Effects of alternative instructional approaches on cross-cultural training outcomes

Int. J. Intrr~ulrural Rel. Vol 21. No. 4. pp. 429 446. 1997 cj 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0147 1767197 $17.00+0.00

Petgamon

PII: SO147-1767(96)00035-l

EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES ON CROSS-CULTURAL TRAINING OUTCOMES

MARTIN

J. GANNON

University of Maryland JUNE

at College Park

M. L. POON

Universiti Kebangsaan

Malaysia

ABSTRACT. We investigated the (a) ej’ectireness of cross-cultural training in promoting cultural awareness and (h) dtfierential effects of didactic and experiential upproaches on cultural awareness and trainee reaction. MBA students (N= 105) participated in a cross-cultural training progrum structured to allow for a pretest posttest experimental design. Participants were randomly, assigned to one of three instructional conditions: integrative, video, and experiential (BaFa BaFti). Trained participants reported a signtjicantly higher level of cultural awareness, but there were no signtjicant differences among training conditions on this variable. Experientiallytrained participants, however, reacted more positively to the training. Implicutions of the results and suggestions for ,ftrture research are discussed. cm 1997 Elsevicr Science Ltd. All rights reserved. KEY WORDS.

cross-cultural training, integrative, video, experiential

Many researchers (e.g., Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Bochner, 1986; Brislin & Yoshida, 1994; Deshpande & Viswesvaran, 1992; Harris & Moran, 1979; Harrison, 1992; Pedersen, 1988; Tung, 1981) have pointed out the need for cross-cultural training. As societies become more pluralistic and global, acquiring an understanding of other cultures becomes increasingly important, and cross-cultural training is one way to provide

We thank Vicky Foxworth, Nancy Myer, and Jeffrey Thomas for their assistance in this study. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Martin J. Cannon. College of Business and Management, Van Munching Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, U.S.A. Tel: (301) 405 2234; Fax: (301) 314 9157; E-mail: mgannonca bmgtmail.umd.edu.

429

430

M. J. Gannon and J. M. L. Poon

this understanding. In particular, cross-cultural training can be used to promote cultural awareness, that is, sensitize people to the influence of culture on people’s values and behaviors and help them recognize and accept the existence of cultural differences. Conceptually, this awareness should form the basis for improved communication, interactions, and working relationships with people from different cultural backgrounds. Studies on the effectiveness of cross-cultural training have shown that such training can bring about cognitive, affective, and behavioral changes. In a comprehensive review of the cross-cultural training literature, Black and Mendenhall (1990) concluded that cross-cultural training programs can make positive contributions to people’s cross-cultural skill development, adjustment, and performance. More recently Deshpande and Viswesvaran (1992) using a meta-analytical framework, found cross-cultural training to have a strong and positive impact on cross-cultural skills development, adjustability, and job performance of expatriate managers. In this study, we sought to add to the existing body of evidence suggesting that cross-cultural training can contribute positively to the development of cultural awareness by examining the effects of various instructional approaches on the level of cultural awareness of potential managers. Because most cross-cultural training methods fall within two broad categories, that is, didactic or experiential (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1983), we assessed the impact of both didactic and experiential approaches using a culture-general framework. A culture-general approach was used because we believe that to prepare people for interaction with an increasingly diverse work force, an understanding of the dynamics and influence of culture in general is more beneficial than information about cultural specifics. As Bhawuk (1990, p. 338) points out, compared to the culturespecific approach, the culture-general approach prepares for “learning how to learn”, provides broader experience, and eases movement to culture-specific training. Although there seems to be general agreement that cross-cultural training can be beneficial, there is no consensus as to what instructional approaches are most appropriate or effective for delivering this kind of training. Empirical evidence on this issue is still lacking, although a few researchers (e.g., Earley, 1987; Pruegger & Rogers, 1994) have begun comparative work in this area. There is clearly a need for additional research on the differential effects of various cross-cultural training approaches. Therefore, another purpose of our study was to compare the relative effectiveness of didactic and experiential approaches in changing the beliefs and attitudes of potential managers toward cultural differences. Specifically, we were interested in answering the following question: Given limited training time, which training approach is most effective in stimulating cultural awareness? The objectives of the training conducted in this study were to (a) help

Cross-Cultural Training

431

participants recognize, accept, and appreciate cultural diversity; (b) increase participants’ awareness of the role culture plays in influencing their thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors; and (c) increase participants’ level of self-confidence in handling cross-cultural situations. It is hoped that this awareness and higher self-efficacy will translate into more effective cross-cultural interactions. Black and Mendenhall (1990) proposed that cross-culturally trained individuals have higher self-efficacy, and the higher a person’s self-efficacy, the more likely the person is to execute learned behaviors and to persist in executing the behaviors. The mediating role of self-efficacy on behavior and performance has been demonstrated in many studies (for reviews, see Bandura, 1986; Locke & Latham, 1990).

