International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 4

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Intercultural Relations
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c
a t e / i j i n t r e l
Cultural sensitivity or cultural stereotyping? Positive and
negative effects of a cultural psychology class
Emma E. Buchtel ∗
Department of Psychological Studies, Hong Kong Institute of
Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, N.T.,
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 May 2013
Received in revised form 9 August 2013
Accepted 17 September 2013
Keywords:
Cultural sensitivity
Cultural psychology
Cultural competence training
Intercultural training
Stereotypes

Sociotypes
a b s t r a c t
Cultural psychology ultimately aims to increase intercultural
understanding, but it has
also been accused of reifying stereotypes. Can learning
about cultural psychology research
cause students to increase their cultural sensitivity, or does
it increase stereotyped and
rigid thinking about cultural others? Students in an
undergraduate cultural psychology
course (N = 34) were compared to students in control
psychology courses (N = 20) in pre-
and post-course measures of cultural awareness, cultural
intelligence, essentialistic think-
ing, prejudice, moral relativism, and endorsement of
stereotypes and sociotypes. Compared
to students in the control courses, cultural psychology
students increased in cultural aware-
ness, moral relativism, and meta-cognitive cultural
intelligence, but students who received
lower grades in the course also increased their endorsement
of stereotypes that were not
endorsed by cultural psychology research. Implications for
intercultural training and the
communication of research on cultural differences are
discussed.
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Knowledge of cultural differences is one of the basic
requirements for achieving cultural sensitivity, and discovering
cultural differences is fundamental to cultural psychology

research (e.g. Fouad & Arredondo, 2007; Spitzberg &
Changnon,
2009). But teaching about cultural differences is rife with
potential dangers: Might it encourage rigid thinking about
cultures
or individuals? What if it is misinterpreted as legitimizing
cultural stereotypes? Could it even increase prejudice, at least
in
some people?
With few exceptions (e.g. Fischer, 2011; see also Mendenhall
et al., 2004), past research on intercultural training has not
empirically assessed the potential negative effects of learning
about culture nor has it explored individual differences in
reactions to cultural training, though these effects are often a
concern of trainers (e.g. Coleman & Raider, 2006; Jenks, 2011).
In this paper, I first outline some of the controversies around
teaching and learning about cultural difference, and illustrate
the controversy with a longitudinal study of students taking
cultural versus other psychology courses. The results indicate
ELSEVIER
CrossMark
that learning about cultural psychology can increase skills and
attitudes that are precursors of intercultural competence;
however, it can also have problematic effects on some students.
∗ Tel.: +852 2948 8756.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]
0147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.003
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.003
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01471767

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.ijintrel.201
3.09.003&domain=pdf
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.003
1
a
c
C
i
c
o
m
s
p
a
b
G
s
r
H
a
s
1
c
a
c

t
a
c
w
t
t
a
f
a
t
s
o
e
v
T
t
b
t
2
i
1
t
o
a
2
a
s
E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations
39 (2014) 40–52 41
.1. The controversy: is knowledge of cultural differences
helpful or harmful?

In general, to research and teach about cultural differences is to
face head-on some of the most complex questions
bout multiculturalism. How can one emphasize cultural
differences and yet avoid the usual attendant features of social
ategorization: stereotyping and prejudice?
The potential dangers of increasing knowledge of cultural
differences has led to conflicted advice about its usefulness.
ultural competence trainers frequently wrestle with how, or
even whether, to teach about cultural differences. For example,
ntercultural conflict resolution trainers Coleman and Raider
(2006) admit to often skipping the cultural component of
onflict resolution training because of possible misuse.
Similarly, in the area of mental and physical health services, a
number
f authors (e.g. Eiser & Ellis, 2007; Jenks, 2011; Whaley &
Davis, 2007) suggest that while teaching specific cultural
differences
ay be a necessary first step towards cultural competence, it can
lead to overreliance on and legitimization of cultural
tereotypes.
On the other hand, recent research has suggested that
acknowledgement of group differences can be associated with
ositive effects. Multicultural ideologies among majority group
members are associated with more felt warmth and less bias
gainst minorities (Wolsko, Park, & Judd, 2006; Wolsko, Park,
Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2000). Conversely, colour-blind
ideologies
y majority group members have been associated with worse
outcomes for minorities in the workplace (Plaut, Thomas, &
oren, 2009), lower multicultural counselling competence
(Neville, Spanierman, & Doan, 2006), and lower awareness of
ocietal racism (Steinfeldt & Wong, 2010).

Among cultural psychologists, revealing cultural differences is
seen as a necessary corrective for mainstream psychology
esearch’s overwhelming dependence on white, educated, and
American participants (Heine & Norenzayan, 2006; Henrich,
eine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Cultural psychology researchers
may also have an unstated goal to increase “understanding and
ppreciation of cultural differences” (Heine, 2012, p. 26).
Nevertheless, cultural psychology has been criticized as
encouraging
tereotyped and essentialistic thinking about group differences
(Heine & Norenzayan, 2006).
.2. Question 1: Does cultural psychology encourage students to
become more culturally aware and open-minded?
One of the first questions about cultural psychology, then, is
whether or not learning about cultural psychology research
an have positive effects on intercultural interactions. The need
to acknowledge and know about group differences, as well
s acquire non-judgmental attitudes towards these differences, is
emphasized in most theoretical models of intercultural
ompetence. In an evaluation of more than 22 models of
intercultural competence, Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) found
hat knowledge (mainly of culture-specific information) and
attitudes such as flexibility, respect, and open-mindedness were
mong the most common themes. For example, Sue’s model of
Multicultural Counselling Competence —the basis of many
ounselling psychology training programmes—emphasizes
cultural knowledge as one of the three key components, along
ith appropriate beliefs/attitudes and interpersonal skills (Sue,
Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992). Similarly, Bennett (1993)
heorized that in order to develop intercultural sensitivity, one
must pass beyond an ethnocentric stage—in which cul-
ural differences are either unknown or dismissed—to more

advanced stages where cultural differences are acknowledged,
ccepted, and integrated into behaviour. Finally, the popular
Cultural Intelligence scale (Ang et al., 2007) emphasizes four
dif-
erent elements, which include knowledge of other cultures
(cognitive cultural intelligence [CQ]) and awareness of cultural
spects of interactions (meta-cognitive CQ).
These models suggest that learning about cultural psychology
could be a first step in acquiring cultural competence. Cul -
ural psychology’s focus on cultural differences could support
initial steps in the “knowledge” aspect of cultural competence:
ensitivity to the cultural elements of interpersonal interactions.
Additionally, the attitude of neutral, scientific objectivity
f cultural psychology research could encourage readers to be
non-judgmental about the practices of other cultures. For
xample, cultural psychologists assume that differences in
psychological tendencies emerge because they have practical
alue: in different cultural environments, different thought
patterns are more useful (e.g. Buchtel & Norenzayan, 2008).
hough a cultural psychology course may not be explicitly
designed to increase cultural competence, cultural competence
raining programmes often have similar goals of moving students
to an intermediate stage of cultural sensitivity, typified
y accurately identifying cultural influences and developing an
appreciation of other cultural worldviews (as a first step
owards a future goal of full behavioural fluency in another
culture; e.g. Bhawuk, 1998; Crandall, George, Marion, & Davis,
003). Positive results of a cultural psychology course, then,
might be seen in greater awareness of cultural dimensions to
ntercultural interactions and less judgmental attitudes towards
cultural differences.
.3. Question 2: Does cultural psychology increase essentialism,
group entitativity, and prejudice?

