ABSTRACT A MODEL FOR THE CROSS CULTURAL INTERACTION TRAINING OF ADULTS BY Richard Allin McGonigal Drawing from the findings of Peace Corps trainers, military advisors and those agencies sponsoring personnel attempting cross cultural interaction overseas and/or domestically, this study sought to isolate the personal interaction variables having the most influence upon success- ful communication. These variables, in order of importance, were found to be: self awareness, empathy, tolerance for ambiguity, self esteem, low dogmatism, high regard for the value of equality, the ability to communicate non-verbally, genuineness, warmth and openness. Sampling from a population of Michigan State University, College of Education, students (n=288) interested in working in the inner city a ten-week training model was designed and tested for its effect upon 14 factors deemed to be im- portant in interpersonal communication. The treatment con— sisted of an encounter group mode which included a series of human relations exercises. Instruments used to test the variables included: Rokeach's Value Inventory and D Scales, Richard Allin McGonigal Hunt's Low Self Esteem Scale, the Truax Scales for Empathy, Genuineness, Warmth and Openness, Budner's Scale for Intoler- ance for Ambiguity, a congruity use of the Traux Scales for Self Awareness, and a non—verbal communication scale de— signed by the author. Treatment versus control group analyses and repeated measures analyses showed significant treatment effects. Those variables most sensitive to treatment were (in order of strength): increased self awareness, reduced dogmatism, higher regard for the value of equality, increased empathy, increased self esteem and increased tolerance for ambiguity. An analysis of relationship between leadership style and group mean behavioral changes (using Wile's Group Therapy Questionnaire--Form C) showed no significant correlations between leadership style and group performance within this training model. 3.; ‘mn-.. , .. A MODEL FOR THE CROSS CULTURAL INTERACTION TRAINING OF ADULTS BY Richard Allin McGonigal A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education Department of Administration and Higher Education 1971 :. CDCOPyright by RICHARD ALLIN McGONIGAL 1971 Infra-M— .7 ~. __ _ “I"‘u This study is dedicated to Staff Sergeant Vfiong Thien Ting, Army of the Republic of Vietnam and Corporal Alton C. Thomas, United States Marine Corps, who each twice saved my life and who each lived long enough to introduce me to greater depths of racism abroad and at home. iii EH, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Jane, my wife, George and Peggy, my children, are first in line for my salute of appreciation. Their patience with a husband/father who has been going to school "forever" is gratefully received. In the early years of data gathering and model testing I was helped enormously by the direction and support of Lt. Gen. Victor Krulack, USMC, and General Lewis Walt, USMC. The officers and men of the Third Marine Amphibious Force own my lasting gratitude for their help and cooperation. Professor Russell Kleis, my advisor at Michigan State University, more than earned his reputation as a scholarly. warm human being. I especially appreciate the freedom he aLLIOV-«Ied me to venture out into what I most wanted to study. I am enriched by his philosophy of education. Professor Ted Ward was perhaps the closest to my work in his capacity as Director of the Human Learning Research Inst'j-‘lillte. He risked a great deal in sponsoring the courses I taught. Not everyone would put his name beside such attaupts at affective learning. His trust proved a great motj‘vator. The support of the Institute in providing video— tape e(Juipment, office space and services is especially aPPr eciated. Miss Diane Giebel and Mrs. Florence Nurse, iv secretaries there, more than once worked miracles to keep the project alive. Professor Hideya Kumata was especially helpful in broad- ening my theoretical understanding of cross cultural com- munication. I shall be forever indebted to him for his introduction to Claude Levi-Strauss. Professor Alex Cade deepened my appreciation for the richness of the human personality. His guidance on person- ality assessment proved most rewarding. Perhaps it was his own awe, yes--reverence, toward human personality that strengthened my belief in people to adequately put their own affairs in order and to seek a deeper union with others. I am indebted to Professors Milton Rokeach and Everett Rogers for their stimulation and solid exposure to the funda- mental research in attitude change and the diffusion of innovations. The caliber of their scholarship remains a lasting ideal. I am especially indebted to my fellow students who assisted me in this project. Many acted as "facilitators" in the small groups we "taught". Bill Arnet, Dick Ayling, Bill Babcock, Nancy Carlson, Cathy Champion, Peggy Chase, John Dettoni, Bob Dunn, Gary Ebrecht, Baiba Gilbe, Phyllis Good: Florence Hoffman, Wayne Hunter, Jim Jackson, Beatrice Clark‘Jones, Leslie June, Margie Kaplan, Krista Kaul, Jan Kru . lick. Chris Larsen, Molly Laula, Nancy Leatherman, Lee Lainin . . . ger, Gregory Lubkin, Penny Lynch, Freddie Martin, V Sandy Morrell, Joanne Mueller, Jacqueline Murphy, Jean Murphy, Clarence Mixon, Jim Nevels, Julia O'Neill, Jack Porter, Mike Rohla, Patrick Rode, Susan Ross, Stuart Schafer, Naomi Schmidt, Neil Schnarch, Gina Schack, Jim Stolte, Fred Tinning, Tony Van Oyen, Mike Walker, and Sue Yovanovich were inspir- Terrill Taylor, Ron Wallen, Jean Witherill, Gina Schack and ing associates. Some, such as Leslie June, Naomi Schmidt put in long hours of coding and tabulating the more than nine thousand individual measurements which were taken. The swift typing of the rough draft by Miss Diane Giebel and the careful preparation of the final draft by Mrs- Shirley Goodwin closely approached "making a silk purse out of a sow's ear". That would not have been possible, however, without the editing acumen of Mrs. Eleanor Morrison and Mrs. Nancy Axinn. Their attention went beyond my dis- graceful spelling to the overall thought and spirit of what I have tried to say. I am indebted to them. No university has a more human-centered research con— sultant office than does Michigan State. Dr. Linda Allal, D r. Andrew Porter, Dr. Mary Ellen McSweeney and Dr. William s . chm-161'; gave me the full treatment of statistical analysis an d research design courses. I gave them the full treatment Of T: a 8low but willing learner. Time will tell who won. I am c 1ndebted to all of them, not only for their help in the classroom and the computer laboratory, but for their vi ‘ . "F J- . y 17., constant willingness to stop what they were doing and to offer advice. I am most grateful to Professor Norman T. Bell for his advice with the IBM 1130. Words of thanks should be expressed here for the Research Consultant Office which made possible some time on the CDC 3600 Computer. Naturally, it would have been impossible for me to be expressing gratitude to the above if the United States Navy and our Chief of Chaplains, Rear Admiral Francis Garrett, had not granted me study leave to attend Michigan State University. Again, only time will tell if their rather brash risk will be justified as I return to duty. It is, after all, the thought of our Navy and Marine Corps men and women, along with their families and their interaction, overseas and at home that motivated this study and makes me anxious to return to a role in which I may be "useful". vii MP ‘ .n 'a '1 -I.- TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER _ Page I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . 1 I12. EARLY CASES OF THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . 14 The Problem as Noted in History . . . . . . 15 The "Problem" with the American Indians . 