random draw was then conducted. This ensured fairness and bias reduction, resulting in the final group of 19 participants. In other words, purposive selection determined who was eligible, while random selection determined which individuals from that eligible pool were actually recruited.

Data were collected over a period of a month using a survey questionnaire with ten open-ended questions. The questionnaire was distributed via Google Forms. The questions were adapted from Chen and Starosta’s Intercultural Sensitivity model. A survey questionnaire with open-ended questions allowed participants ample time and space to express their views and opinions regarding intercultural sensitivity. Following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase approach of thematic data analysis (familiarization, coding, theme development, review, definition, and reporting), the data analysis was primarily theory-guided [39]. But inductive coding was used to generate themes that were subsequently clustered and interpreted within the pre-set theoretical dimensions of the intercultural sensitivity model.

Prior to data collection, permission was requested and secured from the Youth Director of the Namibia South Conference of the SDA Church. Participants were informed of the purpose and objectives of the study and they willingly accepted to participate in the study. No participant was coerced and manipulated to participate in the study. Confidentiality and anonymity were ensured throughout the research process. No data can be traced to a particular participant. The study adhered to the ethical principles of respect, beneficence, and justice by ensuring that participants’ views were represented accurately and sensitively.

To enhance trustworthiness, coding was checked by colleague to confirm accuracy and reduce individual bias. Responses were revisited multiple times to ensure consistency in interpretation and alignment with the emerging themes. Thematic saturation was judged when responses no longer produced new insights, signalling that the key dimensions of intercultural sensitivity had been sufficiently captured. Together, these steps provided credibility and rigor to the qualitative analysis, ensuring that findings were both dependable and transparent.

A dominant theme across the responses is a strong sense of openness and acceptance toward people from different cultures. Many participants described themselves as “open-minded” and willing to engage with individuals from other cultures. Examples: “Yes.I am open minded”; “I am very open minded about interacting withpeople from other cultures.”; “I am very open minded to anyone from any culture.” (See Table 1).

Table 1. Intercultural engagement themes.

Another recurring theme is the enjoyment and enthusiasm participants experience when interacting with people from different cultures. Participants expressed interest, excitement, and appreciation for cultural diversity. Examples: “I enjoy it very much.”; “I love interacting with different cultures.”; “I find it interesting to interact with people from different backgrounds.”

A few participants expressed interest in learning about other cultures and selective avoidance based on situation at hand. Examples: “Interacting with members from other cultures helped me to be open-minded and gave me perspectives I didn’t have growing up.” “Sometimes I do avoid due to communication barriers or lack of confidence when there islanguagebarrier. Or when they are engaged in something I find inappropriate”.

The most dominant theme is the belief that all cultures are equal and deserving of respect. Many participants rejected the idea that one culture is superior to another and emphasized human equality and mutual respect within the church. Examples: “No culture is better than others.”; “All cultures are equal.”; “I do not think anyculture is better.”

Another strong theme that emerged from the responses is that Christianity and faith in Christ transcend cultural differences. Participants emphasized the importance of unity, oneness, and equality before God. Examples: “When we come at the feet of Jesus,the culture is one.”; “In the house of the Lord we are one people.”; “The ground is level at the cross”. (See Table 2).

Table 2. Respect for cultural differences themes.

However, several participants acknowledged that every culture is unique and has distinct strengths and weaknesses. Examples: “All cultures have their pros and cons.”; “Cultures should not be compared because they are different.” Some comments revealed concerns about cultural superiority, dominance, or judgmental attitudes within the church. Examples: “My culture can be very judgmental aboutother cultures.”; “There are cultures in the church that tend to dominate others,which in my view is not good.”; “Some think they are better than everyone else.”

A dominant theme that emerged is that of comfort and confidence in speaking in intercultural settings within the church. Generally, participants expressed the view that people from other cultures are approachable and that there is no fundamental difference among church members.

Examples: “Very comfortable.I have no problem speaking in a church full ofpeople from different cultures.”; “Very confident.”; “I am comfortable. We are allchildren of God.”

