worldview reflection

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i j i n t r e l

Cultural sensitivity or cultural stereotyping? Positive and negative effects of a cultural psychology class

Emma E. Buchtel ∗

Department of Psychological Studies, Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, N.T., Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 21 May 2013 Received in revised form 9 August 2013 Accepted 17 September 2013

Keywords: Cultural sensitivity Cultural psychology Cultural competence training Intercultural training Stereotypes Sociotypes

a b s t r a c t

Cultural psychology ultimately aims to increase intercultural understanding, but it has also been accused of reifying stereotypes. Can learning about cultural psychology research cause students to increase their cultural sensitivity, or does it increase stereotyped and rigid thinking about cultural others? Students in an undergraduate cultural psychology course (N = 34) were compared to students in control psychology courses (N = 20) in pre- and post-course measures of cultural awareness, cultural intelligence, essentialistic think- ing, prejudice, moral relativism, and endorsement of stereotypes and sociotypes. Compared to students in the control courses, cultural psychology students increased in cultural aware- ness, moral relativism, and meta-cognitive cultural intelligence, but students who received lower grades in the course also increased their endorsement of stereotypes that were not endorsed by cultural psychology research. Implications for intercultural training and the communication of research on cultural differences are discussed.

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Knowledge of cultural differences is one of the basic requirements for achieving cultural sensitivity, and discovering cultural differences is fundamental to cultural psychology research (e.g. Fouad & Arredondo, 2007; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). But teaching about cultural differences is rife with potential dangers: Might it encourage rigid thinking about cultures or individuals? What if it is misinterpreted as legitimizing cultural stereotypes? Could it even increase prejudice, at least in some people?

With few exceptions (e.g. Fischer, 2011; see also Mendenhall et al., 2004), past research on intercultural training has not empirically assessed the potential negative effects of learning about culture nor has it explored individual differences in reactions to cultural training, though these effects are often a concern of trainers (e.g. Coleman & Raider, 2006; Jenks, 2011). In this paper, I first outline some of the controversies around teaching and learning about cultural difference, and illustrate the controversy with a longitudinal study of students taking cultural versus other psychology courses. The results indicate

ELSEVIER

CrossMark

that learning about cultural psychology can increase skills and attitudes that are precursors of intercultural competence; however, it can also have problematic effects on some students.

∗ Tel.: +852 2948 8756. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]

0147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.003

1

a c

C i c o m s

p a b G s

r H a s

1

c a c t a c w t t a f a

t s o e v T t b t 2 i

1

t o a 2 a s

E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52 41

.1. The controversy: is knowledge of cultural differences helpful or harmful?

In general, to research and teach about cultural differences is to face head-on some of the most complex questions bout multiculturalism. How can one emphasize cultural differences and yet avoid the usual attendant features of social ategorization: stereotyping and prejudice?

The potential dangers of increasing knowledge of cultural differences has led to conflicted advice about its usefulness. ultural competence trainers frequently wrestle with how, or even whether, to teach about cultural differences. For example,

ntercultural conflict resolution trainers Coleman and Raider (2006) admit to often skipping the cultural component of onflict resolution training because of possible misuse. Similarly, in the area of mental and physical health services, a number f authors (e.g. Eiser & Ellis, 2007; Jenks, 2011; Whaley & Davis, 2007) suggest that while teaching specific cultural differences ay be a necessary first step towards cultural competence, it can lead to overreliance on and legitimization of cultural

tereotypes. On the other hand, recent research has suggested that acknowledgement of group differences can be associated with

ositive effects. Multicultural ideologies among majority group members are associated with more felt warmth and less bias gainst minorities (Wolsko, Park, & Judd, 2006; Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2000). Conversely, colour-blind ideologies y majority group members have been associated with worse outcomes for minorities in the workplace (Plaut, Thomas, & oren, 2009), lower multicultural counselling competence (Neville, Spanierman, & Doan, 2006), and lower awareness of ocietal racism (Steinfeldt & Wong, 2010).

Among cultural psychologists, revealing cultural differences is seen as a necessary corrective for mainstream psychology esearch’s overwhelming dependence on white, educated, and American participants (Heine & Norenzayan, 2006; Henrich, eine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Cultural psychology researchers may also have an unstated goal to increase “understanding and ppreciation of cultural differences” (Heine, 2012, p. 26). Nevertheless, cultural psychology has been criticized as encouraging tereotyped and essentialistic thinking about group differences (Heine & Norenzayan, 2006).

.2. Question 1: Does cultural psychology encourage students to become more culturally aware and open-minded?

One of the first questions about cultural psychology, then, is whether or not learning about cultural psychology research an have positive effects on intercultural interactions. The need to acknowledge and know about group differences, as well s acquire non-judgmental attitudes towards these differences, is emphasized in most theoretical models of intercultural ompetence. In an evaluation of more than 22 models of intercultural competence, Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) found hat knowledge (mainly of culture-specific information) and attitudes such as flexibility, respect, and open-mindedness were mong the most common themes. For example, Sue’s model of Multicultural Counselling Competence—the basis of many ounselling psychology training programmes—emphasizes cultural knowledge as one of the three key components, along ith appropriate beliefs/attitudes and interpersonal skills (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992). Similarly, Bennett (1993)

heorized that in order to develop intercultural sensitivity, one must pass beyond an ethnocentric stage—in which cul- ural differences are either unknown or dismissed—to more advanced stages where cultural differences are acknowledged, ccepted, and integrated into behaviour. Finally, the popular Cultural Intelligence scale (Ang et al., 2007) emphasizes four dif- erent elements, which include knowledge of other cultures (cognitive cultural intelligence [CQ]) and awareness of cultural spects of interactions (meta-cognitive CQ).

These models suggest that learning about cultural psychology could be a first step in acquiring cultural competence. Cul- ural psychology’s focus on cultural differences could support initial steps in the “knowledge” aspect of cultural competence: ensitivity to the cultural elements of interpersonal interactions. Additionally, the attitude of neutral, scientific objectivity f cultural psychology research could encourage readers to be non-judgmental about the practices of other cultures. For xample, cultural psychologists assume that differences in psychological tendencies emerge because they have practical alue: in different cultural environments, different thought patterns are more useful (e.g. Buchtel & Norenzayan, 2008). hough a cultural psychology course may not be explicitly designed to increase cultural competence, cultural competence raining programmes often have similar goals of moving students to an intermediate stage of cultural sensitivity, typified y accurately identifying cultural influences and developing an appreciation of other cultural worldviews (as a first step owards a future goal of full behavioural fluency in another culture; e.g. Bhawuk, 1998; Crandall, George, Marion, & Davis, 003). Positive results of a cultural psychology course, then, might be seen in greater awareness of cultural dimensions to

ntercultural interactions and less judgmental attitudes towards cultural differences.

.3. Question 2: Does cultural psychology increase essentialism, group entitativity, and prejudice?

