Stereotype awareness development and effective cross-cultural management

Abstract

Cross-cultural managers who are unaware of their stereotypes risk operating from potentially inaccurate and ineffective cognitive platforms, yet there is a need for more education and training approaches in the area of stereotype awareness. Experiential approaches to social learning that have been proposed as holding high effectiveness and dialectic logic provide a specific avenue for altering perceptions. An experiential approach to stereotype awareness is developed with a multicultural group of over 370 participants. Context influenced participant outcomes in stereotype awareness development indicators and was more significant than individual traits. Participant self-efficacy was found to demonstrate a slight positive moderating influence. Stereotype awareness is established as an important trait for cross-cultural managers; the described experiential approach should be considered as a possible avenue in developing greater effectiveness for managers dealing with diverse groups and cultures. Organizations that can better educate and train people in developing personal stereotype awareness stand to ultimately advance effectiveness in cross-cultural and diversity management.

Keywords

Contact theory cross-cultural training cultural awareness experiential learning self-efficacy stereotype

Introduction

Developing stereotype awareness has been recognized as important for effective management of diversity (Tjosvold and Leung, 2003), in advancing cross-cultural effectiveness (Triandis, 2003; Ward et al., 2003) and gaining insight into one’s enculturation (Allport, 1954). Even within the same national setting research has demonstrated instances of disconnect between manager and subordinate perspectives (Brislin et al., 2005); these differences can become heightened as cross-cultural settings are encountered.

Cross-cultural managers are generally required to navigate multicultural settings and handle potentially challenging subjective value differences that are common in such settings (Brislin et al., 2006). Culture generally refers to the human derived element of a social environment and helps to distinguish, through both objective and subjective elements, groups of people (Triandis, 2002). Cross-cultural training generally refers to a range of preparatory and educative approaches designed to assist people in building effectiveness in multicultural, culturally diverse or culturally vague contexts.

Novel customs, norms and unfamiliar realities sometimes present new cognitions which can challenge previously established perspectives. Stereotypes represent one important and powerful type of cognition for cross-cultural managers because they directly relate to how one will interact with persons from different groups. Adler (2002) suggested that stereotype awareness and the capability to adjust stereotypes are of central importance for success in cross-cultural management. However, there are few specific approaches for training managers and management students in becoming more stereotype-aware.

People are raised with certain perspectives which allow one to process information in a complex world more efficiently – a dynamic often referred to as categorization. We categorize things, places, beliefs; both concrete aspects of our environment and abstract, the objective and the subjective. Categorizations group things together for ease of processing and without this ontology it would be difficult to functionally exist.

Categorizations are natural (Bruner, 1957); however, are they always helpful and are they always accurate? Allport (1954: 174) presented that categorizations are ‘nouns that cut slices’. Because categorizations work from grouping things and experiences they can also have the potential for obscuring specific and individual reality. Stereotypes represent a particular kind of categorization as applied to groups, then projected onto individuals associated with that particular group. Stereotypes, like categorizations, are a reality of our human nature but left unchecked could lead cross-cultural managers into false assumptions about individuals and groups. Dialectic logic (Fox, 2005) represents one possible vehicle to assist and educate individuals through stereotype adjustment.

This work advances the literature in the following ways. 1) It develops a specific approach to stereotype awareness training for cross-cultural management students. 2) It examines this with a highly diverse and multicultural group of participants in a non-US context. 3) It establishes one of the first management education studies to employ dialectic logic. 4) As recommended by Deutsch (2007), it examines the influence of contextual and individual traits within the social learning environment. One significant motivation for this approach is to advance a training process towards effective stereotyping; Adler (2002: 81) having established this as critical to cross-cultural management success and development.

The remainder of this work examines the concept of stereotype and effective stereotyping; reviews key theoretical platforms including contact theory and general self-efficacy with related hypotheses and structural model development; develops hypotheses relating independent contextual variables (i.e. explored with a contact theory platform) and a potential individual moderating influence (i.e. explored with general self-efficacy) to the dependent construct of stereotype awareness development indicator; reveals the experiential approach to stereotype awareness training which includes dialectic logic; reviews training outcome indicators with participants in a management education environment; develops discussion applying to cross-cultural management. For a preview of the primary structural model and summary of main theoretical platforms, see Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Structural model relating contact theory elements to indicators of stereotype awareness education with general self-efficacy as a moderator (includes summary of theoretical platforms).

Stereotypes

Stereotypes act as a psychological screening device to help maintain simplicity in a complex world. Walter Lippmann, a US political commentator and philosopher of the 20th century, is generally credited with coining the phrase stereotype (Lippmann, 1922). However, the roots run previous to that and in 1798 the French printer Didot used a term to describe a solid plate that is difficult to recast. Lippmann argued that stereotypes provide an avenue in creating a psychological shortcut, or picture in our heads; however, such perspectives subject the holder to only partial truths which can be highly misleading (Allport, 1954: 191).

Management research has established that people stereotype others on a range of criteria including age (Crew, 1984), sex (Fox and Renas, 1977; Prime et al., 2008), ethnicity (Gilbert et al., 2003), nationality (Lowengart and Zaidman, 2003) and even using sophisticated patterns of culture parameters such as the Hofstede (1980) type (Osland et al., 2000). These patterns are established for groups of people then projected onto individuals who are identified as in- or out-group members (Falkenberg, 1990).

Stereotypes and categorization are related but different; stereotypes hold greater specificity, are projections about humans and often hold a value judgement. The generalization(s) become laden with a hyper-positive or negative aspect(s) (Lowengart and Zaidman, 2003) leading to love or hate-prejudice (Allport, 1979); either of which can be misleading. Dovidio and Hebl (2005) support that stereotypes result from social categorizations. If categorizations are nouns that cut slices, then stereotypes might represent slices holding particular potential for being psychologically painful, unpleasant or disruptive; stereotyping then would lead to prejudice (attitude laden) and discrimination (application/behaviour laden) (Dovidio and Hebl, 2005).

Stereotypes can differentiate people as in- or out-group members (Allport, 1954) and it has been suggested that people maintain stereotypes as psychological confirmation for their group’s perceived superiority over others (Ward et al., 2003). Triandis (2003) differentiated that people can project stereotypes towards their own associated group as in autostereotypes (e.g. how Australians see Australians) and people can project stereotypes towards other groups as in heterostereotypes (e.g. how Australians see Chinese). These latter stereotypes are projections about perceived out-group members. As described later, this study examines aspects related to heterostereotypes.

