Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4Get rights and content

Abstract

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.

Introduction

As we begin the next millennium, the importance of effective intercultural relations in both global and domestic contexts is well recognized (Brislin, Cushner, Cherie, & Yong, 1986; Hammer (1989), Hammer (1999a); Kealey, 1989). As Bhawuk and Brislin (1992) suggested, “To be effective in another culture, people must be interested in other cultures, be sensitive enough to notice cultural differences, and then also be willing to modify their behavior as an indication of respect for the people of other cultures” (p. 416). We will use the term “intercultural sensitivity” to refer to the ability to discriminate and experience relevant cultural differences, and we will use the term “intercultural competence” to mean the ability to think and act in interculturally appropriate ways. We argue that greater intercultural sensitivity is associated with greater potential for exercising intercultural competence.

Research studies in such diverse areas as overseas effectiveness (e.g., Brislin, 1981; Cleveland, Mangone, & Adams, 1960; Kealey & Ruben, 1983; Landis & Bhaget (1983a), Landis & Brislin (1983b), Landis and Brislin (1983c); Landis & Bhaget, 1996), international management (e.g., Adler, 1991; Black, 1990; Black, Gregersen, & Mendenhall, 1992; Black & Mendenhall, 1990), international study abroad (e.g., Klineberg & Hull, 1979), and international transfer of technology and information (e.g., Hawes & Kealey (1979), Hawes & Kealey (1981); Kealey, 1996) have identified intercultural competence as central in increasing understanding and improving relations across cultures (Bennett (1993a), Bennett (1993b); Hammer, 1999b). Additional research on domestic intercultural relations (contact across forms of ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc.) has found a similar key role for intercultural competence (e.g., Gardenswartz & Rowe, 1993).

While cross-cultural research has posited the importance of intercultural competence in both global and domestic contexts, work by Bennett (1986), Bennett (1993b) has additionally suggested an underlying theoretical framework, which he calls the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), for conceptualizing intercultural sensitivity and competence. This theoretical framework provided conceptual guidance as we undertook the construction of the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) to measure the orientations toward cultural differences described in the DMIS. The result of this work is a 50-item, paper-and-pencil instrument (with 10 additional demographic items).

It is the purpose of this article first to review briefly the DMIS; second, to summarize the initial (Phase 1) and then subsequent (Phase 2) final development of the IDI; and third, to conclude with some comments on the potential for applying the concept of intercultural competence and the IDI.

Section snippets

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) was created by Bennett (1986), Bennett (1993b) as an explanation of how people construe cultural difference. Using a grounded theory approach (e.g., Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), Bennett applied concepts from cybernetic constructivism (cf. Von Foerster, 1984; Brown, 1972; Maturana & Varela, 1987) to his observations of intercultural adaptation and identified six orientations that people seem to move through in their

Phase 1: developing an initial (60-item) version of the IDI

Some empirical research has been undertaken focused on developing preliminary measures of DMIS concepts (Pederson, 1998; Tower, 1990). However, these instruments were not subjected to psychometric testing. Therefore, we undertook an effort to develop a measure of the identified DMIS orientations following scale construction guidelines (e.g., DeVellis, 1991). This effort consisted of two phases. In the first phase, a preliminary, 60-item version of the IDI was developed. Subsequent testing of

Panel review

A panel of experts then reviewed the item pool. This aided in further establishing the relevancy of the items to the construct of intercultural competence as well as providing initial reliability and validity estimates (DeVellis, 1991). The panel of experts was selected based on their demonstrated expertise within the intercultural field and familiarity with the DMIS in particular.2

Sample testing

This 145-item version of the IDI was administered to a sample of 226 subjects along with selected demographic items. The sample size approached the sample requirement recommended by Nunnally (1978) of 300 respondents for scale testing. The sample of respondents came from all walks of life and was not primarily drawn from a college student population. Of the 226 respondents, 43% were men (n=97) and 57% were women (n=127). The ages ranged from the low teens to over 60 years of age. The majority

Independent research on the 60-item IDI

Research by Paige et al. (1999) examined the empirical structure of this 60-item IDI with a sample of 330 respondents. They conducted one general factor analysis across all 60 items of the IDI, identifying six factors. Factor 1 consisted of a combination of Denial and Defense items. Factor 2 consisted of eight Cognitive Adaptation and four Behavioral Adaptation items that were worded in a more cognitive manner. Factor 3 consisted of five items that referred to the physical universalism form of

Phase 2: developing the final 50-item IDI

We reviewed the 145 original items (from which the initial IDI version was constructed) in the light of our experience using the 60-item IDI with a variety of culturally diverse groups. By minor editing and selecting valid alternative items, we finalized a set of 122 items for subsequent administration. In this final set of items were some additional items that we generated to assess Reversal and Integration orientations. We also decided that a five-point response scale was more appropriate

Sample

The sample of 591 respondents was not primarily drawn from a college student population, so it represented a relatively wide range of age and activity. The sample size exceeds the sample requirement recommended by Nunnally (1978) of 300 respondents for scale testing.

