Short term study abroad and intercultural sensativity 2006

ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Short-term study abroad and intercultural sensitivity: A pilot study Philip H. Andersona, , Leigh Lawtonb, Richard J. Rexeisenc, Ann C. Hubbardd a

Mail No. MCN 6002, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105-1096, USA Mail No. MCN 6034, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105-1096, USA c Mail No. MCN 6069, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105-1096, USA d Mail No. 44C, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105-1096, USA

b

Received 20 December 2004; received in revised form 12 August 2005; accepted 21 October 2005

Abstract Longitudinal studies that measure the impact of study abroad programs are essential to improving our understanding of the effectiveness of international education. The focus of the current research is on the development of cross-cultural sensitivity. Hammer and Bennett’s [(2002). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) manual. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute)] Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is used to assess of the extent to which a short-term, faculty-led study abroad program can affect the cross-cultural sensitivity of student learners. The IDI was administered before the students traveled abroad and then again 4 weeks later when they returned to the United States. Preliminary results suggest that short-term programs can have a positive impact on the overall development of cross-cultural sensitivity. Individual differences are noted and the paper provides some discussion of the impact of the study abroad program on specific subscales within the IDI instrument. The study concludes by highlighting areas of needed research. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Study abroad; Intercultural sensitivity; Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI)

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 651 962 5136; fax: +1 651 962 5093.

E-mail addresses: phanderson@stthomas.edu (P.H. Anderson), l9lawton@stthomas.edu (L. Lawton), rjrexeisen@stthomas.edu (R.J. Rexeisen), achubbard@stthomas.edu (A.C. Hubbard).

0147-1767/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.10.004

ARTICLE IN PRESS 458

P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469

1. Introduction The past decade has witnessed a dramatic growth in the number of colleges and universities offering study abroad programs. Increasingly, these programs also have become a recruitment tool, as prospective students make institutional selection based on study abroad opportunities as well as academic offerings and campus life (Ludwig, 2000).

As international travel has become more commonplace and as the economies of the world have become more interdependent, both students and faculties are recognizing the need to prepare for this new, shrinking world.

The University of Northern Illinois’ website is illustrative of the importance some universities place on international education and how they use their programs as a tool for recruiting: ‘‘In today’s global society, these insights [into cultural sensitivity and world affairs] are crucial for successful and meaningful interaction, both here and abroady An international education is becoming a necessity, not a luxury, and study abroad is one of the best ways to get such an international education.’’ (NUI Study Abroad Office, 2000).

An examination of literature relating to international programs reveals that most overseas programs seek to achieve multiple objectives. For example, the Office of Study Abroad at Michigan State University has identified four typical areas that may be enhanced through participating in a study abroad program (Michigan State University Office of Study Abroad): Academic/intellectual—problem solving and language skills, geographical and historical knowledge, etc.; Professional—professional contacts, a sense of direction for future career choices, a sense of responsibility, etc.; Personal—an appreciation for the US, confidence, personal identity, flexibility, creativity, etc.; and Intercultural—interest in other cultures, diminished ethnocentrism, language skills, cultural sensitivity, etc.

While the specific objectives established for study abroad programs vary from institution to institution, academic and intercultural competencies are common to virtually all programs. Academic competency focuses on the specific discipline studied, while intercultural competency relates to the broad goal of enhancing student appreciation of differences among cultures. Battsek (1962) makes the following normative statement: ‘‘a number of practical considerations should be taken more into account with respect to study abroad by American undergraduatesy Program objectives should be carefully defined. The chief one should be academicy Study abroad program objectives should also include learning about the foreign society and culturey’’ (p. 225–242). A review of the objectives of various programs across the US suggests that most schools have adopted this premise.

As study abroad programs garner resources that could otherwise be allocated to oncampus programs and activities, the question often is raised as to whether the study abroad experience achieves its stated objectives. Unfortunately, at a time of increasing competition for resources, study abroad programs generally lack hard data to justify their worth.

