Assessing Intercultural Learning Strategies with Personal ... - CiteSeerX

0 downloads 0 Views 516KB Size Report
Joseph SHAULES. Abstract: This article reviews ... Joseph SHAULES. ICR. Introduction. Common ... Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). In spite of the ...
Assessing Intercultural Learning Strategies with Personal Intercultural Change Orientation(PICO)Profiles

Assessing Intercultural Learning Strategies with Personal Intercultural Change Orientation(PICO)Profiles

Joseph SHAULES

Abstract: This article reviews psychometric instruments used to measure differing elements of intercultural experiences and introduces a new instrument currently being developed. Instruments reviewed include the Intercultural Development Inventor y(IDI), the Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale(ICAPS), and the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI). The purposes of these instruments are compared. While the IDI is designed to measure an overall level of an individual ’s intercultural sensitivity, the ICAPS and CCAI attempt to predict an individual ’s emotional or psychological capacity to adapt to new cultural environments. It is argued that in addition to these types of instruments, there is a need for an instrument which measures the differing strategies that sojourners use to deal with the stresses of new intercultural environments. A way to measure these strategies is proposed, based on the Deep Culture model of intercultural learning. The Personal Intercultural Change Orientation(PICO)instrument is introduced. It measures two orientations related to the psychological stresses associated with dealing with new cultural environments: 1) an individual’s orientation towards change vs. stability, and 2) whether an individual references decisions internally based on existing knowledge and values or externally, based on the knowledge and values of others. These two measurements are combined to produce four dimensions that represent different intercultural learning orientations: proactive, protective, attentive, and adaptive. A sample of the results of PICO is given. There is also a discussion of possible uses of PICO in intercultural education and training.

61

ICR

Joseph SHAULES

Introduction   Common sense tells us that people react differently to intercultural experiences. Some

62

people are more successful than others in new cultural environments, and some develop greater levels of intercultural awareness than others. In theory, it should be possible to assess these differences, and shape training and education to the needs of particular individuals. And indeed, just as personality tests and aptitude tests have been developed for use in education and business, different assessment instruments have been created for use in intercultural training and education. Compared to the number of personality tests (such as the Meyer-Briggs Type Indicator, for example), or aptitude tests(such as the StanfordBinet Intelligence Test, for example), however, there are relatively few well-established psychometric instruments related specifically to intercultural learning.   One challenge when developing such instruments is the difficulty of clearly defining and conceptualizing the intercultural learning process. Often, professional literature in this area overlaps between different disciplines, is narrowly focused on particular groups of sojourners, or is difficult to apply to psychometric instruments. One area of research that contributes to our understanding of intercultural learning is the study of intercultural adaptation, which tries to understand the sociological and psychological factors that influence how well a person gets along in a new cultural environment. This, however, has led to theories about intercultural adaptation which, while elaborate, can be quite abstract and difficult to apply to intercultural education and training (Kim, 1988, 2001). There is also an extensive body of literature related to intercultural communication in general, but there is little consensus even on such basic issues as how to define culture or what constitutes successful cultural learning (Hannigan, 1990). The field of cross-cultural psychology, on the other hand, has examined the emotional and psychological factors that predict success for intercultural experiences (Matsumoto et al., 2001), while the study of culture shock has tried to identify the different stages that sojourners go through in their intercultural learning (Adler, 1975; Bennett, 1998; Oberg, 1960; Stone & Ward, 1990; Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001). In addition, there is a vast body of literature which examines cultural differences found within a variety of cultural groups, and problems with communication and cultural adaptation that this can cause. (Benedict, 1934; Geertz, 1973; Hall, 1976, 1984; Hofstede, 1980, 1983, 1997; Hofstede & Spangenberg, 1984; Hu, 1944; Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994; Lewin, 1936; Mead, 1961; Triandis, 1995; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998)    In spite of the fragmented literature, and the difficulty of clearly defining or understanding the intercultural learning process, a number of psychometric instruments have been developed which try to answer specific questions about how people differ in their reactions to intercultural experiences. Many instruments have been created--- one source lists at least 50 (SIETAR-Europa)--- yet many of these are designed for narrow research purposes or for proprietary use. There are few instruments which are widely known and available for intercultural educators and trainers. This article will review three of the best

Assessing Intercultural Learning Strategies with Personal Intercultural Change Orientation(PICO)Profiles

known instruments, which, like most psychometric instruments related to intercultural learning, can be classified as falling into two categories: 1)those which attempt to measure qualities which are associated with success or failure in intercultural experiences, and 2)those that attempt to measure an individual’s level of intercultural sensitivity. There are more instruments falling in the first category than the second. Two instruments in the first category are the Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS), and the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI). A well-known instrument in the second category is the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI).    Broadly speaking, instruments that try to predict cross-cultural success, such as the ICAPS and CCAI, can be seen as “pre-experience ” measures. They try to provide information about the overall psychological health of a prospective sojourner relative to the stresses of a future intercultural experience. On the other hand, instruments that assess an overall level of intercultural competency, such as the IDI, function as a kind of post-experience “scorecard” to assess the degree of intercultural sensitivity obtained by previous intercultural experiences. One quality that these particular instruments share is that the results are represented on an absolute scale---having more of the qualities defined by these instruments as desired is a “good” result. Thus, these instruments provide a kind of intercultural “score” on which a higher score is better.   This article will argue that what is needed is an instrument that helps us understand differing intercultural learning strategies in a way which does not assume a “better” or “worse” way to deal with intercultural challenges. While it is true that some individuals may be more or less successful interculturally, each individual needs to understand how best to develop his or her personal intercultural learning strategies. Just as there are many different ways to master a new language, make friends, or manage a company, sojourners (consciously or unconsciously) choose a variety of different strategies during their actual intercultural learning process which are not intrinsically “better” or “worse.” Understanding those strategies can help sojourners take more control of their intercultural learning process. To this end, this article will propose a new instrument, the Personal Intercultural Change Orientation (PICO), which attempts help sojourners understand their strategies. The theoretical basis of PICO will be presented, and the advantages of such an instrument will be examined.