However, there are also dangers to learning about cultural
differences. Cultural psychology research often shows that
here are group differences, but not that these cultural
differences are unchangeable or that they exert an equal
influence
n every individual identified with that group. Nevertheless,
students of cultural psychology necessarily increase their
wareness of group differences, which may reify or exaggerate
group boundaries and characteristics (Rosenthal & Crisp,
006). Such thinking may result in essentialistic or entitative
thinking about cultures and individuals: thinking about groups
s if they have an “essence” that is immutably characteristic of
group members, thus making individual group members
eem more similar to one another and categorically different
from members of other groups.
42 E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural
Relations 39 (2014) 40–52
Essentialistic thinking has frequently been associated with
negative outcomes, especially stereotyping and prejudice.
Beliefs in group “essences” are argued to be the basis of
stereotyping and prejudice (Yzerbyt & Rocher, 2002), and a
belief
in the immutability of social group categories has been
particularly linked to stereotyped and negative attitudes towards
outgroups (Haslam, Bastian, Bain, & Kashima, 2006). Stronger
endorsement of abstract stereotypes about groups is typically
(and logically) linked with beliefs that individual group
members are interchangeable (e.g. Crawford, Sherman, &
Hamilton,

2002; Hamilton, Sherman, & Rodgers, 2004). Similarly, entity
theorists—those who believe that individuals have a fixed
nature—use stereotypes more and perceive more within-group
homogeneity than incremental theorists (Levy, Plaks, Hong,
Chiu, & Dweck, 2001; Levy, Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998).
Haslam and Levy (2006) also found that “entitative
essentialism”
about homosexuality (seeing homosexuals as a group with clear
boundaries and informative, distinguishing features) was
associated with greater prejudice.
Exposure to cultural psychology research may increase
perceptions of cultural identity as important and immutable. For
the sake of communicability, cultural psychology articles and
textbooks often use terms such as “East Asians” and “East
Asian
culture”; this may make it easier to think of “East Asians” as a
bounded, distinctive category that is quite informative about
the characteristics of all East Asian individuals. Moreover,
some immutability of cultures over time is assumed in order to
explain why modern psychological differences exist. Though
cultural changes such as increasing individualism have been
documented (e.g. Hamamura, 2012; Twenge, Konrath, Foster,
Campbell, & Bushman, 2008), between-culture differences are
often theorized to have historical roots extending to thousands
of years ago (e.g. Nisbett, 2003). On the other hand, cultural
psychology also focuses on aspects of cultural differences that
could diminish essentialistic thinking. Culture itself, after all,
is not “genetic,” and is thus more easily understood as
something that can change over time (Dar-Nimrod & Heine,
2011),
and change within individuals is especially emphasized in the
acculturation and cultural frame-switching literature (e.g.
Heine & Lehman, 2004; Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez,
2000).

It is therefore of interest to test whether learning about cultural
psychology research could lead to essentialistic thinking,
either of cultures or individual members of cultures. Moreover,
given the usual links between essentialism and prejudice as
summarized above, it is a concern that negative attitudes
towards cultural others might also increase. In particular, even
if
cultural psychology students become cognitively less
judgmental about the practices of other cultures as suggested
above,
this “nonjudgmental” attitude could be accompanied or
precipitated by a lack of caring: emotional cooling towards
those
other cultures.
1.4. Question 3: Does cultural psychology encourage
stereotyping, not sociotyping?
One of the most commonly encountered criticisms of cultural
psychology is that it encourages stereotyping (Heine
& Norenzayan, 2006). Abstract descriptions of cultural
differences can take negative or positive forms. Stereotypes are
typically perceived as inaccurate, prejudiced perceptions of
groups that are misused to describe all individuals within the
group. However, stereotypes may also take the form of
sociotypes: accurate, if schematic, knowledge about cultures
(Triandis,
1994), which arguably is the aim (or unintended result) of much
cultural psychology research. Recent research and theorizing
on stereotype accuracy has suggested that the use of stereotyped
knowledge can in fact result in more, rather than less,
accurate interpersonal perceptions (Human & Biesanz, 2011;
Jussim, 2005; Jussim, Cain, Crawford, Harber, & Cohen, 2009),
and specific cultural knowledge, even in the form of
stereotypes, can help explain intercultural interactions that
might

otherwise seem totally bizarre (Lee & Duenas, 1995).
Nevertheless, a perpetual problem in the stereotype accuracy
literature is that not all stereotypes are accurate (Jussim,
2005). Cultural psychology research is particularly
controversial in this regard: some have evinced scepticism
about the
applicability of cultural psychology to
interpersonal/intercultural interactions at all, cautioning against
the misinterpreta-
tion of “statistical significance” as “practical significance” (e.g.
Matsumoto, Grissom, & Dinnel, 2001). Moreover, in cultural
psychology, the typical knowledge one might be expected to
acquire may be easily mistaken as confirmation of stereotypes,
especially since it is often phrased in absolute and racial terms
such as “East Asians are more collectivistic than Westerners”
(Matsumoto et al., 2001). As part of their growing comfort with
acknowledging cultural differences, students of cultural
psychology may mistakenly assume there is truth to most
cultural stereotypes, whether or not they have been supported
by research.
1.5. Question 4: Are there individual differences in reactions to
cultural psychology?
Finally, one understudied aspect of cultural competence training
is the identification of individual differences in how stu-
dents absorb and evaluate their new cultural knowledge. An
accurate understanding and application of cultural differences
requires students to hold in mind many seeming
contradictions—that culture powerfully affects mind and
behaviour, but
any one individual you meet may be different from their
cultural average; that cultural groups are importantly different
from
one another and yet also importantly similar; that stereotypes

are sometimes accurate, and sometimes not; that cultures can
stay the same over ages while also changing at a frenetic pace.
While some students may embrace these complexities, others
may mainly acquire a simplified version, leading to individual
differences in reactions to training. For example, DeJaeghere
and Cao (2009) found that there were large individual
differences in the development of secondary school teachers
who went
through 2–3 years of cultural competence training, with some
increasing in intercultural competence and others decreasing;
the causes of these individual differences were not identified. In
one of the few studies explicitly measuring the effect of
i
o
w
s
C
c
c
s
e
b
w
a
1
m
H

i
H
c
s
H
i
H
d
H
w
t
p
H
t
H
H
s
1
w
P
c
2

2
c
39 (2014) 40–52 43
ndividual differences, Fischer (2011) found that in a brief
intercultural training course for undergraduate students, more
pen-minded students experienced greater increases in their
motivation to engage with other cultures.
In a cultural psychology class, student motivation and pre-
course essentialistic thinking may especially affect how and
hat they learn. First, students with less motivation or those who
have more difficulty with course material might acquire a
implistic understanding of cultural psychology, which would
lend support to the pessimistic predictions described above.
onversely, those who learn more easily or put more effort into
learning might retain awareness of issues such as within-
ulture variability and the differences between sociotypes and
stereotypes, thus avoiding some of the potential negative
onsequences, while at the same time learning more cultural
awareness and cultural knowledge from the course. Second,
tudents who start the course with more essentialistic thinking
about people and culture may be more receptive to acknowl -
dging cultural differences (Fischer, 2011), leading to larger
increases in the willingness to endorse stereotypes in general,
ut also larger increases in positive effects such as cultural
awareness and being less judgmental (“They can’t help being
that
ay—it’s unchangeable—so why bother asking them to change”).
It is thus of interest to study how individual differences
mong students at the beginning of a course would affect their
attitude changes over the semester.