15 The "Problem" in the American Revolution. 17 The "Problem" in the War of 1812. . . . . 20 The "Problem" in the Civil War. . . . . . 22 The "Problem" in the War with Spain, 1898 and Its Aftermath . . . . . . . . . . . 25 The "Problem" During World War I. . . . . 27 The "Problem" During World War II . . . . 29 The "Problem" During the Korean War . . . 34 The "Problem" in South Vietnam. . . . . . 37 The "Problem" in the Peace Corps. . . . . 43 The "Problem" with MetrOpolitan Police. . 45 The "Problem" in the Inner City Schools . 48 Summary . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . 49 III. REVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . 51 Previously Reported Cross Cultural Inter— action Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 The Peace Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Other American Civilian Agencies Overseas 56 Domestic Cross Cultural Research. . . . . 60 Research in the United States Armed Forces Abroad and at Home . . . . . . . 61 Troop—Community Relations Program . . . 61 The Personal Response Project . . . . . 62 Theoretical Bases for Learning Interper- sonal Skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 The Culture Assimilator . . . . . . . . . 76 Attitudinal Modification in Pre Deploy- ment Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Culture Shock Simulations. . . . . . . . 78 Extinction (or Denial). . . . . . . . . . 80 viii p—-—— ‘ A. :1 .‘zlpmm TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued CHAPTER Page Clinical Behavior Style. . . . . . . . . 81 Balance Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 The Foster Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . 82 The Contrast—American Technique. . . . . 82 The University-Alternative Model . . . . 83 Theoretical Bases for the Variables of Immediate Interest . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Heterophily. . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Empathy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Self Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Ability to Reverse Roles . . . . . . . . 88 Dogmatism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Tolerance for Ambiguity. . . . . . . . . 90 Self Esteem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Non-Verbal Communication . . . . . . 92 Application of Theory to Perceived Ne eds for Model Building . . . . . 93 The Matching of Desired Field Behaviors to Interpersonal Skills. . . . . . . . 93 Matching of Interpersonal Skills . . . . 94 Summary. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 97 IV. RESEARCH DESIGN OF THE TRAINING MODEL. . . . 98 Hypotheses to be Tested. . . . . . . . . . 100 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Population of Interest . . . . . . . . . 101 Selection of Treatment and Control Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Selection of Facilitators and Groups . . 104 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Non-verbal communication skills. . . . 111 Ability to reverse roles . . . . . . . 112 Self awareness . . . . . . . . . 112 Regard for the value cf equality . . . 113 Dogmatism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Tolerance for ambiguity. . . . . . . . 113 Self esteem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Empathy, genuineness, warmth and open- ness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Leadership style and group treatment effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Problems Expected and Found. . . . . . . 115 Reporting of Scores. . . . . . . . . . . 116 Expected Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Place of the Training Model in Future Experimentation. . . . . . . . . . . . 118 ix TABLE OF CONTENTS——continued CHAPTER Page V. TRAINING MODEL TEST RESULTS AND THEIR ANALYSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Monotonic Treatment Effect. . . . . . . 120 Gross Improvement by Variable . . . . . 120 Analyses of Test Data . . . . . . . . . . 125 First Analysis (Treatment versus Control). . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Second Analysis (Treatment versus Control). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Summary of Treatment versus Control Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Pre versus Post Measures (Repeated Measure Analysis) . . . . . 140 Summary of Pre Treatment versus Post Treatment Analysis. . . . . 145 Analysis of the Relationship of Leader- ship Style to Group Behavior. . . . . . 147 Summary of Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . 149 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, REFLECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Need for Structure. . . . . . . . . . . 154 Facilitator Training. . . . . . . . . . 155 Cross Cultural Interaction. . . . . . . 155 Transferability of Learning . . . . . . 155 Use of the Non-Verbal Communication Skill Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . 156 Heterophily in Student Groups . . . . . 156 Selection of Leaders and Groups . . . . 157 Support Services. . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Follow-up Courses . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Future Measures of Interest . . . . . . 158 Future Treatments Needed. . . . . . . . 159 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 The University. . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 The Military. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Other Agencies Sponsoring Change Agents Overseas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued APPENDICES A. Rokeach Value Inventory. . . . . . . . . B. Rokeach DOgmatism Scale. . . . . . . . . . C. Budner's Scale for Intolerance of Ambiguity. D. Hunt's Low Self-Esteem Scale . . . . . . . E. Truax Scales for Empathy, Warmth, Genuine- ness and Openness. . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Non—verbal Communication Skills Assessment Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. Group Therapy Questionnaire Form C . . . . H. HistOgrams of Small Group Progress . . . . I. Raw Scores of Small Group Observations . . J. Transformed Standard Scores. . . . . . . . K. Simple Correlations, Group Behavior and Leadership Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . L. Cell Means and the Variances (NEW) of the Treatment and Control Comparisons. . . . . xi Page 178 180 184 186 188 191 193 232 247 252 258 262 TABLE 1-1. LIST OF TABLES Problems Encountered by Civil Affairs Officers Overseas that Most Antagonized the Local P0pulation, By Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal Attitudes of American Military Person- nel Toward the Local Vietnamese People, By Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Vietnamese Attitudes Toward Americans, By Years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Traits of Vietnamese Most Frequently Noted By United States Marine Corps Personnel. . . . . . Factors Most Frequently Associated with Viet— namese Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Traits of Americans Most Frequently Noted by the Vietnamese. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overall Flow of United States Marine Corps Attitudes Toward Vietnamese Civilians Over Time Behavioral Results of the Project in Two Regi- ments 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Raw Score Cell Means, Treatment vs. Control Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variance of Grand Means, Treatment versus Control Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First Analysis of Variance All Fourteen Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second Analysis of Variance, Fourteen Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discriminant Function Coefficients, Fourteen Variables, Second Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . xii Page 35 38 38 67 68 69 72 73 123 124 130 132 133 LIST OF TABLES——continued TABLE 5-8. 