1. “Pre-experience” Emotional Measures – the ICAPS and CCAI   Considerable research has been done that seeks to learn what factors can predict

success in a cross-cultural setting (Dinges & Baldwin, 1996). One difficulty with this approach is that there are different ways to define intercultural success. Some that have been used include self awareness and self-esteem (Kamal & Maruyama, 1990), health (Babiker, Cox, & Miller, 1980) and mood states (Stone & Ward, 1990), successful relationships (Cushner & Brislin, 1996), the ability to manage stress (Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978), or the ability to perform daily activities or work tasks (Black, 1988; Black & Stephens, 1989).

63

ICR

64

Joseph SHAULES

Matsumoto et al. (2001) focus on the psychology of adjustment, and defines emotional characteristics desirable for dealing with the stresses of intercultural adaptation. It is this approach that led to the creation of the Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS).    The assumption behind ICAPS is that some people have a greater psychological potential for succeeding in intercultural experiences than others. ICAPS proposes that the qualities that are most important in predicting intercultural success are: 1)emotion regulation, 2)openness, 3)flexibility, and 4)critical thinking. It produces results that give an individual profile relative to these qualities. ICAPS is intended to assess strengths and weaknesses of sojourners prior to departure and specifically as a selection tool for sending people abroad. Matsumoto et al. (2001) have published the results of multiple studies that they claim have demonstrated the validity and reliability of ICAPS.   Another instrument that attempts to measure the social psychology of adjustment is the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI), created by Colleen Kelley and Judith Meyers (Davis & Finney, 2003; Kelley, 1993, 1995; Kelley, 1999). They assert that cross-cultural adaptability has four dimensions: 1) emotional resilience, defined as how people deal with negative emotional reactions to their new situation, 2) flexibility and openness, defined as the ability to be non-judgmental, 3) cultural empathy, defined as being able to understand the logic of other cultures and 4) personal autonomy, defined as an individual’s ability to pose a strong personal identity. Kelley and Meyers refer to CCAI as a self-assessment tool to help sojourners know their “strengths and weaknesses” as intercultural learners, and for use in intercultural training (Kelley, 1995).    For intercultural educators and trainers, there are several issues that need to be examined in relation to instruments like these. One is that these instruments claim statistically tested validity and reliability. This issue is important because scores on both of these instruments categorize people as more or less likely to succeed in intercultural experiences. Thus, a high score on the qualities measured is “good” and a low score is “bad.” Particularly in cases where these instruments might be used to make career-related decisions, the results may have great consequences for the individuals who take them. Any instrument used in this way should be highly valid and reliable. While CCAI seems to have been accepted by many, and some research has supported its claims (Kraemer & Beckstead, 2003), extensive factor analysis by Davis and Finney (2003) has raised serious doubts about construct validity, calling into question whether the qualities as defined are in fact separate and distinctive. They recommend that the CCAI “not be used to assess the cross-cultural adaptability of any population until it has been studied further” (p. 8). These doubts are in addition to those of researchers who claim that psychometric testing in general is poor at predicting specific behaviour (Kraus, 1995; LaPiere, 1934; Wicker, 1969).   Another difficulty with these instruments is that the qualities that they measure are extremely broad idealizations. In terms of learning goals, they represent little more than a list of does and don ’ts: you should be flexible, you should be open, you should be empathetic, you shouldn’t be judgmental, and so forth. These goals would seem to border on simple common sense. It is true that an instrument which is capable of reliably telling a

Assessing Intercultural Learning Strategies with Personal Intercultural Change Orientation(PICO)Profiles

particular individual that they lack, say, “flexibility” may help that individual become aware of an important area of personal growth. Yet this amounts to simply telling someone that they are falling short of a particular ideal. This may create defensiveness among those who are assessed and an evaluative atmosphere that may actually make intercultural education more difficult. The transparency of the items on the test also becomes an important issue, since those who take it will naturally want a “good” score, especially if it will mean preferential treatment within a professional context. This also raises privacy issues since “bad” scores could be used against someone. These issues are strongly linked to the stated goal of these instruments---identifying desirable versus undesirable qualities.

2. The “Scorecard” Cognitive Approach – The IDI   Unlike ICAPS and CCAI, The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) does not

