Abstract
The present study tested two models of the association between humility, differentiation-of-self (DoS), and intercultural competence among graduate trainees in the helping professions. The sample consisted of 75 graduate students from a Protestant-affiliated university in the United States. Results indicated that DoS mediated the positive association between humility and intercultural competence. Results therefore supported a definition of intercultural competence as the ability to effectively navigate interpersonal difference. Implications are considered for training in intercultural competence within couple and family therapy.
Intercultural competence has long been recognized as a skill necessary for ethical and effective clinical practice (Comas-Diaz, 2014), including the practice of couple and family therapy (Rober & De Haene, 2014). Effective intercultural work requires self-awareness, understanding of cultural differences, and the ability to deliver appropriate intervention strategies with diverse clients (Remley & Herlihy, 2014). The need for effective intercultural training persists (Delphin & Rowe, 2008) as clinical practice, culture, and personal values interact in complex and dynamic ways over time. Intercultural competence scholars have described three important dimensions: (a) knowledge, (b) attitudes, and (c) skills, and research findings suggest that individual differences in personality traits tend to correlate with the attitudes dimension (Sandage & Harden, 2011). Researchers have recently begun to investigate positive traits (e.g., gratitude and forgiveness) and their influence on intercultural competence (e.g., Jankowski & Sandage, 2014a; Sandage & Harden, 2011).
Humility has been promoted as a virtue conducive to intercultural competence in clinical practice (Comas-Diaz, 2014; Owen, 2013) and a catalyst of change in couple and family therapy (Butler, Gardner, & Bird, 1998; Rowden, Harris, & Wickel, 2014). Humility is understood to be multidimensional, comprised of (a) a willingness to appraise the self accurately (i.e., self-awareness and recognition of limits), (b) an orientation toward others (i.e., low self-focus), (c) interpersonal receptivity, (d) the ability to regulate one’s emotions, and (e) appreciation of the value in things (Bollinger & Hill, 2012; Davis, Worthington, & Hook, 2010; Exline, 2012; Exline & Hill, 2012; Jankowski, Sandage, & Hill, 2013). Despite complexities in measurement and conceptualization (Bollinger & Hill, 2012; Davis et al., 2010), empirical research has demonstrated that humility correlates with other virtues including forgiveness, generosity, and gratitude (Bollinger & Hill, 2012; Exline & Hill, 2012; Rowatt et al., 2006). Humility is a construct relevant to intercultural competence since establishing meaningful relationships with culturally distinct others requires an appreciative receptivity to unfamiliar beliefs, values, and worldviews (Hook, Davis, Owen, Worthington, & Utsey, 2013).
Differentiation-of-self (DoS) is a relational construct from Bowen’s family systems theory (Kerr & Bowen, 1988) comprised of intra- and interpersonal dimensions. Intrapersonally, DoS involves the capacity for emotional regulation (Jankowski & Hooper, 2012; Skowron & Dendy, 2004). Interpersonally, DoS consists of the ability to negotiate between independence and connection (Kerr & Bowen, 1988). DoS is theorized to underlie intercultural competence (Bennett, 1993, 2004), and previous findings have demonstrated that DoS positively correlated with both intercultural competence (Sandage & Harden, 2011; Sandage & Jankowski, 2013) and humility (Jankowski et al., 2013). DoS also mediated the association between gratitude and intercultural competence (Jankowski & Sandage, 2014a; Sandage & Harden, 2011).
Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
In the present study, intercultural competence was conceptualized based on the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS; Bennett, 1993, 2004). The DMIS frames intercultural development as progressing from ethnocentric to ethno-relative worldviews (i.e., increasingly complex conceptualizations of self and other). Intercultural competence refers to “the ability to think and act in culturally appropriate ways,” by displaying sensitivity to cultural differences (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003, p. 422). While “multicultural or cultural competence” can refer to a broad array of diversity factors, such as gender, sexual orientation, and social justice commitment, the term “intercultural competence” is more specific to ethnic differences (Pusch, 2004). Within the DMIS, ethnocentric orientations involve perceiving superficial cultural differences while ignoring deeper differences, such as family beliefs or roles. In addition, an ethnocentric approach to differences can consist of judging one’s own culture as superior. The transitional space between ethnocentrism and ethno-relative orientations is referred to as minimization; characterized by an emphasis on cultural similarities that legitimize a standardized dominant cultural outlook. Last, ethno-relative worldviews consist of self-awareness and a capacity to perceive self as situated in a world with myriad of legitimate cultural differences. Ultimately, in the most advanced forms, the individual has the capacity for understanding and acting in ways suitable to another culture. This requires cognitive and behavioral flexibility, usually obtained through experience in unfamiliar cultural contexts.