Gillespe (2002) points out that while assessment of academic goals occurs regularly, the intercultural goals of study abroad programs remain ill defined and unmeasured. She argues for improved assessment of these programs, including the establishment of minimum standards for every program that contain both qualitative and quantitative measures.

ARTICLE IN PRESS P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469

459

2. Literature review Brislin and Yoshida (1994) contend that culture can be defined as any framework of expectations and values. Our ability to function effectively in an environment depends upon our skill in recognizing and responding appropriately to the values and expectations of those around us. Landis and Bhagat (1996) argue that intercultural sensitivity is crucial to enabling people to live and work with others from different cultural backgrounds. As our workplace and society become more diverse, and as globalization of business intensifies, an individual’s sensitivity to cultural differences combined with an ability to adapt his or her behavior to those differences will become increasingly valuable.

While there is an almost universal call for greater cultural awareness, the mechanism for achieving this aim has been a subject of considerable discussion. Suggested alternatives range from presentation of materials on different cultures in a domestic classroom environment to actual exposure and direct involvement with different cultures in foreign locations. Although few, if any, authorities argue against travel abroad as a means of improving cultural sensitivity, there is some support for the belief that increases in intercultural sensitivity can be achieved through education and training, without the need for foreign travel [cf. Altschuler, Sussman, & Kachur, 2003; Bennett, Bennett, & Allen, 1999; Paige, 1993; Pruegger & Rogers, 1994] There is also caution expressed that traveling abroad does not ensure greater cultural sensitivity. Kelly (1963) maintains that a person can witness an event without ever experiencing it (p. 73). In Kelly’s view, a student could participate in a study abroad program without experiencing the culture in which the student resided. The bottom line for this debate is that unless we assess the gains in intercultural sensitivity resulting from alternative programs designed to improve cultural sensitivity, we will not be able to determine which alternatives are most effective in producing the desired outcome.

While there have been a plethora of studies attempting to support the positive impact of study abroad programs, few have employed pre–post designs in an attempt to quantify the changes occurring over the course of the program. Three recently published studies endeavored to fill this gap (Engle & Engle, 2004; Medina-Lo´pez-Portillo, 2004; Paige, Cohen, & Shively, 2004). All three of these studies involved programs designed to improve the language skills of participants. Each program was organized primarily to meet the needs of students who had a substantial background in the non-English language of the host country (usually 2–3 years of language study) prior to the overseas experience and who took language courses while in the host country. The duration of the study abroad experiences varied across student groups with the shortest being 7 weeks and the longest, 1 year.

The results of the three studies were mixed. Medina-Lo´pez-Portillo (2004) found little statistically significant evidence that either a 7-week or a semester-long language program in Mexico produced a gain in intercultural sensitivity. On the other hand, Paige et al.

(2004) found that students spending a semester in various French and Spanish-speaking countries did show significant improvements in sensitivity. While the statistics presented by Engle and Engle (2004) do not address whether their results were statistically significant, they state that students in the semester-long program demonstrated gains in intercultural sensitivity and that students in the year-long program showed even greater gains, with their rate of progress increasing in the second term.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 460

P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469

The pilot study presented here attempts to open the discussion as to whether a program of only 4 weeks set in an English-speaking country has an effect on the cultural sensitivity of its participants. As noted by Dwyer (2004), while there has been a dramatic increase in the number of students studying abroad, the duration of their time abroad has decreased consistently over the past 16 years. Hence, there is a need to determine whether a shortterm study abroad program can achieve a goal of increased cultural sensitivity in its participants.

This study also seeks to ascertain whether gains in intercultural sensitivity are possible when language barriers are minimal to non-existent. That is, can a study abroad program set in an English-speaking country produce gains in intercultural sensitivity? Or does familiarity with the language lead students to miss seeing the cultural differences that exist?

3. The study 3.1. The assessment instrument If we are to quantify the impact of study abroad programs on intercultural sensitivity, we must have a suitable dependent variable. There are a number of instruments designed to measure some aspect of intercultural sensitivity. Among the most widely known are Shimp and Sharma’s Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies Scale (CETSCALE) (1987), Kelley and Meyers’ (1995) Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI), and Hammer & Bennett’s (2002) Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI).

