ChapterPDF Available

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

  • Intercultural Development Research Institute


The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) created by Milton J. Bennett is a grounded theory based on constructivist perception and communication theory. It assumes that the experience of reality is constructed through perception, and that more complex perceptual categories yield more complex (sophisticated) experience. Specifically, the DMIS assumes that we are constructing boundaries of “self” and “other” in ways that guide our experience of intercultural events. The most ethnocentric construction, Denial, is one wherein only vague categories of “other” are available for perceiving people from different cultural contexts. At the other end of the continuum, the most ethnorelative construction of Integration supposes that complex self/other categories are incorporated into one's personal identity and into decision-making regarding ethicality in multicultural relations. This entry describes the theory and application of the DMIS to diagnosis and intervention, including some discussion of measuring intercultural sensitivity and the main criticisms of the model and its measurement.
Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Bennett, M. (2017) Development model of intercultural sensitivity. In Kim, Y (Ed) International
encyclopedia of intercultural communication. Wiley
Milton J. Bennett, Ph.D.
Intercultural Development Research Institute
The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) created by Milton J. Bennett is a
grounded theory based on constructivist perception and communication theory. It assumes that the
experience of reality is constructed through perception, and that more complex perceptual categories
yield more complex (sophisticated) experience. Specifically, the DMIS assumes that we are constructing
boundaries of “self” and “other” in ways that guide our experience of intercultural events. The most
ethnocentric construction, Denial, is one wherein only vague categories of “other” are available for
perceiving people from different cultural contexts. At the other end of the continuum, the most
ethnorelative construction of Integration supposes that complex self/other categories are incorporated
into one’s personal identity and into decision-making regarding ethicality in multicultural relations. This
entry describes the theory and application of DMIS to diagnosis and intervention, including some
discussion of measuring intercultural sensitivity and the main criticisms of the model and its
Main Text
Following a process of grounded theory development, the Developmental Model of Intercultural
Sensitivity (Bennett, M., 1986, 2013) codified observations about people who were becoming more
competent intercultural communicators in both academic and corporate settings. These initial
observations were made for the purpose of determining “what to do next” in intercultural training
programs. The idea was to observe the sequence of competence acquisition, and then to apply a coherent
theoretical structure that could explain the development in terms of movement through different stages.
(The term “stage” referred to sequential positions along a continuum, not discrete conditions.) With that
theory in hand, it would be possible to diagnose where people were along the continuum and to facilitate
movement in terms of the theoretical structure.
Describing a developmental process required specifying an ultimate goal of intercultural training.
Based on the then-prevailing consensus of intercultural practitioners, the goal of training was to enable
more competent communication in alternative cultural contexts. Secondary goals included applications
of intercultural communication competence to activities such as intercultural mediation and conflict
resolution, interethnic (gender, sexual orientation) equity, multicultural team or global organization
leadership, multicultural classroom teaching, health care delivery, etc. The original observations that
yielded the DMIS were made strictly in terms of communicative behavior, following Cronen and Pearce
(1982); the criterion for judging whether people were more interculturally competent was whether they
could “coordinate meaning” across cultural contexts with something approaching the facility they had in
their native context(s). In this sense communicative competence as defined by the DMIS follows the
lead of linguistic competence – the ability to understand and generate appropriate utterances in context.
If native communicative ability is taken as the criterion for intercultural competence, then the
next question might be, ‘how does one come to be communicatively competent in one’s own culture?’
This question led to the use of constructivist perception and communication theory as the explanatory
framework. Constructivism in general holds that people’s experience is a function of their perceptual
organization of reality. Lacking a complete instinctual program, human beings need to internalize the
“worldview” of their group and then enact that worldview in ways that maintain it and apply it to novel
situations (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Based on particular forms of cultural perception, elaborate
human languages and other forms of communication have evolved for adapting to novel and complex
situations. Constructivist communicative competence refers to this naturally learned human ability to
coordinate meaning and action in complex ways within large groups.
The basic mechanism for internalizing (embodying) worldview is perception (Bennett &
Castiglioni, 2004). Following Piaget, Vygotsky, and other developmentalists (Mooney, 2013) children
become more adaptive to their particular circumstances by elaborating perceptual categories of relevant
things while leaving irrelevant things either unperceived or only vaguely categorized. For example,
pasta is a relevant category for Italian kids, and many of them already know the shapes (e.g. penne or
rigatoni) that go with different sauces. Pasta is not very relevant for American kids, and most of them
can only use the undifferentiated category of “macaroni.” Writ large, culture provides us with a set of
these kind of figure/ground distinctions that allow us to co-construct with our compatriots the unique
adaptive processes of our group. We assume a general similarity in experiencing the world, and we are
relatively adept at taking perspectives of others in the group whose experience differs from ours within
defined constraints. Our joint experience is the “feeling of,” as in the feeling of being Japanese, or the
feeling of being a woman, or the feeling of being black or white in a white-privileged society. We give
form to that feeling with our behavior – behavior that manifests in individual ways our collective
The move from communicative competence in one’s own culture to communicative competence
across cultures is the key concept for DMIS. It assumes that dealing with otherness in complex ways is
not a natural or historically important part of any culture’s adaptive strategy. As a result, otherness exists
in a broad and vaguely defined perceptual category, like macaroni for pasta. Such a perceptual condition
is inadequate for communicating effectively with cultural outsiders, since it lumps together people of
different cultures inappropriately and precludes taking their unique perspectives in any meaningful way.