Humility and Intercultural Competence
Humility and intercultural competence appear to be compatible virtues. Anecdotal evidence suggests that those with intercultural skills display humility in their understanding of difference (Singhal, 2012). Tervalon and Murray-Garcia (1998) introduced cultural humility as a desirable goal of multicultural education. Commitment to self-evaluation of one’s cultural knowledge is crucial for developing competence in working with difference. Hook, Davis, Owen, Worthington, and Utsey (2013) developed a Cultural Humility Scale and found that clients’ ratings of their therapists’ cultural humility was associated with improved outcomes. In addition, insession therapeutic change seems tied to humility, for example, a client’s (a) receptivity to another family member’s perspective, (b) willingness to see self as part of the problem, or (c) softening which “open[s] the door to consider a different way of being” (Rowden et al., 2014, p. 382; see also Butler et al., 1998). Humility and intercultural competence both require a pro-social orientation rooted in openness to the concerns of others (Bennett, 1993; Bollinger & Hill, 2012; Exline & Hill, 2012; Hammer et al., 2003).
Humility is antithetical to the excessive self-focus associated with both narcissism and shame (Bollinger & Hill, 2012). Intercultural competence is similarly incompatible with narcissism and shame related to one’s culture, as both extremes tend to distort perception of one’s own and another’s culture and respect for cultural complexities. In contrast, a willingness to perceive the self accurately is a hallmark of humility (Jankowski et al., 2013). Individuals with ethnocentric orientations tend to have trouble critically examining polarizing views of cultures, including their own. Idealizing one’s own cultural virtues and accentuating flaws in other cultures is incongruent with accurate self-perception. The ability to acknowledge one’s limitations without prejudice signifies humility and intercultural competence.
Humility and DoS
Humility and DoS are constructs that theoretically align and positive empirical correlations have been observed (Jankowski & Sandage, 2014b; Jankowski et al., 2013). Humility and DoS have also each positively correlated with forgiveness, resilience, social connectedness, relationship quality, and psychological health (e.g., Bollinger & Hill, 2012; Jankowski & Hooper, 2012; Jankowski et al., 2013; Lal & Bartle-Haring, 2011; Peters, Rowatt, & Johnson, 2011; Rowatt et al., 2006; Skowron, 2004; Williamson, Sandage, & Lee, 2007). Conceptually, DoS and humility are both relational in nature (Jankowski et al., 2013). Differentiation involves the ability to negotiate the tension between individuality and connectedness (Kerr & Bowen, 1988). Humility requires a similar capacity to balance individual concerns (i.e., accurate self-assessment) with the needs of others (i.e., receptivity and other orientedness). In addition, humility, like DoS, involves the capacity for emotional self-regulation. Jankowski et al. (2013) described humility as a “capacity for intra- and interpersonal self-regulation that fosters prosociality and interpersonal well-being” (p. 414). Humility thus requires regulating emotions related to pride and self-enhancement, whereas DoS is generally associated with regulating negative emotions such as anxiety, sadness, and dissatisfaction.
The Present Study
Empirical research on humility and intercultural competence is lacking, and yet previous research has demonstrated positive associations between humility and DoS and between DoS and intercultural competence. There is also evidence of a mediating role for DoS between virtues (e.g., gratitude and spirituality) and intercultural competence. As such, we expanded upon this research by examining two exploratory mediation models (i.e., one parallel and one sequential model) in a sample of graduate trainees in the helping professions (i.e., couple and family therapy, counseling psychology, and ministry/pastoral care). The models rest on the theoretical assertions that (a) humility (i.e., receptivity to the other) is a basis for intercultural competence (Fowers & Davidov, 2006) and (b) the ability to balance self and other focus can facilitate intercultural competence (Sandage & Jankowski, 2013). We hypothesized that the positive humility–intercultural competence association would be mediated by the intra- and interpersonal dimensions of DoS. In addition, the intrapersonal aspect of DoS can be thought to facilitate differentiated interpersonal functioning (i.e., effectively negotiating togetherness and separateness requires the intra-regulation of felt anxiety, or alternatively, interpersonal behaviors such as distancing and triangulation are means by which the initial experience of felt anxiety is managed; Kerr & Bowen, 1988). For the sequential mediation model, we therefore hypothesized specific indirect effects through the intrapersonal and then the interpersonal dimension of DoS.
