ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

30 (2006) 457469
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Short-term study abroad and intercultural sensitivity:

A pilot study
Philip H. Andersona,, Leigh Lawtonb,
Richard J. Rexeisenc, Ann C. Hubbardd
a

Mail No. MCN 6002, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105-1096, USA
Mail No. MCN 6034, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105-1096, USA
c
Mail No. MCN 6069, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105-1096, USA
d
Mail No. 44C, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105-1096, USA

Received 20 December 2004; received in revised form 12 August 2005; accepted 21 October 2005

Abstract
Longitudinal studies that measure the impact of study abroad programs are essential to improving
our understanding of the effectiveness of international education. The focus of the current research is
on the development of cross-cultural sensitivity. Hammer and Bennetts [(2002). The Intercultural
Development Inventory (IDI) manual. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute)]
Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is used to assess of the extent to which a short-term,
faculty-led study abroad program can affect the cross-cultural sensitivity of student learners. The IDI
was administered before the students traveled abroad and then again 4 weeks later when they
returned to the United States. Preliminary results suggest that short-term programs can have a
positive impact on the overall development of cross-cultural sensitivity. Individual differences are
noted and the paper provides some discussion of the impact of the study abroad program on specic
subscales within the IDI instrument. The study concludes by highlighting areas of needed research.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Study abroad; Intercultural sensitivity; Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI)

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 651 962 5136; fax: +1 651 962 5093.

E-mail addresses: phanderson@stthomas.edu (P.H. Anderson), l9lawton@stthomas.edu (L. Lawton),

rjrexeisen@stthomas.edu (R.J. Rexeisen), achubbard@stthomas.edu (A.C. Hubbard).
0147-1767/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.10.004

ARTICLE IN PRESS
458

P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457469

1. Introduction
The past decade has witnessed a dramatic growth in the number of colleges and
universities offering study abroad programs. Increasingly, these programs also have
become a recruitment tool, as prospective students make institutional selection based on
study abroad opportunities as well as academic offerings and campus life (Ludwig, 2000).
As international travel has become more commonplace and as the economies of the world
have become more interdependent, both students and faculties are recognizing the need to
prepare for this new, shrinking world.
The University of Northern Illinois website is illustrative of the importance
some universities place on international education and how they use their programs as a
tool for recruiting: In todays global society, these insights [into cultural sensitivity and
world affairs] are crucial for successful and meaningful interaction, both here and
abroady An international education is becoming a necessity, not a luxury, and study
abroad is one of the best ways to get such an international education. (NUI Study
Abroad Ofce, 2000).
An examination of literature relating to international programs reveals that most
overseas programs seek to achieve multiple objectives. For example, the Ofce of Study
Abroad at Michigan State University has identied four typical areas that may be
enhanced through participating in a study abroad program (Michigan State University
Ofce of Study Abroad):
Academic/intellectualproblem solving and language skills, geographical and
historical knowledge, etc.; Professionalprofessional contacts, a sense of direction
for future career choices, a sense of responsibility, etc.; Personalan appreciation for the US, condence, personal identity, exibility, creativity, etc.; and Interculturalinterest in other cultures, diminished ethnocentrism, language skills, cultural
sensitivity, etc.
While the specic objectives established for study abroad programs vary from institution
to institution, academic and intercultural competencies are common to virtually all
programs. Academic competency focuses on the specic discipline studied, while
intercultural competency relates to the broad goal of enhancing student appreciation of
differences among cultures. Battsek (1962) makes the following normative statement: a
number of practical considerations should be taken more into account with respect to
study abroad by American undergraduatesy Program objectives should be carefully
dened. The chief one should be academicy Study abroad program objectives should also
include learning about the foreign society and culturey (p. 225242). A review of the
objectives of various programs across the US suggests that most schools have adopted this
premise.
As study abroad programs garner resources that could otherwise be allocated to oncampus programs and activities, the question often is raised as to whether the study abroad
experience achieves its stated objectives. Unfortunately, at a time of increasing competition
for resources, study abroad programs generally lack hard data to justify their worth.
Gillespe (2002) points out that while assessment of academic goals occurs regularly, the
intercultural goals of study abroad programs remain ill dened and unmeasured. She
argues for improved assessment of these programs, including the establishment of
minimum standards for every program that contain both qualitative and quantitative
measures.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457469