A few participants expressed discomfort due to feeling judged, excluded, or inferior because of language or cultural differences. Example: “They make you feelinferior especially if you don’t speak the same language.” (See Table 3).

Table 3. Interaction confidence themes.

The major theme that emerged with regard to mindfulness during intercultural interaction is respect for cultural norms, values, and etiquette. Examples: “I ammindful to what others consider as taboo or disrespect.”; “I try to be mindful of general etiquette.”; “What does respect look like to them.”

Participants also showed mindfulness by avoiding behaviors that may provoke conflict, disrespect, or cultural offense. Examples: “I avoid no provoking actionsor statements.”; “I avoidpoliticalsensitive areas particularly that affecting tribes.”; “I mind not to disrespect anyone in whichever way.”

The strongest and most dominant theme is that most participants do not get upset more easily when interacting with people from other cultures. In other words, members enjoy the intercultural interactions regardless of misunderstandings that may exist. Many explicitly stated “No” and emphasized emotional control and neutrality. Examples: “No I don’t get upset by misunderstandings involving membersfrom other cultures.”; “I just see a person not a tribe or culture.”

Several participants highlighted that frustration may arise when there is perceived imbalance in communication effort or understanding. Participants were of the view that mutual effort in communication is important for positive intercultural engagement among church members. Example: “It is not nice when there is minimaleffort made from them to understand perspective.”; “Sometimes I feel their mannerscould bebetter.”; “I tend to pick up minimal effort made from them to understandmine.” (See Table 4).

Table 4. Interaction enjoyment themes

The most dominant theme is learning from other cultures. Participants consistently expressed enjoyment of gaining new knowledge, perspectives, skills, and understanding of how others live, think and experience Adventism. Examples: “I enjoy the fact that I get to learn how different people actually think and apply what we learn.”; “Learning from them.”; “It’s like learning a whole other world of life.”

Several participants emphasized enjoyment of cultural diversity itself, particularly in the aspects of language, food, beliefs, and ways of life in general. Examples: “I enjoy the diversity. God’s diversity.”; “I enjoy the food during potlucks.”; “I enjoy the diverse experiences people are willing to share when we come together.”

Another significant theme that also emerged is about negative interpersonal experiences. Many participants expressed dissatisfaction about some behavioral issues that may or may not be due to cultural differences, for example: rudeness, exclusion, discrimination. Examples: “Being bullied for having opposing views.”;“Stereotyping.”; “Being mocked or questioned about dark traditional practices in my community.”; “Some members only communicate in their language which excludes others.”

A dominant theme that emerged is that participants pay attention to the beliefs, values, and perspectives of people from other cultures during interactions. Participants expressed attentiveness about how culture shapes people’s thinking and lifestyles. Examples: “I try to learn what their beliefs are on certain issues such asmarriage and how they relate these to Adventist teaching.”, “I am always curious about other people’s values.” (See Table 5).

Table 5. Interaction attentiveness themes

The strongest and most dominant theme that emerged is attention to body language and facial expressions. Participants placed importance on observing non-verbal communication when interacting with members from other cultures. Examples: “I pay to their facial expressions like smiles or tears,eye movements, frowns, etc.”; “I try to pay attention to the body language, facial expressions,and gestures.”

Another major theme that emerged is monitoring understanding and comfort levels of my interlocutors. Several participants indicated that they pay attention to cues that reveal whether the other person understands them or feels comfortable in the interaction. Examples: “I see if they seem to not understand me well by making uncomfortable facial expressions.”; “If they pull their face and seem to withdraw then I know they may not be comfortable with what I said or gestured.”; “Ipay attention to how they respond andlistenme.”

Lastly, awareness of tone, voice, and speech were also identified as a significant theme in intercultural interactions. Participants emphasized that these verbal communication cues are important tools that facilitate their interactions with fellow church members from other cultures. Examples: “The tone of the voice andthe volume for me are important cues.”; “I pay attention to speech and use basic English.”