Method
Participants
Participants were 75 masters-level students in the helping professions (i.e., couple and family therapy, counseling psychology, and ministry) from a Protestant-affiliated university in the Midwest United States. They ranged in age from 21 to 63 (M = 33.57; SD = 10.63). The sample was 56% female and 44% male. Participants identified as 86.7% European American, 4% Asian/Asian-American, 4% African-American, 2.7% Native American, and 2.6% other.
Measures
Intercultural competence
Intercultural competence was measured using the 50-item intercultural development inventory (IDI, Hammer et al., 2003). Factor analyses have supported the construct validity of the measure and internal reliability estimates have ranged from .80 to .85 (Hammer, 2011; Hammer et al., 2003; Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, Yershova, & DeJaeghere, 2003). Participants responded to items based on a five-point scale of 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). The IDI overcomes social desirability effects (Hammer et al., 2003; Paige et al., 2003), which is a limitation in some existing studies of intercultural competence. The IDI uses a theoretically derived algorithm to calculate an overall developmental score (Hammer et al., 2003; Paige et al., 2003), with higher scores reflecting greater intercultural competence. In the current study, the 50 items had an internal consistency of Cronbach’s α = .81.
Dispositional humility
Humility was assessed using 18 items (see Jankowski et al., 2013) from a 36-item measure developed by Exline and Hill (2012). Jankowski et al. (2013) derived the 18 items from a confirmatory factor analysis of the 36-item measure. A sample item is “I have a good sense of what I am not very good at doing.” Participants rated items on a five-point scale from 1 (I do not identify at all with this item) to 5 (I fully identify with this item), with a higher score indicating greater humility. Cronbach’s α for the 18-item full scale was 0.79 (Jankowski et al., 2013), and in the current study was .81.
Differentiation-of-self
DoS was measured using the 46-item self-report Differentiation of Self Inventory–Revised (DSI-R; Skowron & Schmitt, 2003). The DSI-R subscales have obtained internal consistencies ranging from .81 to .89 and demonstrated construct validity (Skowron & Schmitt, 2003). The intrapersonal aspect of differentiation is measured by the subscales of “I” position (IP) and emotional reactivity (ER), whereas the interpersonal dimension is measured by fusion with others (FO) and emotional cutoff (EC). Participants rated items on a scale from 1 (not at all true of me) to 6 (very true of me). Higher scores on the subscales reflect greater differentiation. Sample items include “There’s no point in getting upset about things I cannot change” (IP), “If someone is upset with me, I can’t seem to let it go easily” (ER), “I try to live up to my parents’ expectations” (FO), and “When one of my relationships becomes very intense, I feel the urge to run away from it” (EC). Cronbach’s αs for the subscales in the current study were .85 (ER), .77 (IP), .86 (EC), and .74 (FO).
Data Analysis Strategy
We explored missing data, outliers, and normality. The variables did not exhibit problematic univariate skew (i.e., |skewness index| < 3.00; Kline, 2011) nor did the variables exhibit problematic univariate kurtosis (i.e., |kurtosis index| < 10.00; Kline, 2011). Multivariate normality was not violated (i.e., multivariate kurtosis critical ratio < 5.00; Byrne, 2010) and there were no multivariate outliers. Test of the mediation models was therefore conducted using PROCESS (Hayes, 2012, 2013); an SPSS macro for examining path analysis-based models.
Results
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for the variables used in the mediation analysis are reported in Table 1. We examined age and gender in relation to each of the variables. Small sample sizes in some of the groups prevented examination by ethnicity. Participants differed by gender on ER; F(1, 74) = 2.93, p = .046; M = 3.62, SD = .89 for females (n = 42); M = 4.02, SD = .77 for males (n = 33), and so gender was included as a covariate in the tests of the models. Age did not correlate with any of the variables.
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlation Matrix of Humility, DoS, and IC.