Stereotypes can hold an element of truth but these truths can obscure individual reality. The kernel of truth within a stereotype can create significant confusion as it is sometimes blended together with an even greater portion of inaccuracy. Cross-cultural managers must be aware of stereotypes because they will often work with individuals who may or may not fit the stereotype perception. Not to mention that the stereotype perception may not be highly accurate. Additionally, individuals are often uncomfortable with being the target of stereotypes and ‘rebel at being labelled, especially if the label is uncomplimentary’ (Allport, 1979: 186). Lack of awareness can create a number of potentially unproductive phenomena for the cross-cultural manager; one example is self-fulfilling stereotype (Merton, 1968) where the stereotype dynamic becomes the reality (Snyder, 1982).

Modern management treatments of stereotyping tend to label it a natural human activity (Falkenberg, 1990). However, these same approaches caution that one must take care to gain high self-awareness and then move to actively process, apply, adjust or depart from stereotypes.

Effective stereotypes

Adler (2002: 81) provided a useful framework for navigating stereotypes. These parameters provided general motivation in developing the training process outlined in greater detail later in this work (see Methods section). While the training intervention is based on the MacNab (2012) and Cushner and Brislin (1996) platforms, Adler’s (2002: 81) framework establishes the importance of stereotype awareness and potential for stereotype adjustment. Important to the current study is that stereotype awareness in the framework comes prior to capacity for alteration and adjustment. Adler (2002) and others (Allport, 1954; Snyder, 1982), also suggest that, simply because one is experienced in working with diverse groups, such as a cross-cultural manager, this does not automatically mean one is highly aware of their stereotypes towards others; Adler’s (2002) framework includes:

Consciously held/awareness: Can we actually articulate what our stereotypes are? Managers and other individuals must be aware of their stereotypes; particularly among individuals and target groups they are required to interact with. This means that the individual needs to first understand what a stereotype is, what a self-fulfilling stereotype is and be capable of articulating these perceptions.

Descriptive as opposed to evaluative: Should describe what people of the group will probably be like and not be laden with a value judgement such as good or bad.

Accuracy: How true are the stereotypes we hold? For stereotypes to hold usefulness they need to be accurate. Inaccurate stereotypes simply provide false information about patterns and lead to confusion.

Starting point: Are our stereotypes a beginning or an end? At best, stereotypes provide an early estimation of reality. If stereotype holders are unable to depart from that starting point, they simply become a prisoner of the perception.

Flexible: Can the perception be modified to reflect experience? It is necessary to adjust the stereotype, or make a complete departure, based on the reality being experienced.

This framework is not necessarily difficult to understand; it is however proposed as difficult for people to actually practise. Stereotypes are potentially hard to change because they provide a framework establishing a readily available, cognitive order; alteration of such order tends to create psychological imbalance and cognitive dissonance (Katz, 1960). According to Kanter (1977) stereotype holders will distort observation to maintain their perception and these belief patterns can provide powerful psychological confirmation (Ward et al., 2003) associated with one’s social identify (Campbell, 1956; Tajfel, 1959; Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Falkenberg (1990) emphasized that, without directed intervention, the probability for stereotype alteration is relatively low and Adler’s (2002) framework emphasizes that stereotype awareness generally precedes potential alteration. Because of this relation, and for other reasons mentioned in this paper, stereotype awareness is crucial. The next section reviews dialectic logic which provides a framework for assisting people to overcome these cognitive roadblocks related to stereotype adjustment and awareness.

Dialectic logic

There is a tendency for holders of stereotypes to seek out, via selective attention and attribution, situational and behaviour patterns which reinforce stereotypes e.g. a) a tendency to attribute occurrences which reinforce a stereotype onto the target individual(s) and group; b) a tendency to attribute occurrences which are counter to held stereotypes external to the target individual(s) and group). This helps maintain a psychological balance with observations and beliefs but also creates a trap which is not easy to escape psychologically (Snyder, 1982).

Cross-cultural managers unaware of stereotypes, and how these influence perception and behaviour, are in danger of making inefficient decisions (Van Fleet and Saurage, 1984). An important management consideration becomes identifying methods and factors which increase stereotype awareness and accuracy (Falkenberg, 1990). How can cross-cultural management educators and trainers wake participants up to a higher awareness? Triandis (1994) stated that stereotypes are resistant to change and that a process of disconfirming evidence would be useful. Dialectic logic provides a good theoretical approach in a manner which tends to also address the Adler (2002) components of effective stereotyping (described previously).

The concept of dialectic logic is associated with German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) and involves a process of shifting one’s perception by engaging in observation and recognition of opposite phenomena (Fox, 2005; Hegel, 1812). It describes process of Aufhebung or sublation. Certain aspects of Hegel’s approach had influences stemming from earlier work by Rene Descartes, encouraging a rejection of the absolute certainty of our beliefs (Fox, 2005: 16). There are often three steps identified with the dialectic logic process (a simplified example with a fictitious stereotype has been added):

Thesis (an initial position). A person holding the stereotype that ‘purple people’ are lazy.

Anti-thesis (an observed contradiction to the initial position). The stereotype holder becomes aware of stereotypes and aware of their initial position. Additionally, the stereotype holder observes and internalizes contradictions. The person observes the identification of some (or an individual) hard-working ‘purple people/person’.

Synthesis (a new position which more accurately incorporates the contradiction/s). A required recalibration is now necessary and this can take many forms. Our subject realizes that, while some ‘purple people’ could be lazy, this clearly cannot apply to all ‘purple people’. Like most groups of people, there are some ‘purple people’ who are lazy and others who are not. The synthesis in this process is meant to describe a new and more accurate reality.

Note that successful navigation of the Dialectic Logic process, in relation to stereotypes, would tend to influence many of the required aspects of Adler’s (2002: 81) recommendation for effective stereotyping. Participants would be required: 1) to gain an awareness of what stereotypes are and identify some of their stereotype cognitions (thesis to anti-thesis); 2) to check the accuracy of the cognition (thesis to synthesis); 3) to hold the cognition as only a starting point (thesis to synthesis); 4) to adapt a flexible adjustment to the initial cognition (synthesis). Important to our study, and related to the framework, an awareness of stereotypes would be required before effective or efficient alteration could take place.

While the dialectic logic process has had critics,¹ it can be helpful as a theoretical and functional platform in educating one to break through stereotype beliefs. However, it is probable that specific types of contact with the target group members will act to more effectively gain stereotype awareness and alter stereotype perceptions (Allport, 1954).

Contact theory

For some time, researchers have been intrigued with the type of contact required to establish positive outcomes between groups of different backgrounds, beliefs and ethnicity (Williams, 1947). In order for awareness/alteration of stereotypes to occur through any cognitive process, it has been established that one-on-one contact, under certain conditions, needs to take place. Allport (1954) proposed contact theory for developing effective interaction which might lead to stereotype awareness and adjustment.