measure the emotional attributes necessary to deal with intercultural stress. Its approach is cognitive and phenomenological, attempting to measure a person’s level of “intercultural sensitivity, ” which is defined in rather abstract terms as “ the construction of reality as increasingly capable of accommodating cultural difference ” (Bennett, 1986). Put differently, it tries to measure the degree to which someone has successfully learned to accept and empathize with other cultural realities. The IDI is based on a theory of cultural learning called the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)(Bennett, 1986). This model proposes that as people have successful intercultural experiences, they become less ethnocentric and move progressively towards an ethno-relative state. The DMIS proposes that there are six stages of intercultural development--- denial, defense, minimization, acceptance, adaptation and integration--- and that each one represents a more advanced state of intercultural development. The goal of the IDI is to measure to what degree an individual has progressed through each stage.   One advantage of the IDI is that it is based on a clearly defined theory of intercultural learning. If one accepts that “intercultural sensitivity --- as defined by the DMIS ---is a useful measure of increased intercultural effectiveness and that the IDI reliably and validly measures that quality, then the IDI can be said to be successful insofar as it can tell you whether an individual has a high or low level of intercultural sensitivity. For their part, the creators of the IDI have argued that factor analyses of the IDI have shown it to be statistically valid and that the DMIS has largely been confirmed (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003; Paige, 1999). Some, however, have said that intercultural sensitivity as defined by the creators of the IDI is not an accurate description of the qualities that successful interculturalists share. Sparrow (2000) argues that social and emotional factors need to be included when defining intercultural learning success, not simply a single cognitive ability. Yet even if we accept the importance of “cultural sensitivity” as defined by the DMIS, a larger question remains. What are the implications for training and education of having an overall measure --- a “scorecard” of intercultural sensitivity?   One difficulty specific to the IDI is the abstraction of the quality attempting to be

65

ICR

Joseph SHAULES

measured. For those being assessed, it may be difficult to understand the significance of their particular result. To understand what it means to be at, say, the minimization level of intercultural sensitivity requires not only an understanding of what is meant by intercultural sensitivity as defined by the IDI, but also understanding the stages of cultural learning as defined by the DMIS. And since results characterize an individual as falling somewhere on a six-point scale from less desirable to more desirable, those being evaluated may feel defensive about their result, especially if the rationale behind the measurement is not clear. In that sense, the IDI can be seen as even more evaluative in “good” versus “bad” terms than the ICAPS or CCAI. Whereas the latter two instruments provide four areas of evaluation that seem relatively easy to relate to the obvious challenges of intercultural living, the IDI provides only a single, linear evaluation, difficult to relate to lived experience. This adds to the concerns for the need to insure validity, protect privacy, and to use the instrument in a way which helps sojourners better cope with intercultural learning, not simply feel judged by an abstract standard. For their part, the creators of the IDI offer training for those who would like to use it so that the theory behind it can be understood and the results can be interpreted and used appropriately.

3. Profiling Instruments 66

   The instruments reviewed above attempt to define and measure qualities on an

absolute scale. In that sense, they are similar to aptitude tests such as IQ tests. There are other psychometric instruments, however, which do not attempt to define an ideal quality and then quantify it, but rather try to describe and identify differing personality types, communication styles, or learning strategies. One of the best-known tests of this type is the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which seeks to identify differing personality types based on how one experiences the world; whether one tends to be extroverted or introverted, for example, or to rely on senses or intuition (Myers, McCauley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998; Myers & Myers, 1980). The results of instruments like this do not produce a result which can be considered “better” or “worse,” but rather provide a profile which can help to understand how an individual will react in particular situations or to particular challenges. In business, instruments of this kind are routinely used to help identify which individuals may find satisfaction in jobs that demand particular skills. Someone who is highly introverted, for example, may find a sales job that requires constant contact with customers very stressful. One advantage to instruments of this kind is that the results are relative --- showing personal characteristics as related to particular challenges. This eliminates to a large degree the “scorecard” quality of the results and allows those being assessed to more easily use their profiles as a reference point in personal and professional development. The Personal Intercultural Change Orientation (PICO) instrument is an attempt to respond to the need for an instrument that provides intercultural learning profiles in this way, rather than the absolute scores of the ICAPS, CCAI, and IDI.

Assessing Intercultural Learning Strategies with Personal Intercultural Change Orientation(PICO)Profiles

4. PICO and the Deep Cultural Model of Intercultural Learning    Rather than attempting to measure absolute qualities, PICO assesses an individual’s

orientation to the fundamental challenges of dealing with new intercultural environments. Just as the IDI is based on a particular theory of intercultural learning, PICO’s approach to understanding the cultural learning process is based on a particular understanding of the intercultural learning process, the Deep Culture Model of intercultural learning (Shaules, 2004). According to this model, intercultural learning is most easily understood as an individual’s internal reactions to the adaptive demands of external environments. Adaptive demands result from an attempt to function in an environment that is systematically and socially different from what one is used to. Those differences are said to exist at both the more obvious and explicit level of, say, food or clothing, and so on, and the more implicit level of values, beliefs, world views, or communication styles. In this way, when a tourist is attempting to learn a new subway system, he or she is dealing with adaptive demands at an explicit level. These demands are systematic in that once the subway is understood that knowledge can be applied in a predictable way to get things done (in this case, travel around). Someone who lives abroad for a relatively long period, on the other hand, faces deeper adaptive demands as he or she grapples with trying to understand implicit demands inherent in functioning socially in a place with, for example, differing language, values and communication style.   According to the Deep Culture Model, intercultural learners respond to the adaptive demands of their new environments by resisting, accepting, or adapting to those demands. This process may be conscious or unconscious. Resistance implies a negative value judgment, acceptance implies a recognition of the validity of the difference being experienced, and adaptation implies that one allows for change in oneself to better fit to one’s environment. Thus, when a tourist faced with unfamiliar food (an explicit difference) in a foreign country, he or she may resist it (“The food in that country is terrible”), accept it regardless of whether they like it personally or not (“Well, it’s not what I’m used to”) or adapt to it (“Yes, I ate the food there and even got to like it”). At deeper levels of the self, people may resist, accept, or adapt to implicit levels of adaptive demands. Among expatriates, for example, you may hear statements such as “The people in this country are all lazy”--- indicating deep resistance, a denigration of implicit cultural differences. In the same way, deeply rooted cultural difference can be accepted as when someone says “Well, they’ve got a different way of getting things done, but it works for them.” Finally, it can be adapted to, as when a sojourner enters deeply into another cultural world view and learns to function in a new environment, perhaps learning a new language and communication style or even becoming bicultural.   The goal of the Deep Culture Model is to help intercultural learners better understand the cultural learning process, so they can deal with adaptive demands. Successfully dealing with these demands is said to engender overall intercultural sensitivity, or deep cognitive empathy, a fundamental recognition of the validity and integrity of other cultural