However, there are also dangers to learning about cultural differences. Cultural psychology research often shows that here are group differences, but not that these cultural differences are unchangeable or that they exert an equal influence n every individual identified with that group. Nevertheless, students of cultural psychology necessarily increase their

wareness of group differences, which may reify or exaggerate group boundaries and characteristics (Rosenthal & Crisp, 006). Such thinking may result in essentialistic or entitative thinking about cultures and individuals: thinking about groups s if they have an “essence” that is immutably characteristic of group members, thus making individual group members eem more similar to one another and categorically different from members of other groups.

42 E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52

Essentialistic thinking has frequently been associated with negative outcomes, especially stereotyping and prejudice. Beliefs in group “essences” are argued to be the basis of stereotyping and prejudice (Yzerbyt & Rocher, 2002), and a belief in the immutability of social group categories has been particularly linked to stereotyped and negative attitudes towards outgroups (Haslam, Bastian, Bain, & Kashima, 2006). Stronger endorsement of abstract stereotypes about groups is typically (and logically) linked with beliefs that individual group members are interchangeable (e.g. Crawford, Sherman, & Hamilton, 2002; Hamilton, Sherman, & Rodgers, 2004). Similarly, entity theorists—those who believe that individuals have a fixed nature—use stereotypes more and perceive more within-group homogeneity than incremental theorists (Levy, Plaks, Hong, Chiu, & Dweck, 2001; Levy, Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998). Haslam and Levy (2006) also found that “entitative essentialism” about homosexuality (seeing homosexuals as a group with clear boundaries and informative, distinguishing features) was associated with greater prejudice.

Exposure to cultural psychology research may increase perceptions of cultural identity as important and immutable. For the sake of communicability, cultural psychology articles and textbooks often use terms such as “East Asians” and “East Asian culture”; this may make it easier to think of “East Asians” as a bounded, distinctive category that is quite informative about the characteristics of all East Asian individuals. Moreover, some immutability of cultures over time is assumed in order to explain why modern psychological differences exist. Though cultural changes such as increasing individualism have been documented (e.g. Hamamura, 2012; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008), between-culture differences are often theorized to have historical roots extending to thousands of years ago (e.g. Nisbett, 2003). On the other hand, cultural psychology also focuses on aspects of cultural differences that could diminish essentialistic thinking. Culture itself, after all, is not “genetic,” and is thus more easily understood as something that can change over time (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011), and change within individuals is especially emphasized in the acculturation and cultural frame-switching literature (e.g. Heine & Lehman, 2004; Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000).

It is therefore of interest to test whether learning about cultural psychology research could lead to essentialistic thinking, either of cultures or individual members of cultures. Moreover, given the usual links between essentialism and prejudice as summarized above, it is a concern that negative attitudes towards cultural others might also increase. In particular, even if cultural psychology students become cognitively less judgmental about the practices of other cultures as suggested above, this “nonjudgmental” attitude could be accompanied or precipitated by a lack of caring: emotional cooling towards those other cultures.

1.4. Question 3: Does cultural psychology encourage stereotyping, not sociotyping?

One of the most commonly encountered criticisms of cultural psychology is that it encourages stereotyping (Heine & Norenzayan, 2006). Abstract descriptions of cultural differences can take negative or positive forms. Stereotypes are typically perceived as inaccurate, prejudiced perceptions of groups that are misused to describe all individuals within the group. However, stereotypes may also take the form of sociotypes: accurate, if schematic, knowledge about cultures (Triandis, 1994), which arguably is the aim (or unintended result) of much cultural psychology research. Recent research and theorizing on stereotype accuracy has suggested that the use of stereotyped knowledge can in fact result in more, rather than less, accurate interpersonal perceptions (Human & Biesanz, 2011; Jussim, 2005; Jussim, Cain, Crawford, Harber, & Cohen, 2009), and specific cultural knowledge, even in the form of stereotypes, can help explain intercultural interactions that might otherwise seem totally bizarre (Lee & Duenas, 1995).

Nevertheless, a perpetual problem in the stereotype accuracy literature is that not all stereotypes are accurate (Jussim, 2005). Cultural psychology research is particularly controversial in this regard: some have evinced scepticism about the applicability of cultural psychology to interpersonal/intercultural interactions at all, cautioning against the misinterpreta- tion of “statistical significance” as “practical significance” (e.g. Matsumoto, Grissom, & Dinnel, 2001). Moreover, in cultural psychology, the typical knowledge one might be expected to acquire may be easily mistaken as confirmation of stereotypes, especially since it is often phrased in absolute and racial terms such as “East Asians are more collectivistic than Westerners” (Matsumoto et al., 2001). As part of their growing comfort with acknowledging cultural differences, students of cultural psychology may mistakenly assume there is truth to most cultural stereotypes, whether or not they have been supported by research.

1.5. Question 4: Are there individual differences in reactions to cultural psychology?

Finally, one understudied aspect of cultural competence training is the identification of individual differences in how stu- dents absorb and evaluate their new cultural knowledge. An accurate understanding and application of cultural differences requires students to hold in mind many seeming contradictions—that culture powerfully affects mind and behaviour, but any one individual you meet may be different from their cultural average; that cultural groups are importantly different from one another and yet also importantly similar; that stereotypes are sometimes accurate, and sometimes not; that cultures can stay the same over ages while also changing at a frenetic pace. While some students may embrace these complexities, others

may mainly acquire a simplified version, leading to individual differences in reactions to training. For example, DeJaeghere and Cao (2009) found that there were large individual differences in the development of secondary school teachers who went through 2–3 years of cultural competence training, with some increasing in intercultural competence and others decreasing; the causes of these individual differences were not identified. In one of the few studies explicitly measuring the effect of

i o

w s C c c s e b w a

1

m

H i

H

c s

H i

H

d

H w

t p

H t

H

H s

1

w P c

2

2

c

E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52 43

ndividual differences, Fischer (2011) found that in a brief intercultural training course for undergraduate students, more pen-minded students experienced greater increases in their motivation to engage with other cultures.

In a cultural psychology class, student motivation and pre-course essentialistic thinking may especially affect how and hat they learn. First, students with less motivation or those who have more difficulty with course material might acquire a

implistic understanding of cultural psychology, which would lend support to the pessimistic predictions described above. onversely, those who learn more easily or put more effort into learning might retain awareness of issues such as within- ulture variability and the differences between sociotypes and stereotypes, thus avoiding some of the potential negative onsequences, while at the same time learning more cultural awareness and cultural knowledge from the course. Second, tudents who start the course with more essentialistic thinking about people and culture may be more receptive to acknowl- dging cultural differences (Fischer, 2011), leading to larger increases in the willingness to endorse stereotypes in general, ut also larger increases in positive effects such as cultural awareness and being less judgmental (“They can’t help being that ay—it’s unchangeable—so why bother asking them to change”). It is thus of interest to study how individual differences

mong students at the beginning of a course would affect their attitude changes over the semester.

