~LEVEL jTechnicl Repoit 422 "

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERCULTURALAWARENESS AND PERSONALITY VARIABLES

0 IN INTERRACIAL ENCOUNTERS

0 Oliver C. S. Tzeng and Dan Landis

Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis

ARI FIELD UNIT AT PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

, DTICSELECTEfAPR 9 t980D

II

R a st f U. S. ArmyResearch institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

:-- ,October 1979

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

804 17 18

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTEFOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

4 A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSERJOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, U S ArmyTechnical Director Commander

Research accomplished under contractfor the Department of the Army

Center for Apj lied Research and EvaluationIndiana University--Purdue University at Indianapolis

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primtery distribution of this report ha boen Made by ARI. Pleas address torrespondenci.concerning distribution of report, to: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciencs,ATTN. PERI.P, 5001 Eisenhovar Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL flISPI39ITinN: This repor" may be destroyad when it is no longer needed. Please do not return it tothe U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Soicial Scienoes.

I= The findings in this report are not to be construed as an Official Departmrent of the Army position.unless so designated by Other authorized documnents.

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGC ("On, I).9- Xnaerd)REDISUCON

REPOT DOUM.I'ENAION PAEBEFORE COMPLE77NG FORM1REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

PRSTONSLIY VAETABESIN TER ACUAL WAENONESS, ND Augvt 77j 30 Augft 7

}Oliver- C. S.,'Tzeng md Dan/iandis / DAHC'l9-77-C-OO'64-

I. CONTOROLIG OGAICEIO NAME AND ADDRESS 10. POGRTA LMET ROET.TS

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behaviorak/ IOctbw =79/and Social SciencesNUBRO AE--7

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333 3014. MONITORING AGENCY NAME 6 AOORESS(II diferet from Controlinga 0111 cc) IS. S1ECURifA VV.7rTW re tport)

Unclassified

15a. DECL ASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

1S. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (at this Report)-

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of Ilia abstract entered in. Bleck 2,it different from Rsport)

II I6. SUPPLEMENTARY MOTESMonitored technically by James A. Thomas, ARI Field Unit at Presidio of

19. KEY WORDS (Conltinue on rveses aids it necesay and identify by block rnumber)

Personality Least-preferred coworkersIntercultural awareness Group atmosphere scaleMachiavellianism Cultural assimilatorI 20, AMYrCT M.911macu oMd N ..iWefm "i tdostiF b black numbr)

The present study was conducted in order to investigate the relationshipsbetween an individual's personality characteristics and his or her understand-ing of the dynamics involved in potential inter-racial conflicts and contro-versies in the Army institution. Data collected from 78 Army personnel, withabout equal proportions of both blacks and whites, and of both officers andenlisted men, included the ratings on four measures: (a) a set of predevel-oped intercultural awareness (IA) questions, (b) the Machiavellianism scale,

(Continued)

00W irlUUIMVSSOSLT UnclassifiedjSECUmNTY CLAWSIFICATtOM OF THIS P A4E (W1100 D4aa Ent0040

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(WIhu De Baftf*Q

Item 20 (Continued)

(c) the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale, and (d) the group atmospherescale. Within-measure analyses of the last three scales revealed interest-ing results of inter-race and/or inter-rank differences in attribution ofvarious personality traits inherent in the measures. Between-measureanalyses in using the IA Scale as a dependent variable yielded two impor-tant principles in inter-racial relations: (a) intercultural awarenessis directly related to an individual's personality and cognitive stylecharacteristics, and (b) elevation of an individual's cultural awarenesslevel will definitely improve one's attitudes, values, and behavioraldispositions toward the members of another culture, and thus decrease theintercultural gaps and/or conflicts in interracial encounters. Finally,the paper examines an important theoretical framework along wifh fivedeterminants that should be considered for an effective intercult raltraining program in the future.

Unclassified

1 SECURITY CLASSIPICATION OF THiS PAGE(Mn Date Eneod)

- 1,

Technial Report 422

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERCULTURALAWARENESS AND PERSONALITY VARIABLES

IN INTERRACIAL ENCOUNTERS

Oliver C. S. Tzeng and Dan LandisIndiana University--Purdue University at Indianapolis

James A. Thomas, Teamn Leader

Submitted by:Jack J. Sternberg, Chief

ARI FIELD UNIT AT PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Approved by:

E. Ralph Dusek, DirectorPERSONNEL AND TRAININGRESEARCH LA13ORATORY

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCF0.5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the Army

October 1979

Army Project Number Intercultural 11e1lations20161 102974F

APtovwd for public release; distribution unlimited.

Ml

ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors ofR&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings readyfor implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last partof the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recom-mendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate militaryagencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

!I

ll

FOREWORD

Since 1972, the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral andSocial Sciences (ARI) has been active in research on the policy, opera-tional problems, and programs of the Army's Race Relations/Equal Oppor-tunity Program. In 1973, ARI initiated research designed to explorealternative or supplementary race relations training techniques. Thisincluded exploratory research designed to determine the feasibility ofusing the Cultural Assimilator as a race relations training technique.The early research is reported in ARI Technical Paper 310, Use of aBlack "Culture Assimilator" to Increase Racial Understanding, and ARITechnical Paper 314, Cultural Assimilator for Training Army Personnelin Racial Understanding. Because of limited time constraints estab-lished for the data collection under the second research project itwas necessary to omit the administration of the personality measuresafter data were collected at the first installation.

This Technical Paper is based upon the small sample of 76 Armypersonnel obtained at the first installation and seeks to establishthe relationship between selected personality variables and intercul-tural awareness as measured by a Cultural Assimilator. This analysiswas accomplished as part of contract DAHC 19-77-C-0056 with IndianaUniversity/Purdue University at Indianapolis, Ind., under Army Project2Q161102B74F, Personnel Performance and Training.

ical Director

4 CWOMN forWhite Sactot

WBuff W"tiee3VNLWN0UNCEMJUSTFICAMIN

Di. U m

V LAI J~TI.11.O

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERCULTURAL AWARENESS AND PERSONALITYVARIABLES IN INTERRACIAL ENCOUNTERS

BRIEF

Requirement:

To investigate the relationships between an individual's person-ality characteristics and his or her understanding of the dynamics in-volved in potential interracial conflicts and controversies in the Army.

Procedure:

Data collected in 1974 from 78 U.S. Army personnel, with aboutequal proportions of both blacks and whites, and of both officers andenlisted men, included the ratings on four measures: (a) a set of pre-developed intercultural awareness (IA) questions, (b) the Machiavellian-ism scale, (c) the Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale, and (d) thegroup atmosphere scale.

Findings:

Analyses using the IA Scale as a dependent variable yielded twoimportant principles in interracial relations: (a) intercultural aware-ness is directly related to an individual's personality and cognitivestyle characteristics, and (b) elevation of an individual's culturalawareness level will definitely improve one's attitudes, values, andbehavioral dispositions toward the members of another culture, andthus decrease the intercultural gaps and/or conflicts in interracialencounters. Analyses of the last three scales revealed interestingresults of interrace and/or interrank differences in attribution ofvarious personality traits inherent in the measures.

Utilization:

The paper presents an important theoretical framework along withfive determinants that should be considered for an effective intercul-tural training program in the future.

Vii

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction I............ .... 1I Culture Assimilator...................2Personality Variables and Intercultural Awareness..... . . 4Purposes of the present study ...... ... .. ....... 4

Method and Procedure ...... .. ....................... 5Scales ..... ... ... ............................ 5Subjects ..... .... ........................... 6

Results and Discussion .... ..................... 12Intercultural Awareness (IA) Scalesi ............. 12Machiavellianism Scale ....... .................... 12Group Atmosphere Scale ....... .................... 21

Conclusions and Implications ...... .................. 21

References ............. ......................... 27

Reference Notes ... .. .... ......................... 28

List of Figures

Figure

1 Group Mean Profile on Five Factor Markers and Three OtherSignificant Scales of LPC ... ............... .20

List of Tables

Table

1 Subject distribution: race by six other variables ....... 72 Salient factor loadings of the Machiavellianism scales. . . 83 Correlation coefficients among IA and eight Mach dimensions 144 Factor structures of LPC and their relations with inter-

cultural awareness ...... ... ............ 176 Summary of group means and MANOVA on LPC .......... .. 187 Summary of group means and MANOVA of GAS .......... .. 22

ix

'It 4F

Introduction

ithin the world population, the diversity and complexity ofinter-c tural means of dealing with the social political and naturalenvirome ts have increased significantly in recent years. Thedifficultieexperienced by most societies in both inter- and intra-national inteactions are mainly due to inter-group heterogeneities withrespect to two aspects of the cultures -- objective and subjective. Theobjective cultures represent observable social indicators such asethnicity, sex, age, education, economic background, living conditions,crime rate, and drug abuse statistics, etc. The subjective cultures onthe other hand represent such internal indicators as feelings, believing,conceiving, judging, hoping, fearing, and meaning (Tzeng and Osgood, 1976)".Interaction between these two types of systems determine the consequenceof social movements toward inter-group (or inter-racial) harmony andintegration on the one hand, and the prospect of an individual'ssubjective well being, or life satisfaction on the other hand. Therefore,research in such relationships seems to be one of the most urgent andimportant tasks in contemporary social and political sciences.