67

ICR

Joseph SHAULES

world views. Acceptance and adaptation are said to encourage this, while resistance is said to discourage it. And while intercultural learning is seen as developmental in the sense that deep cognitive empathy can be developed cumulatively, it is not seen as developing strictly in a linear, step-by-step, stage-by-stage fashion. Rather, it is said to include contradictions and mixed states in which a learner may, for example, resist and adapt at the same time. Someone who says “I love France, but I can’t stand the French” may enjoy and adapt to certain explicit elements of their experience in France (food, architecture, etc.) while resisting deeper levels of French values and communication styles. As a result, intercultural learning as described by the Deep Culture mode cannot be easily measured using a singular quality or be represented in a simple step-by-step fashion. Rather, it is an ongoing process of development through one’s reaction to intercultural stresses. This can be visualized as in figure one. The quotations in the figure represent statements by sojourners which provide clues to their reactions to adaptive demands and which can be categorized within this schema.

68

The horizontal arrow represents the general development of greater intercultural sensitivity, while the vertical arrow represents the depth of the intercultural experience. Because successfully responding to adaptive demands increases cultural sensitivity, it is assumed that helping sojourners successfully navigate their reactions to intercultural experiences lies at the heart of intercultural education. PICO attempts to do this. And while PICO accepts that there are more desirable reactions to adaptive demands --- adaptation and acceptance are more desirable than resistance --- it also proposes that there is more than one way to manage intercultural demands successfully. Helping sojourners to become aware of these different strategies and to see the particular strengths and pitfalls that varying strategies can create is

Assessing Intercultural Learning Strategies with Personal Intercultural Change Orientation(PICO)Profiles

said to engender intercultural learning. PICO, then, attempts to create a useful definition and measurement for the intercultural strategies used for dealing with adaptive demands.

5. Internal and External Adaptive Demands   As we have seen, the Deep Culture Model defines intercultural learning in terms of

adaptive demands. PICO postulates that those demands have both an internal and an external element. Externally, a sojourner must function in an environment that is less predicable and less understood than usual. The need to take action in the face of the unknown is seen as a fundamental external dilemma of cultural learning. In addition, PICO postulates that sojourners face an internal dilemma --- a loss of clear internal criteria for making decisions and anchoring one’s identity. In effect, the conceptual universe that sojourners use to interact with their environment is less functional than usual and needs to be adjusted. These external and internal adaptive demands are described in terms of dilemmas because in practice sojourners are caught between two contradictory choices: 1) externally, in the face of the unknown, should one take action sooner (and experiment) or later (and avoid risk)? and 2) internally, should one first look outside of oneself (seeking external criteria) or inside oneself (clarifying one’s internal criteria) when modifying one’s conceptual universe?   These internal and external dilemmas are seen as representing valid alternatives to the challenges of intercultural learning. PICO assumes that individuals have a relative preference for one or the other pole of these dilemmas. The preferences that an individual has relative to these dilemmas are described as orientations. One’s orientation towards the external learning dilemma is described as existing along an axis of change versus stability and the orientation towards the internal dilemma along an axis of inner reference versus outer reference. Actions that are taken based on one preference or another are referred to as strategies. Strategies are the situational response to learning dilemmas. The distinction between orientation and strategy is necessary because while someone may have a general orientation, in practice the actions we take are highly situational, and everyone uses a variety of strategies to deal with the challenges of differing situations.

6. The External Demands: Change vs. Stability   As we have seen, change vs. stability relates to how intercultural learners react to the

uncertainty resulting from changes in their external environment. A change orientation is defined as a preference for taking action as a way of dealing with the unknown . Change strategies involve a “trial and error” approach to intercultural learning --- seeking out new experiences to help deal with uncertainty. Stability strategies are defined as a preference for reducing uncertainty as a way of dealing with the unknown. They involve a “look before you leap” approach to intercultural learning --- knowing where we stand and learning about our new environment helps to make it more predictable, therefore allowing us to take action

