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.

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

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

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.