Movement along the continuum from Ethnocentrism to Ethnorelativism is accomplished through
elaborating categories for otherness, so that eventually the perception (and thus the experience) of
cultural difference is as complex as that of important events in one’s own culture. This ability to have
more complex personal experience of otherness is termed intercultural sensitivity. Intercultural
communicative competence is the forming of intercultural sensitivity into behavior that coordinates
meaning across cultural contexts with more or less the same ease that one coordinates within one’s own
culture. Notable behavioral forms of intercultural sensitivity are empathy (the generation of appropriate
behavior in alternative contexts); and meta-coordination (the “third-culture” contexts that generate value
from cultural diversity).
DMIS stages
The DMIS stages (positions) are construed both in terms of basic perceptual structures vis a vis
otherness and in terms of certain “issues” regarding cultural difference that tend to be related to each of
the stages. The names of the stages refer to the issues, while the description of the experience of each
stage refers to its perceptual structure. The first three stages of Denial, Defense, and Minimization are
Ethnocentric; they refer to issues that are associated with experiencing one’s own culture as more
“central to reality.” The last three stages of Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration are Ethnorelative;
they refer to issues associated with experiencing all cultures as alternative ways of organizing reality.
Movement through the stages is not inevitable; it depends on the need to become more competent in
communicating outside one’s primary social context. When that need is established, it is addressed by
building more complex perceptual structures that can resolve the increasingly complex issues of dealing
with cultural difference.
The DMIS is a culture-general model; when more complex perceptual structures are established
for any culture, they apply to all cultures. For instance, greater perceptual sensitivity towards a different
national culture group allows more sensitivity towards a different generational or sexual orientation
group, assuming that those groups are also defined in cultural terms. Additionally, movement through
the stages tends to be one-way; people do not easily become more ethnocentric after having developed
ethnorelative perceptual structures. However, people can rather easily retreat from one ethnocentric
stage to an earlier one, particularly from Minimization to Defense.
In addition to its use as an individual diagnostic, the DMIS can be interpreted at an
organizational level. More complex organizational structures are parallels to more complex personal
perceptual structures. Greater intercultural sensitivity in an organization means that more complex
structures are allowing cultural difference to be perceived more fully. The resulting “climate” regarding
cultural difference carries the potential for better resolution of the issues associated with multicultural
workforces and global operations.
The default condition of DMIS is the denial of cultural difference – the failure to perceive the existence
or the relevance of culturally different others. Perceptual categories for otherness are not elaborate
enough to allow discriminations among different kinds of others, who may be perceived vaguely as
“foreigners” or “minorities” or not perceived at all. The constructs available for perceiving one’s own
culture are far more complex than those available for other cultures, so people experience themselves as
more “real” than others – even to the point that others may not seem fully human. People are
disinterested or perhaps even hostilely dismissive of intercultural communication. In organizations,
Denial is a condition wherein there are no structures (policies and procedures) to recognize and deal
with cultural diversity.
The issue experienced as Denial is created when people who prefer stability (sameness) are
forced by some circumstance to become aware of others (differentness). This occurs when, for instance,
significant numbers of refugees or immigrants enter a community, or when people must face cultural
differences in a changing workforce or globalized organization. Initially, the sameness pole is
exaggerated while the differentness pole is suppressed; one’s self and compatriots are perceived as
complex compared to the simplicity of others. Resolution of the contradiction involves beginning to
perceive others in more specific and complex ways. Personally, this occurs when others are personified
through media or personal contact. Organizationally, resolution of Denial occurs when difference is
acknowledged by procedures such as multiple-language forms or incorporating visual diversity into
corporate publications.
When the resolution of Denial issues allows it, people can move into the experience of defense against
cultural difference. The perceptual structure of this stage is a dichotomous categorization of “us and
them,” where others are perceived more fully than in Denial but also in highly stereotyped ways. People
at this stage tend to be critical of other cultures and apt to blame cultural difference for general ills of
society; they experience “us” as superior and “them” as inferior. A variation of Defense is reversal,
where people switch poles so that “them” are superior and “us” are inferior. People in this form tend to
simplistically romanticize or exotify another culture while being more complexly critical of their own
culture. In international contexts, the informal term for reversal is “going native.” In domestic contexts,
the term “false ally” may refer to a dominant-culture member in reversal who takes on the cause of
“oppression” without much experience or understanding. An organization indicates Defense by rhetoric
that exalts the superiority of its national cultural roots and its current organizational culture.
Occasionally an organization shows reversal by supporting activities for non-dominant others based on
simplistic stereotypes (e.g. shopping trips for the assumedly female spouses of conferencing executives,
when a) the spouses might not all be female, and b) even if they are female they might not fit the
stereotype and could resent having it applied).
The contradiction experienced as Defense occurs when “us” and “them” are forced into contact.