Allport’s theory justifies the use of experiential dialectic logic for individual stereotype awareness development. Recent cross-cultural management research has established the usefulness of experiential approaches in social learning contexts (MacNab, 2012; MacNab et al., 2007) which is also supported by Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory and others (Dewey, 1938). Meta-analysis associated with contact theory research supports the importance of context for influencing related stereotype dynamic outcomes (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006); meta-analysis of stereotype adjustment efforts demonstrates that those which ignore these contextual parameters produce only scant results (Schofield, 1991; Stephan, 1978). With examination of social learning processes, Morton Deutsch (2007) suggested there is a tendency to neglect contextual influences which contact theory can help parameterize as follows:

Non-dominance between the contact parties or reasonable status equity. If one or more parties establish, and project, overly dominant positioning and influence then benefits of contact are less likely. E.g. Resentment or acquiescence could result. (This is referred to as CT/nd in Figure 1.) There has been additional support for the potential importance of equal status (Amir, 1976).

Establishment of some mutual goals, common ground (and cooperativeness) between the contact parties. The absence of any meaningful shared needs or wants, whether explicit or implicit, real or imagined, will reduce the probability for benefits related to the contact. Parties should work together towards these goals. (This is referred to as CT/mg in Figure 1.) Others have supported the likely importance of this parameter (Brown, 1988; Sherif, 1966).

Meaningful degree of personal contact. If people in groups do not actually have the opportunity to meet then the chance for meaningful contact is reduced. (This is referred to as CT/pc in Figure 1.) Others have supported that meaningful acquaintance potential is important (Byrne, 1971; Cook, 1978: 97).

Endorsement/support of the contact from recognized administration, leaders or people of influence associated with the involved parties. If related leaders or influential people are not supportive of, or are resistant to, the interaction there is lower probability for contact benefits. (This is referred to as CT/es in Figure 1.) Brown (1995: 238–9) provides several examples where teachers, respected politicians and others can influence inter-group contact in a positive direction.

These original contact theory parameters (Allport, 1954) establish the independent, exogenous contextual aspect of this study. While others have suggested additional contact parameters (Amir, 1976; Cook, 1978; Pettigrew, 1971) the four listed are considered not only the original but also the most important contact theory parameters (Brown, 1995) and have thus been selected for our research. For our experiential stereotype training approach, it is proposed that contact theory parameters will facilitate improved outcome results as established in the following set of related hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: As a higher order construct,² contact theory will be positively related to the individual stereotype awareness education indicator.

Hypothesis 1a: The contact theory non-dominance or equity (CT/nd) parameter will be positively related to the individual stereotype awareness education indicator.

Hypothesis 1b: The contact theory mutual goals (CT/mg) parameter will be positively related to the individual stereotype awareness education indicator.

Hypothesis 1c: The contact theory personal contact (CT/pc) parameter will be positively related to the individual stereotype awareness education indicator.

Hypothesis 1d: The contact theory endorsement support (CT/es) parameter will be positively related to the individual stereotype awareness education indicator.

Contact theory provides a reasonable platform for examination of contextual aspects; however, Deutsch (2007) recommends examination of both contextual and individual parameters in social learning studies. Self-efficacy provides a meaningful individual consideration.

Self-efficacy

Lewin (1951) elucidated that both individual attributes and contextual components will be meaningful in relation to social behaviour. Individual attributes include a person’s experiences and personality traits. As an individual trait, self-efficacy is potentially relevant to outcomes in learning (Earley and Mosakowski, 2004; Earley and Peterson, 2004; Hasan and Ali, 2006).

General self-efficacy is related to the self concept and social learning theory (Bandura, 1977a, 1977b) and is defined as ‘judgment of one’s capability to accomplish a certain level of performance’ (Bandura, 1986: 391), or ‘the conviction one can engage in behavior that will produce the desired outcome’ (Bandura, 1977a: 193). Individuals with high self-efficacy do not permanently retreat from setbacks but will rather continue to endeavour with greater or more strategic effort (Bandura, 1997; MacNab and Worthley, 2008). Such individuals have greater propensity for delayed gratification, demonstrate higher commitment, are more diligent and effective in developing problem-solving and coping strategies (Bandura, 1997; MacNab et al., 2010).

In relation to stereotype awareness and alteration, it is proposed that such endeavours are not easy (Adler, 2002; Allport, 1954; Brown, 1995; Snyder, 1982). Meaningful theory and research has supported that once a negative stereotype has been established about an out-group then members of the in-group will cognitively process events and observations to support the original, negative projection. The combined work of Pettigrew (1979) and Ross (1977) established the idea of ultimate attribution error; the tendency to explain negative observed behaviors of an out-group as internally caused (e.g. they are of an aggressive nature) while positive behaviours are linked to external causes (e.g. they were given special attention by a good teacher). Other nuances which can increase the tendency for reliance on stereotype categories include heightened mental preoccupation (i.e. cognitive busyness) and being in a state of strong emotional arousal (Gilbert and Hixon, 1991; Stephan and Stephan, 1985).

Because of these dynamics, some level of determination to overcome perceptions might be facilitating. It is therefore proposed that self-efficacy will influence experiential stereotype awareness intervention by moderating the influence of contact theory parameters to training outcome indicators. In this study we theoretically position self-efficacy as a moderator because it is specific and consistent to the trainee/participant while context could vary. One may theoretically encounter a variety of possible contextual experiences but one’s general self-efficacy will basically be somewhat consistent and moderate the strength of these environmental influences. As described by Baron and Kenny (1986) moderating factors influence the strength of a proposed relation:

Hypothesis 2: General self-efficacy will positively moderate the relation between contact theory and the individual stereotype awareness education indicator.

Foundational motives for the study, as outlined by Adler’s (2002) effective stereotyping components, have been reviewed. We have also examined key theoretical platforms, dialectic logic (Fox, 2005; Hegel, 1812) and experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984), which provide the specific motivation for development of the experiential approach to be described in the following section. Finally, we have established the theoretical relevance for examination of context with Contact Theory (Allport, 1954) in predicting stereotype education outcomes and in examination of general self-efficacy as a potential moderating component.

Methods

Between 2005 and 2007 undergraduate and graduate university business students and professionals, engaged in management education, participated in an experiential approach to stereotype awareness, alteration and adjustment. The training and research for this approach was conducted within two internationally recognized universities in North America and Australia. The effort included 373 participants representing 31 different nationalities with a wide range of ethnic backgrounds (see Table 1). As Table 2 represents, there was a relatively equitable representation of both males and females, along with a notable representation of work experience.

Table 1.

Listing of participant nationalities and ethnicities.

Nationalities	Frequency
China	156
Australia	76
Hong Kong	13
United States	13
Germany	11
Taiwan	11
Other or missing (2)	93
Total	373
Ethnicities	Frequency
Chinese/Chinese born/Part-Chinese	186
Australian/White Australian/Part-Australian	61
Other Asian except Chinese	33
Caucasian/White, non-Australian/non-European	32
European	25
Other or missing (4)	36
Total	373

Table 2.