Within the United States, there exist numerous heterogeneous sub-groups of individuals who differ from each other not only in someobjective aspects of culture (race, sex, age, religion, etc.) but insome subjective aspects of culture (e.g., value systems, attitudes,stereotyping, etc.) as well. The development of an integrated theory,method, and procedure for the exploration of the issues on inter-subcultural understanding within such a culturally pluralistic societywould seem necessary as a prerequisite to the planning and implementationof various social and institutional programs. Psychologically, this isdue to the fact that in dealing with people outside of the realm of one'sown indigenous cultures, each individual brings with him certainexpectations of how other people are supposed to act. Any relationshipthat might develop for a transcultural cross-culturally oriented personcan be successful or suffer the debilitating effects of misunderstanding,depending on the etiology that one attributes to any accultural behaviorencountered. Therefore, many neutral incidents may cause unnecessaryconflicts due to misunderstanding, wrong assumptions and differencesbased on subjective cultures that are unrelated to the actual situation.For example, in inter-racial encounters, difficulties may easily arisefrom an ignorance of what is rewarding to the other person (Triandis, 1976)2.Because effective inter-racial and inter-cultural relations require whatTriandis called "isomorphic attributions" of the contents of interactionsand the perceived meanings of the counterpart, correct inferences aboutwhat behavior is likely to be reinforced, to what extent, and under whatconditions, etc. would definitely enhance the ability of transcultural

ITzeng, O.C.S. & Osgood, C.E. Validity tests for componentialanalysis of conceptual domains: A cross-cultural study in methodology.Behavioral Science, 1976, 21, 69-85.

ZTriandis, H.C. (Ed.) Variations in black and white perceptions ofthe social environment. Urbana: UniversiityoT-IM is-Wess,1975.

4

'.4

2

persons to reinforce the behavior of others.Furthermore, in a given highly structured organization in which

individuals with different objective and subjective backgrounds arerequired to pursur' and achieve some common goal set for the institution,within-group heterogeneities may provide a potential- threat to not onlythe understanding and harmony among the personnel but also to theefficiency and ev en survival of the institution itself. Therefore, itis essential for the organizational administration to develop some formof effective orientation and/or training program that would enable allnew members to appreciate the nature and contributions of both thesubjective and objective cultures of their colleagues within theorganization.

In the particular institution of the United States Army, individualswith more diversed backgrounds in ethnicity, religion, economics, socialstatus, education, vocation and life experience are required to performhighly unitary missions that demand the complete agreement on the tasksand the highest efficiency of their actions. Under such circumstances,one of the major concerns in Army training routines should include thetraining of new personnel to accomplish the following objectives:(1) help trainees clarify their feelings about other ethnic groups, andthe concept of cultural pluralism and related social issues. (2) provideinformation about ethnicity, about the nature and conditions of varioussubjective cultures of other ethnic groups, and about the processesthrough which groups adapt and change. (3) develop skills for moreeffective inter-personal communication with persons of diverse ethnicbackgrounds and of different ranks and job assignments. (4) developattitudes and techniques for dealing with controversial issues andsituations that may arise in some inter-racial encounters.

Cultural Assimilator

One method for training members of a given ethnic culture to makeaccurate isomorphic attributions with respect to the behavior of membersof another (target) culture is known as the cultural assimilator(Landis, et al, 1976)3. In essence, this training technique presents thetrainee wt~h- series of "critical incidents" (episodes) in whichconflicts arise through misunderstanding between a member of an ethnicculture and a member of the target culture. After reading each episode,the trainee is asked to select an answer from several prespecifiedalternatives in explanations of the behaviors of the target culture member.The trainee is then provided with feedback concerning the accuracy ofthe answer and the reasons behind it. The goals of this inter-culturaltraining, as recommended by Triandis (1976), are as follows: (1) tofamiliarize the students of one culture with the situations and/ordimensions that make a difference in interpersonal relationships withindividuals of other ethnic groups, (2) to employ the principle of

tLandis, 1), Day, H.R., McGrew, P.L., Thomas, J.A. & Miller, A.B.Can a black "culture assimilator" increase racial understanding?.Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 32, 2, 169-183.

transfer of learning to other inter-racial conflict situations, and(3) to present the learner with the norm values, role structures, generalintentions, self concepts, and value systems of members of other cultures.

This form of training, initially suggested by Osgood (Note 3)4, wasfirst developed by Fiedler and Triandis in a research project in whichthese psychologists worked conjointly. An account of their studies arereported by Fiedler, Mitchell, and Triandis (1971)5, and Mitchell,Dosett, Fiedler and Triandis (1971 )6. In recent years, thistechnique was also explored in several Army personnel training programs.For example, a study was conducted to test the effect of such a culturalassimilator training program on the awareness of black cultures amongwhite junior grade officers at four U.S. Army posts (Landis, Day, fvtGrew,Thomas, and Miller, 1976). The result, indicated a steady increase incorrect responses as the trainees progressed through the training.Similar results were also substantiated among black junior gradeofficers in learning the cultures of white army colleagues (Day, Landis,and McGrew, Note 1)".

Weldom, Carlston, Rissman, Slobodin and Triandis (1975) alsoconducted a laboratory study of white male college students assessingthe effect of the culture assimilator on their relations with blackstudents. Measuring the ability of these white students in makingisomorphic attributions, the subjects with culture assimilator trainingscored significantly higher than did the untrained. For female students,Randolph, Landis and Tzeng (1977) obtained a congruent result in a cultureassimilator experiment on as few as 40 items. That is, white femalecollege students who received training showed significant improvementover untrained subjects in the ability to make isomorphic attributionsconcerning the behavior of the members of the target (black American)culture. In addition, they found that the anxiety level of trainedsubjects, that were aroused during the initial contacts with the targetmembers decreased systematically over time, while the level of anxiety ofuntrained subjects remained constant.

The above empirical evidence suggests that the cultural assimilatoris an effective training technique that may be used to enhance anindividual's knowledge and appreciation of the cultures of other ethnicgroups and hence to facilitate better communications and enjoyment ofinter-racial interactions.

4Osgood, C.E., Speculation on the structure of intejpersonalintentions. (Tech. Rep.)roa:-niversity oI lliinois, 1966.

Fiedler, F.E., Mitchell, T.R., & Triandis, H.C. The culturalassimilator: An approach to cross-cultural training. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 1971, 55, 95-102.

-Mitchell, T.R., Dossett, D.L., Fiedler, F.E., & Triandis, H.C.,Validation evidence for the culture assimilator. (Tech. Rep. 71-82).Urbana: University oT-Iinois, 197l.7Day, H.R., Landis, D. & McGrew, P.L., Exploration in culturalunderstanding (CSD T]R 75-8). Philadelphia: Cenlter for social

Development, 1975.

7 Piladephi: enter or

14

Personality Variables and Intercultural Awareness

In order to develop and implement a cultural assimilator or othertraining programs within any institution, it is important to identify inadvance the characteristics of the antecedent variables of theprospective trainees' objective as well as subjective cultures that aredirectly related to inter-racial encountering situations. This impliesthat due to potential individual differences among a "homogeneous"group of subjects across different institutions, the context andprocedures of the training program should be designed in such a way thatthey will maximally cope with the environmental realities of theinstitution under consideration. Therefore, a program that proved tobe effective in an industrial-civilian setting may not necessarily be soin an Army unit. Under such circumstances, knowledge of all majorantecedent variables involved in inter-racial communications andinteractions should be a prerequisite for successful development andimplementation of a cultural assimilator program.