.6. Hypotheses

To answer the above four questions, I propose the following hypotheses: Question 1 asks whether students of a cultural psychology course would increase in cultural awareness and open-

indedness. Assuming that cultural psychology may be a kind of intercultural competence training, I would predict:

ypothesis 1a. Students in a cultural psychology course will increase their awareness of cultural effects on intercultural nteractions. . .

ypothesis 1b. . . .and will become less judgmental of the practices of other cultures.

Question 2 addresses the issue of potential negative effects of learning about cultural psychology. Because emphasizing ultural boundaries is associated with essentialistic thinking, which is in turn associated with prejudice, past research uggests the following hypotheses:

ypothesis 2a. Students in a cultural psychology course will increase their essentialistic thinking about both cultures and ndividuals. . .

ypothesis 2b. . . .and also have more negative attitudes towards cultural outgroups.

Regarding Question 3, on the topic of stereotyping versus sociotyping, critics of cultural psychology have pointed out the egree to which cultural psychology reifies and relies on stereotypes. A pessimist would thus predict that:

ypothesis 3. Students in a cultural psychology class will increase their endorsement of common cultural stereotypes, hether or not these stereotypes have been explicitly taught.

Finally, Question 4 asks whether or not individual differences among students will affect how students are influenced by aking the course. In particular, depth of insight into course material (here, represented by final grades in the course) and re-course essentialistic thinking may influence student outcomes in the following manner:

ypothesis 4a. Students who earn better grades in a cultural psychology course will have more positive outcomes from he course (as in Hypothesis 1);

ypothesis 4b. Students with poorer grades will have more negative outcomes (as in Hypotheses 2 and 3).

ypothesis 4c. Students with greater levels of essentialistic thinking at the beginning of a cultural psychology course will how increased effects of attending a cultural psychology course, as in Hypotheses 1 and 2.

.7. The current study

To observe these processes in a cultural psychology class, a variety of explicit and implicit pre- and post-course measures ere used to observe the naturalistic effects of taking a one-semester (12-week), 4th-year cultural psychology course.

arallel questionnaires were given to students of other non-cultural psychology courses, and change over time among the ultural psychology students was compared to the change over time among non-cultural psychology students.

. Method

.1. Participants and design

Fifty-four undergraduate students in a North American university participated: 34 students in a 4th-year Cultural Psy- hology lecture course (82% female; 38% Caucasian, 42% East Asian, 20% other; average age = 23 years), and 20 students in

44 E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52

Table 1 Means and standard deviations of variables.

Variable Time 1 Time 2

Control group Cultural Psychology group

Control group Cultural Psychology group

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Cultural Awareness 0.43 0.73 0.41 0.65 0.48 0.68 0.90 0.82 Cognitive CQ 3.99 0.93 4.30 1.17 3.90 0.79 4.20 1.04 Motivational CQ 5.04 0.97 5.22 0.77 5.04 0.86 5.15 0.89 Meta-Cognitive CQ 4.88 0.96 5.24 0.89 4.64 0.93 5.30 0.86 Behavioural CQ 4.92 0.82 4.75 0.89 4.69 0.77 4.92 0.94 Moral Relativism 4.06 0.84 4.48 0.84 3.98 0.96 4.76 0.79 Essentialism: IPT 3.83 1.49 4.20 1.42 4.02 1.06 4.07 1.45 Essentialism: IMT 3.54 1.10 3.66 1.09 3.85 0.89 3.70 1.28 Cultural Entitativity 4.07 0.76 4.29 0.67 4.30 0.60 4.56 0.64 Prejudice: Warmth bias 20.02 15.01 13.84 13.71 13.87 11.15 12.63 13.36 Overall Stereotype Endorsement 3.49 0.66 3.43 0.59 3.28 0.49 3.62 0.50 Positive Stereotype Endorsement 3.58 0.69 3.52 0.59 3.38 0.54 3.69 0.53

Negative Stereotype Endorsement 3.34 0.71 3.28 0.75 3.13 0.57 3.50 0.59 Taught Stereotype Endorsement 3.68 0.72 3.61 0.67 3.43 0.45 3.68 0.57 Untaught Stereotype Endorsement 3.37 0.69 3.33 0.59 3.20 0.54 3.58 0.50

two unrelated 4th-year psychology courses (Control condition; 100% female1; 35% Caucasian, 45% East Asian, 20% other; average age = 22 years). Participants were paid $10 to fill out a survey twice, once in the first two weeks of the semester and once in the last two weeks of the semester. The cultural psychology course, with approximately 50 students, was in traditional lecture format and used the textbook Cultural Psychology by Steven J. Heine (2009). Lecture material was drawn from the textbook, and class assignments consisted of a written research proposal and two exams. The two control classes, on neuropsychology topics, were also 50-student lecture classes delivered in the same semester as the cultural psychology course, and contained little to no discussion of culture.

2.2. Measures

At both times, students filled out the following measures of cultural awareness, moral relativism (a proxy for non- judgmental attitudes), essentialism, prejudice, and stereotype endorsement. Means and standard deviations for each scale are shown in Table 1, and correlations between scales are available online as supplementary data (Online Table 1).

Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel. 2013.09.003.

2.2.1. Hypothesis 1a: Cultural Awareness Cultural Awareness was measured with an open-ended dialogue analysis (based on Storti, 1994). Participants read an

ambiguous dialogue between two people from different cultures who may or may not have had a misunderstanding, and were asked to explain, “What do you see happening?” A counterbalanced design randomly assigned participants to read one of two dialogues at Time 1, and the other at Time 2, to prevent familiarity effects. Open-ended answers to the dialogues were scored by two research assistants blind to Course and Time conditions. A score of 2 was given if the participant mentioned the characters’ cultural backgrounds and accurately identified the source of the misunderstanding, a score of 1 if one of criteria was met, and a score of 0 if neither criterion was met (see Appendix for examples). Initial agreement was 84.4% (ICC = .91, p < .001), with disagreements resolved through discussion with the author (who was also blind to conditions).

2.2.2. Hypothesis 1a: Cultural Intelligence Cultural Intelligence (CQ) was measured with the 20-item self-report measure of four cultural intelligence subscales:

Cognitive, Motivational, Meta-Cognitive, and Behavioural CQ (Ang et al., 2007), ˛’s from .68 to .78 at Time 1, ˛’s from .72 to .82 at Time 2.

2.2.3. Hypothesis 1b: Moral Relativism Moral Relativism was used as a proxy for non-judgmental attitudes towards cultural differences. The 10-item Relativism

subscale of Forsyth’s Ethics Position Questionnaire (1980) was used, with items such as, “What is ethical varies from one

situation or society to another” and “Different cultures’ moral standards cannot be compared as to ‘rightness”’ measured on a 1–7 Likert scale (Time 1 ̨ = .76, Time 2 ̨ = .87).