The greater visibility and exaggerated stereotypes of others generate an experience of threat, fueling red-
lining, exclusive membership, and other segregationist strategies. When actual contact is inevitable,
focusing on power differences (such as privilege or oppression) supports the polarized Defense or
reversal experiences. Conversely, resolution of Defense is accomplished by focusing on commonalities
– equal humanity, shared values, etc. In organizations, Defense is routinely resolved by team-building
exercises that stress mutual dependence and define differences as in-group variations of personality and
The resolution of “us and them” allows the move to the minimization of cultural difference. As the term
implies, cultural differences that were initially defined in Defense are now minimized in favor of the
assumedly more important similarities between self and others. Those similarities are based on the
familiar elements of one’s own cultural worldview; people assume that their own experiences are shared
by others, or that certain basic values and beliefs transcend cultural boundaries and thus apply to
everyone (whether they know it or not). The stressing of cross-cultural similarity generates “tolerance,”
wherein superficial cultural differences are perceived as variations on the shared universal themes of
humanity. However, Minimization obscures deep cultural differences both for individuals and for
organizations. At this stage, organizations tend to exaggerate the benefits of unbiased equal opportunity,
thus masking the continued operation of dominant culture privilege. Confrontation with these deeper
differences may cause people to retreat to the earlier ethnocentric stage of Defense.
The Minimization issue for individuals is their desire to project similarity on a wider world and
the stubborn resistance of that world to losing its real difference. This means that the more contact
people seek out with others in the name of shared values, the more likely it is that they will be forced to
confront significant cultural differences. Something similar happens in organizations, where an
overstressing of “unity” yields too much uniformity, which forces the organization to decentralize and
focus on its diversity, sometimes with the result of divisiveness. In both the individual and
organizational cases, resolution of the issue occurs when similarity and difference, unity and diversity,
are put into dialectical form: assuming similarity allows us to appreciate differences, and unity provides
focus for diversity.
Movement out of the ethnocentric condition of Minimization allows cultural difference to be organized
into categories that are potentially as complex as one’s own. In other words, people become conscious of
themselves and others in cultural contexts that are equal in complexity but different in form. The
acceptance of cultural difference does not mean agreement – cultural difference may be judged
negatively – but the judgment is not ethnocentric in the sense that it is not automatically based on
deviation from one’s own cultural position. For the same reason that an oenophile wants to learn more
about wine or a bibliophile wants to finish the novel, people at Acceptance are curious about cultures
and cultural differences. But their limited knowledge of other cultures and their nascent perceptual
flexibility does not allow them to easily adapt their behavior to different cultural contexts. In
organizations, the rhetoric and support structure for “diversity and inclusion” exists at this point of
development, but the incorporation of intercultural sensitivity as a criterion for global or multicultural
leadership is not yet established.
The challenge (issue) of Acceptance is the need to reconcile cultural relativity with ethicality.
People at this stage want to be respectful of other cultures, and for that reason they may adopt the naïve
and paralytic position of “it’s not bad or good, it’s just different.” However, all behavior demands that
judgments be made (including doing nothing), and the demand is to find a basis of judgment that is not
ethnocentric in either Defense (superiority) or Minimization (universalist) terms. One such system that
can be applied in both personal and organizational contexts is William Perry’s Ethical Scheme (1999).
After resolving the ethnocentric ethical positions of dualism and multiplicity, the Scheme demands that
decision-makers engage contextual relativism – an understanding of “goodness in context” – before they
make an ethical commitment.
Resolving the issue of ethicality allows the move to adaptation to cultural difference. The perceptual
mechanism is that of “perspective taking” or empathy. This is a kind of context-shifting, assumedly
enabled by a neurological executive function, that allows one to experience the world “as if” one were
participating in a different culture. This imaginative participation generates “feelings of
appropriateness” that guide the generation of authentic behavior in the alternative culture. The ultimate
example of this shift in cultural terms is biculturalism, a mirror of bilingualism. In either case, the
outcome of the context shift is the competent enactment of alternative behavior that is appropriate to the
different context. Organizations at this point of development have policies and procedures that are
intentionally flexible enough to work without undue cultural imposition in a range of cultural contexts.
The issue of Adaptation is authenticity. If people can shift among several cultural contexts, in
which contexts do their true identities reside? The resolution of this dilemma lies in the extension of the
definition of identity into a more dynamic container – one that can contain a wider repertoire of ways of
being in the world. At an organizational level, Adaptation is the essence of “inclusion” of both global
and domestic diversity into organizational processes.
The resolution of authentic identity allows for the sustainable integration of cultural difference into
communication. In this integrated condition, communication can shift from in-context to between-
context states, allowing for the meta-coordination of meaning and action that defines intercultural
communication. On a personal level, Integration is experienced as a kind of developmental liminality,
where one’s experience of self is expanded to include the movement in and out of different cultural
worldviews. Cultural liminality can be used to construct cultural bridges and to conduct sophisticated
cross-cultural mediation. Organizations at Integration encourage the construction of third-culture
positions based on mutual adaptation in multicultural work groups, with the anticipation that third-
culture solutions generate added value.
Qualitative Measurements of DMIS
As constructivist grounded theory, the DMIS for the most part uses qualitative rather than quantitative
criteria for assessing its credibility. Unlike the concept of validity in positivist quantitative methodology
– the measurement of something “real” – grounded theory depends on theoretical coherence for its
credibility. The strength of grounded theory is assessed by its ability to explain observed events within a
coherent framework that allows for useful diagnosis. In other words, the validity question is not “is it
true,” but rather “does it fit with empirical observation and is it useful?” Additionally, the
trustworthiness of grounded theory is assessed by its applicability to a reasonably wide range of
contexts, as opposed to a statistical measure of test reliability. By these criteria, DMIS is robust; the
model has not typically been criticized for lack of coherence or usefulness.