We selected the IDI for this study given its demonstrated theoretical grounding on a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS). The IDI is consistent with Bhawuk and Brislin’s hypothesis regarding an individual’s reaction to other cultures.

Bhawuk and Brislin (1992) describe intercultural sensitivity as an individual’s reaction to people from other cultures, which can predetermine that individual’s ability to work successfully with those people. They state that an individual’s reaction to other cultures develops and changes over time with personal experience and training. A second consideration for utilizing the IDI is that numerous reports have documented its validity and reliability (Bennett, 1986, 1993; Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). This instrument allows users to assess the effectiveness of various cross-cultural interventions by measuring the respondents’ change in intercultural sensitivity.

Bennett (1986, 1993) posited a model of intercultural sensitivity in an attempt to explain why people respond differently to cultural experiences. Bennett’s DMIS is based on concepts from cognitive psychology and constructivism. The model operates on the assumption that individuals follow a predictable path as they gain experience with different cultures. They move through six stages of increasing sensitivity to cultural differences (Hammer & Bennett, 2002). In the first three stages (Denial, Defense/Reversal, Minimization), individuals exhibit varying degrees of ethnocentrism—one’s own culture is the basis for one’s reality. Stages four–six (acceptance, adaptation, integration) are characterized by increasing levels of ethnorelativism—a person’s indigenous culture is viewed in the context of other cultures and all cultures are appreciated. The DMIS model assumes that cultures are highly differentiated (Klak & Martin, 2003). In other words, there are many different, yet effective ways in which people can organize their understanding of, and working relationship with the external environment in which they live. This includes but is not limited to social, political, economic and religious affiliations.

ARTICLE IN PRESS P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469

461

According to Hammer et al. (2003, p. 423), ‘‘The crux of the development of intercultural sensitivity is attaining the ability to construe (and thus to experience) cultural difference in more complex ways.’’ Bennett (1993) contends that this ability is developed through experience; it is not an innate perspective. The underlying assumption of Bennett’s model is that competence in dealing with intercultural relations increases as one’s understanding of cultural difference becomes more sophisticated—as one’s worldview incorporates cultural differences into a new identity (Hammer & Bennett, 2002).

3.2. The Hypotheses Chieffo and Griffins (2003) point out that the majority of study abroad programs are now short-term and faculty-led. This study sought to assess whether one such program affected the participants’ intercultural sensitivity. Because the sole focus of this study was to examine the impact of the overseas experience on student attitudes toward cultural diversity, we do not report findings related to academic objectives. In an effort to test whether study abroad has a positive impact on the development of intercultural sensitivity, we tested the following five hypotheses: A 4-week, faculty-led study abroad program: Hypothesis 1. Will have a positive impact on the overall development of cross-cultural sensitivity.

Hypothesis 2. Will reduce the degree of denial and defense characteristics of participants.

Hypothesis 3. Will reduce the degree of reversal or propensity to see other cultures as superior to one’s own.

Hypothesis 4. Will reduce the degree of minimization of cultural differences.

Hypothesis 5. Will increase the degree of acceptance of and adaptation to cultural differences.

4. Methodology 4.1. Subjects The subjects in this research were traditional, college-aged students majoring in business administration at a medium-sized, private university located in the upper Midwest. The student body is very homogeneous consisting of less than 10% international students or students of color. The sample consisted of 23 senior-level students enrolled in a management course. The average age was 21 years. Two of the students in the course were foreign students (Columbian and French), and were excluded from the sample.