Of the 591 respondents, 35% were men (n=204) and 65% were women (n=376). Their ages ranged from the high teens to over 60 years of age. The respondents were evenly split among the age categories, with the largest number of subjects

Confirmatory factor analysis and scale reliability results 5

Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to test whether the proposed DMIS model is consistent with (“fit”) the data collected from the IDI. A number of statistical procedures were employed to test the adequacy of the fit. First, the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom (χ2/df) was used to assess the discrepancy between the proposed model and the data. Byrne (1989) suggested that the χ2/df should be less than two for an adequate fit. Second, Jöreskog and Sörbom's (1984) goodness-of-fit

Testing the validity of the IDI

Validity is concerned with whether a measurement procedure measures what it claims to measure (Emmert & Barker, 1989). Both content and construct validity of the IDI was addressed. Content validity focuses on the systematic sampling of the universe of items related to the construct being measured (Emmert & Barker, 1989). The content validity of the IDI was addressed in Phase 1 through the in-depth interviews conducted with people from a variety of cultures. Because these interviews were

Testing for gender, age, education, and social desirability

Additional tests were run on the IDI, examining the effects of gender, age, education, and social desirability on IDI scale scores.

T-tests were run on each of the IDI scales by gender. No significant differences were found on four of the five measures. Significant differences were found on the DD scale (t=4.84; df=553; p<0.01) with the Male mean (1.73) significantly higher than the female mean score (1.46). However, because no such effect was systematically observed across the other four

Conclusion

Overall, the results of the confirmatory factor analysis completed as part of the development of a revised IDI instrument indicate that a five-factor solution (DD, R, M, AA, and EM scales) provides a good fit to the data. Further, in a direct comparison of the five-factor solution with both the original, seven-dimensional model of intercultural sensitivity proposed by Bennett (1986), Bennett (1993b) and a two-dimensional, more global model (of ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism), the five-factor

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge and thank the following people who provided valuable support during the development of the IDI. Michael Paige has been instrumental in helping refine our measurement methodology, and has been supportive of our efforts since the very beginning. Janet Bennett and the Intercultural Communication Institute have sponsored the educational effort associated with the IDI. Barbara Kappler gave considerable time in assisting in the expert ratings portion of the research

References (55)

  • M.J. Bennett

    Towards ethnorelativismA developmental model of intercultural sensitivity

  • J.S. Black

    The relationship of personal characteristics with the adjustment of Japanese expatriate managers

    Management International Review

    (1990)
  • J.S. Black et al.

    Cross-cultural training effectivenessA review and theoretical framework for future research

    Academy of Management Review

    (1990)
  • J.S. Black et al.

    Global assignments

    (1992)
  • R.L. Brennan et al.

    Coefficient kappaSome uses, misuses, and alternatives

    Educational and Psychological Measurement

    (1981)
  • R.W. Brislin

    Cross-cultural encountersFace-to-face interaction

    (1981)
  • R.W. Brislin et al.

    Intercultural interactionsA practical guide

    (1986)
  • G.S. Brown

    Laws of form

    (1972)
  • M.W. Browne et al.

    Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures

    Multivariate Behavioral Research

    (1989)
  • B.M. Byrne

    A primer of LISRELBasic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models

    (1989)
  • H. Cleveland et al.

    The overseas Americans

    (1960)
  • R.F. DeVellis

    Scale development

    (1991)
  • P. Emmert et al.

    Measurement of communication behavior

    (1989)
  • J.I. Fleiss

    Statistical methods for rates and proportions

    (1981)
  • L. Gardenswartz et al.

    Managing diversityA complete desk reference and training guide

    (1993)
  • B. Glaser et al.

    The discovery of grounded theory

    (1967)
  • W.B. Gudykunst

    Culture and the development of interpersonal relationships

    • Cited by (0)

    View full text
    Copyright © 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.