Assuming that the credibility and trustworthiness of DMIS is accepted, then the most
straightforward measurement of intercultural sensitivity is to elicit and interpret descriptions of the
experience of cultural difference through verbal interviews or open-ended textual questionnaires. This
qualitative approach has been employed since the early days of the DMIS, and researchers have
developed many forms of questionnaires and interview schedules using the basic formulation of DMIS
stages adapted to various contexts. Following are some examples of DMIS questions, responses, and
typical interpretations in a range of personal and organizational contexts.
A question that could elicit personal Denial in the healthcare context might be “How relevant
have you found cultural difference to be in the delivery of good healthcare at this clinic?” Responses
such as “kidneys don’t care what culture they’re in” indicate that the respondent is not experiencing
culture as a very important factor in healthcare. The more that elicited comments stress the relevance or
importance of culture to good healthcare, the more resolution of the Denial issue of stability/change they
indicate, meaning that the respondent is to some extent experiencing cultural differences together with
physiological differences in diagnosis and treatment. Shifting emphasis to the organizational level of
Denial would change the question to something like “What mechanisms such as multiple language
forms or on-call cultural specialists are established at the clinic?” The identification of such processes
(either through interviewing or other means such as document research) indicates that the organization is
acting on the reality of changing social conditions.
A question checking organizational Minimization in a corporate context could be “In
considering workplace relations, does company policy stress more the shared corporate culture or more
the differences represented by different cultural groups of workers? How?” Personally, Minimization
can be probed by a question such as “In your relationships with people of other cultures, how important
is cultural difference as opposed to human similarity?” Low resolution of Minimization is indicated by a
strong emphasis on the corporate culture or on personal similarity (minimizing the importance of
cultural differences). Conversely, describing a balance or reconciliation of unity and diversity would
indicate high resolution. The more the issue is resolved, the more respondents are able to simultaneously
experience both cultural similarity and cultural difference in cross-cultural situations.
On the Ethnorelative side, a question probing personal Adaptation could be “What is an example
of how you changed your behavior in a different cultural context to communicate more effectively?
How did you know what to do differently?” The failure to provide a substantial example indicates that
Adaptation is not yet relevant to the respondent. The more substantial the behavior change, particularly
if accompanied by a indication of empathy as the basis of the change, the more resolved the issue of
authenticity/context-shifting, meaning that respondents are experiencing themselves as having authentic
identity in more than one cultural context.
At the organizational level, questions that could show Integration in a social service agency
might be, “How consistently does the agency use cultural context as a factor in its decision-making,” or
“How often is intercultural competence used as a criterion for hiring or advancement?” The issue of
Integration is sustainability, and greater consistency of organization structures incorporating
intercultural sensitivity indicate more resolution of that issue, allowing intercultural communication
competence to become “the way we do things around here.”
Quantitative Measurements of DMIS
Although they represent a paradigm shift from the constructivist roots of grounded theory,
various quantitative measures of DMIS have been attempted, predominant among them the Intercultural
Development Inventory (IDI)™. In all cases, researchers have attempted to use Likert-type scaling to
rate statements that assumedly reflect DMIS stages. In the case of IDI, the statements were drawn from
interviews that basically followed the qualitative methodology described above. Raters were able to
classify statements into DMIS categories with a high degree of reliability. Exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses were used to select 50 items representing five and subsequently seven scales. The initial
instrument research supported the basic structure of the DMIS and the sequencing of the stages
(Hammer, M. Bennett, Wiseman, 2003). Subsequent data analysis supported the discrete stages of
Denial, Defense (with reversal as a separate scale), Minimization, Acceptance, and Adaptation. The final
stage of Integration was not measured in the IDI research.
By assuming that the scale structure and Likert-type rating was yielding interval data, and further
assuming that “intercultural sensitivity” was a latent variable, the IDI employed parametric statistics to
generate a normative distribution, which in turn allowed combined scale scores to be compared in a
similar fashion to measurements of IQ. Additionally, the parametric assumption allowed statistical
significance to be attributed to changes in aggregate scores through t-testing, which meant that the IDI
could be used for pre/post quantitative program evaluation.
Criticisms of the DMIS and its measurements
The main criticism of the DMIS has been that its assumed linearity of movement represents a “Western”
and/or “male” bias, and that intercultural sensitivity might be better described in more nonlinear ways.
This is a sub-category of criticisms of developmental models in general, which all treat change as
accretionary. Alternative explanations may assume that change is cyclical or rapidly transformational.
A deeper criticism of DMIS that is less often stated but nevertheless implied by alternative explanations
of intercultural competence is that human behavior should be understood in the positivist terms of
objective science rather than in the more probabilistic terms of observer-dependent constructivism. It is
certainly the case that most explanations of intercultural competence attribute causality to underlying
traits or characteristics, while the DMIS instead assumes that intercultural competence is simply the
enactment of intercultural sensitivity – a learned perceptual adaptation.