Other participant demographics.

Educational status	UG (n=144)	PG (n=229)
Male	44%	37%
Female	56%	63%
Work experience	84%	78%
Management experience	13%	22%
Foreign student	54%	95%
Travel frequency outside of home country (prior to age 18)
Never	9%	50%
One time	12%	10%
More than one but less than 5 times	38%	14%
More than 5 but less than 10 times	17%	13%
Over 10 times	24%	13%
Age (mean)	20.6	24.7

UG = Undergraduate.

PG = Postgraduate.

Experiential training

Participants in this study engaged in a multi-week education process related to effective cross-cultural management of people and developing cross-cultural competency. The training was embedded within management courses and other management studies so it was a topic of natural fit within that main area of focus. The approach used is called an experiential approach because participants are required to engage a target group that they hold stereotypes about. The general method has been used with other studies as well (MacNab, 2012). The intervention and training theoretically bank from dialectic logic as previously explained. The process is also theoretically related to the social learning approach as apparent in other work (e.g. Cushner and Brislin, 1996). This pattern includes awareness (see training stage one), experience (see training stage two to four), internalization (see training stage four to five) and then communication with social-sharing (see training stage five to seven). These are reflected in the following stages which established the basis of the approach:

Training stage one: Awareness development

Participants were provided with basic ‘awareness-level’ knowledge related to key concepts associated with the intended training. Participants were provided with an introduction to the following concepts along with relevant models and reading materials: a) stereotypes and stereotype awareness, b) dialectic logic and c) contact theory. Once participants have a basic grasp of these concepts and understand their potential value, it establishes a better path for application in an actual situation and behavioural adaptation.

A basic understanding of these concepts is established with interactive discussion, supportive reading material, film presentation and tutorial or lab exercises. For example, participants are shown films with stereotype themes and characters struggling with the stereotype alteration process. Discussions are formed about aspects of effective stereotyping and dialectic logic, how people in the film either embraced or failed to embrace certain aspects and the outcome. The motion picture Crash (Haggis, 2005) is an example of a useful film for this purpose. An example of a lab exercise is a small group interaction called stereotypes of different groups (see Pedersen, 2004). Participants are placed in small groups and asked to evaluate statements as related to specific ethnic groups. The exercise provides a good way for trainees to start thinking about stereotypes, comfort with accepting the reality that everyone stereotypes and the power of stereotype consensus.

Training stage two: Experiential instructions provided

Participants are then provided with specific instructions about seeking out a type of contact experience which will potentially allow them to experiment with, among other things, stereotype adjustment via dialectic logic. Participants are instructed on the parameters to be described. These parameters are recommended for general guidance and it is suggested that these might be appropriately adjusted depending on the specifics of the education atmosphere, participants and goals.

The selected contact must be with an identifiable group. If participants are unable to articulate an actual target group, it is likely that they will have difficulty finding an associated stereotype they can articulate. However, given that general requirement, there are potentially wide possibilities including ethnic, national, sexual preference, religious identity, etc.

The contact experience should generally be no less than two hours in length and provide for some meaningful personal contact. Experiences which are too brief would likely not place the participant in a situation providing enough intensity or material for reflective examination. While brief encounters can be of value, they might not provide enough depth.

The intended experience must not be illegal or place the participant in unreasonable physical or psychological risk.

The experience must be new and not a reflection of a past experience.

There should be caution in allowing participants to engage in some activities which require payment for contact (e.g. like a paying customer at a restaurant). Introducing the reality of a commercial transaction has the potential of creating a contrived interaction.

Participants will often have questions as they go through the process of deciding on a contact group and an experience; the instructor should keep open lines of communication to answer questions. Depending on the context and participants other parameters might be presented.

Training stage three: Pre-experience check

A ‘pre-experience check’ was established to help ensure participants were reasonably within the training parameters for selecting their target experience and group. Part of this check requires that trainees write a brief (one paragraph) description of their intended experience. Instructors can then provide feedback where necessary. Participants are asked to briefly explain a back-up experience. It was necessary to redirect participants to alternative experiences in less than 5% of cases.

Training stage four: Target group experience

Participants engage in their intended experience during a specific time-frame and in relation to general training instructions. Instructors maintain open lines of communication (e.g. email, phone contact and office hours) to address any questions or concerns trainees might have during this time. This is particularly important just leading up to the actual interaction.

Training stage five: Post-experience and internalization

A ‘post-experience’ write-up was then required which allowed participants to describe the experience and reflect on the interaction as specifically related to identified stereotype positions, dialectic logic, related transformations and effective stereotyping. Participants are required to write about each of the three stages of dialectic logic and describe both their successes and failures in moving through these stages. Three things related to this part of the process are recommended: 1) that participants are provided clear information about what they will need to write about early in the training process; 2) that participants are encouraged, and not penalized, for recognizing a failure to establish or move through a certain phase of dialectic logic or other aspect of the training, as this can be highly insightful; 3) participants are encouraged to provide critique for any of the concepts within the project. Acceptance and recognition of failure can be an important part of the innovation and learning process (Sutton, 2002) and trainees should not be held to standards of perfection in navigating the dialectic logic process as applied to stereotype awareness and adjustment. If a participant is not able to navigate a certain phase of dialectic logic with success, they should be encouraged to explore why.

Training stage six: Trainer feedback and communication

Trainees are then provided with written feedback which generally tends to be structured around the parameters of the training, dialectic logic and effective stereotyping. While these parameters are helpful in providing some consistency, especially if multiple reviewers are providing participants or students with feedback, these are not meant to be restrictions. Comments might fall outside of these parameters depending on the individual effort. Effective feedback tends to focus on helping improve student understanding of the dialectic logic process, clearly identifying stereotypes and effective stereotyping. We recommend that the feedback be relatively positive/supportive in nature. Instructors can also provide insightful feedback to students who found they were not successful in the dialectic logic process or in developing new perceptions. Instructors might also be able to point out if a student is deviating from the Adler (2002) parameters of effective stereotyping – for example, if a student’s new synthesis is laden with value judgement but lacking in description.

Training stage seven: Group discussion and social sharing

Finally, participants are placed into small groups of three to five and encouraged to discuss, with structured parameters, their experience with others. Once this has taken place a larger forum for discussion is opened and each group is asked to report on any interesting outcomes of their small group discussion. Trainers should help direct discussion towards successes and challenges in application of dialectic logic to stereotype cognitions. The discussion can then focus on how the process might have worked to embrace Adler’s (2002) parameters for effective stereotyping.

Measurement model

There were three sets of items, embedded together with a larger instrument, for developing the structural model for this research: one for general components of contact theory, one for general self-efficacy and a third for measuring indicators of stereotype awareness and alteration. The instrument was reflective and was administered following an eight-week training process. Participants filled out the instrument without specifically knowing that stereotype awareness/alteration were the focus of this study and were told the study was related to aspects of cross-cultural management.