.6. Hypotheses
To answer the above four questions, I propose the following
hypotheses:
Question 1 asks whether students of a cultural psychology
course would increase in cultural awareness and open-
indedness. Assuming that cultural psychology may be a kind of
intercultural competence training, I would predict:
ypothesis 1a. Students in a cultural psychology course will
increase their awareness of cultural effects on intercultural
nteractions. . .
ypothesis 1b. . . .and will become less judgmental of the
practices of other cultures.
Question 2 addresses the issue of potential negative effects of
learning about cultural psychology. Because emphasizing
ultural boundaries is associated with essentialistic thinking,
which is in turn associated with prejudice, past research
uggests the following hypotheses:
ypothesis 2a. Students in a cultural psychology course will
increase their essentialistic thinking about both cultures and
ndividuals. . .
ypothesis 2b. . . .and also have more negative attitudes towards
cultural outgroups.
Regarding Question 3, on the topic of stereotyping versus
sociotyping, critics of cultural psychology have pointed out the
egree to which cultural psychology reifies and relies on
stereotypes. A pessimist would thus predict that:

ypothesis 3. Students in a cultural psychology class will
increase their endorsement of common cultural stereotypes,
hether or not these stereotypes have been explicitly taught.
Finally, Question 4 asks whether or not individual differences
among students will affect how students are influenced by
aking the course. In particular, depth of insight into course
material (here, represented by final grades in the course) and
re-course essentialistic thinking may influence student
outcomes in the following manner:
ypothesis 4a. Students who earn better grades in a cultural
psychology course will have more positive outcomes from
he course (as in Hypothesis 1);
ypothesis 4b. Students with poorer grades will have more
negative outcomes (as in Hypotheses 2 and 3).
ypothesis 4c. Students with greater levels of essentialistic
thinking at the beginning of a cultural psychology course will
how increased effects of attending a cultural psychology course,
as in Hypotheses 1 and 2.
.7. The current study
To observe these processes in a cultural psychology class, a
variety of explicit and implicit pre- and post-course measures
ere used to observe the naturalistic effects of taking a one-
semester (12-week), 4th-year cultural psychology course.
arallel questionnaires were given to students of other non-
cultural psychology courses, and change over time among the
ultural psychology students was compared to the change over
time among non-cultural psychology students.
. Method

.1. Participants and design
Fifty-four undergraduate students in a North American
university participated: 34 students in a 4th-year Cultural Psy-
hology lecture course (82% female; 38% Caucasian, 42% East
Asian, 20% other; average age = 23 years), and 20 students in
Relations 39 (2014) 40–52
Table 1
Means and standard deviations of variables.
Variable Time 1 Time 2
Control group Cultural
Psychology group
Control group Cultural
Psychology group
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Cultural Awareness 0.43 0.73 0.41 0.65 0.48 0.68 0.90 0.82
Cognitive CQ 3.99 0.93 4.30 1.17 3.90 0.79 4.20 1.04
Motivational CQ 5.04 0.97 5.22 0.77 5.04 0.86 5.15 0.89
Meta-Cognitive CQ 4.88 0.96 5.24 0.89 4.64 0.93 5.30 0.86
Behavioural CQ 4.92 0.82 4.75 0.89 4.69 0.77 4.92 0.94
Moral Relativism 4.06 0.84 4.48 0.84 3.98 0.96 4.76 0.79
Essentialism: IPT 3.83 1.49 4.20 1.42 4.02 1.06 4.07 1.45
Essentialism: IMT 3.54 1.10 3.66 1.09 3.85 0.89 3.70 1.28
Cultural Entitativity 4.07 0.76 4.29 0.67 4.30 0.60 4.56 0.64
Prejudice: Warmth bias 20.02 15.01 13.84 13.71 13.87 11.15
12.63 13.36

Overall Stereotype Endorsement 3.49 0.66 3.43 0.59 3.28 0.49
3.62 0.50
Positive Stereotype Endorsement 3.58 0.69 3.52 0.59 3.38 0.54
3.69 0.53
Negative Stereotype Endorsement 3.34 0.71 3.28 0.75 3.13 0.57
3.50 0.59
Taught Stereotype Endorsement 3.68 0.72 3.61 0.67 3.43 0.45
3.68 0.57
Untaught Stereotype Endorsement 3.37 0.69 3.33 0.59 3.20 0.54
3.58 0.50
two unrelated 4th-year psychology courses (Control condition;
100% female1; 35% Caucasian, 45% East Asian, 20% other;
average age = 22 years). Participants were paid $10 to fill out a
survey twice, once in the first two weeks of the semester
and once in the last two weeks of the semester. The cultural
psychology course, with approximately 50 students, was in
traditional lecture format and used the textbook Cultural
Psychology by Steven J. Heine (2009). Lecture material was
drawn
from the textbook, and class assignments consisted of a written
research proposal and two exams. The two control classes,
on neuropsychology topics, were also 50-student lecture classes
delivered in the same semester as the cultural psychology
course, and contained little to no discussion of culture.
2.2. Measures
At both times, students filled out the following measures of
cultural awareness, moral relativism (a proxy for non-
judgmental attitudes), essentialism, prejudice, and stereotype
endorsement. Means and standard deviations for each scale
are shown in Table 1, and correlations between scales are
available online as supplementary data (Online Table 1).

Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.
2013.09.003.
2.2.1. Hypothesis 1a: Cultural Awareness
Cultural Awareness was measured with an open-ended dialogue
analysis (based on Storti, 1994). Participants read an
ambiguous dialogue between two people from different cultures
who may or may not have had a misunderstanding, and
were asked to explain, “What do you see happening?” A
counterbalanced design randomly assigned participants to read
one
of two dialogues at Time 1, and the other at Time 2, to prevent
familiarity effects. Open-ended answers to the dialogues were
scored by two research assistants blind to Course and Time
conditions. A score of 2 was given if the participant mentioned
the characters’ cultural backgrounds and accurately identified
the source of the misunderstanding, a score of 1 if one of
criteria was met, and a score of 0 if neither criteri on was met
(see Appendix for examples). Initial agreement was 84.4%
(ICC = .91, p < .001), with disagreements resolved through
discussion with the author (who was also blind to conditions).
2.2.2. Hypothesis 1a: Cultural Intelligence
Cultural Intelligence (CQ) was measured with the 20-item self-
report measure of four cultural intelligence subscales:
Cognitive, Motivational, Meta-Cognitive, and Behavioural CQ
(Ang et al., 2007), ˛’s from .68 to .78 at Time 1, ˛’s from .72 to
.82 at Time 2.
2.2.3. Hypothesis 1b: Moral Relativism
Moral Relativism was used as a proxy for non-judgmental
attitudes towards cultural differences. The 10-item Relativism

subscale of Forsyth’s Ethics Position Questionnaire (1980) was
used, with items such as, “What is ethical varies from one
situation or society to another” and “Different cultures’ moral
standards cannot be compared as to ‘rightness”’ measured on
a 1–7 Likert scale (Time 1 ̨ = .76, Time 2 ̨ = .87).
1 The two classes were different in gender proportion, U = 280,
z = 1.97, p = .048. Because of the low number of male
participants we were unable to test
for effects of gender, though none were hypothesized.
2
h
b
M
t
m
“
c
.
2
(
a
W
s
E