1 The two classes were different in gender proportion, U = 280, z = 1.97, p = .048. Because of the low number of male participants we were unable to test for effects of gender, though none were hypothesized.

2

h b M t m “ c .

2

( a W s E

2

t t e b f

2

A a w a [ c e

2 o p a a s t a i t n s a n

3

3

3

w c

E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52 45

.2.4. Hypothesis 2a: Essentialism Two measures of individual essentialism were used. The 3-item Implicit Person Theory (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995,

enceforth IPT) measures “fixed” versus “incremental” views of individuals (e.g. “The kind of person someone is, is something asic about them, and it can’t be changed very much”), ̨ = .84 and .87 at Time 1 and 2 respectively. A new four-item Implicit ind Theory scale (IMT), based on the IPT, was constructed to specifically tap into the idea that an individual’s way of

hinking is fixed. The four items were: “The way a person’s mind works is something very fundamental and can’t be changed uch,” “Whether a person is an analytical thinker or not is deeply ingrained in their mind. It cannot be changed very much,”

The way someone’s mind works can change substantially, even as an adult (reverse scored),” and “There is not much that an be done to change the basic way someone’s brain works.” This four-item scale showed adequate reliability, ̨ = .74 and 79 at Times 1 and 2 respectively.

.2.5. Hypothesis 2a: Cultural Entitativity Cultural Entitativity was measured with two 12-item Group Entitativity scales of East Asians and Westerners respectively

based on Castano, Yzerbyt, & Bourguignon, 2003), which measured perceptions of East Asians (alternatively Westerners) s being similar to each other, having a characteristic nature, and having strong ties within the group. East Asians and esterners were chosen because they are typical comparison groups in cultural psychology research. The two scales were

trongly correlated (Time 1 r = .49, p < .001 and Time 2 r = .30, p = .026) and were combined into a 24-item scale of Cultural ntitativity, Time 1 ̨ = .90 and Time 2 ̨ = .87.

.2.6. Hypothesis 2b: Prejudice Prejudice, conceptualized as negative feelings about outgroups, was measured through a Feeling Thermometer rating

ask (Wolsko et al., 2000). Participants were presented with a list of 16 commonly known ethnic groups, selected from the op 20 ethnic origins in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2001), and asked to indicate how warmly or coolly they felt towards ach ethnicity on a 0 (“very coolly”) to 100-degree (“very warmly”) scale. Participants also reported their parents’ ethnic ackgrounds. Similar to Wolsko et al. (2000), a Warmth Bias score was calculated for each participant by taking the warmth elt towards his/her own ethnic group(s) and subtracting the average warmth he/she felt towards all other groups.

.2.7. Hypothesis 3: Stereotype Endorsement Finally, a Stereotype Endorsement closed-ended measure asked participants to rate the truth of 16 stereotypes of East

sians and Westerners (Time 1 ̨ = .88 and Time 2 ̨ = .84; based on Levy et al., 1998). Again, stereotypes about East Asians nd Westerners were chosen because they are typical comparison groups in cultural psychology research, as well as groups hose stereotypes would be familiar to students at the university. Students were presented with 8 stereotypes of East Asians

nd Westerners respectively, and asked to what degree they believed that these traits were “true of the average East Asian Western] person,” rated from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (extremely true). These traits (listed in Section 2.2.7.1) correspond to ommon stereotypes in the local student population, drawn from the literature (Schaller, Conway, & Tanchuk, 2002; Wolsko t al., 2000) and discussion with undergraduate research assistants.

.2.7.1. Stereotypical traits: taught/untaught and valence ratings. A post-study survey of 43 students from the Cultural Psychol- gy class (including the 34 students who took part in the study) gathered information on (a) which traits were collectively erceived as “accurate” descriptions and (b) which traits were perceived as positive and which were perceived as neg- tive. First, students were asked whether or not the traits had been explicitly taught in the course as descriptive of the verage East Asian or Westerner (as appropriate), selecting “Yes” or “No.” Six traits were believed by 45% or more of the tudents to have been taught in class: for East Asians, these were “loyal to family ties” (100% of the students said it had been aught), “ethnocentric” (55%), “hardworking” (46%), and “shy” (45%), and for Westerners these were “independent” (100%) nd “direct” (68%). These traits were likely inferred from textbook- and lecture-provided information about research on ndividualism/collectivism, motivation, and thinking style. For the remaining 10 traits, 32% or fewer of the students believed hey had been taught in class. Finally, students were also asked to rate the traits on a three-point scale, as having positive, egative, or neutral valence. For Western stereotypes, the majority of students rated three traits as negative (materialistic, elfish, and boastful), two traits as neutral (direct and independent), and three traits as positive (athletic, pleasure-loving, nd sportsmanlike); for East Asian stereotypes, the majority of students rated one trait as negative (ethnocentric), two as eutral (conservative and shy), and five as positive (ambitious, loyal to family ties, intelligent, efficient, and hardworking).

. Results

.1. Course effects: cultural psychology students versus control

.1.1. General note on data analysis For each measure, repeated-measure ANCOVA analyses examined whether change over the semester (Time;

ithin-subjects, Time 1 vs. Time 2 scores) was predicted by students’ Course (Cultural Psychology [1] vs. Control [0]), ontrolling for students’ Time 1 scores on the given measure (covariate). A significant Course by Time interaction would

46 E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52

0 .7 ~---------------

0 .6 +-------------<------

0 .5 +----------+------

0 .4 +---------ii

0 .3 +----------1

0.2 +------+-- -ii

0 .1 +------+-- -ii

0 +--------...L---, -0.1 +------+-----------

-0.2 -'----------------

■ Control students

DCultural Psych students

Fig. 1. Cultural Awareness, change from Time 1, original scale 0–2. Error bars = S.E. of the mean.

indicate that over the semester, Cultural Psychology students’ scores on a given measure changed differently than the stu- dents in the Control courses (i.e. over and above reactions to taking the same measures twice or other course-unrelated changes over time). All hypotheses described above are reported with one-sided significance tests because the direction of change was predicted.

The inclusion of Time 1 scores as a covariate is a valid way to control for regression-to-the-mean, floor, or ceiling effects that can obscure true change over time, as long as Time 1 scores are unrelated to the IV of interest (here, Course; Maxwell & Delaney, 2004; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; Wright, 2006); thus, for each measure I first confirmed that there were no initial differences between courses on each Time 1 scale score before including the Time 1 score as a covariate. For all measures in Section 3.1, significant interactions between Time 1 scores and Time showed that initial Time 1 scores significantly predicted score change over time (all p’s < .01), which is consistent with its purpose as a control for regression-to-the-mean or ceiling effects but not otherwise important to our hypotheses.