BACKGROUND

AND HYPOTHESES

Several cross-cultural training approaches have been discussed in the literature and a number of frameworks for cross-cultural training methods are available to guide researchers and practitioners. For example, Tung (198 1) classified training methods on a continuum ranging from low levels of rigor (e.g., area studies) to high levels of rigor (e.g., sensitivity training and field experiences). Gudykunst and Hammer (1983) categorized crosscultural training methods using a two-dimensional matrix: didactic vs. experiential and culture general vs. culture specific. Expanding on this framework, Bennett (1986) used a three-dimensional model to map different cross-cultural training approaches: the nature of the training goals (cognitive, affective, or behavioral), the nature of the content (culture general or culture specific), and the nature of the process (intellectual or experiential). Another effort to classify systematically different cross-cultural methods was made by Brislin (1989). Brislin proposed a framework that organizes training approaches based on two key elements: the level of trainee involvement (low, moderate, or high) and the objective of training (cognition, affect, or behavior). Methods such as lectures (aimed at cognition) and films (aimed at affect) are said to involve a low level of trainee involvement, whereas simulated interactions (aimed at affect) are believed to demand a high level of trainee involvement. In the case of cross-cultural orientation programs, Bhawuk (1990) presented a framework for classifying such programs on the basis of trainee involvement (low vs. high), trainer involvement (low vs. high), and training content (culture general vs. culture specific). Under this framework, the university or didactic model is considered to require high trainer involvement but low trainee involvement, whereas the experiential model is classified as high on both trainee and trainer involvement. Finally, Black and Mendenhall (1989) approaching the classification problem from a different perspective, developed a framework based on

432

hf. J. Cannon and J. M. L. Poon

Bandura’s (Bandura, 1977) social learning theory. They proposed that cross-cultural training methods that involve only symbolic modeling processes (e.g., lectures and films) in which trainees only observe modeled behaviors rank lower in rigor (i.e., cognitive involvement) than methods that involve participative modeling processes (e.g., role plays and interactive simulations) in which trainees not only observe modeled behaviors but also participate in modeling the behaviors. They further argued that the more rigorous the training, the more effectively trainees will be able to reproduce any learned behaviors because training rigor increases the trainee’s level of attention and retention. In sum, most authors tend to view didactic approaches, such as lectures and films, as low in trainee involvement and targeted at the cognitive level. In contrast, experiential approaches, such as role plays and simulations, are considered to demand high trainee involvement and to emphasize affective goals. Both didactic and experiential approaches can be used to present culture-specific or culture-general concepts. An important issue then concerns the relative effectiveness of didactic and experiential approaches. The didactic model with its emphasis on cognitive goals is useful for conveying and transferring factual and analytical knowledge at the cognitive level. It is economical and provides trainees with an intellectual understanding of different aspects of crosscultural interactions (Bhawuk, 1990, p. 330). There are, however, few evaluation studies to determine the efficacy of the didactic approach in cross-cultural training (Pruegger & Rogers, 1994, p. 370). Furthermore, this approach has often been criticized as not very useful for effecting meaningful changes in attitudes or behaviors. For example, Young (1993, p. 74) suggests that traditional classroom activities-such as lectures, discussions, student presentations, and research projects-are important but do not allow trainees to reflect upon their cross-cultural experiences to the extent that experiential activities do. Parry (1971/1980, p. 101) sees teaching techniques such as lectures and films as useful only in the acquisition stage of learning but less so in the application stage. Finally, according to Gudykunst and Hammer (1983, p. 123) the didactic approach does not deal adequately with the interpersonal aspects of a person’s cross-cultural interactions. Learning is said to take place only at an ideational level; the trainee’s emotional reaction to the cross-cultural situation is not dealt with satisfactorily. [For a detailed discussion on why the university model is not very effective for preparing people for crosscultural assignments, see Harrison and Hopkins (1967).] Unlike the didactic approach, the experiential approach is learner-centered and allows trainees to react to cross-cultural situations intellectually, emotionally, and behaviorally (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1983, p. 124). Experiential learning has been used to understand other cultures in areas such as counseling (e.g., Merta, Stringham, & Ponterotto, 1988) education