Within the Army, the following variables would seem to have mostdirect relevancy to the planning of a cultural assimilator trainingprogram: (a) an individual's prior knowledge and/or sensitivity of thesubjective -ultures of other ethnic groups, (b) various salientsituations and/or issues that are potentially controversial amongindividuals from different ethnic backgrounds, (c) an individual'sbeliefs and confidence about the possibility of being (or not being)manipulated and/or deceived in the army living and working situations,and (d) an individual's preferences for the personality characteristicsof co-workers and the preference for group atmosphere in the working andliving environment. Due to the inevitable conditions of individualdifferences among Army personnel in various objective indicators, e.g.,ranks, ages, assignments, prior experiences with other cultures,childhood residencies, formal educational history, etc., there should besome significant individual differences in their attributions to thesefour antecedent variables. Therefore, for future development of acomprehensive cultural assimilator (or other) training program, it isnecessary to characterize the nature of these subjective variables andtheir relationships with various objective indicators within a prospectivesubject training population in the Army.

Purposes of the present study:

On the basis of the above considerations, the present study wasdesigned as part of the preparation for a cultural assimilator andtraining research program to investigate the relations of variouspersonality characteristics with different levels of interculturalawareness. This involves the following five specific objectives:(a) measurement of intercultural awareness, IA, and formulation of acomposite score for each respondent, (b) identification of underlyingdimensions inherent in the Machiavellianism scales when they were usedfor measuring individuals' cohortability and persuadability within theArmy institution, (c) measurements of perceived characteristics of thelease preferred co-worker and the perceived group atmosphere of eachindividual, (d) identification of underlying constructs involved inthe above measures and their effects on individual differences among

fad i lt li i & , m a i

5

personnel with different objective cultural backgrounds in race andrank, and (e) identification of relationships between the interculturalawareness measures and the three personality variables. For the firstfour purposes, pertinent voting scales were adopted from the literatureas the measurement instruments.

The above five purposes are centered at the major theme ofidentifying the characteristics and dynamics of intercultural relationshipsand ccmunuications in military environment. While the first fourpurposes are designed for establishing the constructs and/or effects ofeach measurement domain, the last purpose focuses on between-domaincomparisons and integrations.

Method and Procedure

Scales

Four types of scales were employed in the present study: theintercultural awareness (IA) scale, the Machiavelianism scale, themeasures of the least preferred co-workers (LPC), and the groupatmosphere (GAS) scale. A brief description of these scales is givenas follows:

The Intercultural Awareness (A) Scale. This measure consists ofa set of107 assimilator items in test format, except for the feedbackelements being deleted. Each item represents a critical incident orscenario of an incident involving potential inter-racial and inter-rankconflict or misunderstanding in the U.S. Army. The entire incidentswere constructed on the basis of extensive taped interviews withrepresentative personnel with different backgrounds in rank, ethnicityand job assignment. Specifically, these items dealt predominantly withthe cultural backgrounds and perspectives of black enlisted men, butmany items also focused on black officers and white enlisted men asthe basis for illustrating various critical problems in inter-racialrelations. Detailed descriptions about the development of theseitems are referred to Landis et al, (1976).

At the end of each item, a question was added regarding the behavioror the probable attitude of one of the "antagonists". Four possibleexplanations (alternatives) were given: among them, one was "correct"in using relevant information and knowledge about the cultures of thetarget group in the incident, and the other three alternatives were"incorrect" in using information which was either faulty, incomplete,or stereotyping in nature. Therefore, the "incorrect" alternatives wererepresentative of prevailing misconceptions, stereotyping and/or otherprejudice. In addition, each item was also rated on a seven-stepfamiliarity scale ranging from very unfamiliar to very familiar.

Machiavellianisn Scale. Seventy nine items of the Maciavellianismscale (Christie and Geis, 1770)8 were used to measure each individual's

8Christie, R. & Geis, F.L. Studies in Machiavellianism, New York:Academic Press, 1970.

6

cohortability, persuadability and degrees of concerns with conventionalmorality and ideological committments. For example, the subjects wereasked to indicate their degrees of agreement on the item ' bnesty isthe best policy" against a five step agree/disagree continuum. Foridentification of underlying constructs (dimensions) that determined theinter-item relationships in Mach measures for the Army personnel, factoranalysis was performed on subject responses. Factor scores on theresultant dimensions were then used for identifying individual differences.

Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Scale. The LPC Scale, developedby Fiedl-d (onsisted of-16-5 emantic differential eight-stepbipolar adjectives which, according to Fiedler and others (cf., Rice,1978)10, were assumed to measure the style and effectiveness of leadershipsin an organization. In taking the LPC scale, each respondent describedhis or her least preferred co-worker, defined as "the person with whomyou had the most difficulty in getting a job done", on each SD item(e.g.,pleasant-unpleasant). The favorable pole of each item (e.g., pleasant,efficie, Vriendy, etc.) was scored as 8 and the unfavorable pole wasscored as 17Tie total LPC score was calculated by sumning the scoresfor all items. In the LPC literature, such a total score has beeninterpreted in at least four different ways with respect to the followingpsychological propositions: social distance, motivations and needs,cognitive complexity, and motivational hierarchy. For example, a leaderwho scored high on the scale may be considered as having a favorable,affective relationship with other members of the group. In the presentstudy, 16 items in the LPC scale were used to measure an individual'spreferences for the personality characteristics of their fellow Armypersonnel having different subjective as well as objective culturebackgrounds. In addition, instead of computing a single LPC score foreach respondent, the major focus in this study was to identify inter-raceand inter-rank differences as well as similarities in individual itemsand their relationships with other measures.

Group Amosphere Scale (GAS). This scale consisted of 10 semanticdifferential bipolar items: pleasant/unpleasant, friendly/unfriendly,good/bad, valuable/worthless, close/distant, warm/cold, harmonious/quarrelsome, self-assured/hesitant efficient/iinefficient, and cheerful/gloom. These items, scored from 1 to 8 as for the LPC scale, wereused to differentiate inter-race and inter-rank differences in theperceived group atmosphere within the same Army institution.

Subjects

The subjects whose results were reported in this study were 78 maleU.S. Army personnel stationed at Fort Eustis, Virginia, when the datawere gathered in 1974. Table 1 presents the frequency distributionof these subjects with regard to race, rank (enlisted men, vs. officers),

9Fiedler, F.E. A theory of leadership effectiveness, New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967.

10Rice, R.W. Construct validity of the least preferred co-workerscore. Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 85(6), 1199-1237.

~~A

Table 1

Subject Distribution: Race by six other variables

VARIABLE RACETotal

White Black

1. Rank Enlisted 17 23 40

Officers 22 16 38

2. Cultural none 14 13 27Exposure___________________________

yes 25 26 51

3. Childhood Rural 18 25 43Residence

Urban 21 14 35

4. Geograph- NonSouth-Tcal Locale east 26 16 42of Childhod

5 Southeast 13 23 36

5. Socio-econ. Middle &Background Upper 29 25 54

Lower 10 14 24

6. Education HighSchool 15 17 32

BeyondHighSchool 24 22 46

Total 39 39 78

n. I9 ...

Table 2

Salient Factor Loadings of the Machiavellianism Scales

Statement Loadings

Dimension 1 (28.8%) MORALITY

61. Honesty is the best policy. .77

28. To hate people for the things they stand for. -.57

76. Terminally ill people should have the choice ofbeing put to death. -.52

65. To be humble and honest is more important thanbeing important and dishonest. .51

60. Take action only when morally certain. .51

73. It is impossible to be good in all respects. .47

16. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. .40

9. The lottery system is an equitable means of obtain-ing a national army. .39

66. Give the real reason for asking a favor of someonerather than a more weighty, false reason. .38

39. There are two kinds of people, those for the truth

and those against it. .36

Dimension 2 (14.9%) PATRIOTISM & ETHNOCENTRISM

50. Patriotism and loyalty are the most importantrequirements of a good citizen. .64

38. A group which tolerates too many differences ofopinion among its members can't exist long. .63

14. It is natural that a person has a better acquain-tance with ideas that he believes in rather thanthose that he opposes. .63

57. The Russians and Chinese are racially war mindedand must be wiped out or controlled. .50

30. Life becomes meaningful only if a person devotes

himself to a cause or an ideal. .47

l ;

Table 2 (Continued)

Statements Loadings

Dimension 2 (cont.)