To save space and avoid redundancy, only the results for the hypothesized interaction between Time and Course are reported below, neglecting the main effects of Time, Course, and Time 1 scores, as well as the interaction between Time 1 scores and Time, as they are unrelated to the hypotheses. The values for all the other effects are available online as supplementary data (Online Table 2).

Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel. 2013.09.003.

3.1.2. Hypothesis 1a: Cultural Awareness Cultural Psychology students increased in Cultural Awareness compared to Control students. The two Courses did not

differ in their Cultural Awareness scores at Time 1, but students were more likely to get a higher score on one dialogue than the other, as indicated by an ANOVA predicting Time 1 scores from Course (F(1, 50) = 0.00, n.s.) and Dialogue Version (F(1, 50) = 1.86, p = .04). The proportion of participants assigned to each Dialogue Version was equivalent in the two Course conditions (U = 290, z = 1.05, n.s.). Collapsing across Versions, a significant interaction between Course and Time in the rANCOVA analysis showed that students in the Cultural Psychology course had increased their cultural awareness relative to students in the Control condition, F(1, 48) = 3.69, p = .03 (see Fig. 1).2

3.1.3. Hypothesis 1a: Cultural Intelligence Cultural Psychology students increased in Meta-Cognitive CQ compared to Control students, but did not change in Cogni-

tive, Motivational, or Behavioural CQ. Students in the two courses did not differ at Time 1 on any of the four subscales (t(52)’s from −0.71 to 1.43, p’s from .16 to .48, n.s.). Separate rANCOVA analyses for each scale showed one significant interaction between Course and Time for Meta-Cognitive CQ, showing that by Time 2, students in the Cultural Psychology course had gained in Meta-Cognitive CQ compared to students in the Control course, F(1, 51) = 4.65, p = .018 (see Fig. 3), but there were no course effects on change in Cognitive, Motivational, or Behavioural CQ (p’s from .08 to .45, n.s.).

3.1.4. Hypothesis 1b: Moral Relativism Cultural Psychology students increased in Moral Relativism compared to Control students. Students in the two courses

did not differ on Moral Relativism at Time 1 (t(47) = −1.67, n.s.). A significant Course by Time interaction indicated that by

Cultural Awareness, average change from Time 1

Time 2, students in the Cultural Psychology course had increased in Moral Relativism compared to students in the Control course, F(1, 45) = 6.72, p = .007 (see Fig. 2).

2 Which version of the dialogue that was read first did not affect score change, F(1, 47) = 1.17, n.s., and did not change the statistically significant effect of Course on change over time, F(1, 47) = 3.01, p = .05.

E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52 47

Fig. 2. Moral Relativism, change from Time 1, original scale 1–7. Error bars = S.E. of the mean.

3

p T t d t F

3

a c

3

T

s t n n t

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

0.3

0.2

0 .1

0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6

Moral Relativism, average change from Time 1

■ Control students

CCultural Psych students

■ Control students

CCultural Psych students

Meta-Cognitive Cultural IQ, average change from Time 1

Fig. 3. Meta-Cognitive Cultural Intelligence, change from Time 1, original scale 1–7. Error bars = S.E. of the mean.

.1.5. Hypothesis 2a: Essentialism No evidence was found that essentialism, either IPT or IMT, increased by taking a cultural psychology course. At Time 1,

articipants in the two courses did not differ in their IPT scores (t(52) = −0.89, n.s.). At Time 2, a non-significant Course by ime interaction showed that participants in the Cultural Psychology course had not changed in their IPT scores relative to hose in the Control course, F(1, 51) = 0.14, n.s. Results for the IMT were similar. At Time 1, participants in the two courses id not differ in their IMT scores (t(52) = −0.41, n.s.), and at Time 2, a non-significant Course by Time interaction showed hat participants in the Cultural Psychology course had not changed their IMT scores relative to those in the Control course, (1, 51) = 0.72, n.s.

.1.6. Hypothesis 2a: Cultural Entitativity Similarly, for Cultural Entitativity, no increase in Cultural Entitativity was found among Cultural Psychology students rel-

tive to Control. The courses were not different at Time 1, t(52) = −1.09, n.s. At Time 2, participants in the Cultural Psychology ourse had not changed relative to those in the Control course, F(1, 51) = 1.03, n.s.

.1.7. Hypothesis 2b: Prejudice

Cultural Psychology had no effect on Warmth Bias. The courses were not different at Time 1, t(49) = 1.51, p = .07, and at

ime 2, change in Warmth Bias scores was not predicted by Course, F(1, 48) = 0.51, n.s.3

3 To calculate each participant’s “warmth bias” value, the average of the temperature ratings participants gave to their own cultural group(s) was ubtracted from the average of the ratings participants gave to the other cultural groups. This calculation assumes that participants feel more warmly owards their own ethnic group than others. However, out of the 51 participants who completed this measure, 6 participants’ warmth bias values were egative (i.e. they felt more warmly about other ethnic groups than their own). To test whether cultural psychology simply reduced all bias, positive or egative, the absolute value of the warmth bias was calculated and tested to see if cultural psychology reduced the absolute value of the difference between emperature ratings towards others and own cultural groups. No effect was found.

48 E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52

■ Control students

DCultural Psych students

Overall Stereotype Endorsement, average change from Timel

Fig. 4. Overall stereotype endorsement, change from Time 1, original scale 1–5. Error bars = S.E. of mean.

3.1.8. Hypothesis 3: stereotype endorsement Cultural Psychology students increased in stereotype endorsement compared to Control students, including positive,

negative, taught, and untaught stereotypes. At Time 1, all 16 traits were quite highly endorsed as being true of the average East Asian or Westerner, suggesting that these traits did match students’ preexisting beliefs about group differences (for East Asian traits, M = 3.5 [SD = 0.66], for Western traits M = 3.4 [SD = 0.66], where 3 = moderately true and 4 = mostly true). The two courses did not differ at Time 1 on Overall Stereotype Endorsement (16 items), t(52) = −0.32, n.s. However, by Time 2, students in the Cultural Psychology course had increased in Overall Stereotype Endorsement compared to students in the Control course, F(1, 51) = 12.35, p < .001 (see Fig. 4). Ignoring neutral traits, increases were found in both the 5 negative traits (F(1, 51) = 9.23, p = .002) and the 9 positive traits (F(1, 51) = 9.21, p = .002), suggesting that this was not an increase in prejudice. It was also true for the 10 traits that Cultural Psychology students had later agreed had NOT been taught in the course (F(1, 51) = 12.72, p < .001), as well as the 6 traits that students agreed HAD been taught in class (F(1, 51) = 6.05, p = .009). In other words, taking Cultural Psychology increased overall endorsement of group differences that were part of one’s existing stereotype, in this case of East Asians and Westerners, regardless of whether or not these stereotypes were taught or untaught (as defined by students’ perceptions of whether or not they had been specifically taught about these traits in class).