5-9. 5-10. 5-11. Second Analysis of Variance Using Six Varia- bles. O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I Discriminant Function Coefficients for Second Analysis. Six Variables. . . . . . . . . . . Second Analysis of Variance, Four Variables . Discriminant Function Coefficients for Second Analysis. Four Variables . . . . . . . . . . Four Tests for Significance in Treatment versus Control Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance, Repeated Measures, First Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conservative Degrees of Freedom, First Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second Analysis of Variance, Repeated Measures. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O Conservative Degrees of Freedom, Second haIYSiSO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O xiii Page 135 136 137 138 141 144 145 146 147 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 2-1. Disparity between United States Public (all ages) and United States Marine Corps with respect to positiveness of attitude toward local Vietnamese. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2-2. Disparity between United States Public (all ages) and United States Marine Corps with respect to negativeness of attitude toward local Vietnamese. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2-3. Disparity between United States Public (ages 21-29) and United States Marine Corps with respect to positiveness of attitude toward local Vietnamese. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3-1. Percentage of Marines expressing positive attitudes toward Vietnamese civilians and military personnel by time in country . . . . 64 3-2. Attitude of USMC by rank toward Vietnamese military and civilian personnel . . . . . . . 66 3—3. Examples of Thematic Apperception Test de- signed by and for the Vietnamese. . . . . . . 71 3-4. Relationdhip of heterophily, homophily and empathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 4-1. Configuration of treatment and control groups, by time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 4-2. Inadequate trust pedestal . . . . . . . . . . 105 4-3. Adequate trust pedestal . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4-4. Dependence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4-5. Protectionism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4-6. Desired stance of learner . . . . . . . . . . 108 4—7. System model for future training models . . . 118a xiv LIST OF FIGURES-—C0ntinued FIGURE 5-10 5-2. 5-3. Increases on scores on each of fourteen inter- action factors across twenty encounter groups, expressed in transformed standard scores . . . Decision matrix for null hypotheses. . . . . . Model for analysis of Treatment versus Control groups 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Pre versus Post measures . . . . . . . . . . . XV Page 121 125 128 142 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This study concerns the personal interaction of change agents with their clientele. Our focus is upon that inter- action-—not the declared purposes or the eventual changes wrought. Change agents in this study include teachers, police, Peace Corps Volunteers and military personnel-- anyone sent to a new culture to provide a specific service by a sponsoring agency. As important as it may be, this study is not concerned with tourism or non—purposeful inter— action. The central problem of change agents venturing into new cultures is one of heterophily. Be it United States Marines trying to pacify a besieged area, teachers from the suburbs attempting to teach in the inner city or police trying to disperse a mob of protestors--these people have one common problem. They are heterophilous from the clientele among whom they work. Heterophily, once used only in botanical nomenclature to describe plants which contained at least two different shaped leaves springing from the same branch, is more and more being used by communication specialists and community fired. 1 A “U I a . :fia "5‘ I '1... a ':77 .; "“94 71% Ere VI. lac: a liter: \a' s I‘ a, ‘u‘ “ I U‘ (I. II. development theorists. In its social use, it implies a con- dition of "differentness" between change agents and their target pOpulations. HomOphily is the condition wherein change agents share "sameness" with their clientele.1 Heterophily has its social roots in the slang of Ancient Greece. ‘Erepocpa‘vos (hetero-pho—nos) meant that someone spoke with a different speech or tone of voice.2 If a man were called "‘xnepmeos" it meant that he was of a barbarous sort. The Greeks also used words like nmmponxymos (hetero-tro-pos) which meant someone of a different life-style and ‘Equmfing (hetero—may-tor) which meant someone born of a different mother than the rest of the children in the family. Perhaps the early Greeks were especially sensitive to the shades of racism. The ideal was apparently to be Hmofihms i.e., of the same race or people. If one were to be ~opo¢w€w he would speak with the same language, chime in with the "in" group.3 So the two extremes are heterophily (a state of dif— ferentness) and homophily (a condition of sameness or one— ness). We are concerned with sending change agents into heterophilous environments and so equipping them with 1Everett M. Rogers, Modernization Among Peasants (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969), p. 181. 2Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (London: Clarendon Press, 1949), p. 277. 31bid., p. 489. u I a . learning skills that they may act among their counterparts in a more hom0philous manner. The "crunch" or the biting edge of this problem-~as we shall point out in Chapter two--is not so much that our change agents are heteroPhilous from their clientele (they will be so of necessity). The problem is brought to a head when change agents reveal their heterophily in a contemptuous manner. We can seldom bear with someone who is different gag contemptuous of our culture or our life style. Some brief examples may illuminate the concept of heterophily in its most unpleasant form, i.e., contemptuous heterophily. In 1967, an American firm sent a team of social scien- tists to South Vietnam to train Vietnamese graduate students in projective techniques so that an important value study might be conducted. In less than three months the graduate students petitioned the United States Embassy that the visas of these social scientists be withdrawn. The students re— signed from their sorely needed employment rather than put up with what they perceived as contempt.1 That these scien- tists would not eat with the students, use the same lodgings or mix with them socially was perceived by the students as being deliberately insulting. The scientists left the country feeling hurt and misunderstood. 