Cross-Cultural

Training

433

(e.g., Young, 1993), language (e.g., Sadow, 1987), and management (e.g., Earley, 1987). Advocates of this approach (e.g., Harrison & Hopkins, 1967; McCaffery, 1986) contend that the way to learn about another culture is through real-life experiences in a structured situation. Experiential activities enable trainees to share their cognitive and affective reactions to the activity and obtain some valuable insight from conceptualizing their reflections on the experience (McCaffery, 1986, p. 171). Support for the superiority of experiential approaches over other instructional approaches is, however, mainly anecdotal or judgmental. One experiential method that has been used widely for instructional purposes is simulation games (Dekkers & Donatti, 1981, p. 424). In a discussion on the efficacy of simulations, Parry (1971/1980, pp. lOI--103) argues that simulations provide trainees with an opportunity for discovery whereby the trainee gains receptivity to new ideas, insight, and sensitivity, and that attitude change is greatest when the trainee has a high degree of personal involvement. Past research on the effectiveness of instructional simulations, however, has been less encouraging, frequently yielding mixed results. In an early evaluation effort, Pierfy (1977) reviewed the results of 22 comparative studies and concluded that simulations were no more effective than conventional classroom instruction for fostering learning but did facilitate the retention of information, student interest. and changes in attitudes. In a meta-analysis of 93 studies, Dekkers and Donatti (1981) concluded that although simulations were more effective than lectures in the development of attitudes, they provided no advantage in cognitive development and learning retention. More recently Randel, Morris, Wetzel, and Whitehill (1992), in reviewing 46 studies in the social sciences. found more than twothirds of these studies to show no significant differences between simulation games and traditional instruction. In sum, for educational and general training purposes, simulations seem to be more effective than traditional instructional approaches in stimulating interest and promoting attitude change but not in facilitating cognitive development. In the cross-cultural domain. a few researchers have investigated the relative effects of didactic methods and simulations on cultural awareness and attitude change. In one such study, Earley (I 987) compared documentary training (area study) and interpersonal training (simulated interaction and field experience) methods for preparing 80 managers for overseas assignments. The results of this study indicated that, other than participants having a stronger preference for the interpersonal method. both methods were equally effective in improving intercultural awareness (based on self-reports of perceived intensity of adjustment and supervisory ratings of performance). In another study, Pruegger and Rogers ( 1994) compared a lecture-based approach and an experiential approach (using the simulation game BmFh

434

M. J. Gannon and J. M. L. Poon

BaFh) and found no significant differences between the two approaches in

affecting cross-cultural sensitivity as measured by a cross-cultural sensitivity scale. A content analysis of some qualitative data collected in the study, however, did reveal a significant difference in impact on attitudes with subjects in the experiential group reporting more positive attitude change than did those in the lecture-based or control group. Thus this study provided support for the notion that experiential learning is more effective in changing attitudes toward cultural diversity than a lecturebased presentation. As acknowledged by these researchers, the lack of significant findings using the quantitative method could be due to a statistical power problem (sample size of 67). Taken together, these two studies suggest that the effects of experiential training on trainee reaction and cultural awareness might be stronger than training effects using other approaches. Therefore, on the basis of the above evidence, the preceding review of past research in other training contexts, and the plethora of anecdotal evidence suggesting that simulations are more effective than conventional instructional methods in effecting affective changes, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 1 Participants receiving experiential training (simulation game) will express more positive reactions toward the training than will those trained using (a) an integrative approach (lecture, discussion, group exercise, etc.) or (b) a video-based approach. Hypothesis 2 Participants receiving experiential training will display a higher level of cultural awareness than will those trained using (a) an integrative approach or (b) a video-based approach. Specifically, participants in the experiential group will express more positive beliefs and attitudes toward cultural differences and perceive themselves to be more able to interact effectively with people from different cultures than will participants in either of the other two groups. However, in light of the limited empirical evidence on the superiority of simulations over other instructional approaches, Hypotheses 1 and 2 should best be viewed as tentative. Because another purpose of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of cross-cultural training for developing cultural awareness, and on the basis of the empirical evidence already discussed, we also advance the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3 Participants receiving cross-cultural training will become more culturally aware. Specifically, after training, participants will (a) express more

Cross-Cultural Training

positive beliefs and attitudes toward themselves to be more able to interact cultures.

43.5

cultural differences and (b) perceive effectively with people from different

METHOD

Participants The study was conducted at a large state university. The participants were 105 newly-enrolled MBA students (72 men and 33 women) who were required to undergo cross-cultural training as part of the requirements of the MBA program. The mean age of the participants was 25.27 (SD= 3.18) and the mean number of years of full-time work experience was 2.95 (SD=2.76). The ethnic background of the participants was as follows: 57% Caucasian, 9% African-American, 9% Asian-American, 3% Latino-American, and 22% foreign nationals. About 37% of the participants reported being able to speak more than one language with great fluency. Although 128 participants were initially scheduled for training and randomly assigned to the conditions of the study, only 105 showed up for training. Therefore, participants’ demographic data (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, prior cross-cultural exposure, knowledge of foreign languages) that might affect the dependent variables of the study independent of the experimental effects were analyzed to establish group equivalence. The analyses revealed no significant differences among the groups in any of the background measures. Supplementary analyses on pretest scores also indicated no significant differences among groups.