11. Peace maintained without honor is no longer peace. .45

3z. A person enthusiastic about too many causes islikely to be "wishy-washy". .43

Dimension 3 (12.4%) SOCIAL PRAGMATISM

12. U.S. and Russia have almost nothing in common. .56

33. Compromise with political opponents usually leadsto betrayal of our own side. .54

53. The main threat to American institutions is theinfiltration of foriegn ideas, doctrines, etc. .53

58. Never tell the real reason why you do somethingunless it is useful to do so. .52

74. Barnum was wrong when he said that there's a suckerborn every day. .46

68. Anyone who completely trusts someone else is askingfor trouble. .36

Dimension 4 (10.5%) SUPREMACY OF NATIONAL INTEREST

54. Present treatment of draft evaders is too lenient.They deserve more than just prison or work camp. .66

6. Anyone refusing to serve in the army doesn't deserveto be called an American. .61

41. A person who thinks primarily of his own happinessis beyond contempt. .49

40. My blood boils when a person refuses to admit that heis wrong. .48

48. Many people with whom I've discussed social andmoral problems don't know what's going on. .42

56. There will always be wars due to races that grab morethan their share. .37

11. Peace maintained without honor is no longer peace. .36

~j~r 9

10

Table 2 (Continued)

Statement Loadings

Dimension 4 (cont.)

35. Nowadays, a person must be pretty selfish if heconsiders primarily his own happiness. .35

Dimension 5 (9.5%) MILITARY ADVENTURISM

3. It was necessary for us to send troops to Cambodia. .62

23. Better a dead hero than a live coward. .55

44. Reserve judgement on what's going on until you havea chance to hear the opinion of those you respect. .50

2. Everyone has an obligation to serve his country inthe military. .49

5. Our nation's peace and security can only be main-tained through defensive military action. .45

Dimension 6 (8.5%) PHILOSOPHICAL CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

29. A man who hasn't believed in some great cause hasn'tlived. .63

27. Throughout history there have been only a few great

thinkers. .57

25. The main thing in life is to do something important. .52

49. Most people just don't know what's good for them. .49

69. The big difference between criminals and most peopleis that criminals are stupid enough to get caught. .48

18. Most people just don't give a damn for others. .47

46. The present is all too full of unhappiness. Onlythe future counts. .44

28. To hate people for the things they stand for. .43

19. I'd like to find someone to help me. solve my personalproblems. .40

43. We can know what's going on only through relianceon truthful leaders and experts. .39

Ir

Table 2 (Continued) 11

Statements Loadings

Dimension 6 (cont.)

40. My blood boils when a person retuses to admit he'swrong. .39

39. There are two kinds of people, those for the truthand those against it. .36

Dimension 7 (8%) EXTRA-CULTURAL AWAFENESS

17. The world is a pretty lonesome place. .53

72. Most people are basically good and kind. -.46

48. Many people with whom I've discussed social andmoral problems don't know what's going on. .46

55. It would be a mistake to lower European immigrationquotas and allow them to flood the country. -.42

70. Most men are brave. -.39

34. Concerning differences of religious opinion, becareful not to compromise with contrary beliefs .34

31. Of all the extant philosophies, probably only oneis correct. .31

Dimension 8 (7.3%) ATTITUDINAL RESTRAINT

78. Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I justcan't stop. .50

26. Given a chance, I would do something of greatbenefit to the world. -.45

27. Throughout history, there have been just a few great

great thinkers. .38

71. It is wise to flatter important people. -.34

10. There has never been a just war. .34

67. Most people who get ahead in the world lead cleanmoral lives. .33

20. It's natural for a person to be rather fearful ofthe future. .32

aThe percentage of the cofmon variance accounted for by eachdimension.

Il

12

cross-cultural exposure (no prior traveling and service experience in-a foreign country vs. yes), childhood residence (rural vs. urban),geographic location of childhood (southeast states vs. non-south eaststates), socio-economic background (lower vs. middle and upper), andeducation (high school or lower vs. beyond high school). For eachbi-variable interaction with race, the subject frequencies wereproportionally distributed. Data were gathered from each subjecton all four measurement scales for inter-race as well as inter-rankcomparisons.

Results and Discussions

Intercultural Awareness (IA) Scales

In order to compute a global index of intercultural awarenesslevel for each subject involved in the present project, the "correct"response alternatives of each assimilating item was rescaled withvalues of 10, 8, 2, 1, in accordance with its rank order of being chosenas the answer. Such arbitrary assignment of numbers was to differentiatemaximally the awareness (correct) responses from "naive" (incorrect)responses. A composite score was then obtained for each individual acrossall 107 items. Correlation coefficients were further computed for suchcomposite scores with five other variables -- rank, cultural exposure,socio-economic background, education, and individuals' average familiarityscore computed across the same assimilating items. It is interesting tonote that among 15 bi-variate correlation coefficients, only threeintercorrelations between rank, education and IA variables were significantbeyond the .05 level. This seems to suggest that intersubculturalunderstanding commensurates the individual's knowledge and actual careerexperiences with the numbers of other cultures. Without activeparticipation in common life experiences, the barriers of intersubculturalstereotypes will never be reduced. Specifically, within the highlyorganized Army institution with multi-cultural constitutents, some sortof effective education and training programs for intercultural awarenessand understanding would be necessary to accelerate the reduction rate oftensions among enlisted individuals with lower educational backgrounds.

The Machiavellianism Scale

A principal component analysis was applied to all subjects'responses on the 79 Mach scales for the purpose of identifying theirunderlying constructs when applied to the present Army personnel. Eightresulting dimensions, after being rotated via varimax criterion, yieldedmeaningful psychological components. As given in Table 2, Dimension 1,with high loadings from items regarding honesty, decency and sinceritywith respect to various roles in life, is identified as a Nbrality factor.The second factor is apparently a Patriotism or EthnocentrismTimension.It emphasizes the characteristics of an individual's loyalty, unity, anddevotion to citizenship and to their own beliefs. Dimension 3 has highloadings from items regarding the social pragmatic nature of behaviorand beliefs and is called the Social Pragmatism dimension. Dimension 4is dominated by two items regarding the issues of military service. Theother salient items emphasize the importance of esprit de corps.

13

Therefore, this dimension is called a Supremacy of National Interestdimension. Dimension 5, referred to mirit aryad -nture and nationalsecurity, is called the Military Adventurism dimension. Dimension 6,defined by items regarding the importance of philosophical considerationand understanding of others in daily activities and life patterns, canbe tapped as a Philosophical Conscientiousness dimension. Dimension 7has salient loadings from items associated with an individual's anxietiesand apprehensions involved in social interactions with others. Thenegative attitude toward European immigrants seems to suggest that thisdimension deals more with extracultural than with indigenous culturalrelationships. Therefore, it will be characterized as an Extra-culturalAwareness dimension. Dimension 8 is dominated by the items reflectingthe restrained status of internal attitudes and/or opinions aboutindividuals in military careers. Other items are all related to anindividual's judgments and values about the external environment. Therefore,it will be identified as an Attitudinal Restraint dimension.

The relationship between these Wch dimensions and the IA levelwere indexed by the correlation coefficients between an individual'seight composite factor scores and the IA measure. As shown in Table 3,the IA measure was negatively correlated, in order, with Social Pragmatism(Dimension 3), Supremacy of National Interest (4), and Patriotism (2).The multiple prediction of an individual's IA scores in terms of theirfactor composites on the eight Mach dimensions yielded a multiplecorrelation R of .45 which was significant beyond the .05 level. Thetwo most important predictors are Social Pragmatism and National Interest.The converse relations between the IA and these two dimensions suggestedthat those individuals who scored high on the IA scale would tend tobe more tolerant toward the opinion differences of others at both individualand national levels.

Composite factor scores of all individuals were computed byaveraging their scores on the first five dominating items on each dimension.The mean values of these composites are given in Table 4 (A) for fourgroups of subjects catergorized by race and rank. In order to identifyinter-racial and inter-rank differences as well as similarities in theresultant eight factors, a multivariate analysis of variance was performedon the composite factor scores of all individuals. The results aresunmarized in Table 4 (B). Among three sources of variation, only themultivariate F value for the Rank variable is significant (P

14

co ~ 0 . 0% 0 0oU)~C U- 0 V) 0 r- -

LO CD4 0 n 0 0 CD0

r, c 9' to9'

0) m'. CSJ m)U)

0 90 U") 'J U CJ

C) 0) CD U))

0m C' U

0 .'