1R. A. McGonigal, "Uses of Cross Cultural Attitude Research in Southeast Asia." a paper delivered at the 1969 Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association Washington, D. C. Information Minister for the Republic of South Vietnam, Ton That Thien, put the problem quite succinctly. The intrusion of the United States in Vietnam has had a far greater impact on Vietnam than did the previous dominance of France, which ended in 1954 after the French—Indo Chinese war. The American value-— rejection of authority, the equation of success with wealth, the insistence on ruthless efficiency~-combined with American political dominance have produced an explosive threat on Vietnamese culture. The French were never dominated by the crusading spirit which domi- nated Americans. The French always had a certain admiration and respect for Vietnamese culture which was absent from the Americans. . . . As long as America persists in its present course, Vietnamese nationalists can do nothing but wait and pray——realizing that the hour is late, that Vietnamese society may soon be past saving and that Communists and Americans may wind up contending for sterile victory over a wasteland.1 Back in our own land the heterophily problem is perhaps most easily seen in inter-racial conflicts. Well—meaning white Americans sometimes penetrate our ghettos to teach, to ply their skills as social workers or youth leaders. More often than not they experience deep frustration because their efforts do not seem to be welcomed. More often than not white Americans fail to see how "sick" a word is the ‘word 'help'. Few of us see the full import of what Stokely Carmichael has been saying, . . . that is what white American is going to learn. They cannot gig; us anything. No white liberal can give me anything. The only thing a white liberal can do for me is to help civilize other whites, because they need to be civilized.2 1Bernard Weinraub quoting the Venerable Ton That Thien, Saigon, South Vietnam. New York Times, Tuesday, 11 June 1968. Dr. Ton is also vice dean of Van Hanh University in Saigon. 2Stokely Carmichael, "Black Power" in To Free a Genera- tion: The Dialectics of Liberation, David Cooper, Ed. (New York: The Macmillan Company, Collier Books, 1968), po 159. This is not to say that there is no work room left for whites in our inner cities. It is to say that whites shall require increased sophistication in interpersonal skills if they are to make meaningful contributions in their work there. Now, how to bridge the gap? This is the problem vexing Peace Corps trainers, inner-City police departments, educa— tors of teachers, and those responsible for training military men to pacify areas and conduct civic action among peOple of other cultures. Selection has long been the chief means of finding the best possible change agents to work in new cultures or sub cultures. Using various criteria, sponsoring agencies have sought about among applicants for the peOple who would seem to adjust most readily to new environments. Selection pro— cesses have been tightened as empirical research has been employed to correlate selection norms with behaviors in the field. This is to be heralded. But not every agency is in a position to be choosy about whom they send abroad or into the ghetto. There are not always enough volunteers who are suitable. Therefore, something beyond selection is required. Thus far, little attention has been paid to another means of reducing the heterophily gap between change agents and their clientele-—namely, pre-deployment training (see Figure 1—1 on the following page). The central tasks of this study are: (l) to design a training model and (2) to assess any changes which may take l—-)research to predict better field behavior—-——' Selection Pre-deployment Behavior Process Training in the New Culture T1 field research feedback to assist<%* selection FIGURE 1—1. Flow of previous cross cultural research. place in trainees exposed to the training model as a basis for postulating probable outcomes within the pre—deployment training phase if it were to be undertaken using such a model. We have tried, along with those concentrating upon se- lection procedures, to define those behaviors which are cen- tral for reducing heterophily. We have selected or designed learning experiences to improve interpersonal skills and attitudes in direct association with those desired behaviors. 'We have attempted to measure (pre vs. post and treatment vs. control) these key variables in the training experience. Both those in charge of selecting change agents and- those attempting to train change agents have for many years used the classical norms of language facility and area knowl- edge as their key training variables. From our review of the literature (see chapter three), many conversations with Peace Corps trainers, our own research overseas and our experience in training police and teachers for work in the inner city, we felt that these were important variables but certainly not either paramount or sufficient to successful adjustment. Basic interpersonal skills have been added to many training models, including this one. It is our feeling that knowing a country's history or a minority's language is not nearly enough for the reduction of heterophily. We look upon interpersonal skills and awarenesses as the crucial link between change agents and their clientele. Specifically, the variables we have centered upon in the cross cultural training model in this study are the following: 1. Increased self—awareness 2. Increased self-esteem 3. Increased regard for the value of equality 4. Reduced dogmatism 5. Increased tolerance for ambiguity 6. Increased empathy as viewed by the individual 7. Increased empathy as viewed by one's counter- parts 8. Increased genuineness as seen by the individual 9. Increased genuineness as judged by one's counter— parts 10. Increased warmth as felt by the individual 11. Increased warmth as experienced by one's counterparts 12. Increased Openness as known by the individual 13. Increased openness as received by one's counterparts 14. Increased non-verbal communication skills It seemed possible and appropriate to collapse these fourteen variables into two general, desired characteristics: (1) Increased awareness of one's self and how he is being perceived by his counterparts. (2) Tolerance for ambiguity and relaxed, confident feeling about one's self and the process of human interaction. That our ambassadors overseas and our change agents at home have too frequently lacked these characteristics will hopefully be demonstrated in chapter two. Research relevant to the heter0phily problem and to the above variables is discussed in chapter three. The theoretical basis and the design of our cross cultural interaction training model are described in Chapter four. Perhaps we would do well at this point to pause for some working definitions of key interaction factors and of those variables which are of central interest in the training ‘model which has been developed and tested. Some Problem Factors Variables of Interest in the Model 1. Condescension l. Dogmatism 2. Contempt 2. Empathy 3. Culture Shock 3. Genuineness 4. Entropy 4. Tolerance for Ambiguity 5. Goal Dissonance 5. Non—verbal Communication Skills 6. Heterophily 6. Openness 7. Kinesics 7. Regard for the Value of Equality 8. Noise 8. Self Awareness 9. Patronization 9. Self Esteem 10. Proxemics 10. Warmth First, let us take a look at our problem factors--those manifestations of cross-cultural confusion which need crisp working definitions. 1. Condescension is communication in which the origi- nator implies a status hierarchy of superior toward inferior in which he is the superior. 2. Contempt in this study is meant to describe all verbal and non—verbal actions which evoke humiliation and resentment in the receiver. 3. Culture Shock is the anxiety produced from loss of familiar cues when one tries to penetrate a new culture. It ranges from malaise to such complete immobilization that the change agent must be recalled from his work. 4. Entrogy is a "shuffledness" of communication in which the expectations of sender and receiver are never com— pleted, cues are inappropriate and usually misread. 5. Goal Dissonance is the condition in which the spon- soring agency, the change agent and the clientele are having serious differences in the perceived goals of their inter- action.' 6. Heterophily is the condition of being so "different" from one's counterpart that authentic communication is almost bound to be difficult. 7. Kinesics are those facial and body movements which non—verbally and either intentionally or unintentionally transmit messages. Some cross cultural misunderstandings occur when kinesics are culturally specific and not understood 10 by one's counterpart. For example, a crooked finger is an invitation in one culture and an insult in another. 