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the students in the sample. The exhibit shows that more than two-thirds were women and that while more than one-half had some travel to a foreign country, less than one-fifth had prior participation in a study abroad program. None of the students included in the sample had a foreign language capability and none had taken a foreign culture course prior to their involvement in this program.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 462

P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469

Table 1 Demographics of the sample Variable

Number

Percentage (%)

Year in school: Senior Female Prior foreign travel experience Prior study abroad experience

23 16 14 4

100 71 57 19

4.2. Study abroad program The program assessed was a faculty-led management course that consisted of 1 week of on-campus study, followed by 4 weeks of study in Europe—2 weeks in London, England and 2 weeks in Cork, Ireland. While abroad, classroom instruction was conducted by the US faculty member on university campuses. Classes met in the morning, leaving afternoons and evenings for the students to explore the local surroundings. The program included guest speakers, company site visits, and travel to local cultural sites. While in London, the students’ accommodations were with British families in a home-stay arrangement, providing the students with the opportunity to experience daily life at a personal level. Student involvement with the families included shared meals and conversations regarding British life plus recommendations for travel. Accommodations in Cork were in student housing adjacent to the university campus. No Irish students reside in the housing complex during the summer months due to the lack of course offerings on the campus. While in Cork, the students were hosted for a lunch at the residence of an Irish couple.

The program included a series of lectures by a British professor entitled ‘‘British Life and Culture’’ that covered topics such as British politics and Parliament, the National Health Service, taxation, and an overview of the EU. The program also included site visits to Cambridge and Canterbury while in England. Travel in Ireland included a three-day trip to the west coast and a visit to the Irish Cultural Center in Cobh, which was a primary port of emigration during the potato famine.

As would be expected, the students frequented local pubs in both countries and met students from the nearby university. While numerous acquaintances were formed that yielded discussions of cultural differences and spirited debates regarding politics, none of these acquaintances continued beyond the time spent in that country.

4.3. The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) V2-3 Hammer and Bennett’s (2002) IDI (Version 2–3) is a 50-item paper and pencil instrument based on Bennett’s (1993) DMIS. Hammer and Bennett (2002, pp. 26) caution that the IDI should not be confused with the DMIS. They note that the IDI is an instrument designed to measure the primary constructs of the DMIS model of intercultural sensitivity. The instrument was designed to identify the stage of development that respondents have achieved as they move from denial to integration, as described in the DMIS model. The respondent’s IDI score reflects the degree of intercultural understanding that they have mastered.

ARTICLE IN PRESS P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469

463

Respondents to the IDI rate their agreement or disagreement to each of the 50 statements on a five-point Likert scale. The IDI instrument consists of subscales designed to measure attitudes related to the stages described in the DMIS. It provides an overall measure of respondents’ worldview development and their position on the DMIS’s ethnocentric/ethnorelative continuum. It contains five subscales—Denial/Defense, Reversal, Minimization, Acceptance/Adaptation, and Encapsulated Marginality. The scores on a subscale range from one to five. The higher the score, the more an individual has resolved the issues involved with that subscale. According to Hammer and Bennett (2002), even though the subscales are located on a continuum, you do not have to move sequentially through the subscales. Consequently, individuals do not have to completely resolve a subscale before moving on to the next subscale on the continuum. For example, one could have only partially resolved the Reversal subscale, while also partially resolving the Minimization subscale. We provide a description of the IDI scales from Hammer and Bennett (2002) in Table 2.

According to Hammer et al. (2003) factor analysis of the items shows alpha coefficients of 0.80 or higher for the each of the subscales. Overall, they report the revised instrument is both valid and reliable. Hammer et al. (2003) also report that an additional analysis using the Marlowe–Crown Social Desirability Scale (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972) showed all five IDI scales were independent of a respondent’s tendency to provide socially desirable responses.

Table 3 provides a pictorial view of the IDI scales and their relation to the scores generated by the instrument. As noted in the exhibit, as one’s IDI score increases, he or she moves closer to viewing cultures from an ethnorelative perspective.

Hammer and Bennett’s IDI was administered to the students on two occasions—a pretest and a post-test. The pre-test was administered the first day of class and the post-test on the last day of class. The pre-test was administered to all 23 students in the course. The post-test IDI scores were collected from 19 students. Two students who were foreign nationals (France and Columbia) were excluded from the study due to their pre-existing extensive exposure to different cultures. Two other students missed completing the second administration of the instrument, one because of illness and the other due to early

Table 2 Description of IDI scales Denial and Defense

Reversal Minimization

Acceptance and Adaptation

Encapsulated Marginality

Measures a worldview that simplifies and/or polarizes cultural difference. It ranges from disinterest and avoidance to a tendency to view the world in terms of ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘them’’, where ‘‘us’’ is superior.