Procedure All participants underwent training designed to introduce them to crosscultural issues, enhance their understanding of cross-cultural differences. and stimulate positive attitudes about cultural diversity. Participants were randomly assigned to the three instructional conditions of the study: integrative, video-based, and experiential approach. A pretest was administered before the training session. Immediately after the completion of the 3-hour training session, a posttest containing the dependent measures of the study was administered. In the integrative approach, cross-cultural concepts and issues were presented via brief lectures, discussions, video clips, and short group exercises. The session began with a short case study derived from the “Prometheus Exercise” developed by the Experiment for International Living, and small groups of students were asked to describe the type of culture and to analyze the differential treatment of men and women. Then the

436

M. J. Gannonand J. M. L. Poon

entire group was asked to come up with different metaphors for the concept of culture itself, and the “think, pair, and share with the class” method was used to elicit responses. The remainder of the session was devoted to five general methods for understanding cultures and short video clips to illustrate them: Gannon’s (Gannon, 1994) cultural metaphors; Hall and Hall’s (Hall & Hall, 1990) low-context/high-context continuum; Hofstede’s (Hofstede, 1991) five dimensions of national cultures; Kluckholn and Strodtbeck’s (Kluckholn & Strodtbeck, 1961) six dimensions of culture; and sociolinguistics. In the video-based approach, participants were shown three videos in entirety: “Cold Water”, in which 13 foreign students describe Americans and their experiences in America; “West Meets East in Japan”, which explains Japanese etiquette for foreign businessmen; and “Hell Camp”, which describes an elite management training school for Japanese managers. These videos were specially selected for their efficacy in bringing out cross-cultural issues and sensitizing viewers to cross-cultural differences. A class discussion ensued at the end of each video presentation. Finally, in the experiential approach, participants role-played a crosscultural simulation game, BaFci BaFb (Shirts, 1977). This game (see Gillespie, 1979; Suransky, 1980, for an evaluation) was designed to increase awareness of one’s cultural identity and that of the culturally-different and to understand the problems of adapting in a new cultural environment. Participants were randomly divided into two groups, and each group was taught a fictitious set of cultural values, behaviors, and communication styles quite different from the culture of the other group. After practicing in their own culture for a while, participants took turns to interact with members of the other culture through brief visits and reported back to their own members about the ways of the other culture. At the conclusion of the game, a group discussion on the simulation experience (e.g., reactions, perceptions, feelings) was conducted. Measures

The study required an instrument to assess cultural awareness. Because we were unable to identify an instrument appropriate for the purposes of the study, we developed a IO-item measure based on a review of the literature and prior cross-cultural training experience. We designed this measure to assess participants’ perceptions of their level of cross-cultural awareness and attitudes toward cultural differences. This cross-cultural awareness measure served as both the pretest and posttest measure. Using this measure, participants indicated their degree of agreement with each item statement (e.g., “It is very important to understand cross-cultural concepts.“) using a bipolar scale labeled from 0 (Absolutely Disagree) to 10 (Absolutely Agree). To assess participants’ training reaction, eight items

Cross-Cultural

Training

437

using similar bipolar scales were used to tap the quality, relevancy, and usefulness of training, participant involvement, and overall satisfaction. Exploratory factor analyses of the items guided the development of the subscales for the study, and scale scores were formed by averaging across items in each subgrouping. We dropped from further consideration one item (time concept) from the cross-cultural awareness measure because it did not contribute to any of the scales. In addition, we did not use another item (stress level) from the reaction measure because it had a high negative loading and negative item-total correlation. Item-total correlations for the rest of the items ranged from .43 to .86.

Analysis We factor analyzed the dependent variable items using principal component analysis and an orthogonal (Varimax) rotation procedure and determined the number of components to retain by the latent-root-of-one test. We included items in the factor structure based on a significant loading of at least SO on a particular factor and low loadings on all other factors as well on the basis that item subgroupings had to make conceptual sense. In addition, we compared the factor solutions with those of the pretest data and found them to be similar. We analyzed the reaction data using oneway analysis of variance, followed by the Tukey HSD test when a significant F was found. Because the cross-cultural awareness measure involved multiple and related dimensions taken at two points in time, we used a repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to analyze the data of this mixed design. Training approach constituted the between-subjects variable and measurement timing (pretesting vs. posttesting) constituted the within-subjects (repeated measures) variable. We used t tests for subsequent analyses. RESULTS The factor analyses of the trainee reaction items resulted in a threefactor solution that together accounted for about 78% of the total variance (see Table 1). Examination of the items that defined each factor led us to provide the following interpretation: training quality (Factor 1). training utility (Factor 2), and involvement level (Factor 3). The factor analyses of the cross-cultural awareness items yielded four factors. However, one factor had only one item loading on it and was subsequently dropped from further analyses. The remaining three factors, which we labeled perceived cultural competence, cultural interest, and awareness of cultural differences, gave a total explained variance of 65%. Internal consistency reliabilities of the various subscales are given in Table 2. Table 2 also presents the intercorrelations of the dependent variables.