Note. N = 75. DH = dispositional humility; ER = emotional reactivity; IP = I-position; EC = emotional cutoff; FO = fusion with others; IC = intercultural competence; DoS = differentiation-of-self.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Test of the Indirect Effects
The proposed parallel mediation model predicting intercultural competence was examined using PROCESS. The overall model was significant: F(6, 68) = 2.78, p = .02, R2 = .20 (see Table 2). The bootstrap analysis revealed a significant specific indirect effect between DH and IC with FO as the mediator: B = 2.93, SE = 2.18, BC 95% CI [0.06, 9.12]. Nonsignificant specific indirect effects were observed between DH and IC through: (a) ER, B = –5.80, SE = 4.06, BC 95% CI [–15.17, 1.16]; (b) EC, B = 2.58, SE = 4.22, BC 95% CI [–6.40, 10.53]; and (c) IP, B = 1.35, SE = 4.02, BC 95% CI [–6.37, 9.77]. Last, a nonsignificant direct effect between DH and IC was observed: B = 10.53, SE = 6.90, t = 1.53, p = .14, ordinary least squares (OLS) 95% CI [–3.24, 24.29].
Unstandardized Path Coefficients From the Model Predicting IC.
Note. N = 75. DH = dispositional humility, ER = emotional reactivity, IP = I-position, EC = emotional cutoff, FO = fusion with others, IC = intercultural competence. CI = OLS 95% confidence interval for the coefficients in parentheses. Gender coded: 1 = female, 2 = male.
The proposed exploratory sequential mediation model was examined using PROCESS. The overall model was significant: F(6, 68) = 2.78, p = .02, R2 = .20. The PROCESS bootstrap analysis revealed significant specific multiple-mediated indirect effects between DH and IC through: (a) ER and then FO (B = 3.63, SE = 2.16, BC 95% CI [0.64, 9.71]; ER→FO path, B = .47, SE = .11, p < .001), (b) IP and then FO (B = 1.67, SE = 1.41, BC 95% CI [0.09, 5.89]; IP→FO path, B = .30, SE = .15, p = .04), and (c) ER, then IP and then FO (B = .49, SE = .50, BC 95% CI [0.01, 2.15]; ER→IP path, B = .21, SE = .08, p = .048). The direct effect between DH and IC was nonsignificant: B = 10.53, SE = 6.90, t = 1.53, p = .13, OLS 95% CI [–3.24, 24.29].
Discussion
The results of this exploratory study suggest that DoS functions as a mechanism of the positive association between humility and intercultural competence. Our findings are consistent with research by Sandage and Jankowski (2013) who found that the interpersonal dimension of DoS mediated the association between spiritual well-being and intercultural competence and the finding of a multiple-mediated pathway between meditative prayer and intercultural competence through gratitude and then through DoS (Jankowski & Sandage, 2014a). The results provide preliminary support for the idea that intercultural competence, as measured by the IDI, may be defined by the capacity to balance separateness and connectedness in self-other relating and to a lesser extent the intrapersonal dimension which taps into the capacity for emotional self-regulation. The results therefore support the definition of intercultural competence as the ability to effectively navigate interpersonal difference. It would seem that effectively negotiating difference means not losing oneself in the relationship or in the other person (i.e., fusion) and maintaining a sense of self as separate while negotiating the cultural difference between self and other. Nevertheless, the results of the current study do also suggest that navigating cultural difference may involve the intrapersonal regulation of anxiety associated with engaging culturally different others; as significant indirect effects were observed between humility and intercultural competence through the intrapersonal aspect of DoS (i.e., ER and IP) and then through FO (i.e., interpersonal aspect of DoS).
Complicating this picture, however, are (a) the positive bivariate associations between the FO subscale and the intrapersonal subscales of ER and IP and (b) the nonsignificant association between the interpersonal dimensions of FO and EC. These results are consistent with existing construct validation evidence (see Jankowski & Hooper, 2012) which suggest that FO is not as distinct from the intrapersonal dimension of differentiation of self as theoretically proposed, at least with some samples. What the findings may suggest is that the capacity to resist losing oneself in the relationship while negotiating difference is closely tied to internally tolerating and regulating the anxiety generated by interpersonal difference. The sequential mediation analysis supports the contention that intrapersonal differentiation of self can foster the interpersonal capacity to balance separateness and togetherness, particularly when navigating cultural difference.