69

ICR

70

Joseph SHAULES

with more confidence in the expected result.   Even relatively simple tasks, such as ordering food in a restaurant abroad, can create stress caused by uncertainty --- not speaking the language may impede communication, and unfamiliarity with the dishes may mean choices are difficult, for example --- and people differ in how they react to this stress. One possible reaction is to simply take action despite uncertainty --- perhaps simply pointing to an unknown item on the menu and giving it a try. There are advantages to this change strategy. It is quick, can provide new information for future reference (if you don’t like this dish, you can try another next time), and allows one to experiment. When relied on too much, however, it can lead to bad choices, which may in turn increase the stress of an intercultural experience. Stability strategies, on the other hand, involve trying to reduce the uncertainty of the new environment before taking action. This may mean more time spent preparing for a decision --- reading a guidebook, or taking more time working out what menu items mean. These strategies reduce uncertainty and also help avoid mistakes (ordering something you don’t like), for example, and mean you are better prepared to make decisions. Yet since it is not always possible to predict and prepare, this strategy may lead to an unwillingness to take chances or time wasted in procrastination.   Of course no one uses either change or stability strategies exclusively. We use them to different degrees depending on the situation and often combine them. We may learn about local food before going and use that knowledge to inform adventurous choices and experimentation. Different people, however, are often oriented more to one strategy than another. Someone oriented towards change may more often choose to “play it by ear” while someone oriented towards stability may more often want to “look before you leap.” And since neither of these strategies is better or worse, they do not imply a “better” way to deal with intercultural challenges. Still, different situations may demand different strategies. There are dangers to walking into an important negotiation with a foreign client with the strategy of simply “seeing how it goes.” On the other hand, decisions and relationships can be crippled by an insistence on avoiding all uncertainty. This does not imply, however, that those who tend to be stability oriented are less adventurous. Climbing Mt. Everest or starting a joint venture abroad are often risky activities that are undertaken by people whose focus is on preparing for and analyzing the unknown. Those who prefer change strategies may not have the patience this requires.    An orientation towards change or stability can also be seen at the macro level of national culture and social systems. While some societies value progress, innovation, and change, others maintain social systems tied to important traditional cultural values. In such societies, there is a concern with maintaining positive attributes of the past and less faith that change is for the good. Whereas Japan readily accepts new technology and ideas from other countries, Bhutan has taken a cautious step-by-step approach to the challenge of integrating new ideas into their existing society. It is nearly a closed country, and change related to influences from the outside world, such as the introduction of English into the education system, is planned carefully. It would seem reasonable to assume that these cultural values would affect individuals who grow up there --- Japanese are socialized

Assessing Intercultural Learning Strategies with Personal Intercultural Change Orientation(PICO)Profiles

to be more change oriented than Bhutanese, for example. In this way, an individual ’s orientation towards change or stability is not only influenced by their personality but also by their cultural background. At the national culture level, Hofstede (1983; 1997) has done research on a cultural orientation he refers to as “uncertainty avoidance” which, though defined differently, may correlate to some degree to the change and stability orientations as defined by PICO.

7. The internal psychological demands: Inner-reference vs. outer-reference   In addition to measuring an individual’s orientation towards change and stability, PICO

measures how intercultural learners react to the internal (psychological) demands of an environment. Inner-referenced thinking implies clear internal values and standards. Knowing oneself is the starting point for intercultural learning. Outer-referenced thinking, on the other hand, implies a recognition of the need to take into account the values and standards of others. Knowing others is the starting point for intercultural learning.   In our usual environment, we generally understand the consequences and meaning of our actions and can make decisions accordingly. In a new environment, it is more difficult to know if our perceptions are shared by others and whether we should rely on our previous experience or not. In the restaurant situation mentioned above, we can imagine that upon tasting a new dish we discover that we do not really like what we have ordered. We might also notice that the waiter or cook seems to be watching, perhaps in anticipation of our expression of approval of the food they have presented. Should we, then, ignore our initial reaction to the food (an internal reference) and continue eating, hoping perhaps to learn to enjoy it or at least give pleasure to those watching (an external reference)? Or should we stop eating to avoid the possible displeasure of eating something we don’t like, at the risk of not appreciating a new dish and perhaps displeasing others.    Internal and external reference means more than simply choosing between pleasing oneself and pleasing others. It represents a fundamental dilemma of uncertainty --- not knowing whether to rely on one’s own intuition, experience, and values, or the point of view, knowledge, and priorities of others. It is our guide for judging when to accept change within ourselves. Accepting uncritically the expectations of others could lead to a loss of personal integrity or direction, yet relying exclusively on our previous experiences and existing values would lead to inflexibility and stubbornness.   Someone who often chooses inner referenced strategies may be perceived by others as having strong personal convictions or, perhaps, as being stubborn. When in doubt, this person more often looks within himself or herself and accepts change most readily when it agrees with his or her inner predilection. Artists who follow their creative voice, entrepreneurs who stick to their dreams in the face of failure, and religious leaders who provide moral guidance to others all need a clear inner reference. Someone who often chooses outer referenced strategies, on the other hand, is highly aware of others and bases decisions and values on this awareness. A therapist must set aside biases and treat patients

71

ICR

72

Joseph SHAULES

based on their needs; a diplomat needs to understand the interests and situation of others; a scientist must rely on data and observation regardless of personal preferences. Of course, no one is exclusively inner or outer referenced. These examples are only given to dramatize the difference between these two orientations. We rely both on the opinions and experience of others as well as our own values and knowledge. In an intercultural learning situation, however, the gap between our values and what we know and the values of others and what they know, is much greater. Subsequently it becomes harder to both be true to ourselves and attentive to others.   The orientation towards inner or outer referenced values and behavior can be seen at the macro level of philosophy, religion, and ethical systems. The philosophical underpinning of Judeo-Christian and Muslim thinking tends toward a moral philosophy in which people make moral choices based on their individual conscience (inner reference), which should not be influenced by the opinions of others. This can be contrasted with a Confucian world view, in which it is one’s proper and constructive relationship with those around one (outer reference) that defines moral and ethical behavior. In Christian prayer, an individual strengthens his or her internal moral voice (inner reference) through communion with God, while in Buddhist meditation, one attempts to keep attention focused on the hearand-now (outer reference) of one’s immediate environment, precisely to empty oneself of personal opinions and convictions. The cultural concept of “face” can be described as the importance of one’s relationship with those around one (outer reference), while the idea of “shame” can be seen as the public failure to have met an internal standard (inner reference).