459

2. Literature review
Brislin and Yoshida (1994) contend that culture can be dened as any framework
of expectations and values. Our ability to function effectively in an environment
depends upon our skill in recognizing and responding appropriately to the values
and expectations of those around us. Landis and Bhagat (1996) argue that intercultural
sensitivity is crucial to enabling people to live and work with others from different
cultural backgrounds. As our workplace and society become more diverse, and as
globalization of business intensies, an individuals sensitivity to cultural differences
combined with an ability to adapt his or her behavior to those differences will become
increasingly valuable.
While there is an almost universal call for greater cultural awareness, the mechanism for
achieving this aim has been a subject of considerable discussion. Suggested alternatives
range from presentation of materials on different cultures in a domestic classroom
environment to actual exposure and direct involvement with different cultures in foreign
locations. Although few, if any, authorities argue against travel abroad as a means of
improving cultural sensitivity, there is some support for the belief that increases in
intercultural sensitivity can be achieved through education and training, without the need
for foreign travel [cf. Altschuler, Sussman, & Kachur, 2003; Bennett, Bennett, & Allen,
1999; Paige, 1993; Pruegger & Rogers, 1994] There is also caution expressed that traveling
abroad does not ensure greater cultural sensitivity. Kelly (1963) maintains that a person
can witness an event without ever experiencing it (p. 73). In Kellys view, a student could
participate in a study abroad program without experiencing the culture in which the
student resided. The bottom line for this debate is that unless we assess the gains in
intercultural sensitivity resulting from alternative programs designed to improve cultural
sensitivity, we will not be able to determine which alternatives are most effective in
producing the desired outcome.
While there have been a plethora of studies attempting to support the positive impact of
study abroad programs, few have employed prepost designs in an attempt to quantify the
changes occurring over the course of the program. Three recently published studies
endeavored to ll this gap (Engle & Engle, 2004; Medina-Lopez-Portillo, 2004; Paige,
Cohen, & Shively, 2004). All three of these studies involved programs designed to improve
the language skills of participants. Each program was organized primarily to meet the
needs of students who had a substantial background in the non-English language of the
host country (usually 23 years of language study) prior to the overseas experience and
who took language courses while in the host country. The duration of the study abroad
experiences varied across student groups with the shortest being 7 weeks and the longest, 1
year.
The results of the three studies were mixed. Medina-Lopez-Portillo (2004) found little
statistically signicant evidence that either a 7-week or a semester-long language program
in Mexico produced a gain in intercultural sensitivity. On the other hand, Paige et al.
(2004) found that students spending a semester in various French and Spanish-speaking
countries did show signicant improvements in sensitivity. While the statistics presented by
Engle and Engle (2004) do not address whether their results were statistically signicant,
they state that students in the semester-long program demonstrated gains in intercultural
sensitivity and that students in the year-long program showed even greater gains, with their
rate of progress increasing in the second term.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
460