The definition of humility, which consists of the ability to view the self accurately, an orientation toward others, and the capacity for emotional self-regulation was supported by the findings from the current study. As such, the current findings are consistent with previous research involving the construct of DoS (Jankowski & Sandage, 2014b; Jankowski et al., 2013). In the current study, the positive associations between humility and the intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects of DoS offer support for the conceptualization of humility as a relational virtue. Interpersonally, the humble individual can maintain a sense of self as autonomous while connecting with others, even when anxiety escalates. The capacity for interpersonal DoS seems to stem from the ability to effectively regulate arrogance, defensiveness, and self-importance tied to one’s own beliefs, values, and experience that may arise when encountering interpersonal difference. This allows the humble individual to interact effectively with individuals of unfamiliar cultures. The ability to regulate self-oriented emotions is also compatible with receptivity to others. All of these aspects of humility seem conducive to openness to ongoing learning about other cultures and a willingness to engage new intercultural situations.
Limitations and Future Research
The modest sample size and demographics of the sample suggest generalizability limitations for our findings. Participants were largely European Americans in a Protestant Christian training context. Studies involving samples with greater racial and religious diversity are needed. Another limitation consists of the use of self-report measures, although the IDI is more nuanced in its assessment than some measures used in multicultural competence research. Future research might employ alternative approaches to measuring intercultural competence and humility beyond self-report. For example, social comparison, informant ratings, and implicit association methods have been used to assess humility (Davis et al., 2010, 2011).
There is also a need to study humility in connection with other aspects of diversity, such as racial or homophobic bias. Implicit association methods are widely used to study racial bias and future research might explore how individual’s implicit humility and racial attitudes influence intercultural competence. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge the exploratory, cross-sectional and correlational nature of our research. The ordering of the variables in the models was grounded in existing research and theory, and yet experimental and longitudinal designs are needed to further clarify the sequencing of the process among variables.
Practical Implications
There are differences of opinion on the necessary emphases of intercultural education for graduate students in the helping professions (Fier & Ramsey, 2005), including within the specific practice of couple and family therapy (Rober & De Haene, 2014). We believe this study suggests that educators and supervisors aiming to cultivate intercultural competence among couple and family therapy trainees consider the importance of humility. In a previous study, it was suggested that training programs take steps to foster DoS and facilitate tolerance of spiritual and psychological ambiguity to promote intercultural competence (Sandage & Harden, 2011). Intercultural competence training in couple and family therapy tends to start with the cognitive dimension and focus on the accumulation of cultural knowledge. While potentially valuable, intellectual content about diverse culture groups could imply that intercultural competence is primarily a function of information acquisition, which assumes that others can be understood without a critical evaluation of the self. The current study supports the idea that accurate, nondefensive awareness of oneself in relation to the other is also necessary for intercultural competence (Hardy & Laszloffy, 1995; Rober & De Haene, 2014). Training for aspiring couple and family therapists and continuing education for established professionals might emphasize the nature and benefits of humility for both recognizing difference and responding sensitively to the other given that difference. Promoting aspects of humility, such as accurate self-perception, receptivity to unfamiliar views, and emotion regulation, is needed given the research finding that client perceptions of therapist cultural humility were positively associated with a strong working alliance and improvement in therapy (Hook et al., 2013).
Research on DoS showing positive correlations with intercultural competence (Jankowski & Sandage, 2014a; Sandage & Harden, 2011; Sandage & Jankowski, 2013) suggests that healthy self-development is important; which is consistent with contributions in the broader multicultural counseling literature about the value of self-awareness and self-examination (e.g., Constantine, Hage, Kindaichi, & Bryant, 2007; Goodman et al., 2004). Results from the present study suggest the humility–intercultural competence connection can be sustained through a differentiated capacity to resist fusion, and this may mean not assuming too much similarity with the other since fusion can involve overidentifying with and losing self in the other. The trainee’s capacity for balanced self and other relating may allow for more accurate self-perception and awareness of differences between self and other.