8. The Four Dimensions: Adaptive, Proactive, Protective, and Attentive   We have seen that orientations towards change and stability, as well as inner referenced

and outer referenced thinking, can affect how individuals react to the challenges found in intercultural environments. In addition to measuring these two orientations, PICO allows us to combine these two orientations to produce four intercultural learning dimensions --adaptive, proactive, protective and attentive --- which can be represented visually as in Figure 2.   As can be seen in the diagram, the upper right proactive quadrant represents cultural learning strategies that are both change oriented and inner referenced. The protective quadrant consists of strategies that tend to be both inner referenced and stability oriented. Likewise, the attentive quadrant refers to strategies that are stability oriented and outer referenced, and the adaptive quadrant refers to strategies that are change oriented and outer referenced. As with the change and stability orientations, it is assumed that individuals have preferences for strategies belonging to different quadrants. 8.1 The Proactive Orientation    The proactive orientation involves seeking out change and depending on

one’s personal values and world view to relate to others and get things done. One who

Assessing Intercultural Learning Strategies with Personal Intercultural Change Orientation(PICO)Profiles

73

prefers proactive strategies may be seen as a “go getter” in the new environment, having not only a clear sense of what he or she wants and likes (as a result of inner referenced thinking) but also as being ready to take action (as a result of their preference for change strategies) to achieve the results that he or she wants. Sojourners who are strongly oriented in this way may give the impression of being adventurous, passionate, and inspired. When this is not tempered with sufficient reflection, however, it can lead to behavior seen by others as unrealistic, critical or overbearing. 8.2 The Protective Orientation   The protective orientation involves a commitment to personal ideals and a careful

approach to dealing with a new environment. Someone who prefers protective strategies tends to rely on his or her personal convictions and values (as a result of their preference for inner-referenced thinking) as he or she seeks to establish a firm ground (as a result of their preference for stability strategies) for forming new relationships and taking on new tasks. A protective orientation can lead learners to be loyal to important principles and prudent in the face of uncertainty. When this orientation is not tempered by sufficient flexibility, however, it can lead to behavior that may be seen as stubborn, inflexible, or fearful.

ICR

Joseph SHAULES

8.3 The Attentive Orientation   The attentive orientation involves paying close attention to one’s new environment and

a careful approach to unfamiliar environments. Someone who prefers attentive strategies tends to focus on learning about his or her new environment (as a result of his or her outerreferenced thinking), and reflecting on different ways to go about things (as a result of his or her preference for stability strategies) prior to taking action. This orientation can lead sojourners to be attentive and conscientious. When this orientation is not tempered with sufficient assertiveness and a willingness to get involved, however, it can lead to behavior that may be seen as detached, passive, or isolated. 8.4 The Adaptive Orientation   The adaptive orientation involves seeking out change and paying close attention to

one’s new surroundings. Someone who prefers adaptive strategies tends to be highly aware of the expectations and requirements of his or her new environment (as a result of his or her outer-referenced thinking) and be ready to change his or her behavior(as a result of his or her preference for change strategies)to fit those expectations. This orientation can lead sojourners to be curious, flexible, and diplomatic. When this orientation is not tempered with sufficient purposefulness or decisiveness, however, it can lead to behavior that may be seen as insincere, indecisive, or unstable. 74

9. Complementary Strategies   It is possible to describe these orientations as archetypes of different personalities:

proactive strategies describing those who are “ adventurous yet careless, ” protective strategies those who are “principled yet stubborn,” attentive strategies those who are “conscientious yet timid” and adaptive strategies those who are “flexible yet insecure.” And while these descriptions may be useful as a mnemonic device to help remember the categories, they can be misleading, since they create the impression that someone can “be” a “proactive type,” for example. In fact, everyone uses a variety of strategies when dealing with new environments and all four orientations are necessary. It is simply that some people use some strategies more often than others. PICO is not a personality test; it doesn’t attempt to define internal qualities that determine behaviour. The PICO orientations can more accurately be described as constructs which try to identify a pattern of behaviour. Attempting to identify personality “types” has been the focus of a great deal of psychological research, yet for the purposes of intercultural education it is not necessary to know what “causes” a particular behaviour. It is important, however, to make learners aware of their intercultural learning tendencies, and the alternative strategies for dealing with intercultural stresses.    Different strategies gain importance depending on the adaptive demands of a particular situation. As mentioned, when undertaking a joint venture, attentiveness strategies would seem very important. When further reflection will not help decide what to

Assessing Intercultural Learning Strategies with Personal Intercultural Change Orientation(PICO)Profiles

do, however, attentiveness can impede decision-making and become a liability rather than an advantage. One common difficulty for sojourners posted abroad is determining what their goals should be and estimating how long it will take to accomplish them. They want to get things done, yet are not familiar with their new environment. If they are not attentive enough, they risk being rash or unreasonable; and yet if they are not proactive enough, they risk becoming paralyzed and ineffective. Because these strategies are complementary, it would seem difficult or impossible to determine a “ best ” strategy for a particular situation. It could be hypothesized that more than the use of a particular single strategy, it is the ability to shift strategies and to use complementary strategies that is the measure of successful intercultural learning.