2
t
t
e
b
f
2
A
a
w
a
[
c
e
2
o
p
a
a
s
t
a
i
t
n
s
a
n
3

3
3
w
c
39 (2014) 40–52 45
.2.4. Hypothesis 2a: Essentialism
Two measures of individual essentialism were used. The 3-item
Implicit Person Theory (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995,
enceforth IPT) measures “fixed” versus “incremental” views of
individuals (e.g. “The kind of person someone is, is something
asic about them, and it can’t be changed very much”), ̨ = .84
and .87 at Time 1 and 2 respectively. A new four-item Implicit
ind Theory scale (IMT), based on the IPT, was constructed to
specifically tap into the idea that an individual’s way of
hinking is fixed. The four items were: “The way a person’s
mind works is something very fundamental and can’t be
changed
uch,” “Whether a person is an analytical thinker or not is deeply
ingrained in their mind. It cannot be changed very much,”
The way someone’s mind works can change substantially, even
as an adult (reverse scored),” and “There is not much that
an be done to change the basic way someone’s brain works.”
This four-item scale showed adequate reliability, ̨ = .74 and
79 at Times 1 and 2 respectively.
.2.5. Hypothesis 2a: Cultural Entitativity
Cultural Entitativity was measured with two 12-item Group
Entitativity scales of East Asians and Westerners respectively

based on Castano, Yzerbyt, & Bourguignon, 2003), which
measured perceptions of East Asians (alternatively Westerners)
s being similar to each other, having a characteristic nature, and
having strong ties within the group. East Asians and
esterners were chosen because they are typical comparison
groups in cultural psychology research. The two scales were
trongly correlated (Time 1 r = .49, p < .001 and Time 2 r = .30,
p = .026) and were combined into a 24-item scale of Cultural
ntitativity, Time 1 ̨ = .90 and Time 2 ̨ = .87.
.2.6. Hypothesis 2b: Prejudice
Prejudice, conceptualized as negative feelings about outgroups,
was measured through a Feeling Thermometer rating
ask (Wolsko et al., 2000). Participants were presented with a
list of 16 commonly known ethnic groups, selected from the
op 20 ethnic origins in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2001), and
asked to indicate how warmly or coolly they felt towards
ach ethnicity on a 0 (“very coolly”) to 100-degree (“very
warmly”) scale. Participants also reported their parents’ ethnic
ackgrounds. Similar to Wolsko et al. (2000), a Warmth Bias
score was calculated for each participant by taking the warmth
elt towards his/her own ethnic group(s) and subtracting the
average warmth he/she felt towards all other groups.
.2.7. Hypothesis 3: Stereotype Endorsement
Finally, a Stereotype Endorsement closed-ended measure asked
participants to rate the truth of 16 stereotypes of East
sians and Westerners (Time 1 ̨ = .88 and Time 2 ̨ = .84; based
on Levy et al., 1998). Again, stereotypes about East Asians
nd Westerners were chosen because they are typical comparison
groups in cultural psychology research, as well as groups
hose stereotypes would be familiar to students at the university.
Students were presented with 8 stereotypes of East Asians

nd Westerners respectively, and asked to what degree they
believed that these traits were “true of the average East Asian
Western] person,” rated from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (extremely
true). These traits (listed in Section 2.2.7.1) correspond to
ommon stereotypes in the local student population, drawn from
the literature (Schaller, Conway, & Tanchuk, 2002; Wolsko
t al., 2000) and discussion with undergraduate research
assistants.
.2.7.1. Stereotypical traits: taught/untaught and valence ratings.
A post-study survey of 43 students from the Cultural Psychol-
gy class (including the 34 students who took part in the study)
gathered information on (a) which traits were collectively
erceived as “accurate” descriptions and (b) which traits were
perceived as positive and which were perceived as neg-
tive. First, students were asked whether or not the traits had
been explicitly taught in the course as descriptive of the
verage East Asian or Westerner (as appropriate), selecting
“Yes” or “No.” Six traits were believed by 45% or more of the
tudents to have been taught in class: for East Asians, these were
“loyal to family ties” (100% of the students said it had been
aught), “ethnocentric” (55%), “hardworking” (46%), and “shy”
(45%), and for Westerners these were “independent” (100%)
nd “direct” (68%). These traits were likely inferred from
textbook- and lecture-provided information about research on
ndividualism/collectivism, motivation, and thinking style. For
the remaining 10 traits, 32% or fewer of the students believed
hey had been taught in class. Finally, students were also asked
to rate the traits on a three-point scale, as having positive,
egative, or neutral valence. For Western stereotypes, the
majority of students rated three traits as negative (materialistic,
elfish, and boastful), two traits as neutral (direct and
independent), and three traits as positive (athletic, pleasur e-
loving,
nd sportsmanlike); for East Asian stereotypes, the majority of

students rated one trait as negative (ethnocentric), two as
eutral (conservative and shy), and five as positive (ambitious,
loyal to family ties, intelligent, efficient, and hardworki ng).
. Results
.1. Course effects: cultural psychology students versus control
.1.1. General note on data analysis
For each measure, repeated-measure ANCOVA analyses
examined whether change over the semester (Time;
ithin-subjects, Time 1 vs. Time 2 scores) was predicted by
students’ Course (Cultural Psychology [1] vs. Control [0]),
ontrolling for students’ Time 1 scores on the given measure
(covariate). A significant Course by Time interaction would
Relations 39 (2014) 40–52
0 .7 ~---------------
0 .6 +-------------<------
0 .5 +----------+------
0 .4 +---------ii
0 .3 +----------1
0.2 +------+-- -ii
0 .1 +------+-- -ii
0 +--------...L---,