V. 0)r- 4- )

c 0 CD4-

u. L.. -H4- Q-'

4- W 1- 0

cu U) $LE

0 0 0nS- > ~ .anan4 >, 4) 4' ~ .

00An 4-' *.

S- 4@i rE .. . .an- u . 4-' U_ 0. .- (00 :3~ r_ Eu 0

4Ju 0.4.

4J LA.. 4J cJC) t U

'.,a 4 oE

4-'G

a,

4t

I c'u x r-l).i 0li Ui C

cr..

U) %C U C\J) %C r cc

c r- C\~~*. .0 nC L U L l

S- LU c

LIIV

4n A

%9 C'

4- C 4)

4) C ~0 V -, ~CD LO C) UC) U)i U)c

VL, o C 4.. en. C'..)~ ) ') '

L.. a, C4 .

4.) L )4

U 41 -IL u &IS) -M 0' .0

E~4 4-4 ' ) A '.00 - W

d) u C'. ', *j '

4) 4- 4

'V. * 4-'>- ~ ' IeU)C V .'C' 0mail.j ) '

' 16

The last factor, V, has high loadings from interesting, open, andharmoneous on the positive side, and boring, guarded and quarrelsome onthe negatIve side. It is interesting to note that the familiaritymeasure on the IA scale has the highest loading on this factor. Sincethe familiarity measure only reflects the degree to which each individualis aware of the existence of the intercultural, discrepant issues presentedin the assimilators, this dimension may suggest the level of willingnessin knowing or accepting the reality of co-working situations. Therefore,it may be called an Approach/Withdrawal (or Curiosity) dimension.

It should be noted that in this psychosemantic space of perceivedco-workers, the composite IA measure is positively correlated with thestressful pole of Dimension 2, thus indicating that these Army personnelhaving a higher level of understanding of other cultures tend to viewtheir least preferred co-workers as being tense, guarded uncooperative,rejecting and hostile. Conversely, other individuals, with a higherunderstanding of other cultures would have a less amount of stress oranxiety when they interacted with people of another culture and thuswould like to have co-workers being relaxed, open, cooperative, accepting,and supporting. The fact that the IA measure loaded uniquely on thisdimension seems to suggest that an individual's cognitive understandingof the subjective culture of another race would have no direct associationwith such aspects or co-working relations as intimate interpersonalfriendships (dimension I), necessary personality characteristics forthe efficiency of job performance (dimension III), the assertiveness levelof co-workers (dimension IV), and the understanding of the existence ofintercultural discrepancies in interactions (dimension V). The aboveresults were confirmed by a multiple regression analysis in predicting anindividual's IA scores by their LPC measures with a resultant R of.50 (p4.01). Two significant predictors were the scales relaxed andinteresting, both of which were markers of the LPC Stress and Curiositydimensions respectively.

In order to identify inter-race and inter-rank similarities anddifferences on the personality characteristics of the least preferredco-workers, MANOVA was performed on all 16 individual measures, ratherthan on the resultant five factors. This is due to the fact that mostitems had multiple salient loadings on the five resultant dimensions.As indicated in Table 6 (B), the main effect of Race is significant inthe multivariate test with obvious inter-race differences on two items:helpful/frustrating and close/distant. The multivariate F values forRank and Rank-by-Race effects are not significant. But there are threesignificant univariate F values in the main effect of Rank from the itemsaccepting/rejecting, relaxed/tense, and self-assured/hesitant. Forillustrations, within-group mean ratings on the five dominating markers --each uniquely loaded on a dimension -- are depicted in Figure 1. Threeother items that were significant in the univariate tests are also included.It is interesting to note that the enlisted men of Army personnel,regardless of their races, tended to prefer to having a co-worker whowas more relaxed (i.e., on Stress dimension), more interesting (on Curiosity),but not too self-assured (lower on Egocentrism). Similarly, the officersreflected by statistically significant lower mean values. However, thewhite officers group was an exception on Dimension IV in viewing hesitantas a dominant personality trait of the least preferred co-worker. Resultson two sclaes frustratlng/helpful and distant/close revealed some

nw

17

I- 4 u.oC .) C:, 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(-"" I I I ! II -CL,

Z,- -.. C-- CjC, - O - C ) CCC)

+J c'-- 4-

V, I- C"XP.- U--" .0 C" C - M C-- C- C0 C " C- - - c>

C : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (u.

% " L...

(:2" ~ L ,.- ,--

rc 'V C

it >

V- 0 0 4.4 4. M NJ M - .-0: M -,- C -- M t - C, - I, (

4a (A L. g - 3 I: , , n , -> - -

E- S. . -. . . . . . . .-. . . .

V)CC

ai C cc

.- ,-1 V- CLA

_ U : CaCY. -e E-C

u i g ,S . ..- -c I--

-,- - mI. .

4-) -C- C.- ro0)a Wr- - r-C - - -c s

o~~ ~ ~ to 0 - - C0)-1-6-) LA C 4 4 - 4- (U0 - - V

u ) 4444 $- -4 4 £ V.nto L U -z Q) = c:v -4LA- -.) 4j a:C - : C' = : 0(

4-a -' c c- c~ E4'-c (A0 -'C UCS- 4->~ o.- MAVO a) O, 0 .- -Q)(7,- L 4 -1 0 -r CW -- = - ,S- C -- CC

M 4-).-.- '-C04-3 U 0 LnCC) MVUV U4J 0'- 0W M->, - > 4) . >

Q) ( S . Q) C:-M 4- 0C0-C4-) c WC C

0) (U (A --W 0 - 0 4- E- 4--.ca

to~~ 44- to

M ~ ~ .-: LO- LO- 6a C

U ' 1 -

LAi CN (N 0, (1) 1 N

U') C4 - . C C

a) L LA co '.0 C)Cl) Ocn0 ) a

-4

'.0 (N 00 mA a) C1 CD

-A L LA A C

'.0 VN C1 Cl) rlA L

(N N ) ta) C) 00 kN 0

(N r- 'N (N CL C Cl

c4 r-4 Cl 4 r4 4a'

.- 4~- LA a) '0 ')L-44

Nl 00 C (Nco l C

V)LA L C, la -Cl C Cl Cl Cl Cl L

'.0L) -4 00 a' L

(Ua W l C l Cl l C Cl

0.- 0-n (N 0) C)0 C

t. ) '.0 (N C)')L

C fa

0.

to LA LA C 0 )

N -4 0) (NLA (

C14 mn N Tcn

V

%) 0) ) Cl) m

U) s-I -4 ) C) m -4L

C

on c

4-4

41 0-1..1

'V N C -- 0)0

0)~W6 LA -4 0)* C)O4J (NClal

Cl 41*'V __0

I44

19

4J -

'. 0 M '

CYNN

(NI C% -4

CN o CN C)

-4j -4co-

-4 __ _

K 4 r- -4 ___00

4- -4

C. a)

0) ) 0 '0$4.-

~~L4P. ->1 ,-( m0

L CVi

C~~~U -4~ 0)____G). C.- CD

.- '4- 4 --0 .~U

0Q)_ c-~a 444

* m o44

20

Scale SCALESvalues

Friendly Relaxed Efficient Self-assured Intprpst I-'lnful rlnp Pccrtinn7.0-

Black rnlietpd menBlack nfficiprs

Wh i tp Fnlistpd mpn6.0 .lht fiir

5.0ra / T-nF

4.0 ,'/

1IT-FN

(P4.05) (P 40)(

21

interesting intercultural and inter-rank differences in evaluating thesignificance of interpersonal relationships in working situations. Whilethe white officers tended to be neutral about the importance of co-worker'slevel at the bipolarities between frustrating and helpful and betweendistant and close, the white enlisted men tended todislike thosefrutratg ']epf ul and/or distant (not-close) co-workers. On theother hand, all black personnel, particularly the black enlisted men,emphasized the importance of close and helpful relationships with theirco-workers. The last column in gure 1 revealed the inter-rank differencein perception of the least-preferred co-workers. That is, the enlistedmen of both races, especially the blacks tended to be quite conscientiousabout their own condition as being rejected or acceted by their co-workers,the officers on the other hand woulU disregard the importance of such acondition. The preser~t results strongly suggest that the interpersonalrelation is indeed a critical factor in determining the morale amongco-working members and thus it would affect the stability and efficiencyof the group performance as a whole.