8. Noise as used herein refers to static, overloading of other stimuli and general interference with communication. 9. Patronization is a relationship in which one party does things for, protects or assumes responsibility for another party. It is usually resented by the party being patronized. 10. Proxemics refers to the growing area of knowledge about social distance and spatial rules of interaction. Few of those spatial rules are transcultural and they must be discovered and incorporated in most cross cultural inter- action. Working definitions for variables of interest in our cross cultural interaction training model are as follows: 1. Dogmatism is the degree of rigidity with which one clings to opinions, beliefs and attitudes. 2. Empathy is the ability of one party to recognize and respond accurately to another party's feelings seriOusly and in depth. 3. Genuineness as used here refers to the congruity of one's inner feelings with those which are outwardly communi— cated. Masks, roles, double messages and facades are usual indications of low genuineness. 4. Tolerance for Ambiguity is defined as the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as non threatening. ”Is; 4-1.“! A .. ,EI '11 ":- “hi“, 11 Situations viewed as novel, complex or insoluble are seen as tolerable or even desirable by some and intolerable by others. 5. Non-verbal Communication Skills are those arrays of facial and gestural activities which aid and sometimes replace verbal communication. 6. Openness as used in this study refers to the amount of feeling and judgment which one reveals to others. It in— volves openly expressing and assuming responsibility for feelings and judgments. 7. Regard for the Value of Equality is perhaps best judged by a person's overt acts toward his neighbors. HOwever, in this study, we are especially interested in where the person places equality among his hierarchy of other values, as listed in a twelve-item inventory. 8. Self Awareness as used here refers to the degree of congruence between what a man perceives others to feel toward him and what others actually feel toward him (Traux, 64). 9. Self Esteem also is a congruence factor. In this case, it involves the degree of congruence between one's perceived self worth and his ideal self. It is a case of inner congruity (Cade, 70). 10. Warmth, in this study, refers to positive regard exhibited toward others. The key dimension is the amount of unconditional acceptance of others. '3’: " In Ellsfil .. .- ‘ . .5 5‘ n g... I“. \ I “I . \ 12 These, then are some of the working definitions which we have used in this study. Their theoretical bases are discussed in Chapter Three. In summary, the central problem addressed in this study is that of contemptuous heterophily as exhibited by change agents in a new culture. We have drawn together the above listed factors and variables into a synthesis, i.e., a model to improve cross cultural interaction training of adults. We have tested the model with university students who expressed interest in inner—city teaching. While the author is especially interested in the attitudes and be- haviors of servicemen overseas, it was felt that cross cul- tural interaction is a nearly universal problem and that' this research would have applicability in both domestic and overseas situations. Our results have demonstrated that this kind of training could help this group of students. The transferability to overseas settings remains to be tested. To use an analogy, we might successfully teach fish to jump in fresh water. Some will say, "What about in salt water?“ we are not sure if the fresh water fish can survive in the sea. Our main concern is teaching fish to jump. The situation here is quite similar. We are not sure if this model will help change agents in the Peace Corps or in the military. Our concern is to increase self awareness, self esteem, etc., with the people right at hand, in this ten week experience. . .1 0::6 e P":: U‘IUU . O l:? : ‘hnbfi 13 For now, let us proceed to look at some of the histor— ical events which were earlier exemplars of many of our cross cultural problems and which created difficult environ- ments for change agents of those earlier times. CHAPTER II EARLY CASES OF THE PROBLEM It should not surprise Americans to be called "cao-mui" (big nose) in Vietnam. The term refers to more than the size of our noses. It speaks also of the lordly way in which we look down along our noses at "underdeveloped" peOple. Nor should it really stun Americans that the Vietnamese word for America, "My" (which means "beautiful people") is also used in My Lai (which means "beautiful interior"). It is the same My Lai in Quang Ngai Province where some 'beautiful peOple' allegedly slaughtered some "gooks". We should not be shocked because we have, after all, a sad record of expressing contempt toward people of other races, toward anyone who is heterOphilous ("different") from us. Our history is a lengthy contradiction to thecry of our forefathers, "We hold these truths to be self-evident—- that all men are created equal. . . ." Our interpersonal relationships with other races and foreigners too largely deserves the caption, "Three Centuries of Contempt". 14 15 The Problem as Noted in History The "Problem" with the American Indians Refugees from oppression by kings and cardinals took little time in establishing patterns of contempt toward their native North American hosts. The famous speech of King Philip, Chief of the New England Indians (a confedera— tion organized to resist the Pilgrims) is reported by William Apes to have included: Brothers,--You see this vast country before us, which the Great Spirit gave to our fathers; you see the buffalo and deer that now are our support. Brothers, you see the little ones, our wives and children who are looking to us for food and raiment; and now you see the foe before you, that they have grown insolent and bold; that all our ancient customs are disregarded; and treaties made by our fathers and us are broken and all of us are insulted; our council fires disregarded; and all the ancient customs of our fathers; our brothers (are) murdered before our eyes, and their spirits cry to us for revenge. Brothers, these people from the unknown world will cut down our groves, spoil our hunting and planting grounds, and drive us and our children from the graves of our fathers, and our councilfires, and enslave our women and children.1 The speech was prophetic. The Pilgrims sold King Philip's ten year old son into slavery and quartered and gibbeted Philip himself when they finally surrounded and captured him. Captain Standish, romanticized in our children's history books, is alleged to have murdered groups of Indians whom he would first invite to a feast. The practice became known as 1Charles Hamilton, Crygof the Thunderbird (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), p. 129f. . . any. a h'.. u, . ..: I 16 "feasting the savages".1 One wonders just who the savages were! Captain Standish, at one point, ordered Chief Wittumet's head displayed upon a pole in the settler's fort. In many areas, Indians were punished for living like Indians.2 In 1752 the Indians were perhaps the first human targets of germ warfare. General Jeffrey Amherst wrote to his junior officers, You will be well advised to infect the Indians with sheets upon which small pox patients have been lying or by any other means which may serve to exterminate this accursed race. . . . Not all of our cross cultural interaction history is that grim. The Franciscan friars had a fine reputation among the Indians. Don Sebastian once interviewed Indians to find out why the friars were so popular. The Indians replied, Because these (friars) go about poorly dressed and barefooted like us; they eat what we eat, they settle down among us, and their interaction with us is gentle.4 It seems sad that such an effective model for cross cultural interaction was forgotten in the genocidal expansion of American immigrants as they pushed westward. 