3.2. Individual difference effects: did taking cultural psychology affect some students differently than others?

The above results show that taking a cultural psychology class increased the average cultural psychology student’s cultural awareness, moral relativism, meta-cognitive CQ, and willingness to endorse stereotypes of Westerners and East Asians. But were there any individual differences in these effects? Students come into a course with different levels of preconceptions and motivation that might moderate the course’s influence.

Specifically, students with a higher level of motivation or ability to learn (as measured through course grades) were hypothesized to have processed the course content at a deeper level, leading to less of an increase in stereotype endorsement, while conversely displaying more gains in cultural awareness, moral relativism, and meta-cognitive CQ. On the other hand, students with higher level initial levels of essentialistic thinking—both about individuals and cultures—might have been more receptive to information about group differences (Fischer, 2011), leading to larger increases in willingness to endorse stereotypes, but also larger increases in cultural awareness, moral relativism, and meta-cognitive CQ.

3.2.1. Hypothesis 4a/b: Individual differences in course grades Among the 34 cultural psychology students,4 one-tailed regression analyses predicted change in each of the four DVs

in turn (T2-T1 score change for stereotype endorsement; cultural awareness; moral relativism; and meta-cognitive CQ)

from the students’ final grades and the Time 1 score of the respective DV (as a control variable). As in the above analyses, ceiling/floor/regression to the mean effects meant that T1 scores were always significantly negatively related to the size of the T2-T1 change (all p’s < .05), and are not further described.5

4 I did not analyze whether or not the moderating effects of individual differences differed by course (a moderated moderation), because the N was too small to reliably test for the higher-level interaction (Aguinis, 1995). However, the same analyses carried out using control class students (though with only the 13 students whose grades could be obtained) showed no moderating effects of individual differences on change over time.

5 Course grade was uncorrelated with the control variables (T1 scores of the DV’s) except for the variables T1 Cultural Awareness and T1 Moral Relativism. Omitting T1 scores as a control variable resulted in the same conclusion as reported above (no effect of grades on change in Cultural Awareness or Moral Relativism).

s o s o g

n p

3

T r e t t r

t s a .

4

s f a ( fi o i ( w

d c i r i i t

o A i s p b b m c r

S e

E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52 49

With respect to the hypotheses, as predicted, one-tailed tests showed that students with higher course grades had ignificantly smaller changes in overall stereotype endorsement ( ̌ = −.304, p = .023); but grades had only a marginal effect n increased endorsement of taught stereotypes (sociotypes; ̌ = −.243, p = .057), while the effect was stronger for untaught tereotypes ( ̌ = −.299, p = .024). In other words, students who received lower grades were more likely to endorse stereotypes f any kind, especially stereotypes that, in fact, were not related to cultural psychology research, while students with higher rades appeared to differentiate between taught and untaught traits.

However, other predictions were unsupported: course grades were only marginally related to increases in cultural aware- ess ( ̌ = .221, p = .075), and unrelated to increases in moral relativism ( ̌ = −.066, p = .36) and meta-cognitive CQ ( ̌ = .142,

= .20).

.2.2. Hypothesis 4c: Individual differences in T1 essentialism Recall that three measures of essentialistic thinking were taken: IPT, IMT, and Cultural Entitativity. To test whether

ime 1 levels of essentialistic thinking affected change over time among the 34 Cultural Psychology students, one-tailed egression analyses predicted change in each of the four relevant DVs in turn (T2-T1 score change for overall stereotype ndorsement; cultural awareness; moral relativism; and meta-cognitive CQ) from the students’ Time 1 scores on each of he three essentialistic thinking measures in turn and the Time 1 score of the respective DV (as a control variable). As in he above analyses, ceiling/floor/regression to the mean effects meant that T1 scores were always significantly negatively elated to T2-T1 change (all p’s < .02).6

However, as regards the hypotheses, unexpectedly there were no effects of individual differences in Time 1 essentialistic hinking on change over the semester. One-tailed tests found that students with higher IMT, IPT, or Cultural Entitativity cores at Time 1 did not show different changes in overall stereotype endorsement (ˇ’s = .002, .026, and .174 respectively, ll p’s > .13), cultural awareness (ˇ’s = −.177, .102, and .164 respectively, all p’s > .10), moral relativism (ˇ’s = .239, .064, and

048 respectively, all p’s > .07), or meta-cognitive CQ (ˇ’s = −.076, −.088, and .210 respectively, all p’s > .10).

. Discussion

What could be the effects of learning about cultural differences in the form of cultural psychology research? In this study, tudents who had completed a course in cultural psychology—as compared to students in other psychology classes—were ound to be more able to accurately perceive cultural aspects of interpersonal miscommunications (increased cultural wareness), more conscious of culture in interpersonal interactions (increased meta-cognitive CQ), more non-judgmental increased moral relativism), and also—for those who did not perform well in the course—more willing to endorse uncon- rmed stereotypes of Westerners and East Asians. Taking cultural psychology did not appear to have any effect, however, n the potential negative outcomes of essentialistic thinking about individuals or cultural groups, nor prejudice; nor did it ncrease aspects of the three other components of cultural intelligence, such as self-reported knowledge about other cultures cognitive CQ); confidence to deal with new cultures (motivational CQ); or adjustment of one’s behaviour when interacting ithin different cultural contexts (behavioural CQ).

Overall, the effects of the cultural psychology course were more positive than negative. Awareness of the cultural imension of interactions seems to have improved—as indicated both by the dialogue test and the self-report of meta- ognitive CQ. Though moral relativism is obviously a controversial issue, increased moral relativism in the context of ntercultural relations may reduce negative judgments of the “strange practices” of other cultures, which may in turn educe the potential for conflict (Atran & Axelrod, 2008). And, in contrast to previous studies on intercultural training nterventions (Fischer, 2011), this course in cultural psychology did not seem to encourage students to think of other ndividuals—or even other cultures—as having fixed essences that unavoidably, unchangeably, and conclusively direct hinking and behaviour.

However, the changes seen in the stereotype endorsement measure are of particular concern for teachers and producers f cultural psychology research. In this study, we defined inaccurate stereotypes as those commonly held stereotypes about sians and Westerners that the majority of the students in the class believed had not been explicitly taught. The increase in

naccurate stereotyping among students with low course grades suggests that casual readers of cultural psychology—such as tudents who are less motivated or less able to process complex information—may emerge with a general sense that cultural sychology proves the things they thought were true all along (i.e. cultural stereotypes that had not, in fact, been supported y research evidence). Since some typical stereotypes have been the subject of research, while others have not, it would

ehove teachers to explicitly address the question of stereotypes when teaching about cultural differences in order to avoid isunderstandings. Specifically for the case of cultural psychology, while research sometimes shows that some stereotypes

ontain a kernel of truth, students should be made aware that (a) many aspects of cultural stereotypes are not supported by esearch; (b) with respect to negative stereotypes in particular, cultural psychology research shows that cultural differences

6 T1 essentialistic thinking was uncorrelated with the control variables (T1 scores of the DV’s) except a significantly positive relation between T1 Overall tereotype Endorsement and T1 IPT scores. Omitting T1 scores on Overall Stereotype Endorsement as a control variable did not change conclusions (no ffect of T1 IPT on change in stereotype endorsement).