Measures a worldview that reverses the ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘them’’ polarization, where ‘‘them’’ is superior. It is a ‘‘mirror image’’ of the denial/defense orientation.

Measures a worldview that highlights cultural commonality and universal values through an emphasis on similarity—a tendency to assume that people from other cultures are basically ‘‘like us’’.

Measures a worldview that can comprehend and accommodate complex cultural difference. It can range from a tendency to recognize patterns of cultural difference in one’s own culture and in other cultures (acceptance) to a tendency to alter perception and behavior according to cultural context (adaptation).

Measures a worldview that incorporates a multicultural identity, where one’s identity is separated from any specific cultural context.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 464

P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469

Table 3 IDI V2-3

Table 4 One-tailed test of significance Scale

Pre-test mean

Post-test mean

p-value

Possible range

H1: Overall developmental H2: Denial/Defense H3: Reversal H4: Minimization H5: Acceptance/ Adaptation

93.78

98.00

0.069a

55–145c

4.06 3.72 3.08 3.05

3.99 4.11 2.90 3.42

0.786 (NS) 0.001b 0.836 (NS) 0.022b

1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5

a

Significant at the 0.10 level.

Significant at the 0.05 level. c Effective range where 100 ¼ the mean of the normative sample and 15 is the SD. b

departure from the program. Finally, three students failed to enter their SSN in the posttest, making paired-test analysis impossible. This reduced the final sample size for the study to 16. The students were told that their IDI results would be kept confidential and would not influence their final grade for the course. In both the pre-test and post-test, the IDI instruments were kept secure from the course instructor and the scoring of the instruments was not conducted until after the program course was completed and final grades were submitted.

5. Results Table 4 shows the results of this study. Three of the five hypotheses tested received at least modest support. Based on these results, there is weak support (p ¼ 0.069) for the hypothesis that the students who participated in the 4-week, study abroad experience significantly improved their level of intercultural sensitivity as measured by the IDI’s development scale. Stronger statistical support was found for two other hypotheses: As a group, the students lessened their tendency to see other cultures as better than their own (Reversal) and improved their ability to accept and adapt to cultural differences (Acceptance/Adaptation).

ARTICLE IN PRESS P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469

465

6. Discussion While we had hoped for, and expected, stronger support for the efficacy of this program in increasing the overall scores for cultural sensitivity, the small sample size (16) restricts our ability to draw a firm conclusion at this time. There were no significant changes in the students’ Defense/Denial and Minimization scores. The lack of significant change for Defense/Denial is not surprising since none of the students participating in the program were in this stage of development when the program started. The lowest-scoring students were toward the top end of the Reversal stage and the mean score for the pre-test was approximately four on a five-point scale. Consequently, there was little room for upward movement.

While the lack of support for changes in the students’ Defense/Denial scores was not startling, the lack of support for change on the Minimization scale is puzzling. When the program started, most of the students evidenced a tendency to minimize cultural differences, with a pre-test mean of 3.08, suggesting there was plenty room for improvement. It is worth noting that our results are very similar to those reported in the Paige et al. (2004) study. Both studies found significant improvement in the students’ Reversal and Acceptance/Adaptation subscales and in the Overall Development score and no significant differences on the other subscales.

In order to gain further insight into these results, particularly given the small sample size (16), we plotted the pre-test and post-test scores of the students who participated in the study. Table 5 shows the number of students in each of the five stages, based on their IDI scores prior to leaving to study abroad and the number in each category at the end of the program. As the exhibit shows, there was almost no change in the number of students in each stage. Examination of the individual scores revealed that one student resolved the Reversal issues measured by the IDI and two students resolved their Minimization issues.

Since we found a significant change in the group’s overall Development score, we had expected to find more movement between stages, rather than just within a stage. However, this was not the case.