The findings indicate that Adventist youth in the Windhoek District demonstrate a high level of intercultural engagement and a willingness to interact with fellow believers from different cultural backgrounds. Participants showed positive attitudes toward intercultural encounters, describing them as meaningful, enriching, and enjoyable experiences that broaden their perspectives and deepen their understanding of others. These findings align with the intercultural competence literature, which suggests that openness, curiosity, and a willingness to engage with cultural diversity are foundational dimensions of intercultural sensitivity [21][40]. Through regular intercultural contact within the church setting, young people are exposed to different perspectives, customs, and communication styles, thereby fostering intercultural friendship formation.

At the same time, the findings reveal that intercultural engagement is not entirely without challenges. Some participants reported selective avoidance in situations characterized by language barriers, cultural misunderstandings, or perceived disrespect. This suggests that willingness alone may not be sufficient to sustain meaningful intercultural relationships. Previous studies have shown that learning about other cultures and acquiring language competencies can reduce anxiety, improve communication effectiveness, and foster more positive attitudes toward culturally diverse groups [21][22]. Similarly, Allport’s Contact Theory argues that positive and meaningful interaction between groups can reduce prejudice and strengthen mutual understanding when supported by favourable conditions [41].

The findings also underscore the importance of intentional intercultural learning within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Although the church is united by a common faith, cultural differences continue to influence communication patterns, perceptions, and social relationships among members. The presence of selective avoidance suggests that some barriers to intercultural fellowship remain. Consequently, church leaders and youth ministries should create opportunities that encourage meaningful intercultural interaction and collaborative activities among young people from different cultures. Programmes such as multicultural worship services, youth camps, and language-learning initiatives could provide practical platforms for strengthening intercultural engagement and fostering unity in diversity.

The findings suggest that Adventist youth in the Windhoek District demonstrate respect for people from different cultures and reject the idea that any culture can be superior. Participants consistently emphasized that all cultures deserve respect and that shared Christian faith transcends cultural differences. This reflects the biblical understanding of unity in Christ regardless of cultural background. Participants also recognized cultural diversity as a positive aspect of church life. They noted that different cultures contribute unique strengths, traditions, and perspectives to church life. This appreciation aligns with Rozin’s principles for understanding cultural differences [26] and with intercultural competence literature that emphasizes respect for cultural diversity as central to effective intercultural interactions [16][40].

However, the findings also reveal underlying tensions related to perceptions of cultural superiority, dominance, and judgmental attitudes within the church. Some participants reported that certain cultural groups are perceived as dominant or as exercising greater influence, particularly through language use. This has led to feelings of exclusion among minority groups. These findings align with previous research indicating that intercultural contact does not automatically eliminate ethnocentrism or cultural power imbalances [42][43].

Overall, the findings highlight a tension between the ideal of Christian unity and the lived realities of cultural diversity within the church. This is consistent with Social Identity Theory, which suggests that individuals naturally identify with their own groups while seeking positive distinctiveness [44]. Although Adventist youth largely endorse unity and equality, cultural identities continue to shape group interactions. The presence of concerns about cultural dominance suggests that intercultural sensitivity is still developing.

The findings of this study suggest that Adventist youth in the Windhoek District demonstrate behaviours consistent with intercultural sensitivity. Participants reported being comfortable interacting with individuals from different cultural backgrounds. At the same time, they reported showing awareness of the need to respect cultural norms, values, customs, and etiquette of others. Their deliberate efforts to avoid behaviours that could be perceived as disrespectful indicate an ability to recognize and appropriately respond to cultural differences. These findings align with Chen and Starosta’s intercultural sensitivity model [13], particularly interaction confidence, respect for cultural differences, and interaction attentiveness.

The findings are also consistent with Fritz and others and Tamam, who argue that intercultural sensitivity is associated with openness, empathy, and effective intercultural relationships in multicultural settings [17][18]. Participants’ efforts to avoid conflict and adapt their behaviour to diverse cultural contexts suggest a commitment to harmonious interaction. However, some divergence from ideal intercultural outcomes is evident, as a few participants reported discomfort, exclusion, or inferiority due to language barriers and cultural differences. These experiences support Chen and Starosta’s and Tamam’s observations that interaction confidence can be weakened by communication barriers, particularly language dominance within groups [13][18].