M. J. Cannon and J. M. L. Poon

438

TABLE 1 Results of Factor Analysls for Dependent Variable Items Factor

I

II

Trainee reaction items 1. Quality of instruction

.93

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

.92 .84 .13 .21 .55 .15 .35

.I3 .14 .31 .88 .82

Item

Effectiveness of instructor Overall satisfaction with training Usefulness of subject matter Relevance of subject matter Level of interest during training Level of stress during training Level of involvement during training

Eigenvalue Percent of variance explained Cumulative percent of variance explained Cross-cultural awareness items 1. Able to compare cultural perspectives 2. Able to identify culturally-biased assumptions 3. Aware of impact on people from different cultures 4. Know enough to adjust easily to 5. 6. 7. 8.

different cultures Strong desire to learn about different cultures Interested in working with people from different cultures Important to understand crosscultural concepts Cultural difficulties due to communication differences

9. Differences in cultures due to differences invalues 10. The concept of time is universal Eigenvalue Percent of variance explained Cumulative percent of variance explained

3.86 48.30 48.30

.87 .86

Ill

IV

hZ

- .03 .Ol

.89 .86

.55 .06 .34

.05 .Ol .07 .33 - .90 .57

.81 .80 .72 .72 .85 .56

1.34 16.80 65.10

1.00 12.50 77.60

.ll -.07

.lO .oo

-.16 .I4

.76

.32

.I3

.64

.ll

.Ol

-.49

.66

.I2

.91

.Ol

-.l.l

.85

.12

.87

- .04

-.03

.78

.04

.63

.31

.29

.57

.05

.I1

.89

- .I2

.82

.ll

.oo

.82

.25

.75

-.Ol

.05

.08

.89

.79

1.87 18.70 49.70

1.53 15.30 65.00

1.00 10.10 75.00

3.09 30.90 30.90

.05

.81 .76 .70

Note: The first four items of the cross-cultural attitude/awareness measure were taken from the Multicultural Awareness-KnowledgeSkills Survey (D’Andrea, Daniels, & Heck, 1991) and adapted for use in this study.

Cross-Cultural

Training

439

TABLE 2 Correlation Matrix for Dependent Measures (N= 105) Measure

la

lb

1. Reaction a. Training quality (3 items) b. Training utility (3 items) c. involvement level (1 item)

(.90) .54** .36**

(.78) .44**

2. Cross-cultural awareness a. Perceived competence (4 items) b. Cultural interest (3 items) c. Awareness of differences (2 items)

.18 .22* .26* *

Note: Coefficient alpha reliabilities *p< .05; **p< .Ol.

.25* .36** .21*

lc

2a

2b

2c

.22* .21 .07

(.80) .24* .15

(.76) .13

(.68)

are shown in parentheses.

One-way analysis results indicated that the training approach used had significant effects on participants’ reaction (see Table 3) thus providing support for Hypothesis 1. Follow-up Tukey multiple comparison analyses (c(= .05) indicated that for the training quality variable both the integrative (M=7.99, X)=0.94) and video-based approach (M=8.21, SD= 1.35) differed significantly from the experiential approach (M= 8.93, SD = 1.12) but were not significantly different from one another. Similar results were obtained for the involvement level variable: Means (with standard deviations in parentheses) for the integrative, video, and experiential con-

TABLE 3 Results of One-way Analysis on Reaction Measures F

df

MS

Training quality Training approach Within group

2 101

8.87 1.31

6.78*

.lO

Training utility Training approach Within group

2 101

9.57 1.48

6.46*

.lO

Involvement level Training approach Within group

2 101

68.32 3.29

20.74**

.28

Source

‘pc

.Ol;

**p<

,001.

UP

M. J. Gannon and J. M. L. Poon

440

ditions were 6.24 (1.56) 5.75 (2.37), and 8.33 (1.46), respectively. Finally, training utility was significantly higher for participants in the experiential condition (M= 8.72, SD= 1.06) than for those in the integrative condition (M= 7.69, SD = 1.37). The means and standard deviations of the cross-cultural awareness variables broken down by training condition are shown in Table 4. Results of the repeated measures MANOVA indicated no significant group differences on any of the cross-cultural awareness variables nor was there any significant Group x Time interaction, contrary to the predictions of Hypothesis 2. There was, however, a significant Time main effect (withinsubjects part of the analysis), as predicted in Hypothesis 3. Subsequent t tests revealed significant positive changes in perceived cultural competence for the integrative training group (t =2.15, p= .04) and video training group (t = 2.22, p = .03), but no significant pretest to posttest gains for the experiential training group. Participants who received the video-based and experiential training also reported a significant improvement in their level of cultural interest (t = 3.08, p = ,004 and t = 2.43, p = .02, respectively). In addition, the video-based and experiential training approaches effected a significant increase in awareness of cultural differences (t=2.29, p= .03 and t=3.19, p= .003, respectively).