P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457469

The pilot study presented here attempts to open the discussion as to whether a program
of only 4 weeks set in an English-speaking country has an effect on the cultural sensitivity
of its participants. As noted by Dwyer (2004), while there has been a dramatic increase in
the number of students studying abroad, the duration of their time abroad has decreased
consistently over the past 16 years. Hence, there is a need to determine whether a shortterm study abroad program can achieve a goal of increased cultural sensitivity in its
participants.
This study also seeks to ascertain whether gains in intercultural sensitivity are possible
when language barriers are minimal to non-existent. That is, can a study abroad program
set in an English-speaking country produce gains in intercultural sensitivity? Or does
familiarity with the language lead students to miss seeing the cultural differences that exist?
3. The study
3.1. The assessment instrument
If we are to quantify the impact of study abroad programs on intercultural sensitivity,
we must have a suitable dependent variable. There are a number of instruments designed to
measure some aspect of intercultural sensitivity. Among the most widely known are Shimp
and Sharmas Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies Scale (CETSCALE) (1987), Kelley and
Meyers (1995) Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI), and Hammer & Bennetts
(2002) Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI).
We selected the IDI for this study given its demonstrated theoretical grounding on a
developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS). The IDI is consistent with
Bhawuk and Brislins hypothesis regarding an individuals reaction to other cultures.
Bhawuk and Brislin (1992) describe intercultural sensitivity as an individuals reaction to
people from other cultures, which can predetermine that individuals ability to work
successfully with those people. They state that an individuals reaction to other cultures
develops and changes over time with personal experience and training. A second
consideration for utilizing the IDI is that numerous reports have documented its validity
and reliability (Bennett, 1986, 1993; Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). This instrument
allows users to assess the effectiveness of various cross-cultural interventions by measuring
the respondents change in intercultural sensitivity.
Bennett (1986, 1993) posited a model of intercultural sensitivity in an attempt to explain
why people respond differently to cultural experiences. Bennetts DMIS is based on
concepts from cognitive psychology and constructivism. The model operates on the
assumption that individuals follow a predictable path as they gain experience with different
cultures. They move through six stages of increasing sensitivity to cultural differences
(Hammer & Bennett, 2002). In the rst three stages (Denial, Defense/Reversal,
Minimization), individuals exhibit varying degrees of ethnocentrismones own culture
is the basis for ones reality. Stages foursix (acceptance, adaptation, integration) are
characterized by increasing levels of ethnorelativisma persons indigenous culture is
viewed in the context of other cultures and all cultures are appreciated. The DMIS model
assumes that cultures are highly differentiated (Klak & Martin, 2003). In other words,
there are many different, yet effective ways in which people can organize their
understanding of, and working relationship with the external environment in which they
live. This includes but is not limited to social, political, economic and religious afliations.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457469

461

According to Hammer et al. (2003, p. 423), The crux of the development of intercultural
sensitivity is attaining the ability to construe (and thus to experience) cultural difference in
more complex ways. Bennett (1993) contends that this ability is developed through
experience; it is not an innate perspective. The underlying assumption of Bennetts model is
that competence in dealing with intercultural relations increases as ones understanding of
cultural difference becomes more sophisticatedas ones worldview incorporates cultural
differences into a new identity (Hammer & Bennett, 2002).
3.2. The Hypotheses
Chieffo and Grifns (2003) point out that the majority of study abroad programs are
now short-term and faculty-led. This study sought to assess whether one such program
affected the participants intercultural sensitivity. Because the sole focus of this study was
to examine the impact of the overseas experience on student attitudes toward cultural
diversity, we do not report ndings related to academic objectives. In an effort to test
whether study abroad has a positive impact on the development of intercultural sensitivity,
we tested the following ve hypotheses:
A 4-week, faculty-led study abroad program:
Hypothesis 1. Will have a positive impact on the overall development of cross-cultural
sensitivity.
Hypothesis 2. Will reduce the degree of denial and defense characteristics of participants.
Hypothesis 3. Will reduce the degree of reversal or propensity to see other cultures as
superior to ones own.
Hypothesis 4. Will reduce the degree of minimization of cultural differences.
Hypothesis 5. Will increase the degree of acceptance of and adaptation to cultural
differences.

4. Methodology
4.1. Subjects
The subjects in this research were traditional, college-aged students majoring in business
administration at a medium-sized, private university located in the upper Midwest. The
student body is very homogeneous consisting of less than 10% international students or
students of color. The sample consisted of 23 senior-level students enrolled in a
management course. The average age was 21 years. Two of the students in the course
were foreign students (Columbian and French), and were excluded from the sample.
Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the students in the sample. The exhibit
shows that more than two-thirds were women and that while more than one-half had some
travel to a foreign country, less than one-fth had prior participation in a study abroad
program. None of the students included in the sample had a foreign language capability
and none had taken a foreign culture course prior to their involvement in this program.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
462

P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457469

Table 1
Demographics of the sample
Variable

Number

Percentage (%)