Couple and family therapy training programs seeking to cultivate intercultural competence could encourage students to take concrete steps toward gains in humility and intra- and interpersonal aspects of DoS. Learning activities such as family and/or cultural genogram construction and self-disclosure, either one-on-one with a supervisor or in small groups, can serve to foster increased DoS and intercultural competence (Hardy & Laszloffy, 1995). Sharing one’s genogram in the context of a group experience can also foster humility as the supervisee is encouraged to self-disclose and reflect on self in relation to others in the group. Supervisors and/or faculty, whether in training cohorts or particular courses, can attend explicitly to group dynamics and facilitate appreciation for within-group differences, while also providing a safe and supportive relationship for self-disclosure and exploration of difference. Trainees lower in humility and DoS might find intercultural training stressful and may need additional support to develop intercultural competence. Training programs should continue to seek to place trainees in diverse contexts with opportunity to encounter different others, while experiencing safe and supportive peer and supervisory relationships.
In the broader clinical literature, efforts to increase graduate students’ multicultural competence have been found to be generally effective, although approaches grounded in theory and the empirical literature were more effective (Smith, Constantine, Dunn, Dinehart, & Montoya, 2006). Existing research suffers from a lack of experimental and longitudinal designs, and is largely limited to the evaluation of a single course or workshop rather than entire training programs (Smith et al., 2006). Relative to the other clinical disciplines (i.e., counseling psychology and counselor education), couple and family therapy appears to lack explicit attention to outcome research on the effectiveness of multicultural training (Murphy, Park, & Lonsdale, 2006). Anecdotal evidence and qualitative accounts which describe how particular training sites have fostered multicultural competence exist (e.g., McDowell, Storm, & York, 2007), as does empirical research on promoting cultural competence in the context of providing evidence-based clinical practices in intercultural family therapy (e.g., Yasui & Henry, 2014). Very little is known about how best to promote increased intercultural competence or which specific elements of training programs actually promote change in intercultural competence among trainees.
We suggest further that couple and family therapy training programs seeking to foster intercultural competence consider tailoring educational interventions to specific aspects of multicultural competence. Multicultural competence is typically associated with a broader range of diversity factors (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, and social justice), and yet, these dimensions of diversity competence might be relatively distinct (Balkin, Schlosser, & Levitt, 2009). In addition, a nonsignificant association between intercultural competence and social justice commitment has been observed (Sandage & Jankowski, 2013), suggesting that intercultural competence and social justice commitment may be distinct aspects of multicultural competence.
We also agree with others about the importance of attending to similarities, or more precisely shared existential experiences, between self and other in addition to the traditional focus on recognizing and navigating differences when providing training in intercultural competence (Rober & De Haene, 2014). As Rober and De Haene (2014) highlighted, a differences only approach can neglect “social tensions evoked” by difference because of the therapist’s responsibility to tolerate difference (p. 10), discourage the therapist from fully entering into relationship with the client because of the therapist’s need to “bracket” her or his own difference, and “mask universality” because of focusing on the particular (p. 12). The latter idea refers to neglecting aspects of shared humanity between self and other (e.g., relational needs for acceptance, belonging, security; experiences of death, loss, and grief).
The results of this study suggest that intercultural competence involves the capacity to balance particularity with universality, or what Bowen referred to as DoS, and that is, the capacity to balance a sense of self as separate and yet connected to the other (Kerr & Bowen, 1988). Humility similarly involves a capacity for balanced self-other relating, and specifically, accurate self-appraisal while orienting to the needs of the other (Jankowski et al., 2013). Both humility and DoS therefore involve effectively navigating the dialectic between self and other. Thus, our findings can be viewed as evidence for the theoretical assertion that intercultural competence involves the capacity to stay engaged in the ongoing dialectic process of relating to the other in her or his difference and similarity (Rober & De Haene, 2014).
Conclusion
The present study tested two models of the association between humility, DoS, and intercultural competence. The results indicated that DoS mediated the positive association between humility and intercultural competence, with evidence that the intrapersonal aspect of DoS (i.e., affect regulation) facilitated balanced togetherness–separateness relating (i.e., interpersonal aspect of DoS). As such, results suggested that humility can foster effective interpersonal negotiation of cultural difference and supported a definition of intercultural competence as receptivity to another’s perspective, willingness to see self accurately, openness to cultural differences, and emotion regulation. Couple and family therapy training programs seeking to foster intercultural competence might consider fostering humility and DoS in their trainees, and in doing so, seek to train clinicians to increase their capacity to engage in the dialectic of self as particularity from the other and self as sharing similarities with the other.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation (29630).