TABLE 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired t Test Results of Cross-Cultural Awareness Integrative (n= 34) M

Video (n=32)

Experiential (n=39)

Overall (N= 105)

M

SD

M

SD

Perceived cultural competence Pretest 6.17 1.58 Posttest 6.53 1.37 Difference 0.36’ 0.98

6.18 6.45 0.27%

1.89 1.78 0.68

6.22 6.63 0.41

1.63 1.72 1.60

6.54 0.35**

1.68 1.62 1.17

Cultural interest Pretest 8.17 Posttest a.32 Difference 0.15

8.40 8.67 0.27**

1.47 1.25 0.50

8.81 9.02 0.21*

1.05 0.89 0.55

8.48 8.69 0.21***

1.33 1.19 0.57

1.43 1.20 1.00

a.54 9.19 0.65* *

1.44 1.20 1.28

a.53 8.97 0.44***

1.34 1.17 1.08

Measure

SD

1.45 1.34 0.67

Awareness of cultural differences Pretest 8.54 1.18 8.50 Posttest 8.78 1.11 8.91 Difference 0.24 0.85 0.41* *p<.o5;

**p<.o1;

***p<.oo1.

M

6.19

SD

Cross-Cultural Training

441

DISCUSSION Differential Effects of Instructional Approaches We did not find support for the prediction that experientially-trained participants would have a significantly higher level of cultural awareness than those trained using either an integrative or video-based approach. This finding is contrary to previous claims that experiential approaches are more effective for effecting attitude change than didactic approaches, at least in the case of developing cultural awareness. A practical implication of this finding is that both didactic and experiential approaches can be useful for promoting cultural awareness and can be adopted by organizations to increase employees’ level of cultural awareness to better prepare them for work assignments in culturally-diverse environments. Participants in the experiential training group, however, had more favorable reactions toward the training compared to participants in the other two training conditions, findings that are consistent with those of previous research (e.g., Earley, 1987). Experientially-trained participants not only were more satisfied with the training but also perceived it to be more useful and relevant. Although many researchers regard trainee reaction to be less important relative to Kirkpatrick’s (Kirkpatrick, 1967) other training evaluation criteria (i.e., learning, behavior, and results), to the extent that trainee reaction has motivation potential (e.g., motivate trainees to undertake future cross-cultural training), it is an important criterion to consider. In addition, a recent study has found trainee reaction to play a moderator as well as a mediating role in explaining training effectiveness. In their study of nonmanagerial employees. Mathieu, Tannenbaum. and Salas (1992) demonstrated that trainee reactions moderated the relationship between training motivation and learning and mediated the influences of training motivation on performance. Therefore, it appears that an experiential approach might have an advantage over didactic approaches in this respect. However, we are not advocating that experiential learning be used exclusively. Rather, we believe it can be an important complement to conventional training methods. Also, before deciding on the training method to be used, it might be prudent for organizations to conduct a utility analysis to determine the relative costs and benefits of various training methods.

Impact qf’ Cross-Cultural Training The results of the study support conceptual and empirical work suggesting that cross-cultural training can promote cultural awareness. Pretest-posttest gains were obtained for groups trained using both didactic and experiential approaches. Specifically, after training, participants in

442

M. J. Cannon and J. M. L. Poor1

the integrative and video training group perceived themselves to be more able to interact effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds. The experiential training group, however, did not achieve a significant pretest-posttest gain on this variable. One possible explanation for this is that the uncertainties and conflicts participants experienced during the simulation exercise might have made them realize the complexities and difficulties to be expected in real-life cross-cultural situations, thus lowering somewhat their confidence in being able to deal with such situations. However, like those in the video group, participants in the experiential group reported a higher level of interest in learning about and working in other cultures. In addition, both the video and experiential group displayed more awareness of cultural differences after training. It appears that the mainly cognitive orientation of the integrative approach was insufficient to stimulate the cultural interest of participants trained under this approach. In conclusion, the above findings are congruent with those of previous research, which has documented the benefits of cross-cultural training, and provide additional empirical evidence regarding the positive impact of cross-cultural training. Of particular interest is the finding that crosscultural training increased participants’ level of confidence in their ability to act effectively in a cross-cultural situation, thus providing support for Black & Mendenhall’s (1990) proposition that cross-cultural training increases trainees’ self-efficacy. Bird, Heinbuch, Dunbar, and McNulty (1993) had also proposed that increased knowledge and understanding of a culture can positively impact on a trainee’s general sense of self-efficacy to deal with cross-cultural situations, and a general sense of self-efficacy might, in turn, be associated with the adoption of appropriate rather than resistive or avoidant behaviors (p. 420). However, these researchers were unable to find support for their hypotheses using a sample of only 43 school teachers who underwent area studies training. According to Bandura (1986) efficacy judgments partially determine the activities people decide to engage in and the social situations that people choose to enter; people tend to avoid tasks and situations they believe themselves to be incapable of handling (p. 393). In addition, Bandura contends that high self-efficacy individuals are more willing to exert effort and persist in attempting to execute new behaviors. Therefore, to the degree that cross-culturally trained people perceive themselves to be more efficacious, they might be less likely to avoid cross-cultural situations and more willing to take on cross-cultural assignments. Also, such people should also be more willing to expend effort and persist in the face of cross-cultural difficulties. Study Limitations