Group Atmosphere Scales (GA)

The group mean ratings on the 10 GAS items were distributed withina relatively small range, from 4.21 to 6.38 as given in Table 7 (A).Therefore, the MNOVA of these measures resulted in very few significantF values as shown in Table 7 (B). This result suggests that all Armypersonnel who participated in this study had similar feelings about theirworking atmosphere as being pleasant, friendly, o and valuable,along with other positive characteristicTs. e orgy possible exception tothis general trend is the below-neutral tendency displayed by the whiteofficers on the scales harmoneous/guarrelsome (mean = 4.32) and self-assured/hesitant (mean = 4.ZLJ. On the other hand, the black offiersrevealed favorable dispositions (i.e., with mean values greater than 4.50)toward the positive poles of all ten measures. The reasons for suchinter-racial differences require a close examination of all situationalfactors in order to determine whether such phenomena are temporary orlongitudinal, or specific in a region or general in the entire Army.

Relationships between the IA index and GAS scores were assessed interms of a multiple regression analysis. The resultant multiplecorrelation (R = .313) and the 10 individual regression coefficientswere not statistically significant. However, their simple correlationcoefficients with the criterion IA measure were all positive, rangingfrom .067 (for frierdly/unfriendly) to .232 (for valuable/worthless).This suggests that the perceived group atmosphere in the Army is relatedto the level of the personnel's understanding of the dynamics involvedin potential conflict issues and/or situations in inter-racial encounters.

Conclusions and Implications

For the purpose of identifying the psychological characteristicsand processes involved in the understanding and changing of an individual'sattitudes, dispositions, and/or some behaviors towards the persons ofanother race/culture group in the Army institution, the present studyrevealed the following important phenomena: (a) an understanding of thedynamics involved in potential conflict issues in inter-racial encounters

Ii

I 22

0cqon -T ODI

r-4 LA %DO LA LAU. LA

C) MqC LA LA Cl ml

0% C C LA 0LI -n LA LA LA LA LA

0A LA r)L

LA LA LA LA LA

It o M ON 04l -4 r

o C4 OD mN * A

\C) C) r-4 C4 m ~ (7%U. 0r L co - Cl c'

C

t

%D en ___D_ r %

VL

m ~ 0- -4 (N Cl 0* LA LA CO .

kDA * . LA LA Ln LA LA

'U~~~~- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -o4

V.'90) .' '. .JLA A L

'4- C 4-4

2* &

23

4 -4

-44 OD L2.. -1 -W

044 OD C

Cl) r-LA

a, LA

00 a!

M ~ Lnr--

cm * 0- .-

LC

4A u0 m

A M NLA 0) ~. La.. C LA ~ . (

#a 0x be(

24

was significantly related to an individual's educational level andservice background in the Army; (b) the individual with a higher levelof such understanding would tend to be more tolerant toward the differencesof opinions of others not only on social issues but also in militaryactions and national securities; (c) the increment of an individual's IAlevel would significantly decrease one's stress (or anxiety) level ininter-racial relationships in co-working conditions; (d) significantinter-race and inter-rank differences were found regarding the preferencesof such personality characteristics of co-workers as rejectng vs.accepting, distant vs. close, helpful vs. frustratin, etc., e) anindividual's familiarityf ointer-racial conflict issues would notautomatically increase his/her understanding of the dynamics of theconflicts; and (f) the level of an individual's understanding of thedynamics of potential inter-racial conflicts was positively related tohis/her feelings about the group anosphere in the working environments.

In sum, the above results suggested two important principles:(1) intercultural awareness is directly related to an individual'spersonality and cognitive style characteristics, and (2) elevation ofan individual's cultural awareness level will definitely improve one'sattitudes, values, and behavioral dispositions toward the members ofanother race, and thus decrease intercultural gaps and/or conflictsin inter-racial communications.

However, since the level of IA was found to be a function of anindividual's educational level and career experience (rank) in the Army,the elevation of an individual's intercultural awareness will best beachieved through some form of intercultural education and/or trainingprograms. In the literature of cross-cultural training, at least sixapproaches have been explored (Triandis, 197711, Gudykunst, Hammer,Wiseman, 197712): (a) the intellectual approach -- the trainees receiveinformation of another culture by cognitie-Tearning (Downs, 196913,Fiedler, Mitchell and Triandis, 1971); (b) the area simulation approach --the physical environment of the host culture is created or simulatedfor the trainee's practice (Gudyhunst, Hammer and Wiseman, 1977),(c) the self-awareness approach -- the individuals receive the trainingon T-groupor "new culture groups" for better understanding of him/herself in order to have better ability to adjust in another culture(Downs, 1969); (d) the cultural awareness approach -- the trainees areprovided with general iniormation of the target culture (Downs, 1969),

4

*111Triandis, H.C. Theoretical framework for evaluating of cross-

*cultural training effectiveness. International Journal of InterculturalRelations, 1977, 1(4), 19-45.

Gudykunst, W.B., Hamer, M.R., & Wiseman, R.L. An analysis ofintegrated approach to cross-cultural training. International Journalof Intercultural Relations. 1977, 1(2), 99-110.

"Downs, J.F. Fable, fancies and failures in cross-culturaltraining. Trends, 1969, 2, 3.

25

(e) the behavioral approach -- this approach will teach the traineesspecific behaviors that are used in the target culture (David, 197214,Brislin and Pedersen, 197615); and (f) the interaction approach -- thisapproach provides the trainees with actual interaction experiences withthe members of the target culture (Gudyhunst, Hanner and Wiseman, 1977).It is clear that although these six approaches are somewhat differentwith respect to the emphases and methods used in the actual trainingprocesses, they are basically congruent in applying the same principleof social psychosemantics -- i.e., the learning of all importantbehavioral and cognitive components that govern the attitudes, perceptionsand behavioral dispositions of all individuals in inter-racial interactions.In other words, in actual inter-racial interactions, not only should theunderlying components of the contexts of communications be isomorphicbetween the counterparts of both cultures, but the attribution of suchcomponents to the cross-cultural controversial issues or elements shouldbe completely understood by all individuals involved.

Therefore, in an ideal inter-cultural training program, the followingvariables -- all of which play important roles in psychological processesin formulating and/or changing each individual's affect, cognition, behavioraldispositions, and habits -- should be incorporated in the planning ofthe program: (1) The characteristics of individuals of both trainingand tar et cultures - - the characterizti7oins should incl th objective

Ssubjective cultures of all individuals in the Army co-workingenvironment -- e.g., attitudes, motivation, values and job satisfaction.Specifically, the emphasis should be on all individuals' implicit theoriesof perceptions and stereotyping of intra- and inter-race persons,(2) Representative situations and potential controversies exist in inter-race relationships within the Ay's co-working environent. U les'Icontents and structures of such situations can be identified, thetraining program will lose its focuses and substantive utilities,(3) The pschosemantic meanings of such situations perceived by the

indiviuals of both training and target culture groups. This analysis willprovide a thorough knowledge of the antecedent conditions of the controversiesin the minds of all encounterers, (4) Design of an integrated trainingprogram that will take into consideration allthe inter-race similaritiesand differences in both the characteristics of individuals and themeanings (and structures) of the potential conflict issues and situations.Under such circumstances the above six cross-cultural training approacheswill be assessed and integrated such that the contents, methods andlength of the training and the selection criteria of the trainers can bewell planned in order to yield the most effective solutions, (S) Scientificevaluation of inter-cultural trainin effectiveness. The effects of aninter-cultuirl training (or assimilator) program should be assessed withrespect to such important areas of concerns for the members of both

14David, K. Intercultural adjustment and applications ofreinforcement theory to problems of culture shock. Trends, 1972, 4, 3.

ISBrislin, R. 8 Pedersen, P. Cross-cultural orientation program,New York: Gardner Press, 1976.

26

training and target cultures as the familiarity of other cultures,knowledge of the dynamics of inter-cultural conflicts and controversies,level of attitude and anxiety changes toward the members of anotherrace, and the achievement of effective inter-racial communications andinteractions. Finally, as far as the Army administration is concerned,the evaluation should also include the accountability of the total costspent for the training operations in terms of their effects on the moraleof all personnel and the improvement of the accomplishment in jobassignents.

i -

27

REFERENCES

Brislin, R. & Pedersen, P. Cross-cultural orientation program,New York: Gardner Press, 1976.

Christie, R. & Geis, F. L. Studies in Machiavellianism, New York:Academic Press, 1970.

David, K. Intercultural adjustment and applications of reinforcementtheory to problns of culture shock. Trends, 1972, 4, 3.