DMIS qualitative measurements are criticized as being cumbersome and subjective – a valid
criticism of all qualitative measures. Like most constructivist theory, DMIS builds upon thick
description of human behavior rather than the leaner snapshots afforded by quantitative measures. But
the snapshot approaches (including IDI™) are criticized for simplifying the complex phenomenon of
intercultural communication. The IDI is also criticized for inferring the existence of a normally
distributed “quality” that is being measured by the test, when the basis for the IDI’s validity – the DMIS
– does not make such an assumption.
Research and theoretical development regarding intercultural sensitivity in general and the DMIS
in particular is continuing. Insofar as that research grows from the original constructivist and
developmental roots, it will avoid taxonomic classification and focus instead on developmental
diagnosis and intervention. Such research will also eschew correlations with personality characteristics
and focus instead on perceptual adaptation.
SEE ALSO: Constructivist Approach to Intercultural Communication; Cross-Cultural Communication
Theory and Research, Overview; Cross-Cultural Competence; Cultural Communication, Overview;
Culture-Specific and Culture-General Training; Dialectics of Culture and Communication; Intercultural
Competence Development; Intercultural Empathy; Intercultural Ethics
Bennett, M. (1986). A developmental approach to training intercultural sensitivity. in J. Martin (Guest
Ed.), Special Issue on Intercultural Training, International Journal of Intercultural Relations.
Vol 10, No.2. 179-186.
Bennett, M. (2013) Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Paradigms, principles, & practices.
Boston: Intercultural Press.
Bennett, M. & Castiglioni , I. (2004). Embodied ethnocentrism and the feeling of culture: A key to
training for intercultural competence” in D. Landis, J. Bennett & M. Bennett (Eds.), The
handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed, pp. 249-265). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of
knowledge. Garden City, NJ: Anchor.
Cronen, V., & Pearce, W. B. (1982). The Coordinated Management of Meaning: A theory of
communication. In F. E. X. Dance (Ed.)., Human communication theory, 61-89. New York:
Harper & Row.
Hammer, M., Bennett, M., & Wiseman, R (2003). Measuring intercultural competence: The
Intercultural Development Inventory. In M. Paige (Guest Ed.), Special Issue on Intercultural
Development. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421-443.
Mooney, C. (2013). Theories of childhood: An introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget, &
Vygotsky 2nd Edition. St. Paul, MN: Readleaf Press
Perry, W. (1999). Forms of cognitive and ethical development in the college years (with a new
introduction by Lee Knefelkamp). San Francisco: Josey Bass
Further Reading
Gould, S. (1996) The mismeasure of man (revised and expanded edition). New York: Norton.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to
Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Tapia, A. (2013). The inclusion paradox (2nd Edition): The Obama era and the transformation of global
diversity. Chicago: Andres T. Tapia
Watzlawick, P. (Ed.). (1984). The invented reality: Contributions to constructivism. New York: Norton.
Brief Author Biography
Milton J. Bennett is director of Intercultural Development Research Institute located in Oregon, USA
and Milan, Italy and an adjunct professor of sociology at the University of Milano Bicocca. He was
previously an associate professor of communication at Portland State University, co-founder of the
Intercultural Communication Institute located in Portland, Oregon, and a founding fellow of the
International Academy of Intercultural Research. He has designed and conducted intercultural training
for over 150 schools, colleges, and universities, about 70 major corporations, and 50 agencies and
NGOs. His recently revised textbook is Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Paradigms,
Principles, & Practices.
Keywords: intercultural communication, constructivism, ethnorelativism, intercultural
training, intercultural education, intercultural research
... Skala Bennetta zawiera sześć etapów indywidualnego rozwoju wrażliwości kulturowej. Pierwsze trzy -zaprzeczenie, obrona, minimalizacja -przyporządkowane zostały do postawy etnocentrycznej, kolejne trzy -akceptacja, adaptacja, integracja -są elementami etnorelatywizmu (Bennett, 2014). Etnocentryzm to postawa postrzegania innych kultur przez pryzmat kultury własnej, traktowanie wartości i norm swojej kultury jako punktu odniesienia dla oceny innych kultur lub uznawanie ich za uniwersalne i słuszne. ...
In today’s world of rapid socio-cultural changes, which also include increased migration movements and the formation of culturally diverse societies, there is a need to implement methods and tools of educational work for the formation of attitudes of tolerance in multicultural communities. One of the effective educational tools used in intercultural education can be game. One of the most valuable types of games in this area are those that allow learning about cultures and the cultural differences resulting from them, referring not only to observable behaviour, but also to the hierarchy of values that form the core of the identity of a given social group – national, ethnic or religious one. The article is devoted to the presentation of an educational game created as part of the international Culture Crossover project. The theoretical and methodological assumptions of the game refer to Milton Benett’s DMIS and Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. The educational goal is to increase cultural awareness and develop empathy towards culturally different people by taking into account various elements of intercultural learning – from information about a particular culture, through knowledge of cultural norms and the ability to adopt local perspectives to critical understanding of the worldviews of other cultures.