1Ibid., p. 127. 2J. P. Dunn, Massacres of the Mountains (New York: Archer House, 1886), p. 98. 3Hamilton, 92. cit., p. 133. 4Wilcombe E. Washburne, The Indian and the White Man (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1964), p. 162. 17 The "Problem" in the American Revolution The British presence, both civilian and military, in the American Colonies contained many irritants—-some of them offensive enough to ignite the revolution. The Colonial armies had their own unique problems of effective cross cultural communication and the limiting of a two-way con— tempt between the military and civilians. Our first army officers apparently modeled themselves after the British style. Officers considered themselves "gentlemen" and above such mundane things as drilling their men. Drilling was left to the sergeants. General von Steuben, a "mercenary", Changed much of that by shouldering a musket himself to show the men how it was done. He also chided our new officers to lead their units in combat--not follow them.1 Strange that a more heterophilous leader had to teach our native leaders how to reduce heterOphily. If we think of American officers as "change agents" in their efforts to train raw recruits, without the sustaining institutions of an established army, we may see that they were creating a more heterophilous condition with less and less empathy for their own men. This same condition of heteroPhily arose between Washington and his men and the much larger and as yet uncommitted civilian population. The civilians were being asked to change allegiances. It is lLynn Montross, Rag, Tag and Bobtail, the Story of the Continental Army (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1952) p. 270. 18 estimated that local merchants netted an average profit of 50% on sales of inferior goods to Washington's men while selling at an equal profit to the British. Many civilians refused to shelter or assist American trOOps. Some local governments called their militias home.1 Not unlike modern insurgencies, the American revolution was a war for the allegiances of people. Washington, "change agent of the decade," had to keep a cool head. After routing Washington from New York in November, 1776, the British command offered to all Americans the chance to take a new oath of allegiance to the King and receive a full pardon for treason. General Washington made a counteroffer to any who had accepted General Howe's offer, guaranteeing them protection if they would take a pledge of allegiance to the United States.2 There were, then, great needs to gain allegiance and great resentments among the military on either side when civilians did not conform to their partisan expectations. Contemptuous treatment of civilians increased. The British did not help their cause in New Jersey when their tr00ps and the Hessians pillaged and robbed.3 1Department of the Army, American Military History 1607- 1953, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1956, p. 39. 2Douglas S. Freeman, George Washington, Vol. 4 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,l951), pp. 376 and 379. 3John R. Alden, The American Revolution (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954), p. 213. 19 The raids carried out by General Henry Clinton added of- ficial theft and desolation to the problems of an already burdened population. The raids significantly increased the resistance of the Americans.1 Another dimension of contempt was found in the actual fighting. Washington's men had strong feelings of inferior— ity before the trained British troops. Better equipped and uniformed, the British also had a weapon unused by the patriots--the bayonet. Hunting muskets were simply not tooled for bayonets. The British were able to "freeze" the Americans more than once by their arrogant slashing of civilians.2 This contempt had an important backlash. Many authorities feel that it served as motivation for improved marksmanship among Americans. By increasing their accuracy in firing from cover, they could avoid the bayonet.3 British contempt led to the insurgents' improvement and compounded their problems of control. The dynamic of contempt can perhaps best be seen in the example of Major General Benedict Arnold when he took command at Philadelphia. Nearly everyone resented "his rash tongue, his arrogance, his avarice and intense 1Ibid.. p. 214. 2Allen Bowman, The Morale of the American Revolutionary Army, American Council on Public Affairs, Washington, D. C., 1943, p. 38. 3Ibid., p. 40. 20 resentment. . . ."1 Arnold moved into the British general's vacated quarters and lived lavishly while his troops suf- fered. In a sense, he deliberately sought heterOphily. We are beginning to see that contemptuous heterOphily is the generator of violent response on many situations of cross cultural interaction. Indeed many riots and wars can be viewed as reactions to actively induced or compounded heterophily. The "Problem" in the War of 1812 British—American cross cultural interaction fluctuated through the next four decades, following independence. In the events which followed British General Sir John Sherbrooke's landing of four thousand British troops to annex part of Maine, we would do well to note an incident. The British General Gosselin took great care with the local inhabitants. British officers were quartered in private homes but were monitored to see that they paid fairly for all services. Some say that the Maine people treated their conquest by the British with "surprising indifference".2 Apparently two thirds of the inhabitants came to profess allegiance to the British Empire without a shot being fired. We may contrast General Gosselin, a "conqueror", with General Andrew Jackson, a "defender". Jackson put himself 1Francis F. Beirne, The War of 1812 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, 1949), p. 291. 2Loc. cit. 21 into a frightful predicament in New Orleans when he estab— lished martial law, imposed curfews, jailed a newspaper editor and even ran a United States District Judge out of the city.1 He paid a thousand dollar fine for his treatment of the judge. He also paid in a rebellious and uncoopera- tive papulace. Few questioned Jackson's patriotism or ability to communicate with soldiers. It was his inability to understand the people of New Orleans which almost cost him his career. Here was a case of American-American cross cultural entropy. Meanwhile, in Ohio, an interesting development was taking place. It was perhaps a retort to the British officer system. Governor Meigs organized his Ohio militia by drawing his men together and asking them to elect their own officers. The Ohio regiments did not win the war (did anyone?), but these regiments were noticeably better led in the field.2 Not only did the regiments elect the body of officers, the junior officers then elected their field-grade officers. This led to an interesting two—way accountability and prob— ably a reduction of heterOphily. 1Ro'bert S. Rankin, When Civil Law Fails: Martial Law and Its Legal Basis in the United States (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1939), pp. 7-10. 