and Research Suggestions

This study has a number of limitations. First, it was not possible for us to ensure that participants in each training group received the same training

Cross-Cultural

Training

443

content, especially with regard to the issues that surfaced during group discussions. In acknowledging this possible confounding effect, we agree that we cannot rule out completely other rival explanations. Second, we were unable to assign participants to a control group, thus exposing our third hypothesis to internal validity threats such as maturation, history effects, and regression toward the mean (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). However, we rule out the possibility of maturation effects because of the short duration of the training program. Also, because we could detect no significant activity occurring concurrently with training that could have affected participants’ responses, we do not believe history effects to be a plausible threat. Regression toward the mean is also not a major concern because there is no reason to believe that the group of MBA students in this study is atypical. Nevertheless. we do acknowledge that we cannot unambiguously attribute all observed effects to the training intervention. Third, it may be argued that had participants wanted to please the trainer by reporting more positive reactions and attitudes after the training, this could have biased the results in a positive direction. However, we do not believe this to be a problem because participants responded to all questionnaires anonymously and seemed rather frank in giving their comments on an open-ended question. Another concern is social response bias on the cross-cultural awareness measure; however, because our main interest is in changes to the level of the score and not to the score per se. this problem is less relevant in this study. Although the sample size for this study is much larger than that typically found in training evaluation studies (cf. Arvey, Cole, Hazucha, & Hartanto, 1985) the sample is still small with regard to statistical power. With a final sample size of 105 and assuming Cohen’s (Cohen, 1988) convention of a moderate effect size of .25, power to detect a differential effect at the .05 level of significance would be about .61. Taking a more conservative stance and assuming a small effect size of 10, power to detect significance would be about .13 only. Therefore, we hope other researchers would conduct similar studies using a larger sample size and in other settings. preferably organizational settings. Finally, this study would have been strengthened if we could have assessed the behavioral effects of training. Because not all attitude changes and heightened awareness necessarily translate into actual behaviors, future research should attempt to assess posttraining behaviors. For exam-

ple, posttraining behaviors might be assessed by having participants engage in role-play cross-cultural encounters and videotaping these interactions. In addition, it would be interesting to investigate whether any attitude changes and behaviors can be generalized on the job and maintained over time (the training transfer issue). Another important question for future research concerns moderator

444

M. J. Gannon and J. M. L. Poon

effects. Factors that might moderate the effects of cross-cultural training, such as self-efficacy and trainee attributes, should be explored. For example, Gist, Stevens, and Bavetta (1991) have shown that initial self-efficacy contributed positively to the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Also, because trainees have different attitudes, values, and behaviors relative to specific training experiences, there may be certain conditions under which one training approach would be more effective in enhancing cultural awareness than another. Finally, the development of reliable and valid measures of cultural awareness should remain a high priority for those interested in this line of research, Equally important is the identification of appropriate success criteria for cross-cultural training programs.

REFERENCES D’Andrea, M., Daniels, J., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating

the impact of multicultural counseling training. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 143-l 50. Arvey, R. D.. Cole, D. A., Hazucha, J. F, & Hartanto, F. M. (1985). Statistical power of training evaluation designs. Personnel Psychology, 38,493-507. Bandura, A. (1977). Social /earning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bennett, J. M. (1986). Modes of cross-cultural training: Conceptualizing crosscultural training as education. International Journal qf Intercultural Relations, 10, 117-134. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1990). Cross-cultural orientation programs. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Appliedcross-culturalpsychology (pp. 325-346). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bird, A., Heinbuch, S., Dunbar, R., & McNulty, M. (1993). A conceptual model of the effects of area studies training programs and a preliminary investigation of the model’s hypothesized relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17. 415435. Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1989). A practical but theory-based framework for selecting cross-cultural training methods. Human Resource Management, 28, 51 l-539. Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and a theoretical framework for future research. Academy of Management Review, 15, 113-136. Bochner, S. (1986). Training inter-cultural skills. In C. R. Hollin & P. Trower (Eds.), Handbook of social skills training: Vol. 1. Appiications across the life span (pp. 155-l 84). Oxford: Pergamon. Brislin, R. W. (1989). Intercultural communication training. In M. K. Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of’ international and intercultural communication (pp. 441457). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Brislin, R. W.; & Yoshida, T. (1994). The content of cross-cultural training: An introduction. In R. W. Brislin & T. Yoshida (Eds.), Improving intercultural interactions (pp. l-14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross-Cultural