Year in school: Senior

Female
Prior foreign travel experience
Prior study abroad experience

23
16
14
4

100
71
57
19

4.2. Study abroad program

The program assessed was a faculty-led management course that consisted of 1 week of
on-campus study, followed by 4 weeks of study in Europe2 weeks in London, England
and 2 weeks in Cork, Ireland. While abroad, classroom instruction was conducted by the
US faculty member on university campuses. Classes met in the morning, leaving
afternoons and evenings for the students to explore the local surroundings. The program
included guest speakers, company site visits, and travel to local cultural sites. While in
London, the students accommodations were with British families in a home-stay
arrangement, providing the students with the opportunity to experience daily life at a
personal level. Student involvement with the families included shared meals and
conversations regarding British life plus recommendations for travel. Accommodations
in Cork were in student housing adjacent to the university campus. No Irish students reside
in the housing complex during the summer months due to the lack of course offerings
on the campus. While in Cork, the students were hosted for a lunch at the residence of an
Irish couple.
The program included a series of lectures by a British professor entitled British Life and
Culture that covered topics such as British politics and Parliament, the National Health
Service, taxation, and an overview of the EU. The program also included site visits to
Cambridge and Canterbury while in England. Travel in Ireland included a three-day trip
to the west coast and a visit to the Irish Cultural Center in Cobh, which was a primary port
of emigration during the potato famine.
As would be expected, the students frequented local pubs in both countries and met
students from the nearby university. While numerous acquaintances were formed that
yielded discussions of cultural differences and spirited debates regarding politics, none of
these acquaintances continued beyond the time spent in that country.
4.3. The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) V2-3
Hammer and Bennetts (2002) IDI (Version 23) is a 50-item paper and pencil
instrument based on Bennetts (1993) DMIS. Hammer and Bennett (2002, pp. 26) caution
that the IDI should not be confused with the DMIS. They note that the IDI is an
instrument designed to measure the primary constructs of the DMIS model of intercultural
sensitivity. The instrument was designed to identify the stage of development that
respondents have achieved as they move from denial to integration, as described in the
DMIS model. The respondents IDI score reects the degree of intercultural understanding
that they have mastered.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457469

463

Respondents to the IDI rate their agreement or disagreement to each of the 50

statements on a ve-point Likert scale. The IDI instrument consists of subscales designed
to measure attitudes related to the stages described in the DMIS. It provides an overall
measure of respondents worldview development and their position on the DMISs
ethnocentric/ethnorelative continuum. It contains ve subscalesDenial/Defense, Reversal, Minimization, Acceptance/Adaptation, and Encapsulated Marginality. The scores
on a subscale range from one to ve. The higher the score, the more an individual has
resolved the issues involved with that subscale. According to Hammer and Bennett (2002),
even though the subscales are located on a continuum, you do not have to move
sequentially through the subscales. Consequently, individuals do not have to completely
resolve a subscale before moving on to the next subscale on the continuum. For example,
one could have only partially resolved the Reversal subscale, while also partially resolving
the Minimization subscale. We provide a description of the IDI scales from Hammer and
Bennett (2002) in Table 2.
According to Hammer et al. (2003) factor analysis of the items shows alpha coefcients
of 0.80 or higher for the each of the subscales. Overall, they report the revised instrument is
both valid and reliable. Hammer et al. (2003) also report that an additional analysis using
the MarloweCrown Social Desirability Scale (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972) showed all ve
IDI scales were independent of a respondents tendency to provide socially desirable
responses.
Table 3 provides a pictorial view of the IDI scales and their relation to the scores
generated by the instrument. As noted in the exhibit, as ones IDI score increases, he or she
moves closer to viewing cultures from an ethnorelative perspective.
Hammer and Bennetts IDI was administered to the students on two occasionsa pretest and a post-test. The pre-test was administered the rst day of class and the post-test on
the last day of class. The pre-test was administered to all 23 students in the course. The
post-test IDI scores were collected from 19 students. Two students who were foreign
nationals (France and Columbia) were excluded from the study due to their pre-existing
extensive exposure to different cultures. Two other students missed completing the second
administration of the instrument, one because of illness and the other due to early