50 E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52

in thinking style, etc. exist because there is a cultural purpose for them, and thus even when a stereotype is found to be “true” it should be stripped of its negative connotations; and (c) the kind of essentialistic thinking that often goes along with stereotyping (e.g. “All Westerners are naturally individualistic;” i.e. assuming that group members more similar to one another than they are to individuals of other groups) is almost always belied by the wide range of within-culture differences (Heine & Norenzayan, 2006; Matsumoto et al., 2001).

In general, this study adds to the literature on the “mixed record” (Mendenhall et al., 2004, p. 137) of intercultural training’s effects on trainee attitudes. It is of particular interest to compare this study to Fischer (2011), which used similar measures to test the effect of a short, intense intercultural training module among university students. Fischer (2011) found that a combination of lectures and experiential intercultural training led to decreased cognitive and meta-cognitive CQ, and increased cultural essentialism. While the students in this Cultural Psychology course learned from lectures and the textbook, the Fischer (2011) training additionally used experiential activities aimed at changing affect and behaviour (see Brislin, 1989), such as the BAFA-BAFA and Excell training programmes. Intense experiences with cultural differences may temporarily decrease confidence in one’s ability to understand other cultures, while less involved experiences such as a lecture course in Cultural Psychology may increase awareness without making the “foreignness” of other cultures so viscerally apparent.

4.1. Limitations and future directions

This quasi-experimental study was carried out in a small-scale undergraduate lecture course in North America, and so is necessarily limited in generalizability. The study is perhaps most important as an illustration of the poten- tial effects of learning about research on cultural differences, showing that a cultural psychology course can have both positive and negative effects on the incipient cultural competence of students. However, the results may have been specific to this instructor, course content, or student cohort, and may not generalize to other cultural psy- chology courses. More research is needed to understand what educational methods and content can cause these effects.

In particular, this study highlights the need to learn more about the “side-effects” of talking about cultural differences, for both educators and researchers. It would be important to study how to make it more likely that casual consumers of cultural psychology research findings (such as the low-performing students in this course) will have positive outcomes from learning about research on cultural differences. For example, would illustrating cultural differences using normal curves rather than bar graphs decrease the likelihood that essentialistic-type stereotyping (assuming that everyone within a group is the same) would be an outcome of learning? Should researchers writing articles and books explicitly address whether the research confirms or disconfirms cultural stereotypes, making readers more culturally aware and able to differentiate between sociotypes and stereotypes? These and other questions would be helpfully addressed with future research.

4.2. Conclusion

Teaching about cultural differences has great potential to help—and harm—intercultural understanding. As this study illustrates, teachers responsible for cultural competence training may need to pay particular attention to ensuring that stu- dents do not emerge from a course with misunderstandings, particularly in the case of less motivated students. Specifically, to improve cultural sensitivity in a way that will improve intercultural understanding, research-supported cultural differ- ences should be discussed, but care must be taken to teach students that the existence of valid sociotypes does not imply validity of all stereotypes, essentialistic thinking about individuals or cultures, or prejudiced attitudes. In particular, explicit discussion may be needed to prevent indirect evidence being taken as support for stereotypes that are not addressed by research.

The findings show that learning about cultural differences in the form of cultural psychology research can have prob- lematic effects, at least on some people; however, this new knowledge also increases skills and attitudes indicative of intercultural competence. By examining the effects of learning about cultural psychology on essentialistic thinking, prej- udice, open-minded attitudes, cultural intelligence, and accurate versus inaccurate stereotyping, it is apparent that the path to cultural competence may pass through less-than-ideal stages. Moreover, these less-ideal stages may be more likely to be experienced by students low in motivation or ability. Awareness of these positive and negative effects can help us explicitly address these issues when teaching about cultural differences, and highlights the importance of communicating about cultural psychology in a way that will have a positive, not negative, impact on intercultural under- standing.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks is due to the lecturers of all three psychology courses for allowing me to recruit participants in their classes, to John H. M. Lam for help with statistical tables, and especially to Ara Norenzayan and Steven J. Heine for helpful discussion and criticism during the development and analysis of this research.

A

R

A A

A B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52 51

ppendix A. Cultural Awareness dialogues and open-ended coding examples

Scoring criteria Tsuda/Miller dialogue Wong/Cooper dialogue

Mr. Miller: Your new product line is doing very well, isn’t it! Ms. Tsuda: There have been some small successes. Mr. Miller: I think you can expect a promotion from this, Ms. Tsuda. Ms. Tsuda: The line is not doing as well as could be expected. Mr. Miller: What do you mean? Are there some new problems? Ms. Tsuda: There are many ways in which we could improve.

Ms Cooper: The new tracking procedure hasn’t worked, has it? Mr. Wong: There were some small problems. Ms. Cooper: Whose idea was it anyway? Mr. Wong: We need to learn from this lesson. Ms. Cooper: Sure. It came from Mr. Tung’s division, didn’t it? Mr. Wong: Many people worked on the proposal.

Score: 0

-North American interpretation of behaviour, and/or Negative interpretation of behaviour

-No mention of culture

Mr. Miller is happy with how the product is doing and doesn’t feel the need to improve since it’s already doing well. Ms. Tsuda feels that the product could do better, even though it’s already doing well. And personally, I think it’s very silly to tell your boss that something isn’t doing as well as expected when he’s just told you you’ll get a promotion.

Ms Cooper is frustrated that the new tracking procedure isn’t working and is finding somebody to blame. Mr. Wong is trying to target the problem itself not the people who thought of it. He doesn’t want to blame anyone.

Score: 1

Either one of:

-Correct cultural interpretation of behaviour (Modesty vs. self-enhancement conflict in Tsuda/Miller dialogue; group-agency vs. individual-agency for Wong/Cooper dialogue)

OR

-Culture explicitly mentioned

Mr. Miller wants to congratulate Ms. Tsuda, but she is unable to take his praise without considering how the line is not perfect. In part she is probably modest, but she also probably genuinely feels there is room for improvement.

Ms. Cooper is trying to assign the blame for the failed task, while Mr. Wong is trying to see the same failed task as an opportunity to learn from that experience, so that the future procedures could be more effective. Also, Mr. Wong is trying to take responsibility for the failed task by pointing out that the procedures were designed by the group, not by a single person, so the failure is the group’s responsibility.