According to Bennett’s DMIS, people develop their sensitivity on each of the stages simultaneously (Bennett, 1993). That is, they do not have to completely resolve the issues involved in one stage (e.g., Reversal) before moving on to the next stage (e.g., Minimization). Clearly, that is what happened in the present study. While the students’ overall development score showed significant movement, the change usually was not sufficient to move them out of one stage and into the next.

In order to show this visually, we plotted the students’ pre- and post-IDI Development scores. The result of this plotting is shown in Fig. 1. It is clear that scores of most students simply moved within a stage.

Table 5 Position of students along IDI development scale

Pre-test # of students Post-test # of students

Denial and Defense

Reversal

Minimization

Acceptance

Encapsulated Marginality

0 0

4 3

10 9

2 4

0 0

ARTICLE IN PRESS 466

P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469

Fig. 1. Plot of pre- and post-IDI development scores

As shown in Table 5, the majority of the students in this study had already worked through the Defense/Denial and Reversal stages prior to enrolling in the study abroad program, and started in the Minimization stage. We have no way of knowing whether these students were representative of the majority of students on college campuses. It is a distinct possibility that students whose IDI scores would place them in the Defense/Denial stage would choose not to participate in study abroad programs. Their lack of intercultural development may make such programs unappealing. Research comparing students who choose to study abroad against those who do not is needed to answer this question.

Perhaps the fact that most of the students are still working on the Minimization scale should not be surprising. One of the fundamental characteristics of the Minimization scale is the generalized belief that everyone is fundamentally the same. In this stage, cultural differences are acknowledged, but the differences are ‘‘minimized’’ and seen as unimportant compared to the cultural similarities. Recognizing the value of the differences can be very difficult to internalize for those growing up in a culture such as the US that

ARTICLE IN PRESS P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469

467

perceives itself as the world leader (and the difficulty of moving beyond this stage is likely to be exacerbated by the fact the students in this study were members of a very homogeneous campus community). This ethnocentric perspective naturally leads to the belief that cultural differences exist because the other culture is not yet well enough informed of the benefits of becoming just like us.

7. Conclusions This study provides preliminary evidence that short-term, non-language-based study abroad programs can have a positive impact on intercultural sensitivity. The participants in the 4-week study set in England and Ireland significantly improved their overall intercultural sensitivity as measured by the IDI development score. The principal growth in their development appears to be in the area of Reversal and Acceptance/Adaptation.

Intercultural awareness is, of course, not limited to improving one’s understanding and acceptance of cultures outside of the US. By increasing students’ intercultural sensitivity, it is reasonable to expect that they will also be better prepared to address different cultures within the US—including those on their college campus.

At a time when most countries in the world are experiencing increasing cultural diversity and the world of business is becoming increasingly global, it is imperative that our schools prepare students to deal effectively with people having cultural orientations that differ from their own. We desperately need to explore and evaluate alternatives for moving people to higher levels of intercultural sensitivity. Programs that put our students in faceto-face contact with people of different cultures would seem to have the greatest likelihood of producing positive outcomes.

8. Limitations and suggestions for future research There is a clear need for further empirical investigation of the effect of short-term study abroad programs. The current study has several limitations: 1. The number of participants in the study is small. The final sample size is only 16. The need exists to replicate the study with larger samples of students.

2. This study examines a single type of study abroad experience. It was a senior-level course to English-speaking countries involving home-stays with local families. As stated earlier, many alternatives exist for improving cultural sensitivity; these alternatives range from classroom lectures with no overseas component to study abroad. And, even if study abroad is the chosen alternative, there are many conditions that seem likely to affect the success of the experience. Additional research needs to be conducted to identify specific intervention techniques and strategies that can be used to facilitate the development of cross-cultural sensitivity. For example, are there activities that students should participate in prior to participation in a study abroad program that would significantly enrich their overseas experience and lead to greater intercultural sensitivity?