-0.1 +------+-----------
-0.2 -'----------------
■ Control students
DCultural Psych
students
Fig. 1. Cultural Awareness, change from Time 1, original scale
0–2. Error bars = S.E. of the mean.
indicate that over the semester, Cultural Psychology students’
scores on a given measure changed differently than the stu-
dents in the Control courses (i.e. over and above reactions to
taking the same measures twice or other course-unrelated
changes over time). All hypotheses described above are
reported with one-sided significance tests because the direction
of
change was predicted.
The inclusion of Time 1 scores as a covariate is a valid way to
control for regression-to-the-mean, floor, or ceiling effects
that can obscure true change over time, as long as Time 1 scores
are unrelated to the IV of interest (here, Course; Maxwell &
Delaney, 2004; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; Wright, 2006); thus,
for each measure I first confirmed that there were no initial
differences between courses on each Time 1 scale score before
including the Time 1 score as a covariate. For all measures in
Section 3.1, significant interactions between Time 1 scores and
Time showed that initial Time 1 scores significantly predicted
score change over time (all p’s < .01), which is consistent with
its purpose as a control for regression-to-the-mean or ceiling
effects but not otherwise important to our hypotheses.
To save space and avoid redundancy, only the results for the
hypothesized interaction between Time and Course are

reported below, neglecting the main effects of Time, Course,
and Time 1 scores, as well as the interaction between Time
1 scores and Time, as they are unrelated to the hypotheses. The
values for all the other effects are available online as
supplementary data (Online Table 2).
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.
2013.09.003.
3.1.2. Hypothesis 1a: Cultural Awareness
Cultural Psychology students increased in Cultural Awareness
compared to Control students. The two Courses did not
differ in their Cultural Awareness scores at Time 1, but students
were more likely to get a higher score on one dialogue
than the other, as indicated by an ANOVA predicting Time 1
scores from Course (F(1, 50) = 0.00, n.s.) and Dialogue Version
(F(1, 50) = 1.86, p = .04). The proportion of participants
assigned to each Dialogue Version was equivalent in the two
Course
conditions (U = 290, z = 1.05, n.s.). Collapsing across Versions,
a significant interaction between Course and Time in the
rANCOVA analysis showed that students in the Cultural
Psychology course had increased their cultural awareness
relative
to students in the Control condition, F(1, 48) = 3.69, p = .03
(see Fig. 1).2
3.1.3. Hypothesis 1a: Cultural Intelligence
Cultural Psychology students increased in Meta-Cognitive CQ
compared to Control students, but did not change in Cogni-
tive, Motivational, or Behavioural CQ. Students in the two
courses did not differ at Time 1 on any of the four subscales
(t(52)’s

from −0.71 to 1.43, p’s from .16 to .48, n.s.). Separate
rANCOVA analyses for each scale showed one significant
interaction
between Course and Time for Meta-Cognitive CQ, showing that
by Time 2, students in the Cultural Psychology course had
gained in Meta-Cognitive CQ compared to students in the
Control course, F(1, 51) = 4.65, p = .018 (see Fig. 3), but there
were
no course effects on change in Cognitive, Motivational, or
Behavioural CQ (p’s from .08 to .45, n.s.).
3.1.4. Hypothesis 1b: Moral Relativism
Cultural Psychology students increased in Moral Relativism
compared to Control students. Students in the two courses
did not differ on Moral Relativism at Time 1 (t(47) = −1.67,
n.s.). A significant Course by Time interaction indicated that by
Cultural Awareness, average change from Time 1
Time 2, students in the Cultural Psychology course had
increased in Moral Relativism compared to students in the
Control
course, F(1, 45) = 6.72, p = .007 (see Fig. 2).
2 Which version of the dialogue that was read first did not
affect score change, F(1, 47) = 1.17, n.s., and did not change
the statistically significant effect
of Course on change over time, F(1, 47) = 3.01, p = .05.
39 (2014) 40–52 47

Fig. 2. Moral Relativism, change from Time 1, original scale 1–
7. Error bars = S.E. of the mean.
3
p
T
t
d
t
F
3
a
c
3
T
s
t
n
n
t
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0.3
0.2
0 .1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
Moral Relativism, average change from Time 1
CCultural Psych
students

CCultural Psych
students
Meta-Cognitive Cultural IQ, average change from Time 1
Fig. 3. Meta-Cognitive Cultural Intelligence, change from Time
1, original scale 1–7. Error bars = S.E. of the mean.
.1.5. Hypothesis 2a: Essentialism
No evidence was found that essentialism, either IPT or IMT,
increased by taking a cultural psychology course. At Time 1,
articipants in the two courses did not differ in their IPT scores
(t(52) = −0.89, n.s.). At Time 2, a non-significant Course by
ime interaction showed that participants in the Cultural
Psychology course had not changed in their IPT scores relative
to
hose in the Control course, F(1, 51) = 0.14, n.s. Results for the
IMT were similar. At Time 1, participants in the two courses
id not differ in their IMT scores (t(52) = −0.41, n.s.), and at
Time 2, a non-significant Course by Time interaction showed
hat participants in the Cultural Psychology course had not
changed their IMT scores relative to those in the Control
course,
(1, 51) = 0.72, n.s.
.1.6. Hypothesis 2a: Cultural Entitativity
Similarly, for Cultural Entitativity, no increase in Cultural
Entitativity was found among Cultural Psychology students rel -
tive to Control. The courses were not different at Time 1, t(52)
= −1.09, n.s. At Time 2, participants in the Cultural Psychology
ourse had not changed relative to those in the Control course,
F(1, 51) = 1.03, n.s.
.1.7. Hypothesis 2b: Prejudice

Cultural Psychology had no effect on Warmth Bias. The
courses were not different at Time 1, t(49) = 1.51, p = .07, and
at
ime 2, change in Warmth Bias scores was not predicted by
Course, F(1, 48) = 0.51, n.s.3
3 To calculate each participant’s “warmth bias” value, the
average of the temperature ratings participants gave to their
own cultural group(s) was
ubtracted from the average of the ratings participants gave to
the other cultural groups. This calculation assumes that
participants feel more warmly
owards their own ethnic group than others. However, out of the
51 participants who completed this measure, 6 participants’
warmth bias values were
egative (i.e. they felt more warmly about other ethnic groups
than their own). To test whether cultural psychology simply
reduced all bias, positive or
egative, the absolute value of the warmth bias was calculated
and tested to see if cultural psychology reduced the absolute
value of the difference between
emperature ratings towards others and own cultural groups. No
effect was found.
Relations 39 (2014) 40–52
DCultural Psych
students

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

3.2. Individual difference effects: did taking cultural
psychology affect some students differently than others?
The above results show that taking a cultural psychology class
increased the average cultural psychology student’s cultural
awareness, moral relativism, meta-cognitive CQ, and
willingness to endorse stereotypes of Westerners and East
Asians. But
were there any individual differences in these effects? Students
come into a course with different levels of preconceptions
and motivation that might moderate the course’s influence.
Specifically, students with a higher level of motivation or
ability to learn (as measured through course grades) were
hypothesized to have processed the course content at a deeper
level, leading to less of an increase in stereotype endorsement,
while conversely displaying more gains in cultural awareness,
moral relativism, and meta-cognitive CQ. On the other hand,
students with higher level initial levels of essentialistic
thinking—both about individuals and cultures—might have been
more receptive to information about group differences (Fischer,
2011), leading to larger increases in willingness to endorse
stereotypes, but also larger increases in cultural awareness,
moral relativism, and meta-cognitive CQ.
3.2.1. Hypothesis 4a/b: Individual differences in course grades
Among the 34 cultural psychology students,4 one-tailed
regression analyses predicted change in each of the four DVs
in turn (T2-T1 score change for stereotype endorsement;
cultural awareness; moral relativism; and meta-cognitive CQ)
from the students’ final grades and the Time 1 score of the
respective DV (as a control variable). As in the above analyses,
ceiling/floor/regression to the mean effects meant that T1 scores