Score: 2

Both of the following:

-Correct cultural interpretation of behaviour (Modesty vs. self-enhancement conflict in Tsuda/Miller dialogue; group-agency vs. individual-agency for Wong/Cooper dialogue)

AND

-Culture explicitly mentioned

Ms. Tsuda is presumably Japanese. In her culture modesty is emphasized and acknowledging your accomplishments is considered very boastful and undesirable. Mr. Miller presumably comes from a culture that embraces personal acknowledgement for accomplishments. Therefore, when she tries to be courteous and modest according to her culture, he does not recognize the meaning behind this gesture and misunderstands it as there being something inherently wrong with the product line.

Ms. Cooper is trying to place blame and pick out who initiated the problem, whereas Mr. Wong, coming from a collectivistic culture, is trying to say that there wasn’t anyone in particular to blame since it was a group project.

eferences

guinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regression in management research. Journal of Management Research, 21, 1141–1158. ng, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural

judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371. tran, S., & Axelrod, R. (2008). Reframing sacred values. Negotiation Journal, 24(3), 221–246. ennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural

experience (2nd ed., pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. hawuk, D. S. (1998). The role of culture theory in cross-cultural training: A multimethod study of culture-specific, culture-general, and culture theory-based

assimilators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(5), 630–655. rislin, R. W. (1989). Intercultural communication training. In M. K. Asante, & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communi-

cation (pp. 441–457). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. uchtel, E. E., & Norenzayan, A. (2008). Which should you use, intuition or logic? Cultural differences in injunctive norms about reasoning. Asian Journal of

Social Psychology, 11, 264–273. astano, E., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Bourguignon, D. (2003). We are one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification. European Journal

of Social Psychology, 33(6), 735–754. oleman, S., & Raider, E. (2006). International/intercultural conflict resolution training. In J. Oetzel, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict

communication (pp. 663–690). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. randall, S. J., George, G., Marion, G. S., & Davis, S. (2003). Applying theory to the design of cultural competency training for medical students: A case study.

Academic Medicine, 78(6), 588–594. rawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (2002). Perceived entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1076–1094.

52 E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52

Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Genetic essentialism: On the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 800–818. DeJaeghere, J. G., & Cao, Y. (2009). Developing U.S. teachers’ intercultural competence: Does professional development matter? International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 33(5), 437–447. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C.-y., & Hong, Y.-y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological

Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285. Eiser, A. R., & Ellis, G. (2007). Cultural competence and the African American experience with health care: The case for specific content in cross-cultural

education. Academic Medicine, 82(2), 176–183. Fischer, R. (2011). Cross-cultural training effects on cultural essentialism beliefs and cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

35(6), 767–775. Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184. Fouad, N. A., & Arredondo, P. (2007). Becoming culturally oriented: Practical advice for psychologists and educators. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological

Association. Hamamura, T. (2012). Are cultures becoming individualistic? A cross-temporal comparison of individualism-collectivism in the U.S. and Japan. Personality

and Social Psychology Review, 16, 3–24. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Rodgers, J. S. (2004). Perceiving the groupness of groups: Entitativity, homogeneity, essentialism, and stereotypes. In V.

Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 39–60). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.

Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Bain, P., & Kashima, Y. (2006). Psychological essentialism, implicit theories, and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(1), 63–76.

Haslam, N., & Levy, S. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(4), 471–485.

Heine, S. J. (2009). Cultural psychology (1st ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. Heine, S. J. (2012). Cultural psychology (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (2004). Move the body, change the self: Acculturative effects of the self-concept. In M. Schaller, & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The

psychological foundations of culture (pp. 305–331). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2006). Toward a psychological science for a cultural species. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 251–269. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135. Hong, Y.-y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-y., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition.

American Psychologist, 55(7), 709–720. Human, L. J., & Biesanz, J. C. (2011). Through the looking glass clearly: Accuracy and assumed similarity in well-adjusted individuals’ first impressions.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 349–364. Jenks, A. C. (2011). From “lists of traits” to open-mindedness: Emerging issues in cultural competence education. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 35(2),

209–235. Jussim, L. (2005). Accuracy in social perception: Criticisms, controversies, criteria, components, and cognitive processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (vol. 37) (pp. 1–93). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Jussim, L., Cain, T. R., Crawford, J. T., Harber, K., & Cohen, F. (2009). The unbearable accuracy of stereotypes. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice,

stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 199–227). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press. Lee, Y., & Duenas, G. (1995). Stereotype accuracy in multicultural business. In Y. Lee, L. J. Jussim, & C. R. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward

appreciating group differences (pp. 157–186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Levy, S. R., Plaks, J. E., Hong, Y., Chiu, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2001). Static versus dynamic theories and the perception of groups: Different routes to different

destinations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 156–168. Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74(6), 1421–1436. Matsumoto, D., Grissom, R. J., & Dinnel, D. L. (2001). Do between-culture differences really mean that people are different? A look at some measures of

cultural effect size. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 478–490. Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analysing data: A model comparison perspective (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Mendenhall, M. E., Stahl, G. K., Ehnert, I., Oddou, G., Osland, J. S., & Kühlmann, T. M. (2004). Evaluation studies of cross-cultural training programs: A review

of the literature from 1988 to 2000. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed., vol. 37, pp. 129–143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Neville, H., Spanierman, L., & Doan, B. (2006). Exploring the association between color-blind racial ideology and multicultural counseling competencies. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(2), 275–290.

Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently. . . and why. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities? Psychological Science, 20(4), 444–446. Rosenthal, H. S., & Crisp, R. J. (2006). Reducing stereotype threat by blurring intergroup boundaries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(4), 501–511. Schaller, M., Conway, L. G., III, & Tanchuk, T. L. (2002). Selective pressures on the once and future contents of ethnic stereotypes: Effects of the communicability

of traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 861–877. Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of intercultural competence

(pp. 2–52). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Statistics Canada. (2001). Ethno-Cultural Portrait of Canada, Table 1. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/highlight/ETO/

Table1.cfm?T=501&Lang=E&GV=1&GID=0&Prov=0&S=2&O=D Steinfeldt, J. A., & Wong, Y. (2010). Multicultural training on American Indian issues: Testing the effectiveness of an intervention to change attitudes toward

native-themed mascots. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(2), 110–115. Storti, C. (1994). Cross-cultural dialogues: Seventy-four brief encounters with cultural differences. Yarmouth. ME: Intercultural Press. Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling &

Development, 70(4), 477–486. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic

Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 875–902. Whaley, A. L., & Davis, K. E. (2007). Cultural competence and evidence-based practice in mental health services: A complementary perspective. American

Psychologist, 62(6), 563–574. Wolsko, C., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2006). Considering the tower of Babel: Correlates of assimilation and multiculturalism among ethnic minority and

majority groups in the United States. Social Justice Research, 19, 277–306. Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments

of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 635–654. Wright, D. B. (2006). Comparing groups in a before–after design: When t-test and ANCOVA produce different results. British Journal of Educational Psychology,

76, 663–675. Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Rocher, S. (2002). Subjective essentialism and the emergence of stereotypes. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as

explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 38–66). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.