th annual international conference on sociology 2-5 may
TRANSCRIPT
Ms. Wenting WANG
Dr. Mingming ZHOU
Faculty of Education
University of Macao
Paper presented in 10th Annual International Conference on Sociology
2-5 May 2016, Athens, Greece
우리는 다른
我们互不相同
Nous
sommes
différents
Olemme erilaisia
είμαστε διαφορετικοί
we zijn
verschillend
私達は違う
พวกเราแตกตา่ง
chúng ta khác nhau
The development of such a “global village” strongly demands
intercultural sensitivity.
The ability to distinguish how those from other cultures differ in
their behavior, perceptions or feelings (Bronfenbrener, Harding, &
Gallwey, 1958) allows us to analyze individuals’ adjustment to
other cultures.
Bennett, 1993;
Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992
Gudykunst &
Hammer, 1983
Hart, Carlson,
& Eadie, 1980
Overall ability for
intercultural
communication
Developmental
stage Mind-set
Being curious towards other cultures,
noticing and understanding cultural
differences and willingly modifying
own behaviors out of respect Hammer et al., 2003
• Recent perspective by Chen (1997) Intercultural sensitivity is primarily
concerned with emotions, although it is also related to the cognitive, affective
and behavioral aspects of interactions.
• “A positive emotion towards understanding and appreciating cultural
differences that promotes appropriate and effective behavior in intercultural
communication” (Chen & Starosta, 1997, p.5).
• This definition helps us reduce conceptual ambiguity and generate a clearer
definition of this construct, particularly when compared with other
conceptually highly related constructs such as intercultural effectiveness and
intercultural awareness.
• Interculturally sensitive people need to have a desire to self-motivate so as to
understand, appreciate, and accept differences among cultures (Chen, 1997).
Examined with US,
German, Malaysian,
Turkish, Phillipino,
Chinese samples.
WHO?
Chen & Starosta, 2000
本季度的
业绩不佳
Interaction engagement (7 items)
Intercultural
Sensitivity
Scale (ISS)
Interaction enjoyment (3 items)
Interaction confidence (5 items)
Interaction attentiveness (3 items)
Respect of cultural differences (6 items)
Lack
of Info
Dimensi
-onality
Minimal information about the performance of
the scale was reported.
Reliability coefficients of some subscales were
unacceptable.
Inconsistent results in terms of the 5-factor structure
Limited information about the dimensionality of this scale
intercultural
sensitivity is
measured along with
other variables
intercultural
sensitivity develops
along with personal
growth
MORE ITEMS
lose focus
low response rate
low quality responses
We aimed to reduce ISS to three items per scale, thus
compromising between the need to obtain acceptable
psychometric properties and pragmatic considerations
(Schmitt, 1996).
Sample
o 286 Mainland Chinese university students
o Mean age: 20.24, ranging from 17 to 28 years old
o 13.4% males
Chinese version of questionnaires
o Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (Chen & Starosta, 2000)
o 15-item Big Five Questionnaire (Barbaranelli et al., 2003)
o Revised Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (Wilson, 2013)
Questionnaire distribution
o Online and offline
Following Stöber and Joormann’s (2001) procedure, We
selected items from each of the five subscales that verified
(a) high correlations with the full form of the ISS;
(b) high correlations with the ISS subscales
It is recommended that a subscale includes a minimum of three
items (MacCallum et al., 1999; Velicer & Fava, 1998), we
selected top three items from each subscale.
ISS_1
ISS_14
ISS_15r
ISS_2r
ISS_12r
ISS_5r
ISS_3
ISS_7
ISS_4
ISS_13
ISS_9
ISS_11
ISS_6r
ISS_8r
ISS_10r
IEngage
RCD
IConf
IEnjoy
IAttn
e1
e4
e3
e2
e7
e6
e5
e10
e9
e8
e14
e11
e12
e13
e15
.62
.53
.65
.58
.72
.64
.76
.63
.69
.67
.66
.71
.62
.50
.61
Note. IEngage = Interaction Engagement; RCD = Respect of Cultural Differences;
IConf = Interaction Confidence; IEnjoy = Interaction Enjoyment; IAttn = Interaction Attentiveness
ISS Subscale Part-whole
correlation
s
Short form-full
form correlations Short
form
Full form
Interaction Engagement .79 .83 .62 .70
Respect of Cultural
Differences
.69 .86 .68 .75
Interaction Confidence .60 .93 .73 .76
Interaction Enjoyment .71 1 .73 .73
Interaction Attentiveness .57 1 .60 .60
Note. All correlations were significant at the p level of .01.
ISS Subscale 1 2 3 4
1. Interaction Engagement -
2. Respect of Cultural Differences .48** -
3. Interaction Confidence .43** .23** -
4. Interaction Enjoyment .46** .59** .12* -
5. Interaction Attentiveness .32** .16** .37** .11
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01
Zero-order correlations were conducted between the ISS, the
Big Five personality variables and the SCAR-S. Consistent
with Chen and Starosta’s (1998) argument, the personality
traits were all significantly positively correlated with the ISS
subscales, ranging from .14 to .41.
Similarly, consistent with the results reported by Awang-
Rozaimie et al. (2013), moderate positive correlations were
found between ISS subscales and SCAR-S subscales, ranging
from .12 to .40.
ISS-15 possesses acceptable psychometric properties. It should
be noted, however, that the use of modified scales, such as
shortened versions, makes comparison between studies more
challenging (Angoff, 1971), especially when comparing scores
across cultures.
As such, when there is sufficient time to administer
intercultural items, the original form of the ISS would
generally be preferable to the short form.
Nonetheless, there is a demand for shorter, psychometrically
sound scales in cross-cultural studies when response time is a
genuine concern.
Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 508-600). Washington, DC: American Council on
Education.
Awang-Rozaimie, A. S., Amelia, A. T., Aiza, J., Siti-Huzaimah, S., & Adib, S. (2013). Intercultural sensitivity and cross-cultural adjustment among Malaysian students abroad.
Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(7), 693-703.
Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Rabasca, A., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). A questionnaire for measuring the Big Five in late childhood. Personality and Individual Differences,
34(4), 645-664.
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–
71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bhawuk, D. P., & Brislin, R. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 16(4), 413-436.
Bronfenbrenner, U., Harding, J., & Gallwey, M. (1958). The measurement of skill in social perception. In D. C. McClelland, A. L. Baldwin, U. Bronfenbrenner, F. L.
Strodtbeck (Eds.), Talent and society: New Perspectives in the identification of talent (pp. 29-111). Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company.
Chen, G. M. (1997, January). A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity. Paper presented at the Biennial Convention of the Pacific and Asian Communication
Association, Honolulu.
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1997). Chinese conflict management and resolution: Overview and implications. Intercultural Communication Studies, 7, 1-16.
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3, 1-15.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R. (1983). Basic training design: Approaches to intercultural training. In R. W. Brislin, & D. Landis (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural
training, Vol. 1: Issues in theory and design (pp. 118-154). New York: Pergamon Press.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 27(4), 421-443.
Hart, R. P., Carlson, R. E., & Eadie, W. F. (1980). Attitudes toward communication and the assessment of rhetorical sensitivity. Communications Monographs, 47(1), 1-22.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-89.
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350-353.
Stöber, J., & Joormann, J. (2001). A short form of the Worry Domains Questionnaire: Construction and factorial validation. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 119–
126.
Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 231-251.
Wilson, J. (2013). Exploring the past, present and future of cultural competency research: The revision and expansion of the sociocultural adaptation construct. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Victoria University of Wellington.