were always significantly negatively related to the size of
the T2-T1 change (all p’s < .05), and are not further described.5
4 I did not analyze whether or not the moderating effects of
individual differences differed by course (a moderated
moderation), because the N was too
small to reliably test for the higher-level interaction (Aguinis,
1995). However, the same analyses carried out using control
class students (though with
only the 13 students whose grades could be obtained) showed
no moderating effects of individual differences on change over
time.
5 Course grade was uncorrelated with the control variables (T1
scores of the DV’s) except for the variables T1 Cultural
Awareness and T1 Moral Relativism.
Omitting T1 scores as a control variable resulted in the same
conclusion as reported above (no effect of grades on change in
Cultural Awareness or Moral
Relativism).
s
o
s
o
g
n
p
3
T

r
e
t
t
r
t
s
a
.
4
s
f
a
(
fi
o
i
(
w
d
c
i
r
i
i
t
o
A
i
s
p

b
b
m
c
r
S
e
39 (2014) 40–52 49
With respect to the hypotheses, as predicted, one-tailed tests
showed that students with higher course grades had
ignificantly smaller changes in overall stereotype endorsement
( ̌ = −.304, p = .023); but grades had only a marginal effect
n increased endorsement of taught stereotypes (sociotypes; ̌ =
−.243, p = .057), while the effect was stronger for untaught
tereotypes ( ̌ = −.299, p = .024). In other words, students who
received lower grades were more likely to endorse stereotypes
f any kind, especially stereotypes that, in fact, were not related
to cultural psychology research, while students with higher
rades appeared to differentiate between taught and untaught
traits.
However, other predictions were unsupported: course grades
were only marginally related to increases in cultural aware-
ess ( ̌ = .221, p = .075), and unrelated to increases in moral
relativism ( ̌ = −.066, p = .36) and meta-cognitive CQ ( ̌ =
.142,
= .20).
.2.2. Hypothesis 4c: Individual differences in T1 essentialism
Recall that three measures of essentialistic thinking were taken:
IPT, IMT, and Cultural Entitativity. To test whether

ime 1 levels of essentialistic thinking affected change over time
among the 34 Cultural Psychology students, one-tailed
egression analyses predicted change in each of the four relevant
DVs in turn (T2-T1 score change for overall stereotype
ndorsement; cultural awareness; moral relativism; and meta-
cognitive CQ) from the students’ Time 1 scores on each of
he three essentialistic thinking measures in turn and the Time 1
score of the respective DV (as a control variable). As in
he above analyses, ceiling/floor/regression to the mean effects
meant that T1 scores were always significantly negatively
elated to T2-T1 change (all p’s < .02).6
However, as regards the hypotheses, unexpectedly there were no
effects of individual differences in Time 1 essentialistic
hinking on change over the semester. One-tailed tests found that
students with higher IMT, IPT, or Cultural Entitativity
cores at Time 1 did not show different changes in overall
stereotype endorsement (ˇ’s = .002, .026, and .174 respectively,
ll p’s > .13), cultural awareness (ˇ’s = −.177, .102, and .164
respectively, all p’s > .10), moral relativism (ˇ’s = .239, .064,
and
048 respectively, all p’s > .07), or meta-cognitive CQ (ˇ’s =
−.076, −.088, and .210 respectively, all p’s > .10).
. Discussion
What could be the effects of learning about cultural differences
in the form of cultural psychology research? In this study,
tudents who had completed a course in cultural psychology—as
compared to students in other psychology classes—were
ound to be more able to accurately perceive cultural aspects of
interpersonal miscommunications (increased cultural
wareness), more conscious of culture in interpersonal
interactions (increased meta-cognitive CQ), more non-
judgmental

increased moral relativism), and also—for those who did not
perform well in the course—more willing to endorse uncon-
rmed stereotypes of Westerners and East Asians. Taking
cultural psychology did not appear to have any effect, however,
n the potential negative outcomes of essentialistic thinking
about individuals or cultural groups, nor prejudice; nor did it
ncrease aspects of the three other components of cultural
intelligence, such as self-reported knowledge about other
cultures
cognitive CQ); confidence to deal with new cultures
(motivational CQ); or adjustment of one’s behaviour when
interacting
ithin different cultural contexts (behavioural CQ).
Overall, the effects of the cultural psychology course were more
positive than negative. Awareness of the cultural
imension of interactions seems to have improved—as indicated
both by the dialogue test and the self-report of meta-
ognitive CQ. Though moral relativism is obviously a
controversial issue, increased moral relativism in the context of
ntercultural relations may reduce negative judgments of the
“strange practices” of other cultures, which may in turn
educe the potential for conflict (Atran & Axelrod, 2008). And,
in contrast to previous studies on intercultural training
nterventions (Fischer, 2011), this course in cultural psychology
did not seem to encourage students to think of other
ndividuals—or even other cultures—as having fixed essences
that unavoidably, unchangeably, and conclusively direct
hinking and behaviour.
However, the changes seen in the stereotype endorsement
measure are of particular concern for teachers and producers
f cultural psychology research. In this study, we defined
inaccurate stereotypes as those commonly held stereotypes
about
sians and Westerners that the majority of the students in the

class believed had not been explicitly taught. The increase in
naccurate stereotyping among students with low course grades
suggests that casual readers of cultural psychology—such as
tudents who are less motivated or less able to process complex
information—may emerge with a general sense that cultural
sychology proves the things they thought were true all along
(i.e. cultural stereotypes that had not, in fact, been supported
y research evidence). Since some typical stereotypes have been
the subject of research, while others have not, it would
ehove teachers to explicitly address the question of stereotypes
when teaching about cultural differences in order to avoid
isunderstandings. Specifically for the case of cultural
psychology, while research sometimes shows that some
stereotypes
ontain a kernel of truth, students should be made aware that (a)
many aspects of cultural stereotypes are not supported by
esearch; (b) with respect to negative stereotypes in particular,
cultural psychology research shows that cultural differences
6 T1 essentialistic thinking was uncorrelated with the control
variables (T1 scores of the DV’s) except a significantly positive
relation between T1 Overall
tereotype Endorsement and T1 IPT scores. Omitting T1 scores
on Overall Stereotype Endorsement as a control variable did not
change conclusions (no
ffect of T1 IPT on change in stereotype endorsement).
Relations 39 (2014) 40–52

in thinking style, etc. exist because there is a cultural purpose
for them, and thus even when a stereotype is found to be
“true” it should be stripped of its negative connotations; and (c)
the kind of essentialistic thinking that often goes along
with stereotyping (e.g. “All Westerners are naturally
individualistic;” i.e. assuming that group members more similar
to one
another than they are to individuals of other groups) is almost
always belied by the wide range of within-culture differences
(Heine & Norenzayan, 2006; Matsumoto et al., 2001).
In general, this study adds to the literature on the “mixed
record” (Mendenhall et al., 2004, p. 137) of intercultural
training’s effects on trainee attitudes. It is of particular interest
to compare this study to Fischer (2011), which used similar
measures to test the effect of a short, intense intercultural
training module among university students. Fischer (2011)
found that a combination of lectures and experiential
intercultural training led to decreased cognitive and meta-
cognitive
CQ, and increased cultural essentialism. While the students in
this Cultural Psychology course learned from lectures and
the textbook, the Fischer (2011) training additionally used
experiential activities aimed at changing affect and behaviour
(see Brislin, 1989), such as the BAFA-BAFA and Excell
training programmes. Intense experiences with cultural
differences
may temporarily decrease confidence in one’s ability to
understand other cultures, while less involved experiences such
as a lecture course in Cultural Psychology may increase
awareness without making the “foreignness” of other cultures so
viscerally apparent.
4.1. Limitations and future directions
This quasi-experimental study was carried out in a small-scale