Table 2
Description of IDI scales
Denial and Defense

Reversal
Minimization

Acceptance and Adaptation

Encapsulated Marginality

Measures a worldview that simplies and/or polarizes cultural difference. It ranges

from disinterest and avoidance to a tendency to view the world in terms of us
and them, where us is superior.
Measures a worldview that reverses the us and them polarization, where
them is superior. It is a mirror image of the denial/defense orientation.
Measures a worldview that highlights cultural commonality and universal values
through an emphasis on similaritya tendency to assume that people from other
cultures are basically like us.
Measures a worldview that can comprehend and accommodate complex cultural
difference. It can range from a tendency to recognize patterns of cultural
difference in ones own culture and in other cultures (acceptance) to a tendency to
alter perception and behavior according to cultural context (adaptation).
Measures a worldview that incorporates a multicultural identity, where ones
identity is separated from any specic cultural context.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
464

P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457469

Table 3
IDI V2-3

Table 4
One-tailed test of signicance
Scale

Pre-test mean

Post-test mean

p-value

Possible range

H1: Overall
developmental
H2: Denial/Defense
H3: Reversal
H4: Minimization
H5: Acceptance/
Adaptation

93.78

98.00

0.069a

55145c

4.06
3.72
3.08
3.05

3.99
4.11
2.90
3.42

0.786 (NS)
0.001b
0.836 (NS)
0.022b

15
15
15
15

Signicant at the 0.10 level.

Signicant at the 0.05 level.
c
Effective range where 100 the mean of the normative sample and 15 is the SD.
b

departure from the program. Finally, three students failed to enter their SSN in the posttest, making paired-test analysis impossible. This reduced the nal sample size for the
study to 16. The students were told that their IDI results would be kept condential and
would not inuence their nal grade for the course. In both the pre-test and post-test, the
IDI instruments were kept secure from the course instructor and the scoring of the
instruments was not conducted until after the program course was completed and nal
grades were submitted.

5. Results
Table 4 shows the results of this study. Three of the ve hypotheses tested received at
least modest support. Based on these results, there is weak support (p 0.069) for the
hypothesis that the students who participated in the 4-week, study abroad experience
signicantly improved their level of intercultural sensitivity as measured by the IDIs
development scale. Stronger statistical support was found for two other hypotheses: As a
group, the students lessened their tendency to see other cultures as better than their own
(Reversal) and improved their ability to accept and adapt to cultural differences
(Acceptance/Adaptation).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457469

465

6. Discussion
While we had hoped for, and expected, stronger support for the efcacy of this program
in increasing the overall scores for cultural sensitivity, the small sample size (16) restricts
our ability to draw a rm conclusion at this time. There were no signicant changes in the
students Defense/Denial and Minimization scores. The lack of signicant change for
Defense/Denial is not surprising since none of the students participating in the program
were in this stage of development when the program started. The lowest-scoring students
were toward the top end of the Reversal stage and the mean score for the pre-test was
approximately four on a ve-point scale. Consequently, there was little room for upward
movement.
While the lack of support for changes in the students Defense/Denial scores was not
startling, the lack of support for change on the Minimization scale is puzzling. When the
program started, most of the students evidenced a tendency to minimize cultural
differences, with a pre-test mean of 3.08, suggesting there was plenty room for
improvement. It is worth noting that our results are very similar to those reported in
the Paige et al. (2004) study. Both studies found signicant improvement in the students
Reversal and Acceptance/Adaptation subscales and in the Overall Development score and
no signicant differences on the other subscales.
In order to gain further insight into these results, particularly given the small sample size
(16), we plotted the pre-test and post-test scores of the students who participated in the
study. Table 5 shows the number of students in each of the ve stages, based on their IDI
scores prior to leaving to study abroad and the number in each category at the end of the
program. As the exhibit shows, there was almost no change in the number of students in
each stage. Examination of the individual scores revealed that one student resolved the
Reversal issues measured by the IDI and two students resolved their Minimization issues.
Since we found a signicant change in the groups overall Development score, we had
expected to nd more movement between stages, rather than just within a stage. However,
this was not the case.
According to Bennetts DMIS, people develop their sensitivity on each of the stages
simultaneously (Bennett, 1993). That is, they do not have to completely resolve the issues
involved in one stage (e.g., Reversal) before moving on to the next stage (e.g.,
Minimization). Clearly, that is what happened in the present study. While the students
overall development score showed signicant movement, the change usually was not
sufcient to move them out of one stage and into the next.
In order to show this visually, we plotted the students pre- and post-IDI Development
scores. The result of this plotting is shown in Fig. 1. It is clear that scores of most students
simply moved within a stage.