The instrument held a total of 28 items, containing 16 for contact theory (independent/exogenous), eight for the moderating factor general self-efficacy (independent) and four for the stereotype awareness education indicator (dependent/endogenous). The items used in the instrument were drawn from a combination of established theory and instruments (Allport, 1954; MacNab et al., 2007; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006; Schwarzer, 1994). Because all participants were enrolled in programmes which required high levels of English proficiency, this study was able to use English as the instrument language. A full representation of the scales is included in Appendix 1.

All scales were based on a five-point Likert scale format, with 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neutral; 4 = disagree; 5 = strongly disagree. Each component of the instrument demonstrated acceptable reliability as demonstrated by the following Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (Cronbach, 1951): contact theory: 0.83, general self-efficacy: 0.85 and stereotype awareness education indicator: 0.76.

Table 3.

Means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for all factors.

Factor	Mean	SD	Reliability
Self-efficacy factor (8 items)	3.77	0.54	0.85
Contact theory factor (16 items)	3.89	0.68	0.83
Equal Status CT1	4.03	0.67	0.79
Common ground CT2	3.57	0.78	0.83
Individual contact CT3	3.88	0.76	0.75
Support of authority CT4	3.90	0.61	0.74
Stereotype awareness ed. indicator (4 items)	4.08	0.60	0.76

The measurement model was estimated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS. CFA was used instead of an exploratory factor analysis since all of the scales are versions of already existing instruments (see MacNab et al., 2007).

Data collection

The data for this study were collected between 2005 and 2007. All participants remained anonymous during the data collection process and there is no way of matching particular responses with specific participants. Participants were told the research involved examination of teaching people important aspects related to cross-cultural management and they were aware that it would also involve an evaluation of their completed experiential work. The response rate for the data collection effort was high, at over 90%.

Results

Since all of the hypotheses are based on latent variables, and the approach is confirmatory, structural equation modelling (SEM) is the appropriate analysis. The structural model is shown in abbreviated fashion in Figure 1.

Model specifics and fit

The four latent components of contact theory (CT) are represented and each component holds four manifest items for a total of 16 manifest measures. Stereotype awareness, the endogenous aspect, is measured with four manifest items. The overall chi-square test, which tests the null hypothesis of perfect model fit, is generally considered to be an appropriate measure only when the total sample size is less than 200 (Bollen and Long, 1993). Further, this test is affected by the correlations within the model, with higher correlations suggesting poorer fit. The present research has a sample size greater than 200 and the correlations within the model were expected to be fairly high. Because of the problems involved with the chi-square test, alternative fit indices have been provided, as common with SEM analysis. These include the RMSEA, with values below .05 considered to reflect good model fit; PCLOSE which tests whether the population RMSEA is no greater than .05 (values close to one are desirable), the CFI, IFI and TLI all with values greater than .90 considered to reflect good fit; and the χ²/df, with values less than 2.0 considered to reflect good model fit (Bollen, 1989). With SEM, good model fit indicates that the structural format researchers propose is generally supported or mirrored by the data.

Model fit was appropriate with the following indicators: χ²/df = 1.73, CFI = .92, IFI = .92, TLI = .903 and RMSEA = 0.044. All factor loadings proved to be significant with all p-values less than 0.001. Table 4 addresses the issue of whether the latent variable, contact theory, is related to their respective components. It shows that all lower order latent components for the higher order latent construct are related with all of the p-values being less than .001.

Table 4.

Model estimates and standardized regression weights for components of contact theory.

Component	Estimate	Standardized	C.R.	P-value
Equal status	1.000	0.583
Common ground	1.075	0.501	5.01	P<.001
Individual contact	0.829	0.417	4.36	P<.001
Support of authority	1.625	0.963	5.14	P<.001

Hypotheses

The hypotheses under consideration are summarized in Figure 1. Tables 5 and 6 summarize the results of the contact theory hypotheses.

Table 5.

Model estimate including standardized regression weight for testing hypothesis.

Hypothesis	Estimate	Standardized	CR	P-value
ST ← CT	0.826	0.520	4.86	P<.001

Notes:

ST = Stereotype Awareness Education Indicator.

CT = Contact Theory.

Table 6.

Model estimates including standardized regression weights for testing hypotheses.

Hypothesis	Estimate	Standardized	CR	P-Value
ST ← CT1	0.176	0.200	2.96	P=.003
ST ← CT2	0.033	0.046	0.76	P=.448
ST ← CT3	0.119	0.141	2.13	P=.034
ST ← CT4	0.319	0.348	4.18	P<.001

ST = Stereotype Awareness Education Indicator.

CT1 = Equal Status.

CT2 = Common Ground / Mutual Goals.

CT3 = Personal Contact.

CT4 = Support of Authority.

Hypothesis 1: (Supported) That contact theory as a higher order item will be influential in relation to outcome training indicators is supported with a standardized regression coefficient of 0.52 and a p-value less than 0.001. (See Table 5.)

Hypothesis 1a: (Supported) That contact non-dominance/equal status will be related to indicators of participant stereotype awareness is supported with a standardized regression coefficient of 0.200 and a p-value = 0.003. (See Table 6 for H1a–H1d.)

Hypothesis 1b: (Not Supported) That contact mutual goals will be positively related to indicators of participant stereotype awareness and adjustment is not supported with a standardized regression coefficient of 0.046 and a p-value = 0.448.

Hypothesis 1c: (Supported) That personal contact will be positively related to indicators of participant stereotype awareness and adjustment is supported with a standardized regression coefficient of 0.141 and a p-value = 0.034.

Hypothesis 1d: (Supported) That contact leadership endorsement/support will be positively related to indicators of participant stereotype awareness and adjustment is supported with a standardized regression coefficient of 0.348 and a p-value less than 0.001.

The test for self-efficacy as a moderator variable was examined by differentiating the participants into categories of high and low self-efficacy. The sum of the eight SE manifest items was obtained and the median was used to divide the data into two groups. The chi-square difference = 228.7; df difference = 165 with a p-value = 0.0008. This result demonstrates that there is a moderating effect.

Hypothesis 2: (Supported) That general self-efficacy will act as a positive moderator between the contact theory construct and the stereotype awareness outcome indicator can be supported as has been described.

However, as shown in Table 7, the difference between participants with high measures of self-efficacy versus low measures of self-efficacy did not create a substantial difference in the main path between contact theory and stereotype awareness training outcome indicators. These indicators suggest that any moderating influence of self-efficacy on the contact theory context parameters to stereotype awareness was present but somewhat modest.

Table 7.

Model estimates for testing hypotheses for low and high SE.