2Alec R. Gilpin, The War of 1812 in the Old Northwest (East LanSing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1958)! P0 330 22 The "Problem" in the Civil War Contempt on the part of the military toward civilians backfired for both the Union and the Confederate Armies. When General Grant assigned General Sheridan to the Army of the Shennandoah he wrote to him, "Do not burn houses, but make the valley so that a crow flying over the country would need to carry his rations."1 As Sheridan moved through the Blue Ridge, he burned over 2,000 barns and 70 mills and took every horse, mule, cow or sheep. George Milton reports, "These tactics roused the hatred of the inhabitants to fever heat; guerrillas sharpshot his sentries; Mosby's men stung them like hornets. . . ."2 Likewise Confederate troops lost a good many civilian friends by looting and carousing. Hotels in Savannah, Georgia and Grand Junction, Tennessee were finally razed by carousing troops.3 By the spring of 1862, President Davis was sending directives to his men to cease burning fence posts and using steel rails from the railroad from which to hang their cookpots. The cavalry seemed to be especially fond of killing livestock for those cookpots.4 It cost them civilian support. 1George F. Milton, Conflict, the American Civil War (New York: Coward—McCann, 1941), p. 307. 2Loc. cit. 3Bell Irvin Wiley, The Life of Johnny Reb (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1943). p. 45. 4Loc. cit. 23 The Union Army is still best remembered in the South for its ravages upon the population. One of Sherman's soldiers wrote from Georgia, "In Covington and Oxford . . . the conduct of our division has been disgraceful-—homes plundered, women insulted, and every species of outrage "1 The South Carolinians also appeared to bear committed. extra suffering-~explained by some as the result of Harper's Ferry. Even the Indians in the South-—though not interested in.politics-—were molested by the Northerners. One woman wrote, "The Northern men were so mean to the Choctaw women, they would jerk their earrings from their ears and lock 2 Vulgarity and the women in one stuffy room together." plunder by the Union Army is still recounted by Southern civilians. We may well ask ourselves if the Union Army had been better controlled and more considerate of human and property rights if (a) the war might not have been shorter and (b) there might be less bitterness toward the North today. The "problem" of contempt within ranks seemed to be even greater in the Civil War than in the War of 1812. Both sides used brokers to enlist recruits. Some men became officers not by election or by education but on the basis of 1Bell Irvin Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank (New York: Bobbs—Merrill, 1951), p. 255. 2Loc. cit. 24 the number of volunteers they "enlisted".1 In this situa- tion, the contempt between officers and enlisted men seemed to be mutual. For our interests the most significant develOpment of this period was the creation of a Military Code of Conduct. Dr. Franz Lieber was the principal architect. Born in and driven out of Europe, Dr. Lieber had two sons in the Con- federate Army (one was killed) and two sons in the Union Army (one lost an arm). Dr. Lieber wrote and President Lincoln approved, "Men who take up arms against one another in public do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God."2 The finished document was known as General Order 100. It established a basis on which commanders were expected to act in their relations to the people. The order covered a gamut of relations between the invading army and the civil- ians of the occupied area. For example, it gave the com- mander some guidelines for distinguishing between disloyal citizens who were in sympathy with the rebellion without positively aiding it, those who took up arms, those who aided with supplies and those who were forced into aiding the rebellious force.3 1Bruce Catton, America Goes to War (Middletown, Connecti— cut: Wesleyan University Press, 1958), p. 52. 2Ralph H. Gabriel, "American Experience with Military Government," Amerigan Historical Review, 42 (July 1944) p. 638. 3William E. Daugherty and Marshall Andrews, A Review of U. S. Historical Experience with Civil Affairs, 1776-1954 25 General Butler, of the Union Army, was finally brought to a halt by this order. He so thoroughly antagonized the people of New Orleans that he was denounced by the British parliament, and finally by the government in Washington.1 He imprisoned clergymen for praying for their own soldiers and gave an order that classified as a prostitute any woman who made any kind of dissenting gesture or unfriendly remark to a Union soldier. Butler was relieved in late 1862, but only after he had guaranteed greater Southern resistance. The "Problem" in the War with Spain, 1898 and Its Aftermath While primarily a naval confrontation, the War with Spain did take large bodies of troops onto foreign soil for the first time. It was also the first time American troops had to care for large numbers of foreign speaking refugees.2 The prOblems faced with Cuban and Puerto Rican refugees involved cultural as well as language differences. We did not understand, for example, how to identify their local leaders. An interesting contrast was provided between the leader— ship styles of General Leonard Wood (a surgeon from Harvard) (Bethesda, Maryland: Operations Research Office, Johns Hopkins University, 1961), p. 96. 1Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln: The War Years, Vol. 3 (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1939), p. 66. 2Report of Secretary of War for FY 30 June 1898 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1898), p. 59. 26 and General John Brooke (22 years older than Wood). Brooke was apparently one who lived by the "book", refusing to issue food until Washington approved, using Spanish and cuban officials left from the old regime (who were felt by the people to be repressive), and creating four departments to deal with the people.1 Wood became much more interested in public health problems and schools; and he frequently disregarded regulations in order to get food to the people when it was needed. He appointed a citizen's council of fifty members to nominate candidates for higher positions.2 His reduction of heterophily saved many lives. It meant that at times he had to "join the revolution" against his own sponsor. But in the end, everyone's interests were better served. President McKinley issued a strange order after the fall of Manila. He refused to let the Philippine peOple jointly administer the government with the Americans. This dealt a heavy blow to Filipino morale and prestige.3 Whether this o mumoammo muammme He>eo an pmnwucsoucm msmHsoAm.AuH memes 15.9 C( lAc' 1 “'8 DO] . 1” .u.‘ : 1:6 I l ‘ .\“ r : " ‘ .§> . .‘ H 36 the confiscation of a pen given to the Korean winner of the Boston marathon (on the assumption that it was blackmarketed from the PX), or the refusal to permit President Rhee to enter a United States place of entertainment in Korea could hardly reduce heteroPhily.1 They are rather pure examples of racist contempt. With the tensions which still remain in Korea, much has been tried to improve the attitudes of United States forces toward the Koreans. The American Institutes of Research developed a program which was sponsored by our Eighth Army, directed by Robert L. Humphrey.2 The program, still running, consists of troop orientation with a strong emphasis upon American ideology. Company commanders are charged with holding weekly discussions with their men. Troops are en- couraged to become acquainted with Korean families and to learn the Korean language. Other groups have tried to address the more subtle antagonisms. Research organizations such as CRESS (Center for Research in Social Systems, American University) have been working in Korea to pin-point just where the American attitudes are the worst and the best. CRESS found that attitudes toward the Koreans were strongly related to 1Ibid., p. 31. 2RObert L. Humphrey, A Handbook for Overseas Orienta— tion Officer; (Silver Spring, Maryland: American Institutes for Research, 1966). ' IIKNF' uQ‘u...‘ 4 pyut tel». “#391 Iub&1 In. . ‘ ‘5.’ ’I w r.- 6.. C ~11 .‘Sun‘1 wla‘. 