Engle and Engle (2004, p. 222) suggest eight factors that can differentiate study abroad programs; duration, language competency, required language use, role of faculty, coursework, mentoring and orientation, experiential initiatives, and housing. The influence of different combinations of these factors is yet to be determined. It may be that better results than those observed in the current study could have been achieved if

ARTICLE IN PRESS 468

P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469

the composition of the program had been different. It is an open question whether equivalent or greater gains would have occurred from other experiences.

3. Given the short duration of the program, it seems likely that the observed changes resulted from the study-abroad program, but a control group would provide greater assurance that it was the program and not some external factor that caused the changes.

However, as noted by Dwyer (2004), obtaining a control group that is truly comparable with the experimental group is difficult due to the confounding variables of college students (e.g., course work completed, travel experiences—domestic and foreign, and socio-economic level differences). And even if it were possible to assemble a group of students who match on demographic variables, it is unlikely that they also would be a parallel group on psychographic dimensions. The program participants have in common the willingness and desire to engage in an overseas experience, at considerable emotional and monetary expense. This is likely to be a different profile from those who lack the interest to experiment with new environments. Consequently, securing a truly parallel group of students would not be a simple task.

4. Finally, additional studies are needed to evaluate the impact of study abroad programs on intercultural sensitivity months and years after the students return to the US. We recommend a longer-term follow-up assessment to evaluate the persistence of the crosscultural sensitivity measures. Do students regress after re-assimilating with their domestic peers? Do they view world events differently following graduation? In the longer term, it would also be interesting to assess the impact of study abroad experiences on the cross-cultural sensitivity of working practitioners and professionals that accept overseas assignments.

References Altschuler, L., Sussman, N. M., & Kachur, E. (2003). Assessing changes in intercultural sensitivity among physician trainees using the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 387–401.

Battsek, M. (1962). A practical analysis of some aspects of study abroad. Journal of General Education, 13, 225–242.

Bennett, J. M., Bennett, M. J., & Allen, W. (1999). Developing intercultural competence in the language classroom. In R. M. Paige, D. Lange, & Y. A. Yershova (Eds.), Culture as the core: Integrating culture into the language classroom (pp. 13–46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Bennett, M. J. (1986). Toward ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations and applications (pp. 21–70). New York: University Press of America.

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward 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., & Brislin, R. (1992). The Measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(4), 413–436.

Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. (1994). Improving intercultural interactions. Multicultural aspects of counseling series.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chieffo, L., & Griffins, L. (2003). What’s a month worth? Student perceptions of what they learned abroad.

International Education, 26–31.

Dwyer, M. M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X(Fall), 151–163.

Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity development in relation to study abroad program design. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X(Fall), 219–236.

Gillespe, J. (2002). Colleges need better ways to assess study abroad programs. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

ARTICLE IN PRESS P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469

469

Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (2002). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) manual. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute.

Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443.

Kelley, C., & Meyers, J. (1995). CCAI Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems Inc. Kelly, G. (1963). A theory of personality. New York: Norton.

Klak, T., & Martin, P. (2003). Do university-sponsored international cultural events help students to appreciate difference? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 445–465.

Landis, D., & Bhagat, R. S. (1996). Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ludwig, M. (2000). The next ten years: Trends affecting study abroad participation for US students. International Educator, 9(4), 34–40.

Medina-Lo´pez-Portillo, A. (2004). Intercultural learning assessment: The link between program duration and the development of intercultural sensitivity. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X(Fall), 179–199.

Michigan State University Office of Study Abroad. ‘‘Why should I study abroad?’’ Retrieved 5 November 2004, from http://studyabroad.msu.edu/shared/objectives.html NUI Study Abroad Office (2000). A beginner’s guide to study abroad through NUI. Retrieved 5 November 2004, from http://www3.niu.edu/niuabroad/Begin_Guide.pdf Paige, R. M. (1993). On the nature of intercultural experiences. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 1–19). Yarmouth, ME: International Press.

Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2004). Assessing the impact of a strategies-based curriculum on language and culture learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X(Fall), 253–276.

Pruegger, V. J., & Rogers, T. B. (1994). Cross-cultural sensitivity training: Methods and assessment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3), 369–387.

Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(August), 280–289.

Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193.