Downs, J. F. Fables, fancies and failures in cross-cultural training.Trends, 1969, 2, 3.

Fiedler, F. E. A theory of leadership effectiveness, New York:McGraw-Hill, 1767-.

Fiedler, F.E., Mitchell, T.R., & Triandis, H.C. The culturalassimilator: An approach to cross-cultural training. Journalof Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 95-102.

Gudykunst, W.B., Hamer, M.R., & Wiseman, R.L. An analysis ofintegrated approach to cross-cultural training. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations. 1977, 1(2), 99-11D.

Landis, D., Day, H.R., McGrew, P.L., Thomas, J.A. & Miller, A.B.Can a black "culture assimilator" increase racial understanding?.Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 32, 2, 169-183.

Randolph, G., Landis, D. & Tzeng, O.C.S. The effects of time andpractice upon culture assimilator training. International Journalof Intercultural Relations, 1977, 1(4), 105-119-.

Rice, R.W. Construct validity of the least preferred co-worker score.Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 85(6), 1199-1237.

Weldon, D., Carlston, D.C., Rissman, A.K., Slobodin, L., & Triandis, H.C.A laboratory test of effects of culture assimilator training.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 300-310.

Triandis, H.C. (Ed.) Variations in black and white perceptions of thesocial environment. Urbn :Uvy- o"P , .

Triandis, H.C. Theoretical framework for evaluating of cross-culturaltraining effectiveness. International Journal of InterculturalRelations, 1977, 1(4), 19-45.

Tzeng, O.C.S. & Osgood, C.E. Validity tests for componential analysisof conceptual domains: A cross-cultural study in methodology.Behavioral Science, 1976, 21, 69-85.

T

28

REFERENCE NOTES

Day, H.R., Landis, D. & McGrew, P.L., Exploration in culturalunvierstanding (CSD TR 75-8). Philadelphia: Center or SEialDevelopment, 1975.

Mitchell, T.R., Dossett, D.L., Fiedler, F.E., & Triandis, H.C.,Validation evidence for the culture assimilator. (Tech. Rep. 71-82).

Urbana: Uhiversity IT S, 191.

Osgood, C.E., Speculation on the structure of interpersonal intentions.(Tech. Rep. 39-J Urbana: " - o I ois, 1966.

29

DISTRIBUTION

4 OASD IM&RA) 2 HUUSACDLC. ItI Did, ATTN: Lltoarv2HODA tL)Atrl CSZi I iHl)LSAC0ECFt Did ATTN ATEC EX F Hair F'riui,

HIIDA tIAPE PRi 2 (JoAEEL:, F Retiamir latrjri,AlTN Ilit iiy

I FOtA (DAMA AR) I USAPACOC. Ft Benil....... Ha--ni AT TN AI(P HR

I HODA IDAI'F I-RE P0t I 0ISA Comm Ei-qt Sih Ft M .......... jtt AlIN ATSN F A

I NOVA (SGRD ID) I USAFC, Ft Mo~iiiriit!i ATTN AW;EL ('I 40PI HOVA (LVAMI DOT C:l I USAEC. Ft Monmo~cuth. ATTN: AMSEL PA P

I HODA (DAPC PMZ A) 1 USAEC. Ft Moermorntli ATTN: AMSEL SI CRI HODA (DACH PP? A) 1 USAEC. Ft Moiermoritli ATTN C, Facti 0ev R,I HODA (DAPE HRE) I USA MiteriiSvi Aii,,p Agir Altei-t ATTIN ANIX!Y P

I HODA (DAPE MAPU C) 1 Eilewoar Arsenal, Ali.-,depi'rs ATTN. 1,ARFA ILL H

I HODA (DAVE DWI 1 USA Odo Ct & St. At ir'ren. ATTN. ATSL TEM C,

I HODA WAPE HRL- 2 USA Htu Enqr Lab, Ao,-ouce, ATTN L,tIaa [D.,

I IIODA (DAPE CPSI 1 USA Ci..... hat Arms Tog Bel Ft Be .... it, ATTN Ad Strv,,I HOOA (DAFD MFAi 1 USA Irtlatity Hum R~ctt Vt. Ft BentiItl. ATTN. CtI,,I

IRODA (DARD ARS P) I USA Inftantry Bit, Ft Rennirig ATTN STFrC It TI HODA (DAPC PAS A) 1 tISASMA. Ft Bliss, ATTN ATSS I RIC

HOtIA DUSA OR) 1 LISA At Ott Scht f t Rim- ATTIN ATSA CID Mt

I WWIIA IDAMI) ROWi I I ISA Air DAi St- I Rm ATT N Teoc I -Ii

1400-JIA ltI1 USA Air net Bit FtI Ni-s ATTN FILESIHiIIA ifiAIOPtI 1 USA A,. Del Rd. Ft Rii.ATTN STERD PO

1 ,- t~ Ci,. it fIr,, (DA OTSGI. Ait-,l, MO I UISA Cindt & General Stt Colliege, Ft Leaverrwotttr. ATTN I J1,1t Art H..rt R,,, VtDl~ TAT) if&tSI I iISA C-vitt& Genieral St

t CoIl-it'.Ft Lea,,erwiltt, ATTN AISW SE

* 010 'Af4A[ APO Satl- AT1TN ARlAGPRAIIIAUr errlStCiii I rait-,vATTN Ed Adyriti

I HO first A ....y. ATTN. AFKA (I I I I ISA C -,hi-ed Ai, CIt' It, At. Flt i *.- -,-~tl, ATTN OrnIC-ti2 HO Fiftht Army Ft Satrr Houtston I USA Comnted Arms Cmbr Viet, Art. Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: CCS1 [1,, Arm-. Stt Stities Of,- ATTN OAVCSA iDSPi I USA Cotmbinedl Arms Cnisbt Dev At. Ft Leaven'worth. ATTN: ATCASA1 (i', 01,11,d 50 Of I~.,~t- I lISA C,-Nri-at Armi C7-1t1 Dev Ait. Ft Le-avenrworth,. ATTN. ATCACO F

I 14t,14R AAtIN CP' tilt IA rn.ntIAt.'tt eAtttt-viiit TT ATCACr (.1I ttti Army5 1.1,''r~~ii AT IN HSH liiif I iSAfIFIM.Nigh1V1S/~orLit, F I,,'ATTN AMSFL-NV--SDITrir Armvy I'P-tat',- A FIN ANRAL 'I I-SA Coititie Srr (mil. F t pRi-io At I N Tech Library

1 0tt Afar Sect itthe Arm~y I R&DI I USAMFRDC FiBRilvitir ATTN SISFB noItt-It, Stuott Ott-. QICS I USA Fiti Stirh Ft Retv,, ATTN Libraty

TI IJSASA. Ariririrtirt ATTN IARI) I I USA Totttqrapht- Latb. Ft R.I-l, . ATTN I-I TO SISIA Rmh Ut1. Dttrlat AT TN Lilt Sit., D.teST I I ISA Tolt tirapliir fair Ft RNv ...r. ATTN STINFO CentteriI SARIEM, NitriI, A TTN ;GAD LIE CA 1 k iSA I r,,iitiitt ( t 4hat' Ft RI BIiru AT TN E It. GSL

II ISAIMA, 1-' t13-t, Alt N A I1511 CI II M I lISA Itii.-tiittoc 0tt &i ~ Stul. Ft Ituarhiih ..... ATTN A IS CTO-MSI USAIMA. Ft BRiiti ATTN Marmiat it) I I iSA rui iirCt' & St-h FtI H,., hut a ATTN ATSI -TEuI IS WAC Ct, & ro e ' Ft MrClenitar AT TN Lit I ISAA ittteittemt- C1, & Schl, FtI Hiuimih~ia ATTN ATSI TFI( GS

I IS WAC Cit &St-I. FtMt-Cu-han. ATTN T'i'i D, I IS"A Iul~titmiuc Ci' & SO'. Ft Hui-vhiii.d ATTIN ATSI CTS- OR

I I)SA Quartermaster St-h Fri Lise, ATTN ATSM TV I 1I'"A Ittcirtt-nc- it & Scht. Ft Hiidtrica ATTN ATSI CTD DT

L vtuteiitqettte Material Dcv Olt- FWI F, Hciil,.trl 1 I ISA Inttelltienit C", & Sihi FtI Hi,htt-a AlTTN ATSI CTT) CsI USA SE SiitSri, Fr I..'unit. ATTN ATSD TA 1 i1SA I itelittrn-co :t, K. St-I Ft Wiarihira. ATTN DAS;SRIII LISA Clrati,.,i I7t, &', fi ,t lIfi i-, ATTN ATSC TF RD) I USA IeIi.s. C1, & Sit, It Hitaihi'.. ATTN AISI TIM