10. Instrument Design    The theoretical basis of PICO is being used to develop a number of different

instruments for different purposes. Currently, the most developed and tested of these is a 64-item forced-choice self-assessment instrument that uses word pairs --- each word representing a quality describing the characteristics of the two axes (change-stability and inner referenced-outer referenced) and four dimensions (proactive, protective, attentive and adaptive). Those being assessed are given instructions to choose the word which best 75

ICR

76

Joseph SHAULES

describes them as they are, not as they would like to be. This design was chosen in order to generate a relative result with categories compared to each other rather than an absolute result attempting to measure each category independently. The results of this instrument can be graphed into a personal profile such as in Figure 3.    In addition, results can be produced that compare the relative scores of each of the different axes and dimensions: change vs. stability, internal vs. external referenced, proactive vs. attentive, adaptive vs. protective.   In addition to this instrument, a second PICO version (PICO-2A) that uses phrases that describe actions and attitudes, rather than single words, has also been created. Instruments that are situation specific are also being developed. Currently, two instruments, PICO Abroad, and PICO in the Workplace have been developed, which focus on learning orientations relative to those contexts. These instruments are currently in the developmental stage and are intended to be part of a series of assessment instruments/learning tools that can be applied to a wide range of intercultural education and training contexts. Tests structured like PICO are typically difficult to test for construct validity using statistical analysis. Test development so far has included item creation and instrument testing in focus groups. Results of different versions of PICO have been compared. Since PICO is designed as a learning tool rather than an absolute measure of desirable qualities, the current focus is on developing a wide range of instruments that can be tested not only for their statistical qualities, but also for their practical applicability in training and education.

11. Applying PICO to Intercultural Education and Training   The results that PICO instruments provide can be used in a variety of ways. As we have

seen, they can produce a general intercultural learning profile that can help pinpoint potential areas of intercultural learning stress for a particular individual. This can be done in the context of self-assessment by those taking the instrument or in conjunction with a trainer or educator who can help individuals interpret their particular profile. In addition, specific axes of PICO can be seen as closely related to specific intercultural challenges: problem solving (attentive-proactive axis), relationship building (protective-adaptive axis), learning (change-stability axis), and personal growth (inner-outer-reference axis).   In addition to helping interculturalists understand their own intercultural learning profile, understanding the PICO categories can help those working or living in intercultural contexts better understand the challenges faced by those around them. A manager who, for example, recognizes that one of her employees has a strong preference for particular learning strategies can better identify effective motivation strategies, predict stress points, and help employees gain skills that compliment their strengths. She might help a proactive employee develop attentive qualities, for example, or recognize that accomplishment is a strong motivator and that frustration from unaccomplished goals might be a typical stress reaction.   Those who have been through PICO workshops or trainings also report that their

Assessing Intercultural Learning Strategies with Personal Intercultural Change Orientation(PICO)Profiles

understanding of the PICO categories helps them in conflict resolution by helping them understand communication gaps and vicious circles of misunderstanding caused by differing orientations. In one case, a project member who preferred proactive strategies was often in conflict with another whose orientation was more attentive. The more attentive colleague believed that the proactive colleague was unrealistic and “pie in the sky,” while the more proactive colleague felt the more attentive colleague to be negative and defeatist ― always questioning an idea’s feasibility. When their PICO profiles predicted the kind of problems they were experiencing, it depersonalized their differences and allowed them to see that each could be bolstered by the other’s strengths --- the proactive colleague’s vision and the attentive colleague’s attention to detail.   PICO was designed to be used for a wide variety of intercultural education and training contexts. Within an educational context, PICO could be used to help with preparation of students planning to study abroad, for use with international students, as part of an intercultural communication course, or courses related to intercultural adaptation, cultural identity, and refugee issues. In a professional context, PICO could be used in pre-departure training for those who will work abroad, for team-building, for those who work in a multicultural environment, and for managers of international teams. It could also be used to help predict stress points that could be anticipated when sending a particular employee abroad, helping to decide who should go, or in what position, or for how long. This kind of assessment would need to involve the input of the person being assessed and would center on predicting potential stress points, rather than giving an overall score to predict success or failure.

12. Areas of Further Research and Development   One question that has come up among those who have used PICO is whether the

results of the instrument are applicable only to intercultural situations, or whether PICO’s orientations can be seen as indicators of preferences for how to deal with people who share one’s usual cultural setting. This question is often raised because the PICO orientations have helped make sense of relationships or communication patterns with someone --- often a spouse, friend or colleague --- that does not come from a different cultural background. While this result was not part of the original intention of PICO, it can perhaps best be interpreted as reflecting the fundamental role that the PICO orientations play in our everyday lives. It is not only when going abroad that we deal with the fundamental dilemmas of change versus stability, or inner- versus outer-referenced thinking. If those who are familiar with PICO find that it is useful in these wider ranging situations, that can be seen as an indicator of the usefulness of PICO.   Another question posed by those who have experience with PICO is whether people with particular cultural backgrounds tend to have similar PICO profiles. Do Japanese, for example, receive scores that are consistently more outer-referenced than, for example, Americans, as the thinking behind PICO would seem to predict? If so, it may be possible

77

ICR

Joseph SHAULES

to create composite profiles that show the tendencies of particular cultural groups. This would allow those who take PICO to compare their own profile with one that is “typical” for someone with their cultural background. At this time, PICO has not been administered to enough people to determine whether this will be possible. An online version of PICO is planned to allow for a more widespread gathering of data.   The question of construct validity is always an important one for any psychometric instrument. Continued development of the items on PICO is required so that it can be as valid and reliable as possible. Because PICO is intended as a learning tool and not as a predictive tool or an aptitude test, it is assumed that a proven high degree of construct validity is not an absolute requirement for it to be useful within a training or educational context. Even highly developed and respected instruments such as the Brigg-Meyers Type Indicator are not universally accepted as having a high degree of construct validity (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004; Pervin, 1990). But the limitations of these instruments must be kept in mind. PICO should not be used to exclude people from particular assignments or jobs. There is no evidence that a particular profile or result on PICO corresponds with success or failure for specific tasks or challenges.