... Intercultural sensitivity was also linked with ethnocultural empathy (Bennett, 2017;Hua, 2020), described as culturally specific empathy that emerges when individuals develop their readiness and capacity to participate in the shared experiences of people from different racial and ethnic groups (3). For this, majority-group members need to "unlearn their biases and stereotypes while being intentional about learning new information, perspective taking, reflexivity, and awareness of injustices and inequities" (Valdez et al., 2023, p. 373). ...
Full-text available
The present two-phased sequential exploratory mixed-methods study investigated majority-group members’ acculturation through pre-tertiary Japanese teachers’ experiences with children of Kurdish asylum-seekers in school settings. In Study 1, we employed an interpretative phenomenological analysis to understand and make meaning of the personal experiences of nine Japanese pre-tertiary teachers from a majority-group acculturation perspective. The qualitative data suggested a link between the participants’ intercultural contact experience, ethnocultural empathy, and receptiveness to majority-group acculturation. Furthermore, the acculturative changes experienced by the majority-group members appeared to influence institutional changes. Subsequently, we tested these relationships in quantitative analysis with a sample of 110 Japanese school teachers in Study 2. We used a survey informed by the works of Wang et al.’s (2003) Ethnocultural Empathy scale and Kunst et al.’s (2023) Majority-Group Acculturation scale. The results confirmed the positive association between intercultural contact experience, ethnocultural empathy, and majority-group members’ acculturation. We conclude that promoting multiculturalism in school settings may have long-term benefits for both majority and minority group members within the Japanese context despite potential adversities involved in regular intercultural contact.
... The differences between cultures need not be international, as shown by the incomprehension experienced in many instances between people living in "red" (conservative) and "blue" (liberal) states of the U.S., or some of the conflicts between groups such as Hindus and Muslims in India. Bennett (1986Bennett ( , 2017 has proposed a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity that is certainly relevant to the notion that people can develop cultural intelligence, or at least, attitudinal aspects of it. According to Bennett, intercultural sensitivity can develop through six stages: (a) denial; (b) defense; (c) minimization; (d) acceptance; (e) adaptation' and (f) integration. ...
Full-text available
Cultural intelligence is one’s ability to adapt when confronted with problems arising in interactions with people or artifacts of cultures other than one’s own. In this study, we explored two maximum-performance tests of cultural intelligence. One, used in previous research, measured cultural intelligence in the context of an individual conducting a business trip in another culture. The second, new to this research, measured cultural intelligence in the context of meeting someone from another culture while one is in the context of one’s own culture. So, the difference between the two tests was whether one was in one’s own culture or another and whether the individual who most had to adapt was oneself or someone else. We found that cultural intelligence in the two contexts was essentially the same construct. Cultural intelligence as measured by a typical-performance test is a different construct from cultural intelligence as measured by a maximum-performance test. In this research, general intelligence showed some limited correlation with cultural intelligence as measured by a maximum-performance, but not a typical-performance test. Cultural intelligence as an ability and as a disposition are not the same but rather complement each other.
... Educators are aware that their pedagogy should contain cultural understanding but their limited knowledge about culture limits them from implementing it (Batey & Lupi, 2012;Cushner, 2007; How You View the World Matters When experiencing cultural difference, individuals progress through a developmental model from ethnocentricism to ethnorealativism (Bennett, 2004). Milton Bennett (2023) explains that he developed this model to rationalize how people dealt with or not dealt with cross-cultural situations. There are six developmental stages beginning with Denial in which the perception of one's perspective is the only real and valid interpretation of the world and ending with Integration in which an individual has an awareness of multiculturism and has the ability to interact productively with cultural differences. ...
Full-text available
Cultural understanding is an essential skill for online educators (Cooper, He, & Levin, 2011; Cushner, 2007; Horvat, Horey, Romios, & Kis-Rigo, 2014; Kereluik, Mishra, Fahnoc, & Terry, 2013; Partnership for the 21st Century, 2018). Education in a distance learning environment has a larger diverse population than in-person classrooms which creates the need for greater cultural competency with online faculty (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Educators recognize the need for cultural awareness and the importance of it in the classroom (Batey & Lupi, 2012; Cushner, 2007) yet research indicates that their limited knowledge prevents it from reflecting within their classroom practices (Moore McBride, Lough, & Sherrard Sharraden, 2012). Educators with an awareness of culture shape their teaching practices to the individual student (Binger, 2018). This paper discusses the importance of world views and inclusive teaching and learning practices that embraces differences in gender, age, economics, culture, and faiths.
... Heritage values and the significance derived therefrom are neither universal nor static. Rather, as expression of a culture, they are culturally relative entities [118,119] and subject to an individual's cultural positioning [120] and also mutable entities due to changing professional [121,122] and intergenerational perceptions and perspectives [123]. Indeed, the past two decades have seen a widened understanding of the interpretation and application of values, in particular in terms of gender [124,125] and Eurocentrism [126][127][128], with studies looking at the epistemological basis of the various conceptualizations and descriptors of values attributed to heritage (instrumental, authenticity, etc.) [129]. ...