undergraduate lecture course in North America,
and so is necessarily limited in generalizability. The study is
perhaps most important as an illustration of the poten-
tial effects of learning about research on cultural differences,
showing that a cultural psychology course can have
both positive and negative effects on the incipient cultural
competence of students. However, the results may have
been specific to this instructor, course content, or student
cohort, and may not generalize to other cultural psy-
chology courses. More research is needed to understand what
educational methods and content can cause these
effects.
In particular, this study highlights the need to learn more about
the “side-effects” of talking about cultural differences,
for both educators and researchers. It would be important to
study how to make it more likely that casual consumers of
cultural psychology research findings (such as the low -
performing students in this course) will have positive outcomes
from learning about research on cultural differences. For
example, would illustrating cultural differences using normal
curves rather than bar graphs decrease the likelihood that
essentialistic-type stereotyping (assuming that everyone within
a group is the same) would be an outcome of learning? Should
researchers writing articles and books explicitly address
whether the research confirms or disconfirms cultural
stereotypes, making readers more culturally aware and able to
differentiate between sociotypes and stereotypes? These and
other questions would be helpfully addressed with future
research.
4.2. Conclusion
Teaching about cultural differences has great potential to help—
and harm—intercultural understanding. As this study
illustrates, teachers responsible for cultural competence training

may need to pay particular attention to ensuring that stu-
dents do not emerge from a course with misunderstandings,
particularly in the case of less motivated students. Specifically,
to improve cultural sensitivity in a way that will improve
intercultural understanding, research-supported cultural differ-
ences should be discussed, but care must be taken to teach
students that the existence of valid sociotypes does not imply
validity of all stereotypes, essentialistic thinking about
individuals or cultures, or prejudiced attitudes. In particular,
explicit
discussion may be needed to prevent indirect evidence being
taken as support for stereotypes that are not addressed by
research.
The findings show that learning about cultural differences in the
form of cultural psychology research can have prob-
lematic effects, at least on some people; however, this new
knowledge also increases skills and attitudes indicative of
intercultural competence. By examining the effects of learning
about cultural psychology on essentialistic thinking, prej -
udice, open-minded attitudes, cultural intelligence, and accurate
versus inaccurate stereotyping, it is apparent that the
path to cultural competence may pass through less-than-ideal
stages. Moreover, these less-ideal stages may be more
likely to be experienced by students low in motivation or
ability. Awareness of these positive and negative effects
can help us explicitly address these issues when teaching about
cultural differences, and highlights the importance of
communicating about cultural psychology in a way that will
have a positive, not negative, impact on intercultural under -
standing.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks is due to the lecturers of all three psychology
courses for allowing me to recruit participants in their classes,
to John H. M. Lam for help with statistical tables, and

especially to Ara Norenzayan and Steven J. Heine for helpful
discussion
and criticism during the development and analysis of this
research.
A
R
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
39 (2014) 40–52 51
ppendix A. Cultural Awareness dialogues and open-ended
coding examples

Scoring criteria Tsuda/Miller dialogue Wong/Cooper dialogue
Mr. Miller: Your new product line is doing
very well, isn’t it!
Ms. Tsuda: There have been some small
successes.
Mr. Miller: I think you can expect a promotion
from this, Ms. Tsuda.
Ms. Tsuda: The line is not doing as well as
could be expected.
Mr. Miller: What do you mean? Are there
some new problems?
Ms. Tsuda: There are many ways in which we
could improve.
Ms Cooper: The new tracking procedure hasn’t
worked, has it?
Mr. Wong: There were some small problems.
Ms. Cooper: Whose idea was it anyway?
Mr. Wong: We need to learn from this lesson.
Ms. Cooper: Sure. It came from Mr. Tung’s
division, didn’t it?
Mr. Wong: Many people worked on the
proposal.
Score: 0
-North American interpretation of behaviour,
and/or Negative interpretation of behaviour
-No mention of culture
Mr. Miller is happy with how the product is
doing and doesn’t feel the need to improve
since it’s already doing well. Ms. Tsuda feels
that the product could do better, even though

it’s already doing well. And personally, I think
it’s very silly to tell your boss that something
isn’t doing as well as expected when he’s just
told you you’ll get a promotion.
Ms Cooper is frustrated that the new tracking
procedure isn’t working and is finding
somebody to blame. Mr. Wong is trying to
target the problem itself not the people who
thought of it. He doesn’t want to blame anyone.
Score: 1
Either one of:
-Correct cultural interpretation of behaviour
(Modesty vs. self-enhancement conflict in
Tsuda/Miller dialogue; group-agency vs.
individual-agency for Wong/Cooper dialogue)
OR
-Culture explicitly mentioned
Mr. Miller wants to congratulate Ms. Tsuda,
but she is unable to take his praise without
considering how the line is not perfect. In part
she is probably modest, but she also probably
genuinely feels there is room for improvement.
Ms. Cooper is trying to assign the blame for the
failed task, while Mr. Wong is trying to see the
same failed task as an opportunity to learn
from that experience, so that the future
procedures could be more effective. Also, Mr.
Wong is trying to take responsibility for the

failed task by pointing out that the procedures
were designed by the group, not by a single
person, so the failure is the group’s
responsibility.
Score: 2
Both of the following:
-Correct cultural interpretation of behaviour
(Modesty vs. self-enhancement conflict in
Tsuda/Miller dialogue; group-agency vs.
individual-agency for Wong/Cooper dialogue)
AND
-Culture explicitly mentioned
Ms. Tsuda is presumably Japanese. In her
culture modesty is emphasized and
acknowledging your accomplishments is
considered very boastful and undesirable. Mr.
Miller presumably comes from a culture that
embraces personal acknowledgement for
accomplishments. Therefore, when she tries to
be courteous and modest according to her
culture, he does not recognize the meaning
behind this gesture and misunderstands it as
there being something inherently wrong with
the product line.
Ms. Cooper is trying to place blame and pick
out who initiated the problem, whereas Mr.
Wong, coming from a collectivistic culture, is
trying to say that there wasn’t anyone in
particular to blame since it was a group project.

eferences
guinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated
multiple regression in management research. Journal of
Management Research, 21, 1141–1158.
ng, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K., Templer, K. J., Tay, C.,
& Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its
measurement and effects on cultural
judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task
performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–
371.
tran, S., & Axelrod, R. (2008). Reframing sacred values.
Negotiation Journal, 24(3), 221–246.
ennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A
developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M.
Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural
experience (2nd ed., pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural
Press.
hawuk, D. S. (1998). The role of culture theory in cross-cultural
training: A multimethod study of culture-specific, culture-
general, and culture theory-based
assimilators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(5), 630–
655.
rislin, R. W. (1989). Intercultural communication training. In
M. K. Asante, & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of
international and intercultural communi-
cation (pp. 441–457). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
uchtel, E. E., & Norenzayan, A. (2008). Which should you use,
intuition or logic? Cultural differences in injunctive norms
about reasoning. Asian Journal of