Table 5
Position of students along IDI development scale

Pre-test # of students
Post-test # of students

Denial and Defense

Reversal

Minimization

Acceptance

Encapsulated
Marginality

0
0

4
3

10
9

2
4

0
0

ARTICLE IN PRESS
466

P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457469

Fig. 1. Plot of pre- and post-IDI development scores

As shown in Table 5, the majority of the students in this study had already worked
through the Defense/Denial and Reversal stages prior to enrolling in the study abroad
program, and started in the Minimization stage. We have no way of knowing whether
these students were representative of the majority of students on college campuses. It is a
distinct possibility that students whose IDI scores would place them in the Defense/Denial
stage would choose not to participate in study abroad programs. Their lack of intercultural
development may make such programs unappealing. Research comparing students who
choose to study abroad against those who do not is needed to answer this question.
Perhaps the fact that most of the students are still working on the Minimization scale
should not be surprising. One of the fundamental characteristics of the Minimization scale
is the generalized belief that everyone is fundamentally the same. In this stage, cultural
differences are acknowledged, but the differences are minimized and seen as
unimportant compared to the cultural similarities. Recognizing the value of the differences
can be very difcult to internalize for those growing up in a culture such as the US that

ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457469

467

perceives itself as the world leader (and the difculty of moving beyond this stage is likely
to be exacerbated by the fact the students in this study were members of a very
homogeneous campus community). This ethnocentric perspective naturally leads to the
belief that cultural differences exist because the other culture is not yet well enough
informed of the benets of becoming just like us.
7. Conclusions
This study provides preliminary evidence that short-term, non-language-based study
abroad programs can have a positive impact on intercultural sensitivity. The participants
in the 4-week study set in England and Ireland signicantly improved their overall
intercultural sensitivity as measured by the IDI development score. The principal growth
in their development appears to be in the area of Reversal and Acceptance/Adaptation.
Intercultural awareness is, of course, not limited to improving ones understanding and
acceptance of cultures outside of the US. By increasing students intercultural sensitivity, it
is reasonable to expect that they will also be better prepared to address different cultures
within the USincluding those on their college campus.
At a time when most countries in the world are experiencing increasing cultural diversity
and the world of business is becoming increasingly global, it is imperative that our schools
prepare students to deal effectively with people having cultural orientations that differ
from their own. We desperately need to explore and evaluate alternatives for moving
people to higher levels of intercultural sensitivity. Programs that put our students in faceto-face contact with people of different cultures would seem to have the greatest likelihood
of producing positive outcomes.
8. Limitations and suggestions for future research
There is a clear need for further empirical investigation of the effect of short-term study
abroad programs. The current study has several limitations:
1. The number of participants in the study is small. The nal sample size is only 16. The
need exists to replicate the study with larger samples of students.
2. This study examines a single type of study abroad experience. It was a senior-level
course to English-speaking countries involving home-stays with local families. As stated
earlier, many alternatives exist for improving cultural sensitivity; these alternatives
range from classroom lectures with no overseas component to study abroad. And, even
if study abroad is the chosen alternative, there are many conditions that seem likely to
affect the success of the experience. Additional research needs to be conducted to
identify specic intervention techniques and strategies that can be used to facilitate the
development of cross-cultural sensitivity. For example, are there activities that students
should participate in prior to participation in a study abroad program that would
signicantly enrich their overseas experience and lead to greater intercultural sensitivity?
Engle and Engle (2004, p. 222) suggest eight factors that can differentiate study abroad
programs; duration, language competency, required language use, role of faculty,
coursework, mentoring and orientation, experiential initiatives, and housing. The
inuence of different combinations of these factors is yet to be determined. It may be
that better results than those observed in the current study could have been achieved if