Hypothesis	Estimate	Standardized	CR	P-Value
High SE
ST ← CT	0.920	0.543	3.50	P<.001
Low SE
ST ← CT	0.605	0.415	3.00	P=.003
Combined
ST ← CT	0.826	0.520	4.86	P<.001

ST = Stereotype Awareness Education Indicator.

CT = Contact Theory.

SE – Self-Efficacy.

Since the structural model holds higher-order constructs, and the structural paths are positive and significant, the issue of Type I error needs to be addressed. Petter et al. (2007) have established parameters to clearly assess between formative and reflective relations with higher-order and lower-order constructs. Type I error becomes an increased probability if the higher order endogenous construct is formative. The dependent construct measure in this study is stereotype awareness education indicator. These indicators are driven by the experiential approach. The relation, for this reason and others, is therefore reflective. Since the endogenous construct cannot be positioned as formative, in what is not a higher order construct and the sample size is not excessive, the probability of Type I error is low.

In studies where data for the dependent and independent variables are collected from a single source using a single questionnaire, common method variance may be of concern. One method of reassuring the reader that the statistical and practical significance of the results has not been influenced by common method variance is to conduct the Harmon Single Factor Test which was recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003). This required loading all 20 indicators for the five latent constructs in the study on a single latent factor in a confirmatory factor analysis. The results showed much poorer fit (χ²/df = 7.333, CFI = .488, TLI = .427, IFI=.493, RMSEA = 0.130), suggesting that a single common method factor does not account for the majority of the covariance among the measures.

Controlling for participant demographics age, gender, management experience and nationality, it was revealed that these areas had no substantive impact on the overall results. For nationality, we divided the data into China, Australia and other. Again, there was no substantive change in the conclusions of the results. None of the control variables were related to contact and only one was related to stereotype awareness. Participants born in Australia were slightly higher than participants in China, although the p-value was only .017.

Discussion

Cross-cultural managers will improve their capacity to effectively manage others by becoming more stereotype aware (Adler, 2002). Triandis (2003) suggested a range of benefits from developing sociotypes (i.e. an accurate stereotype), including: isomorphic attributions (i.e. accurately understanding behaviour from another’s perspective), greater sense of control, agreeableness/accommodation and a likely reduced emptiness phase of culture shock. Others have suggested greater personal insight with stereotype awareness (Allport, 1954). With such potentially significant and positive influences to cross-cultural managers, stereotype awareness education and training represent an area that calls for more specific approaches. Our work advances the literature by providing a specific approach that can be adapted by organizations employing and training cross-cultural managers. Additionally, we test both contextual and individual perspectives related to stereotype awareness outcome indicators as recommended by others (Deutsch, 2007; Lewin, 1951). Adler (2002) recommends that effective stereotyping includes the capability of one to adjust stereotype perspectives to observed realities; however, this is also proposed as not being easy (Falkenberg, 1990; Kanter, 1977).

Dialectic logic (Fox, 2005) provides a theoretical and practical platform for shifting perspectives and cognitions. Banking from Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory an experiential approach to stereotype awareness/adjustment is presented. Stereotyping is considered a normal human reality (Falkenberg, 1990); therefore, the design of this approach is not intended to eliminate stereotypes but to increase participant awareness and capability to adjust, shift, and depart towards more accurate sociotypes. Allport’s (1954) contact theory suggests that contextual considerations will influence one’s capability to adjust stereotypes during interaction with a target group. Our research establishes indications that the stereotype awareness education and training method outlined in this study holds promise, but more investigation is required.

Experiential approach

The experiential approach presented is disclosed in the methods section. In short, it requires trainees to engage a target group for actual contact and then to use dialectic logic, with identified stereotypes, as part of their engagement. The employed experiential approach follows the theoretical structure of awareness, experience, internalization and then communication with social sharing suggested by others (Cushner and Brislin, 1996). Experiential approaches have also been proposed as relevant in other social learning process domains (Armstrong and Mahmud, 2008; Yamazaki and Kayes, 2004) and the approach employed in this study dovetailed from MacNab’s (2012) framework.

In examining learning, experts suggest there has been a tendency to neglect contextual considerations in favour of individual aspects (Deutsch, 2007). While both are of interest, this research effort helps to fill that void by providing examination of contextual (i.e. contact theory) and individual (i.e. general self-efficacy) nuances.

Context and stereotype awareness

Related to stereotype awareness and adjustment, Allport (1954) and others (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006) established that contextual considerations are important. In other words, not just any contact will allow a person to achieve adjustment of stereotypes. We examined contextual components considered important criteria for contact, as established in Allport’s (1954) work, and established support that these elements are generally important in stereotype awareness education efforts.

With the contact theory sub-hypotheses developed, all four sub-components of contact theory measured were positively influential to the training outcomes, with one holding a lower influence as statistically non-significant. However, it is critical to theoretically view all of the Allport (1954) components as a bundled package.

Non-dominance/equal status, personal contact/acquaintance potential and authority support were the three contact theory elements that demonstrated a significant influence on stereotype awareness education outcome indicators. The most significant element of this group was authority support – a finding of potential interest as research exploring the impact of authority support has not been plentiful (Brown, 1995). Educators interested in developing experiential stereotype awareness process by bringing groups together should note the potentially heightened significance of establishing and communicating support from contact groups’ perceived authority figures, leaders and role models.

Although not as significant, equal status (or equity) and personal contact were also of noteworthy importance and significance. Educators will want to consider establishing a contact environment where no members of identified contact groups hold a hyper-dominant position or status and where there is also opportunity for one-on-one contact.

Common ground or goals/cooperation was, interestingly, found to have only a small positive influence and was not significant. Should common goals with contact groups and members in such training be ignored? Absolutely not. The reason is because theoretically it holds significance in the bundle of contact theory parameters (Brown, 1995) and it holds a positive directional outcome in this empirical examination. The contact theory items are most effective as an integrated set.

The findings of this research might suggest that creating common goals among the members of the contact group(s), for the purpose of stereotype awareness training and education, is not as important as establishing clear support from perceived leaders, role models and respected authority figures. Common ground, goals and cooperation would likely become more important as task specificity, intensity and complexity increased. Nevertheless, it should be considered important as the parameters hold collective integrity in directing positive contact outcomes as also demonstrated in the results with hypothesis 1.

It is also possible that the common ground/mutual goals related to this endeavour were, paradoxically, all-encompassing and subtle at the same time, which could also help explain the finding. Within a university environment, students both implicitly and explicitly know education is a main goal. Additionally, the people and groups that students contacted for this effort are aware that the visit is related to learning more about other members of society (as I encourage the students to not be deceptive about the intent, purpose or background of their visit). In this manner, the goal becomes fairly general. I suspect if the method were adjusted to include a more specific and measurable outcome, which required both participant and target group participation to achieve (i.e. superordinate), the common ground/mutual goal aspect would become more important. However, for the learning purposes of this effort, one might question if that would actually be desirable as it would likely increase education/training complexity and contact intensity. For the purpose of this training, the general goals related to contact in educational and personal awareness development are perhaps sufficient.