Social Psychology, 11, 264–273.
astano, E., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Bourguignon, D. (2003). We are
one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup
identification. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 33(6), 735–754.
oleman, S., & Raider, E. (2006). International/intercultural
conflict resolution training. In J. Oetzel, & S. Ting-Toomey
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict
communication (pp. 663–690). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
randall, S. J., George, G., Marion, G. S., & Davis, S. (2003).
Applying theory to the design of cultural competency training
for medical students: A case study.
Academic Medicine, 78(6), 588–594.
rawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (2002).
Perceived entitativity, stereotype formation, and the
interchangeability of group members. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1076–1094.
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(13)00105-3/sbref0005

http://refhub.elsevi er.com/S0147-1767(13)00105-3/sbref0035

http://refhub.elsevier.com/ S0147-1767(13)00105-3/sbref0055
Relations 39 (2014) 40–52

Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Genetic essentialism: On
the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin,
137(5), 800–818.
DeJaeghere, J. G., & Cao, Y. (2009). Developing U.S. teachers’
intercultural competence: Does professional development
matter? International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 33(5), 437–447.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C.-y., & Hong, Y.-y. (1995). Implicit
theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from
two perspectives. Psychological
Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285.
Eiser, A. R., & Ellis, G. (2007). Cultural competence and the
African American experience with health care: The case for
specific content in cross-cultural
education. Academic Medicine, 82(2), 176–183.
Fischer, R. (2011). Cross-cultural training effects on cultural
essentialism beliefs and cultural intelligence. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations,
35(6), 767–775.
Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184.
Fouad, N. A., & Arredondo, P. (2007). Becoming culturally
oriented: Practical advice for psychologists and educators.
Washington, DC, US: American Psychological
Association.
Hamamura, T. (2012). Are cultures becoming individualistic? A
cross-temporal comparison of individualism-collectivism in the
U.S. and Japan. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 16, 3–24.
Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Rodgers, J. S. (2004).

Perceiving the groupness of groups: Entitativity, homogeneity,
essentialism, and stereotypes. In V.
Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of
group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and
essentialism (pp. 39–60). New York,
NY, US: Psychology Press.
Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Bain, P., & Kashima, Y. (2006).
Psychological essentialism, implicit theories, and intergroup
relations. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 9(1), 63–76.
Haslam, N., & Levy, S. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about
homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
32(4), 471–485.
Heine, S. J. (2009). Cultural psychology (1st ed.). New York:
W.W. Norton.
Heine, S. J. (2012). Cultural psychology (2nd ed.). New York:
W.W. Norton.
Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (2004). Move the body, change
the self: Acculturative effects of the self-concept. In M.
Schaller, & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The
psychological foundations of culture (pp. 305–331). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2006). Toward a psychological
science for a cultural species. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1(3), 251–269.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The
weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
33, 61–135.
Hong, Y.-y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-y., & Benet-Martínez, V.
(2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach

to culture and cognition.
American Psychologist, 55(7), 709–720.
Human, L. J., & Biesanz, J. C. (2011). Through the looking
glass clearly: Accuracy and assumed similarity in well-adjusted
individuals’ first impressions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 349–364.
Jenks, A. C. (2011). From “lists of traits” to open-mindedness:
Emerging issues in cultural competence education. Culture,
Medicine and Psychiatry, 35(2),
209–235.
Jussim, L. (2005). Accuracy in social perception: Criticisms,
controversies, criteria, components, and cognitive processes. In
M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (vol. 37) (pp. 1–93). San Diego,
CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Jussim, L., Cain, T. R., Crawford, J. T., Harber, K., & Cohen,
F. (2009). The unbearable accuracy of stereotypes. In T. D.
Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice,
stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 199–227). New York, NY,
US: Psychology Press.
Lee, Y., & Duenas, G. (1995). Stereotype accuracy in
multicultural business. In Y. Lee, L. J. Jussim, & C. R.
McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward
appreciating group differences (pp. 157–186). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Levy, S. R., Plaks, J. E., Hong, Y., Chiu, C., & Dweck, C. S.
(2001). Static versus dynamic theories and the perception of
groups: Different routes to different
destinations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2),

156–168.
Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998).
Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit
theories. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(6), 1421–1436.
Matsumoto, D., Grissom, R. J., & Dinnel, D. L. (2001). Do
between-culture differences really mean that people are
different? A look at some measures of
cultural effect size. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
32(4), 478–490.
Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing
experiments and analysing data: A model comparison
perspective (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mendenhall, M. E., Stahl, G. K., Ehnert, I., Oddou, G., Osland,
J. S., & Kühlmann, T. M. (2004). Evaluation studies of cross -
cultural training programs: A review
of the literature from 1988 to 2000. In D. Landis, J. M.
Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural
training (3rd ed., vol. 37, pp. 129–143).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Neville, H., Spanierman, L., & Doan, B. (2006). Exploring the
association between color-blind racial ideology and
multicultural counseling competencies.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(2), 275–
290.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians
and Westerners think differentl y. . . and why. New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster.
Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is
multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities?
Psychological Science, 20(4), 444–446.

Rosenthal, H. S., & Crisp, R. J. (2006). Reducing stereotype
threat by blurring intergroup boundaries. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32(4), 501–511.
Schaller, M., Conway, L. G., III, & Tanchuk, T. L. (2002).
Selective pressures on the once and future contents of ethnic
stereotypes: Effects of the communicability
of traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6),
861–877.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing
intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE
Handbook of intercultural competence
(pp. 2–52). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Statistics Canada. (2001). Ethno-Cultural Portrait of Canada,
Table 1. Retrieved from
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/highlight/ET
O/
Table1.cfm?T=501&Lang=E&GV=1&GID=0&Prov=0&S=2&O=
D
Steinfeldt, J. A., & Wong, Y. (2010). Multicultural training on
American Indian issues: Testing the effectiveness of an
intervention to change attitudes toward
native-themed mascots. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 16(2), 110–115.
Storti, C. (1994). Cross-cultural dialogues: Seventy-four brief
encounters with cultural differences. Yarmouth. ME:
Intercultural Press.
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992).
Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to
the profession. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 70(4), 477–486.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate

Statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W., &
Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-
temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 875–902.
Whaley, A. L., & Davis, K. E. (2007). Cultural competence and
evidence-based practice in mental health services: A
complementary perspective. American
Psychologist, 62(6), 563–574.
Wolsko, C., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2006). Considering the
tower of Babel: Correlates of assimilation and multiculturalism
among ethnic minority and
majority groups in the United States. Social Justice Research,
19, 277–306.
Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000).
Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and
color-blind perspectives on judgments
of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78(4), 635–654.
Wright, D. B. (2006). Comparing groups in a before–after
design: When t-test and ANCOVA produce different results.
British Journal of Educational Psychology,
76, 663–675.
Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Rocher, S. (2002). Subjective essentialism
and the emergence of stereotypes. In C. McGarty, V. Y.
Yzerbyt, & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as
explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social
groups (pp. 38–66). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University
Press.

http://refhub.elsevi er.com/S0147-1767(13)00105-3/sbref0075

http://refhub.elsevier.com/ S0147-1767(13)00105-3/sbref0100

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 4

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 4

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 4

Similar to International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 4 (20)

More from TatianaMajor22

More from TatianaMajor22 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 4