Full-text available
The public release of ChatGPT, a generative artificial intelligence language model, caused widespread public interest in its abilities but also concern about the implications of the application on academia, depending on whether it was deemed benevolent (e.g., supporting analysis and simplification of tasks) or malevolent (e.g., assignment writing and academic misconduct). While ChatGPT has been shown to provide answers of sufficient quality to pass some university exams, its capacity to write essays that require an exploration of value concepts is unknown. This paper presents the results of a study where ChatGPT-4 (released May 2023) was tasked with writing a 1500-word essay to discuss the nature of values used in the assessment of cultural heritage significance. Based on an analysis of 36 iterations, ChatGPT wrote essays of limited length with about 50% of the stipulated word count being primarily descriptive and without any depth or complexity. The concepts, which are often flawed and suffer from inverted logic, are presented in an arbitrary sequence with limited coherence and without any defined line of argument. Given that it is a generative language model, ChatGPT often splits concepts and uses one or more words to develop tangential arguments. While ChatGPT provides references as tasked, many are fictitious, albeit with plausible authors and titles. At present, ChatGPT has the ability to critique its own work but seems unable to incorporate that critique in a meaningful way to improve a previous draft. Setting aside conceptual flaws such as inverted logic, several of the essays could possibly pass as a junior high school assignment but fall short of what would be expected in senior school, let alone at a college or university level.
... ICC components and models have been discussed by many scholars (Balboni, 2006;Hoff, 2020). Some prominent authors and their works in this field include Milton J. Bennett (2017) is known for his Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), which describes six stages of intercultural sensitivity. His work focuses on the psychological and cognitive aspects of intercultural communication competence. ...
Full-text available
With both the quantitative and qualitative data from 628 responses to a set of questionnaire collected from the undergraduates of three educational institutions in central Vietnam, this study analyzed learners’ needs of intercultural communication competence (ICC) related to their studying of English for tourism purposes and future occupations. The methodology used for data analysis including semi-structured interviews, and the questionnaire. The findings showed that the students preferred intercultural language learning activities referring to authentic materials and real-life experience. The results also revealed the participants’ great needs of various ICC attitudes and regular tasks in tourism workplaces. Particularly, they had positive attitudes in intercultural communication, and higher needs of tasks for improving discourse and behavioural competences more than other ICC dimensions. The study has implications for tourism learners, educators and related stakeholders to raise their awareness in learning, teaching and developing this long-lasting competence.
This chapter is to introduce online tools that enable the advancement of intercultural competence and neighbourness in multicultural classrooms. The tools presented are specifically designed for online environments, such as remote lectures and online workshops. A neighbourness learning tool refers to a method or approach to promote and develop the learner's neighbourness competences. The intended target group for the tools are primarily students. The intended users of the toolkit are teachers and administrators. The motivation of this chapter was to raise awareness about the importance of intercultural and neighbourness skills in a global world and to promote neighbourliness in diverse educational institutions. Living and learning together with people from all around the world represents an urgent need.
Full-text available
Exploring the influence of good Chinese storytelling on the foreign communication of local culture in Shaanxi is to develop local culture better and expand the influence of the local cultural industry in Shaanxi. In this paper, starting from deep learning neural networks, the attention mechanism is introduced by using convolutional neural networks, and the attention mechanism-based detection model for cultural information dissemination is constructed by vectorizing the data of the pre-trained model. The performance of the CNN-ATT model constructed in this paper is experimentally analyzed on two data sets. The accuracy of this paper’s model on the Ma_Dataset and CED_Dataset datasets is 96.23% and 95.21%, respectively. The best results are obtained when the convolution size is 3,4,5, and the accuracy is improved by about 4.03% compared with the convolution size of 4,5. This shows that the model of this paper can effectively analyze the influence of cultural information dissemination and also provides a research basis for the detection of the influence of telling Chinese stories on expanding the foreign communication of local culture in Shaanxi.
Introduction. The article examines the problems of cross-cultural communications in the context of information technologies development and globalization, the influence of the media on the formation of moral and cultural systems in society. Journalism, as a socially important profession, should report all processes in a multicultural, multinational environment, considering cross-cultural interaction. Relevance of the study. The relevance of the study of cross-cultural communications in journalism is determined by the intercultural information environment, the need to take into account the ethno-cultural and socio-political differences of other countries journalists’ work, that requires developing intercultural sensitivity. The goal of the study is to consider the problems of cross-cultural communication from the point of view of journalistic activities in a transparent information environment. We need to: 1) analyze the main definitions and modern approaches to various aspects of cross-cultural interaction; 2) consider the influence of cross-cultural differences on psychological, political and social processes, on their reflection in the information space; 3) formulate the main directions of cross-cultural interaction for journalistic activities. Methodology. The methods of comparative analysis of scientific sources, hermeneutic interpretation of terms and postulates, situational modeling, monitoring of publications in Ukrainian and foreign mass media made it possible to determine reference points of cross-cultural communications for the media, to model options for the activities of journalists after the war in an information-rich world. Results. In the conditions of the development of technologies, the creation of various types of cross-media, and the popularity of social media, the role of journalistic activity is becoming more and more decisive. The development of society’s perception of the diversity, the formation of tolerance, and the understanding of the importance of multiculturalism and multilingualism for society depends on the reflection of cross-cultural differences, taking into account the theoretical background of such interaction. Conclusions. For Ukrainian journalists, the problem of underestimating knowledge of cross-cultural communications is especially acute during the war and lies in several areas: coverage of events inside the country, based on compliance with journalistic standards; coverage of the events in Ukraine to an international audience that lives in another dimension, often cannot imagine the scale of the loss and grief of Ukrainians; activities of fixers to accompany journalists from other countries coming to cover events in Ukraine.