13. Conclusion 78

  This article has given an overview of several psychometric instruments and introduced

the Personal Intercultural Change Orientation profile. It has argued that there is a need for instruments which help interculturalists understand their particular intercultural learning strategies. And while several years has already been spent developing the learning theory behind PICO, as well as the actual instruments themselves, the development process is still ongoing. Instruments like PICO are only useful if increasing numbers of people find them meaningful and effective. For this to happen, not only must the instruments themselves evolve, but training materials must be developed, and the theory behind PICO must be debated. As the world is increasingly affected by globalization, and more and more people are coming into contact with people from other cultural backgrounds, the need for tools to help interculturalists understand the challenges and rewards of intercultural learning is greater than ever.

More information For further information about PICO, please see or contact Joseph Shaules at [email protected]. References Adler, P. S.(1975). The transitional experience: An alternative view of culture shock. Journal of

Assessing Intercultural Learning Strategies with Personal Intercultural Change Orientation(PICO)Profiles

Humanistic Psychology, 15(4), 13. Babiker, I. E., Cox, J. L., & Miller, P. (1980). The measurement of cultural distance and its relationship to medical consultations, symptomatology and examination of performance of overseas students at Edinburgh University. Social Psychiatry, 15, 109-116. Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Bennett, J. (1998). Transition shock: Putting culture shock in perspective. In M. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication (pp. 215-224). Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press Inc. Bennett, M. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 179-200. Black, J. S. (1988). Work role transitions: A study of American expatriate managers in Japan. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 277-294. Black, J. S., & Stephens, G. K. (1989). The influence of the spouse on American expatriate adjustment and intent to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments. Journal of Management, 15, 529-544. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review . Learning and Skills Research Centre. Retrieved December 5th, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.lsda.org.uk/pubs/ Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. (1996). International interactions, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication. Davis, S. L., & Finney, S. J. (2003). Examining the pscyhometric properties of the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Dinges, N. G., & Baldwin, K. D. (1996). Intercultural competence - A research perspective. In D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat(Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training, 2nd edition (pp. 106-123). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books Doubleday. ̶. (1984). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. New York: Anchor Books. Hammer, M., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382-393. Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural competence: The Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations . 27(4), 421-443. Hannigan, T. P. (1990). Traits, attitudes, and skills that are related to intercultural effectiveness and their implications for cross-cultural training: A review of the literature. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14(1), 89-111. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. ̶. (1983). Dimensions of national culture in fifty countries and three regions. In J. B. Deregowski J, S. Dziurawiec, & R. C. Annis (Eds.), Expiscations in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 335-355). Lisse, Netherlands: Swetz and Zeitlinger. ̶. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., & Spangenberg, J. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach’s Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14(4), 417-433. Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concept of “face”. American Anthropologist, 46, 45-64. Kamal, A. A., & Maruyama, G.(1990). Cross-cultural contact and attitudes of Qatari students in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 123-134. Kelley, C. (1993). CCAI Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory - Manual. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems, Inc. ̶. (1995). CCAI Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory(Manual). Minneapolis: National Computer Systems, Inc. Kelley, C., & Meyers, J. (1999). The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory. In S. Fowler & M. Mumford(Eds.), Intercultural sourcebook: Cross -cultural training methods, Vol. 2 (pp. 53-70).

79

ICR

80

Joseph SHAULES

Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Kim, Y., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.-C., & Yoon, G. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation. New York: Multilingual Matters. ̶. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theor y of communication and cross - cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kraemer, T. J., & Beckstead, J. (2003). Establishing the reliability of using the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory with physical therapist students. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, Spring. Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 58-75. LaPiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13, 230-237. Lewin, K. (1935). Some social-psychological differences between the US and Germany. In K. Lewin(Ed.), Principles of topological psychology. 4, 265-293. Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., Ratzlaffa, C., Tatania, H., Uchidaa, H., Kima, C., & Araki, S. (2001). Development and validation of a measure of intercultural adjustment potential in Japanese sojourners: The Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale(ICAPS). International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(5), 488-510. Mead, M. (1961). Coming of age in Samoa. New York: Perennial Classics. Myers, I. B., McCauley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual: A cuide to the development and the use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 3rd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Myers, I. B., & Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7(177-182). Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y., & DeJaeghere, J. (1999). Assessing intercultural sensitivity: A validation study of the Hammer and Bennett (1998) Intercultural Development Inventory. Paper presented at the International Academy of Intercultural Research Conference, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio. Pervin, L. A.(Ed.). (1990). Handbook of personality theory and research. New York: Guilford Press. Shaules, J. (2004). Explicit and implicit cultural difference in cultural learning among long-term expatriates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southampton, Southampton. SIETAR-Europa. Intercultural assessments and instruments. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.sietar.de/SIETARproject/Assessments&instruments.html Sparrow, L. M. (2000). Beyond multicultural man: Complexities of identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(2), 173-201. Stone, F. E., & Ward, C. (1990). Loneliness and psychological adjustment of sojourners: New perspectives on culture shock. In D. M. Keats, D. Munro & L. Mann(Eds.), Heterogeneity in crosscultural psychology (pp. 537-547). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C.(1998). Riding the waves of culture. New York: McGraw Hill. Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Routledge. Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes vs. actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behaviour responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41-78.