Self-efficacy

General self-efficacy has been proposed as a relevant individual trait within other social learning studies (e.g. see Earley and Mosakowski, 2004; MacNab and Worthley, in press; MacNab et al., in press). In this study it was found that individuals with higher self-efficacy measures were able to demonstrate the intended education outcomes more successfully when certain contextual parameters, per contact theory, were met. Self-efficacy was theorized as a moderating influence in the model because individuals (due to personality traits like self-efficacy) will react and respond differently to the same context.

While self-efficacy was empirically supported as a moderating influence in the model, it must be stated that the magnitude was somewhat modest. This tends to support Deutsch’s (2007) recommendation that, while examining individual traits, research examining social learning should not ignore the importance of context.

Types of control exist which individuals use to interact with their world. Primary control and secondary control represent two possibilities on a continuum. Primary control is the belief that one can directly influence their reality (e.g. directly change the situation or events). Self-efficacy is conceptualized as a type of primary control (Rothbaum et al., 1982). Secondary control is the belief that one can accommodate reality by adjusting cognitions (Weisz et al., 1984). The described training method clearly requires participants to engage in a type of secondary control (i.e. participants were challenged to examine and possibly shift their cognitions). Because self-efficacy has primary control mechanism tendencies, it is perhaps understandable that self-efficacy had reticent influence in an exercise with strong secondary aspects.

It is likely that the stereotype training effort explained in this research is appropriate and effective for individuals with both lower and higher self-efficacy if the contextual parameters are present. In fact, individuals with lower self-efficacy but with comfort in secondary control might actually have an advantage in this type of training and education. Because the method outlined in the study engages a hybrid primary-secondary control approach, it may hold a residual benefit in developing control mechanisms not often engaged.

Future direction and limitations

The research design applied in this study was conducted using participants and executives in management education programmes within a university environment. At the time of this study, and related to human subjects review, it was necessary to provide all subjects with the stereotype training intervention. Additionally, because of concerns with over-sampling university programme participants, it was necessary to conduct a post-intervention, reflective indication of stereotype awareness training outcomes.

While there is some precedence for use of self-report, reflective instruments in gauging participant outcomes in educational efforts (e.g. Marra, 2004), future research using control groups with pre- and post-intervention measures would present a meaningful progression of this study.

Stereotype awareness and adjustment is potentially related to other social learning approaches (Triandis, 2003). Cultural intelligence (see Earley and Mosakowski, 2004) involves cognitive and meta-cognitive aspects which might be related to stereotype awareness and adjustment. The proposed experiential approach to stereotype awareness and adjustment education could represent a useful approach to also developing specific components related to cultural intelligence.

Diversity training, stereotype awareness and adjustment efforts, multicultural skills development (as in cultural intelligence) are meaningful efforts. However, educators should be mindful of the possibility that these types of efforts could be taken too far. We suggest it is more powerful to guide people towards higher awareness and potential adjustment of cognitions and then behaviours rather than to make attempts that too strongly ‘force’ participants towards such ends. The method outlined is one of education rather than indoctrination and is why it is presented as a multi-week process and not a one-time, quick-fix approach. Ultimately, concluding the training, the participant must decide and reflect, basically without penalty, whether they could navigate the process; that end could present another starting point for discussion and learning. Why were adjustments not notable? What is contact theory and were parameters of that theory missing? How might this have influenced the participant’s outcome? What could be adjusted if there was a follow-up contact?

Gardner (1983) developed a theory of multiple intelligences which include intra-personal and inter-personal intelligence aspects. These intelligences are related to self-awareness and to social interaction. It is suspected that the training approach outlined in this study would relate to those aspects of multiple intelligences; therefore the training might also hold value in developing those types of intelligences. It would be meaningful to investigate other individual nuances, such as these, to see if they hold an important moderating influence.

Finally, the study did not evaluate specific nuances of the actual stereotypes that trainees held. Future work could use the experiential approach and specifically delineate nuances of participant stereotype(s). Is the approach more effective for certain kinds of stereotype awareness/adjustment than others?

Footnotes

Notes

Appendix 1 Obituary

Brent Robert MacNab, 43, died in July 2012 in a car accident in the mountains of San Diego. He was a professor in International Business at the University of Sydney, Australia who was an active researcher with many publications in top rated academic journals and he was an award winning teacher. He balanced his life with his love of surfing, hiking, and being a kind and loving husband, father, son, and brother. His wry sense of humor, sharp intellect, and true sense of adventure will be deeply missed by his family, friends and colleagues.

References

Adler

(2002) International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour, 4th edn. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western.

Allport

(1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Allport

(1979) The Nature of Prejudice, 25th anniversary edn, New York: Basic Books.

Amir

(1976) The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In: Katz

(ed.) Toward the Elimination of Racism. New York: Pergamon.

Armstrong

Mahmud

(2008) Experiential learning and the acquisition of managerial tacit knowledge. Academy of Management Learning and Education 7(2): 189–208.

Bandura

(1977a) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2): 191–215.

Bandura

(1977b) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura

(1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura

(1997) Self-Efficacy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

10.

Baron

Kenny

(1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–82.

11.

Bollen

(1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley-Interscience Publication.

12.

Bollen

Long

(1993) Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

13.

Brislin

MacNab

Worthley

(2005) Evolving perceptions of Japanese workplace motivation: An employee–manager comparison. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management 5(1): 87–104.

14.

Brislin

Worthley

MacNab

(2006) Cultural intelligence: Understanding behaviors that serve people’s goals. Group and Organization Management 31(1): 40–55.

15.

Brown

(1988) Group Processes: Dynamics within and between Groups. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

16.

Brown

(1995) Prejudice: Its Social Psychology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

17.

Bruner

(1957) On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review 64(2): 123–51.

18.

Byrne

Campbell

(1999) Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30(5): 555–74.

19.

Byrne

(1971) The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

20.

Campbell

(1956) Enhancement of contrast as a composite habit. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 53: 350–5.

21.

Cook

(1978) Interpersonal and attitudinal outcomes in cooperating interracial groups. Journal of Research and Development in Education 12(1): 97–113.

22.

Crew

(1984) Age stereotypes as a function of race. Academy of Management Journal 27(2): 431–6.

23.

Cronbach

(1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal consistency of tests. Psychometrica 16: 297–334.

24.

Cushner

Brislin

(1996) Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide, 2nd edn. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE.

25.

Deutsch

(2007) A career in social psychology, APS Award Paper, 26 May.

26.

Dewey

(1938) Experience and Education. New York: Dover.

27.