From a practical perspective, these findings indicate that the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Namibia already has a strong foundation of intercultural sensitivity among the youth. Church leaders can strengthen this through intentional intercultural programmes such as youth camps and multicultural Sabbath activities that encourage interaction and mutual understanding. Such initiatives would reinforce the biblical principle of unity in diversity within the church.

The findings indicate that Adventist youth in the Windhoek District enjoy intercultural interactions, even when misunderstandings occur. Participants consistently reported that engaging with people from different cultures exposes them to new knowledge, perspectives, languages, traditions and experiences of the Adventist faith and practice. These interactions are therefore perceived not merely as social exchanges but as meaningful opportunities for broadening worldview and deepening understanding. Such findings align with Allport’s contact theory [41] and Deardorff’s intercultural competence framework, which emphasize that positive intercultural contact fosters understanding and appreciation of diversity [40].

Participants’ enjoyment of learning about different languages, foods, beliefs, and ways of life reflects key dimensions of intercultural sensitivity, particularly openness and interaction enjoyment [13][45]. According to Chen and Starosta, intercultural sensitivity includes both respect for cultural differences and enjoyment of interaction, both of which were evident in the responses [13]. However, some participants expressed frustration when there was perceived imbalance in communication effort or experiences of rudeness, exclusion, and discrimination. These findings align with Gudykunst’s Anxiety and Uncertainty Management Theory, which suggests that misunderstandings and lack of reciprocity can hinder effective intercultural interaction [43]. They also support Tamam’s view that positive attitudes toward diversity do not always eliminate communication challenges [18].

Despite these challenges, the findings differ from studies that emphasize intercultural interaction as primarily conflictual or anxiety-driven [46], as participants largely described positive experiences. This suggests that the shared Adventist identity may serve as a unifying factor that reduces social distance and promotes more positive intercultural interaction. From a practical perspective, the findings highlight the importance of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a space for intercultural learning and friendship formation. Church programmes such as multicultural youth camps, cultural appreciation events, and intercultural discussion groups should be intentionally strengthened to enhance unity, reduce misunderstandings, and promote inclusive fellowship among diverse cultural groups.

The findings reveal that Adventist youth in the Windhoek District are highly attentive to both verbal and non-verbal cues during intercultural interactions. Participants reported carefully observing beliefs, values, and communication styles of individuals from different cultural backgrounds. In particular, body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, speech patterns, eye contact, and indicators of understanding or discomfort were identified as key sources of meaning. This attentiveness reflects an awareness that communication in intercultural contexts is often influenced by cultural interpretation differences. Participants’ focus on non-verbal cues such as gestures and facial expressions suggests active efforts to understand the reactions and emotions of their interlocutors.

These findings are consistent with Hall’s theory of intercultural communication, which emphasizes that much of human communication is conveyed through non-verbal channels and contextual cues [47]. The participants’ reliance on both spoken and unspoken signals demonstrates an understanding that effective communication requires interpreting multiple layers of meaning. Furthermore, participants indicated that they actively monitor whether others understand them. This reflects empathy and interaction attentiveness, which are key components of intercultural sensitivity [40]. The emphasis on tone, voice, and speech also aligns with Fritz and others and Tamam, who found that interculturally sensitive individuals are more attentive to communication style and more effective in multicultural interactions [17][18].

From a practical perspective, the findings suggest that Adventist youth possess valuable intercultural communication skills. These skills strengthen relationships within diverse congregations. Church leaders can build on these strengths by promoting structured opportunities for intercultural engagement, such as multicultural worship services and outreach activities. Additionally, there is a need to further develop skills in interpreting and responding to intercultural communication cues. Such initiatives would help reduce misunderstandings and enhance unity in multicultural church settings.