Full-text available
The development of Intercultural sensitivity demands attention to the subjective experience of the learner. The key to such sensitivity and related skills in Intercultural communication is the way in which learners construe cultural difference. This article suggests a continuum of stages of persona! growth that allows trainers to diagnose the level of sensitivity of individuals and groups and to sequence material according to a developmental plan. The developmental continuum moves from ethnocentrisrn to ethnorelativism. Earlier stages of the continuum define the parochial denial of difference, the evaluative defense against difference, and the universalist position of minimization of difference. Later stages define the acceptance of difference, adaptation to difference, and the integration of difference into one's world view. The stages of development are illustrated with typical statements and behaviors of learners that can be used to diagnose levels of sensitivity, and strategies to facilitate movement from each stage to the next are suggested. Special attention is given to questions of ethics and credibility that often arise in intercultural training situations.
Full-text available
Today, the importance of intercultural competence in both global and domestic contexts is well recognized. Bennett (1986, 1993b) posited a framework for conceptualizing dimensions of intercultural competence in his developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS). The DMIS constitutes a progression of worldview “orientations toward cultural difference” that comprise the potential for increasingly more sophisticated intercultural experiences. Three ethnocentric orientations, where one's culture is experienced as central to reality (Denial, Defense, Minimization), and three ethnorelative orientations, where one's culture is experienced in the context of other cultures (Acceptance, Adaptation, Integration), are identified in the DMIS.Based on this theoretical framework, the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) was constructed to measure the orientations toward cultural differences described in the DMIS. The result of this work is a 50-item (with 10 additional demographic items), paper-and-pencil measure of intercultural competence.Confirmatory factor analyses, reliability analyses, and construct validity tests validated five main dimensions of the DMIS, which were measured with the following scales: (1) DD (Denial/Defense) scale (13 items, alpha=0.85); (2) R (Reversal) scale (9 items, alpha=0.80); (3) M (Minimization) scale (9 items, alpha=0.83), (4) AA (Acceptance/Adaptation) scale (14 items, alpha=0.84; and (5) an EM (Encapsulated Marginality) scale (5 items, alpha=0.80). While no systematic gender differences were found, significant differences by gender were found on one of the five scales (DD scale). No significant differences on the scale scores were found for age, education, or social desirability, suggesting the measured concepts are fairly stable.
Chapter American polygeny and craniometry before Darwin : blacks and Indians as separate, inferior species Notes in computer files
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson take on the daunting task of rebuilding Western philosophy in alignment with three fundamental lessons from cognitive science: The mind is inherently embodied, thought is mostly unconscious, and abstract concepts are largely metaphorical. Why so daunting? "Cognitive science--the empirical study of the mind--calls upon us to create a new, empirically responsible philosophy, a philosophy consistent with empirical discoveries about the nature of mind," they write. "A serious appreciation of cognitive science requires us to rethink philosophy from the beginning, in a way that would put it more in touch with the reality of how we think." In other words, no Platonic forms, no Cartesian mind-body duality, no Kantian pure logic. Even Noam Chomsky's generative linguistics is revealed under scrutiny to have substantial problems. Parts of Philosophy in the Flesh retrace the ground covered in the authors' earlier Metaphors We Live By , which revealed how we deal with abstract concepts through metaphor. (The previous sentence, for example, relies on the metaphors "Knowledge is a place" and "Knowing is seeing" to make its point.) Here they reveal the metaphorical underpinnings of basic philosophical concepts like time, causality--even morality--demonstrating how these metaphors are rooted in our embodied experiences. They repropose philosophy as an attempt to perfect such conceptual metaphors so that we can understand how our thought processes shape our experience; they even make a tentative effort toward rescuing spirituality from the heavy blows dealt by the disproving of the disembodied mind or "soul" by reimagining "transcendence" as "imaginative empathetic projection." Their source list is helpfully arranged by subject matter, making it easier to follow up on their citations. If you enjoyed the mental workout from Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works , Lakoff and Johnson will, to pursue the "Learning is exercise" metaphor, take you to the next level of training. --Ron Hogan Two leading thinkers offer a blueprint for a new philosophy. "Their ambition is massive, their argument important.…The authors engage in a sort of metaphorical genome project, attempting to delineate the genetic code of human thought." -The New York Times Book Review "This book will be an instant academic best-seller." -Mark Turner, University of Maryland This is philosophy as it has never been seen before. Lakoff and Johnson show that a philosophy responsible to the science of the mind offers a radically new and detailed understandings of what a person is. After first describing the philosophical stance that must follow from taking cognitive science seriously, they re-examine the basic concepts of the mind, time, causation, morality, and the self; then they rethink a host of philosophical traditions, from the classical Greeks through Kantian morality through modern analytical philosophy.
Continues the development of a theory of interpersonal communication, briefly described by the author in 1976, which focuses on the ability of two persons to engage in conversation. Assumptions behind the theory are articulated, some conceptual problems are solved, and methodological implications are discussed. It is suggested that the theory--the coordinated management of meaning--provides an integrating perspective which forces the inclusion of anthropological, psychological, and sociological concerns. (42 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Human communication theory
  • V. Cronen
  • W. B. Pearce