* I tJ';AITC(H I' F istir AFtIN Fitii A'tiit, I USA itt'iit(tt i, Pt, St-i, FtI Huachiit~ ATTN I IrtaryItWA War C,aiiqtCtiui Ra A TTN Liii I I DR HO0 FtI H.- rtui ATTN TechI Ret Dn,. RAIR, N,- .1,'Ii, D- 2 cDA. LISA E14ctr111- I~vu (,rI ATTN STI FP MI S

I fISOA Mi -i, 1 HO. TCATA, ATTN Tech Library

IS'A (Zorn-wn Antai AAI,y Rethetda. ATTN MOCA MR I HO. TCATA. ATTN AT CAT-OP (0. Ft I 1icril

ISA Con-of~ Anal At1,.y Reltnesda, ATTN. MOCA JF 1 lISA Retiting Cmd. Ft Strerilan, ATTN USARCPM PI SA Arct~t Test Ct AP(IreattI-. ATTN STTAC PtMl 1 Si-tuor Army A". USAI'AGOD'TAC. Clijiti AtF Att. Fl(,i Niu 9

I lISA Arctic Test Cit. APO Sialem ATTN AMSTE PL TS 1 HO. USARPAC. DCSPFR. APO SF 96558. ATTN: GPPt St

I LISA Armament Cnmd Redstonte Ar-serial. ATTN ATSK-TEM I Stimsnr Lib. Acadlemy of Health Strent-er, Ft Sam H-nir,

I LISA Armament Cmi. Rockt island, ATTN AMSAA TOIC I Marine Corps Inst . ATTIN: Dean MCIIFAA NAFEC. Atlantit- City. ATTN Library 1 HO. USMC, Conmmandant. ATTN Codie MTMT

1FAA NAFFC Atlantic City ATTN: Human Lngr Art 1 HO, USMC. Comrmandanrt. ATTN Code MPI 20 291 FAA Aerotrautical I", Oklahiomra City, ATTN AA1: 44D 2 uSCG Acteemy. NewtI ondon. AT TN: Admissror

2 USA Fld Artv Schr. Ft Sill ATTN Library 2LUt-CIG Acade-mv, New Lontlirn, ATTN Liraty

I LISA Armor St-h, Ft Knox,. ATTN Library 1 I ISCG Trairing Ctt. NY ATTN COI l ISA Aririrwirb-. Ft IKnow, ATTN A TSR Of F 1I(JSCG TraicurrCt NY, ATTN EthiC&Si-01l

I iSA Ainrri Srir I t'n-i. ATTN ATSR DT U' t' iSUT, Pl' ..Itni It- , A DC AT7TN GPr 1'621 USA Air,r St-li It Ii P, - ATITN A TSH CD AD I Ho Muid Ramp B,' MC Del. Quirnlit, ATTN V&S Div

ILL'S

30

IUs Marine Corps iaison Ott.. AM~C. Alexandria, ATTN AMCGS 1 DOt & Civil Inst of Enviro Medicine, Cani.a1 USATRADOC, Ft Munrore. ATTN ATRO ED 1 AIR CRESS. Kensington. ATTN- ltro Sys Be6 USATRADOC. Ft Monriroc ATTN- ATPR AD I Militaerpsylertloglosk Tieneste. Copenhagen1 USATRADOC. Ft Monroe, AT TN: ATTS EA I Miliary Attache, French Embassy. ATTN: Doc SeLI USA Forces Cmd, Fr McPlrersrrr ATTN: . iltr 1 Medecrir Chet, C.E.R.P A. - Arsenal. ToulorrfNaval r r~orce2 LISA Aviation Test Bit, Ft Rtick#i ATTN STE8G- PO I Peen Scientitic Ott. Applr Hum Engr Rich Div. MinistryI USA Agcy tor Aviahion' Satits, F I Runckerr, AT TN. Library V o Defense, New DethoI USA Agcy tor Aviation Satety, FtI Rucker. ATTN: Educ Advisor 1 Pets Rsch Otf: Library, AKA, tsraet Detense 1 010!51 USA Aviation Sch, Ft Rutcker, ATTN. P0 Drawer 0 1 Ministeris van Detensie, DOOP/KI Atd SocalI HOUSA Aviation Sy Cord. St Lois, ATTN: AMSAV- ZDR Psychotoglische Zaken. The Hague, Netherlanuds

2 USA Asiinirin v T,t Ac.t , dwdid% AFR, ATTN. SAV rETI USA Air Oct Schr Ft bIns~, ATTN. A TSA TFMI INA Air M,-nilt Rrih & Un-v Lain, Mofftt Fl. ATTN: SAVUL ASI USA AV1,1tnnvi Sch. Res Trig Mgt, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST-T-RTMI USA Aviation Sch. CO. Ft Rucker. ATTN. ATST-D- A1 HO, DARCUM. Alexanria, ATTN: AMXCD -TL1 HO, DARCOM. Alevandria, ATTN: CDR1 US Mititary Academy. West Point, ATTN. Serials UnitI US Miltary Academy. West Point. ATTN -Otc at Milt LdrstntI US Mititany Acadnemy, Wevt Point. ATTN. MAORI USA Staienirliatioen Gti. UK. FPO NY, ATTN: MASE -GCI Utc of Naval Rsch. Atlnnngton. ATTN Code 4523 Otc of Naval Fisch Arlrngtoii. ATTN. Code 4581 Ott at Naval Rich, Arlinetan, ATTN. Coile 4501 Ott, of Naval Rich, Arlrnngtorr ATTN Code 441I N-A~n Ac in. Mrrt Rcs Lab, Pensacsola, ATTN. Acous Sch DivI N-nvav AeriArar Mcii Res Lit). Peinsacrila, ATTN~ Code LS1INuna Aernrt~ Mcii Rn's Lab. Pensacoila. ATTN -Coide L5

I :,fo NdvPrs, ATTN Pers ORNAVAIRSTA. Norfolk, ATTN. Safety Ctr

I Taos OceairotIrapiihc. DC, ATTN. Carte 6251. Charts II TechI Coriter of Naval Antal. ATTN.- Doic CrI NivAirSysCorn. ATTN AIR 5313CI Nay BnnM, ATTN 7131 NavHelicopteSubSqua 2. FPO SF 966011 AFHRL (FT) Wiltiams AF81 AFHRL ITT) Lowry AFBI At-HAL (AS) WPAFB, OH2 AFHRL IDOJZ) Braooks AFB1 AFHRL (DOJN) Lactrland AFBI HOUSAF ItNYSD)I HOUSAF (DPXXA)IAFVTG IRD) Randolphr AFB

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFB. OH2 AF Inst at T,-nh. WPAFB, OH. ATTN- ENE/SL-

IATC IXPTDI Ri~nrdalih AFF1I 11SAF Ar-Mitedi Lii. Bronnins AFB (SUL 4), ATTN' DOC SECI At-USAI INL I ArlirnIgrirrI At Linr Cmii. Mi-Cln1re AF-B. ATTN ALC/DPCRBI Ar Force Acarlemy, 1.0. ATTN. Ot of Bel Scne5 NanPets & Des Cir. Sari Dregs)2 Navy Mert Nrinropsvcrnatfic R',ch Unit, San Diegoc1 Niv Electronic Lain. Sari Dicier. ATTN Res Lab

1 Nay TrrrqCin. San Dirili, ATTN Carte, 9000- LiiiI NjvPristGraS.Mrunti-t-. ATTN Code 55Alla1 N.ivPi)tGraSch. Monteciry ATTN Care2124

I U De ofLibr, C.ATTN Maritriwei, Admen

I U Det o Jstie, CATTN. Drug Entorce AdmenI Nl ut f tanars. CATTN. Compauter Into Section

IDruiner Fedtral Cii. rIraewood, ATTN. BIM12Detense Documentation Center

I W an Ar AtaceAustrian Embassy

I it' I ~chrh e Farteurs. Hirmarne (it, Ia Detense

I C , taf Rovi C-aiAF. ATTN Pert Slit Anal Brr DefRw hStItI AT TN CrICRDSIW)

!i~~~ .n. .11 1 f-111 FIt)11iY.Wahrevi