Ms. Wenting WANG Dr. Mingming ZHOU Faculty of Education University of Macao

Transcription

1 Paper presented in 10 th Annual International Conference on Sociology 2-5 May 2016, Athens, Greece Ms. Wenting WANG Dr. Mingming ZHOU Faculty of Education University of Macao

2 Nous sommes différents 私達は違う chúng ta khác nhau 우리는다른 Olemme erilaisia we zijn verschillend είμαστε διαφορετικοί พวกเราแตกต าง 我们互不相同

3 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.

4 Overall ability for intercultural communication Bennett, 1993; Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992 Hart, Carlson, & Eadie, 1980 Mind-set Developmental stage Gudykunst & Hammer, 1983 Being curious towards other cultures, noticing and understanding cultural differences and willingly modifying own behaviors out of respect Hammer et al., 2003

5 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).

6 Intercultural 本季度的 Sensitivity Scale (ISS) 业绩不佳 Interaction engagement (7 items) Interaction enjoyment (3 items) Interaction confidence (5 items) Interaction attentiveness (3 items) Respect of cultural differences (6 items) WHO? Examined with US, German, Malaysian, Turkish, Phillipino, Chinese samples. Chen & Starosta, 2000

7 Lack of Info Minimal information about the performance of the scale was reported. Reliability coefficients of some subscales were unacceptable. Dimensi -onality Limited information about the dimensionality of this scale Inconsistent results in terms of the 5-factor structure

8

9 intercultural sensitivity is measured along with other variables MORE ITEMS lose focus low response rate intercultural sensitivity develops along with personal growth low quality responses

10 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).

11 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

12 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.

13

14 No significant differences between the Mean and SD of each subscale between the two forms.

15 Improved model fit from the original full scale to the short form.

16 IEngage ISS_1 ISS_14 ISS_15r e1 e2 e3 RCD ISS_2r ISS_5r ISS_12r e4 e5 e6 IConf ISS_3 ISS_4 ISS_7 e7 e8 e9 IEnjoy ISS_6r ISS_8r ISS_10r e10 e11 e12 IAttn ISS_9 ISS_11 ISS_13 e13 e14 e15 Note. IEngage = Interaction Engagement; RCD = Respect of Cultural Differences; IConf = Interaction Confidence; IEnjoy = Interaction Enjoyment; IAttn = Interaction Attentiveness

17 ISS Subscale Part-whole correlation s Short form-full form correlations Short form Full form Interaction Engagement Respect of Cultural Differences Interaction Confidence Interaction Enjoyment Interaction Attentiveness Note. All correlations were significant at the p level of.01.

18 ISS Subscale 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

19 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.

20 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.

21 Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp ). 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), 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), Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp ). 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), 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 ). 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, 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, 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 ). 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), Hart, R. P., Carlson, R. E., & Eadie, W. F. (1980). Attitudes toward communication and the assessment of rhetorical sensitivity. Communications Monographs, 47(1), MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), Stöber, J., & Joormann, J. (2001). A short form of the Worry Domains Questionnaire: Construction and factorial validation. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 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.