Training

445

Campbell,

D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). E_xperimentu/ and quasi-experimental research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical poM,er analyses for the behutrioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dekkers, J., & Donatti, S. (1981). The integration of research studies on the use of simulation as an instructional strategy. Journal of‘ Educational Research, 74. designsfor

424-427.

Deshpande, managers

S. P., & Viswesvaran, C. (1992). Is cross-cultural training of expatriate effective: A meta analysis. International Jotrrnal of Interc~ulturul Reiutions, 16, 295-310. Earley, P. C. (1987). Intercultural training for managers: A comparison of documentary and interpersonal methods. Academy ofManugement Journal, 30,685698.

Gannon, M. J. (1994). Understanding global cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gillespie, A. (1979). Using BaFa BaFa. In D. S. Hoopes & P. Ventura (Eds.), Intercultural sourcehook: C’ross-cultural training methodologies (pp. 33-34). Chicago: Intercultural Press. Gist. M. E., Stevens. C. K.. & Bavetta. A. G. (1991). Effects of self-efficacy and posttraining intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel Psyholog~. 44, 837-W 1. Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer. M. R. (1983). Basic training design: Approaches to intercultural training. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Hundbook of intercultural truining: Vol. 1. Issues in theory. and design (pp. 118-154). New York: Pergamon. Hall. E., & Hall, M. (1990). Understanding cultural thff~rences. Yarmouth. ME: Intercultural Press. Harris, P. R., & Moran, R. T. (1979). Managing r.trhural dtfferences. Houston. TX: Gulf Publishing. Harrison, J. K. (1992). Individual and combined etlects of behavior modeling and the cultural assimilator in cross-cultural management training. Jorrrnul of Applied

P.ychology,

77, 952-962.

Harrison, R., & Hopkins, R. L. (1967). The design of cross-cultural training: An alternative to the university model. Journal of’ Applied Behariorai SrYeme. 3. 43 l-460.

Hofstede, G. (199 1). Cultures and organi-a/inns: Soti,c~are of’thr mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1967). Evaluation of training. In R. L. Craig & L. R. Bittel (Eds.), Truining and development handbook (pp. X7-1 12). New York: McGrawHill. Kluckholn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Variations in ralue orientations. Evanston. IL: Row, Peterson. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory c$‘goalsetting and trr.skperfi~rmclnc,c,. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas. E. (1992). Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. ilc,a&+r7.t, ofManagement

McCaffery,

Journul,

35,828X47.

J. A. (1986). Independent

effectiveness:

A reconsideration

of cross-

446

M. J. Gannon and J. A4. L. Peon

cultural orientation and training. International Journal oflntercultural Relations, IO, 159-178.

Merta, R. J., Stringham, E. M., Ponterotto, J. G. (1988). Simulating culture shock in counselor trainees: An experiential exercise for cross-cultural training. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 242-245. Training and Development Journal, 34, 99-105. Pedersen, P. (1988). A handbookfor developingmulticulturalawareness. Alexandria,

Parry, S. B. (1971/1980). The name of the game...is simulation.

VA: American Association for Counseling and Development. Pierfy, D. (1977). Comparative simulation game research: Stumbling blocks and stepping stones. Simulation & Games, 8, 2.55-268. Pruegger, V. J., &Rogers, T. B. (1994). Cross-cultural sensitivity training: Methods and assessment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 369-387. Randel, J. M.: Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 261-276.

Sadow, S. A. (1987). Experiential techniques that promote cross-cultural awareness. Foreign Language Annals, 20, 25-30. Shirts, R. G. (1977). BaFa BaFa: A cross-culture simulation. Del Mar, CA: Simile II. Suransky, L. (1980). International relations games and simulations: An evaluation. In R. E. Horn & A. Cleaves (Eds.), The guide to simulationsJgamesfor education and training (4th ed.), (pp. 162-I 76). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Tung, R. L. (1981). Selection and training of personnel for overseas assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16, 68-78.

Young, R. L. (1993). Cross-cultural

experiential

Teacher Education Quarterly, 20,67-76.

learning for teacher trainees.