Dovidio

Hebl

(2005) Discrimination at the level of the individual: Cognitive and affective factors. In: Dipboye

Colella

(eds) Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and Organizational Bases. NJ: Earlbaum, 11–37.

28.

Earley

Mosakowski

(2004) Cultural intelligence. Harvard Business Review 82(10): 139–46.

29.

Earley

Peterson

(2004) The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education 3(1): 100–15.

30.

Falkenberg

(1990) Improving the accuracy of stereotypes within the workplace. Journal of Management 16(1): 107–18.

31.

Fox

Renas

(1977) Stereotypes of women in the media and their impact on women’s careers. Human Resource Management 16(1): 28–32.

32.

Fox

(2005) The Accessible Hegel. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.

33.

Gardner

(1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

34.

Gilbert

Hixon

(1991) The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60(4): 509–17.

35.

Gilbert

Carr-Ruffino

Ivancevich

Lowens-Jackson

(2003) An empirical examination of inter-ethnic stereotypes: Comparing Asian American and African American employees. Public Personnel Management 32(2): 251–67.

36.

Haggis

(director) (2005) Crash [Motion picture], USA, Lion’s Gate Film, Bob Yari Productions and DEJ Productions.

37.

Hasan

Ali

(2006) The impact of general and system specific self-efficacy on computer training learning and outcomes. Academy of Information and Management Sciences Journal 9(1): 17–36.

38.

Hegel

GWF

(1812) Hegel’s Science of Logic. London: Allen & Unwin.

39.

Hofstede

(1980) Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organization Dynamics 9(1): 42–63.

40.

Kanter

(1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Russell Sage.

41.

Katz

(1960) The functional approach to study attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 24(2): 163–77.

42.

Kolb

(1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New York: Prentice Hall.

43.

Lippmann

(1922) Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt.

44.

Lewin

(1951) Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper.

45.

Lowengart

Zaidman

(2003) The effect of national stereotype on the tendency to conduct business in foreign countries: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business and Management 9(1): 79–94.

46.

MacNab

(2012) An experiential approach to cultural intelligence education. Journal of Management Education 36(1): 66–94.

47.

MacNab

Worthley

(2008) Self-efficacy as an intrapersonal predictor for internal whistle-blowing: A U.S. and Canada examination. Journal of Business Ethics 79(4): 407–22.

48.

MacNab

Worthley

(in press) Individual characteristics as predictors of cultural intelligence development: The relevance of self-efficacy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations; doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.12.001.

49.

MacNab

Worthley

Brislin

(2007) An experiential approach to teaching cultural intelligence: The relevance of context and intra-personal characteristics within the learning process. Presented at the Applied Business and Entrepreneurial Association International (ABEAI) Conference, Maui, USA, Nov.

50.

MacNab

Jenner

Worthley

(2010) Patterns of self-efficacy within NAFTA: United States, Canada and Mexico. Latin America Business Review 11(3): 249–65.

51.

MacNab

Brislin

Worthley

(in press) Experiential cultural intelligence development: Context and individual attributes. International Journal of Human Resource Management; doi: 10.1080/09585192.2011.581636.

52.

Marra

(2004) An online course to help teachers ‘use technology to enhance learning’: Successes and limitations. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 12(3): 411–29.

53.

Merton

(1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

54.

Osland

Bird

Delano

Jacob

(2000) Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Culture sensemaking in context/executive commentaries. Academy of Management Executive 14(1): 65–80.

55.

Pedersen

(2004) 110 Experiences for Multicultural Learning. Washington, DC: APA.

56.

Petter

Straub

Rai

(2007) Specifying formative constructs in information system research. MIS Quarterly 31(4): 623–56.

57.

Pettigrew

(1971) Racially Separate or Together? New York: McGraw-Hill.

58.

Pettigrew

(1979) The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 5(4): 461–76.

59.

Pettigrew

Tropp

(2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(5): 751–83.

60.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

Podsakoff

(2003) Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

61.

Prime

Jonsen

Carter

Maznevski

(2008) Managers’ perceptions of women and men leaders: a cross cultural comparison. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(2): 171–210.

62.

Ross

(1977) The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In: Berkowitz

(ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, vol. 10.

63.

Rothbaum

Weisz

Snyder

(1982) Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42(1): 5–37.

64.

Schofield

(1991) School desegregation and intergroup relations: A review of the research. In Grant

(ed.) Review of Research in Education. Washington, DC: American Education Research Association, vol. 17, 335–409.

65.

Schwarzer

(1994) Optimistische Kompetenzerwartung: Zur Erfassung einer personellen Bewaltigungsressource./Generalized self-efficacy: Assessment of a personal coping resource. Diagnostica 40(2): 105–23.

66.

Sherif

(1966) Group Conflict and Co-operation: Their Social Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

67.

Snyder

(1982) Self-fulfilling stereotypes. Psychology Today (July): 60–8.

68.

Stephan

(1978) School desegregation: An evaluation of predictions made in Brown v. Board of Education. Psychological Bulletin 85(2): 217–38.

69.

Stephan

(1985) Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues 41(3): 157–75.

70.

Sutton

(2002) Weird Ideas that Work: 11 1⁄2 Practices for Promoting, Managing, and Sustaining Innovation. New York: Free Press.

71.

Tajfel

(1959) The anchoring effects of value in a scale of judgements. British Journal of Psychology 50: 294–304.

72.

Tajfel

Turner

(1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In: Austin

Worchel

(eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 33–48.

73.

Tjosvold

Leung

(2003) Cross-cultural foundations: Traditions for managing in a global world. In: Tjosvold

Leung

(eds) Cross-Cultural Management: Foundations and Future. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 1–10.

74.

Triandis

(1994) Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

75.

Triandis

(2002) Subjective culture. In: Lonner

Dinnel

Hayes

Sattler

(eds) Online Readings in Psychology and Culture (unit 15, chapter 1), http://www.wwu.edu/∼culture. Bellingham, WA: Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington University.

76.

Triandis

(2003) Forty-five years of researching the culture and behaviour link: An intellectual autobiography. In: Tjosvold

Leung

(eds) Cross-Cultural Management: Foundations and Future. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 11–27.

77.

Van Fleet

Saurage

(1984) Recent research on women in management. Akron Business and Economic Review 15(2): 15–24.

78.

Ward

Bochner

Furnham

(2003) The Psychology of Culture Shock. Lewes: Routledge.

79.

Weisz

Rothbaum

Blackburn

(1984) Standing out and standing in: The psychology of control in America and Japan. American Psychologist 39(9): 955–70.

80.

Williams

Jr (1947) The Reduction of Intergroup Tensions. New York: SSRC.

81.

Yamazaki

Kayes

(2004) An experiential approach to cross-cultural learning: A review and integration of competencies for successful expatriate adaptation. Academy of Management Learning and Education 3(4): 362–79.