ARTICLE IN PRESS
468

P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457469

the composition of the program had been different. It is an open question whether
equivalent or greater gains would have occurred from other experiences.
3. Given the short duration of the program, it seems likely that the observed changes
resulted from the study-abroad program, but a control group would provide greater
assurance that it was the program and not some external factor that caused the changes.
However, as noted by Dwyer (2004), obtaining a control group that is truly comparable
with the experimental group is difcult due to the confounding variables of college
students (e.g., course work completed, travel experiencesdomestic and foreign, and
socio-economic level differences). And even if it were possible to assemble a group of
students who match on demographic variables, it is unlikely that they also would be a
parallel group on psychographic dimensions. The program participants have in
common the willingness and desire to engage in an overseas experience, at considerable
emotional and monetary expense. This is likely to be a different prole from those who
lack the interest to experiment with new environments. Consequently, securing a truly
parallel group of students would not be a simple task.
4. Finally, additional studies are needed to evaluate the impact of study abroad programs
on intercultural sensitivity months and years after the students return to the US. We
recommend a longer-term follow-up assessment to evaluate the persistence of the crosscultural sensitivity measures. Do students regress after re-assimilating with their
domestic peers? Do they view world events differently following graduation? In the
longer term, it would also be interesting to assess the impact of study abroad
experiences on the cross-cultural sensitivity of working practitioners and professionals
that accept overseas assignments.

References
Altschuler, L., Sussman, N. M., & Kachur, E. (2003). Assessing changes in intercultural sensitivity among
physician trainees using the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 27, 387401.
Battsek, M. (1962). A practical analysis of some aspects of study abroad. Journal of General Education, 13,
225242.
Bennett, J. M., Bennett, M. J., & Allen, W. (1999). Developing intercultural competence in the language
classroom. In R. M. Paige, D. Lange, & Y. A. Yershova (Eds.), Culture as the core: Integrating culture into the
language classroom (pp. 1346). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Bennett, M. J. (1986). Toward ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige
(Ed.), Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations and applications (pp. 2170). New York: University
Press of America.
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige
(Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 2171). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bhawuk, D., & Brislin, R. (1992). The Measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of
individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(4), 413436.
Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. (1994). Improving intercultural interactions. Multicultural aspects of counseling series.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chieffo, L., & Grifns, L. (2003). Whats a month worth? Student perceptions of what they learned abroad.
International Education, 2631.
Dwyer, M. M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X(Fall), 151163.
Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity development in relation
to study abroad program design. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X(Fall), 219236.
Gillespe, J. (2002). Colleges need better ways to assess study abroad programs. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457469

469

Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (2002). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) manual. Portland, OR:
Intercultural Communication Institute.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural
Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421443.
Kelley, C., & Meyers, J. (1995). CCAI Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory manual. Minneapolis, MN: National
Computer Systems Inc.
Kelly, G. (1963). A theory of personality. New York: Norton.
Klak, T., & Martin, P. (2003). Do university-sponsored international cultural events help students to appreciate
difference? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 445465.
Landis, D., & Bhagat, R. S. (1996). Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ludwig, M. (2000). The next ten years: Trends affecting study abroad participation for US students. International
Educator, 9(4), 3440.
Medina-Lopez-Portillo, A. (2004). Intercultural learning assessment: The link between program duration and the
development of intercultural sensitivity. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X(Fall),
179199.
Michigan State University Ofce of Study Abroad. Why should I study abroad? Retrieved 5 November 2004,
from http://studyabroad.msu.edu/shared/objectives.html
NUI Study Abroad Ofce (2000). A beginners guide to study abroad through NUI. Retrieved 5 November 2004,
from http://www3.niu.edu/niuabroad/Begin_Guide.pdf
Paige, R. M. (1993). On the nature of intercultural experiences. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the
intercultural experience (pp. 119). Yarmouth, ME: International Press.
Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2004). Assessing the impact of a strategies-based curriculum on
language and culture learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X(Fall),
253276.
Pruegger, V. J., & Rogers, T. B. (1994). Cross-cultural sensitivity training: Methods and assessment. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3), 369387.
Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE.
Journal of Marketing Research, 24(August), 280289.
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the MarloweCrowne Social Desirability
Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191193.