37 dogmatism.1 Those scoring high on dogmatism were especially critical toward the Koreans and especially dissatisfied with their assignments. The "Problem" in South Vietnam Surveys have been conducted by the author and others in South Vietnam since July 1966 to reveal the attitudes of the Vietnamese toward Americans and the feelings of Americans toward their hosts. Paternalism, condescenSion and contempt seem fitting labels to most of our efforts-—particu1arly in commands where little effort is made to train men in cross cultural approaches. We shall cite more of this research in Chapter Three. For now, it seems worthy of note to mention three Observations. (l) The longer we stay in a country, the more favor— able Our military men's attitudes appear to become toward the host nationals. (2) The longer we stay in a country, the less favor- able are the attitudes of host nationals toward us. (3) The attitude of military peOple overseas toward hosts seems to follow a trend of general United States public opinion at home toward those same host nationals. 1Alexander R. Askenasy, Perception of Korean Opinions: AiStudy oi United Stateg Army Officers' Expertise, CRESS, 1969, p. VIII. 38 Surveys conducted by the author in Okinawa and Japan seemed to bear out the same Observations.1 From 1966 to 1968 the American attitudes toward the Vietnamese went as follows:2 TABLE 2-2.Personal Attitudes of American Military Personnel Toward the Local Vietnamese People, By Years 1966 1967 1968 Like 44 55.5 66 Dislike 37 20.7 18 Mixed 19 23.8 16 From 1966 to 1968 the Vietnamese attitudes toward the Americans went as follows: TABLE 2—3.General Vietnamese Attitudes Toward Americans, By Years 1966 1967 1968 Like 84 76 54 Dislike 08 12 31 Mixed 08 12 15 1R. A. McGonigal, Report on Attitudes of Japanese and Okinawan Employees on United States Marine Corps Bases, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific, 1967. 2Taken from 1966, 1967, 1968 Surveys in Third Marine Amphibious Force, 1 Corps, South Vietnam and Advanced Research Projects Administration/03D Reports 1966-68. DU N.- "O '5. b .l| ‘4 '4 I ll ‘1 DC {In 39 The behaviors associated with these attitudes have serious Operational effects. Early American contempt led to later Vietnamese recalcitrance. Training slowed in pace. Only in late 1967 did some Vietnamese civilians and leaders realize that the attitudes Of some Americans were improving. Time will tell as to which attitudes were communicated more permanently. The third phenomenon which concerns the time lag be- tween United States public Opinion and military attitudes toward the Vietnamese pe0ple is illustrated in the following figures (Figures 2-1 through 2-3). Note that on Figure 2-2 the amount of shaded area represents the disparity between military and civilian public Opinion, i.e., the military toward their hosts and the United States public toward the war.1 There is reason to think that the cognitive dissonance produced by serving in a foreign country when the people in one's homeland are vocally Opposed to one's involvement would indeed lead to the eventual change of attitudes toward those closest at hand--in this case the Vietnamese people. When we look at Figure 2-3, we note that after March, 1968 the trend is toward a reduced dissonance. We might do well to note that this was at the time of the My Lai massacre. It was also the time of the TET offensive when the North 1Computations for these three charts were taken from data collected by the author, 1966—1969 and from Hazel Erskine, The Public Opiniongguarterly, March-April 1970, pp. 134—150. 4O .mmoamcumw> HOOOH tumzou mtsuflpum mo mmmcm>fluflmom on Homemwu COHB mQHOU madam: moumum Omuflcn tam Ammmm HHOV UAHQsm mmumum OOUflOD cmm3umn wueummmwa .HIN mmeHm b 00. mo. 00. .aeu .tmz .+amm . . . OHI O__n:d .m .3 cmc+ L030. 02m: All... +coem>_o>c_ : OH C30 +t0aazm 0:3 Lemma __pv u__eae m: ease reem_e 02m: gem 41 .ommemcumw> Hmuoa tum3ou monuwuum mo mmoco>flummmc on Pummmmu £ua3 mmuoo Gowns: moumum pupae: pea Lemma Heme Cessna moumum pauses ammzpmn suaummmao .mum mmouHm as. we. so. .emu .tm: .eamm . . .. o 0.000d .c> GLOZOH ox__m_o 02m: 1. OH L30 metro» 1 ON mus+_++< o>_+mmmz exam U. S. Public (ages 2l-29) _“\_ \\ ,NNN <«N~ 42 +- C (D E Q) A > G) — x O ._ > _. C v (D '0 “O l. 3 (U +- 3-— O -+— -+- +- (U 0) > C.) -: -+- U) °— :3 (I) O c 0‘2 \\\\\\\\ (D 4... m \\\\\\\\\\\ L \\\\\\\\\ \\\\\N\\\ 20 \‘i N\\\N\\\\\\\\‘\\x\\ NNN NNN\3;¢NNN \NNNNN“ \:.\\. .\\N\\\\ \\\\\ ..... \ \-‘:TN‘ ‘NNNN \ NN \NN\ \tl:\\‘ N\\:\‘.§ \\ \\\‘ \_ :N>\\ Feb. '69 Sepf. '66 -10_ ty between United States Public (ages 21-29) and United States Marine Corps with respect to positiveness of attitude ispari toward local Vietnamese. .D FIGURE 2-3. *Uu I 1 '1 \Lnt n“ Iv 43 Vietnamese waged some of their most massive attacks. It was also a period in which our forces sustained their highest rate of casualties. When we look at the age group within the United States which makes up the most immediate peer-group to our service- men, we see what appears to be a "pull" toward conformity of opinion. In such an attitudinal environment, we would expect that a massive effort would be necessary to counteract the dissonance produced in an unpopular war. We have, in other words, two forms of heterOphily—-American vs. Vietnamese and American military vs. American civilian population. This suggests that an even larger factor-~the total surrounding climate of opinion—~should be taken into account if we are ever to achieve really effective cross cultural communica— tion in places like South Vietnam. The ”Problem" in the Peace Corps Close liaison has been maintained by the author with Peace Corps trainers over the past six years. We share many of the same selection and training problems. On March 1, 1961, President Kennedy by Executive Order, established in the Department of State a temporary Peace Corps. Its objectives are to accelerate economic and social development in the less developed areas of the world.1 By transmitting technical skills, providing organizational 1Maurice L. Albertson, Final Report, The Peace Corps (Washington, D.C.: International Cooperation Administration, 1961). P- 3-2. H, 9...! 'Oan I I. 3 13‘ 144 ability and fostering mutual understanding, volunteers hope to promote peace. Little has been written about how much the Peace Corps has done for the United States when its volunteers return, better prepared for future service over— seas, matured and better able to communicate with subcultures within the United States. Investigators at Colorado State University tried to factor out some early problems of selection and training. Data were drawn from 222 participants, 27 related agencies, 25 United Nations technicians and 16 ICA technicians. They found that volunteers less than 20 years of age and over 40 years of age were less effective and that men seemed to make slightly better adjustments to the new culture than women.1 They also measured some personality factors as Observed by the respondents as they worked with volunteers overseas. Of those volunteers who proved to be ineffective 77.9% were rated as condegcendipg toward people, 96.7%.were rated indifferent and 98.9% were rated intolerant.2 Those rated as very effective were also rated very good in their ability to get along with others (96.7%) and 97.2%.were rated as being very adaptable to new situations. There was also a very strong correlation of field performance with self—reliance and emotional stability. Eight years later those who designed Peace Corps train— ing had arranged some of their training objectives into a 1Ibid.. p. 7-3. 21pm., p. 7-4. her flfie . “(u , A 5:55, 1 \ A in ' ‘4 ‘. W. . i 4‘ " ( Kl. ., l 45 hierarchy of importance for future field effectiveness:1 Briefly, these are: 1. Increased self awareness 2. Increased self confidence 3. Reduced need for recognition 4. Increased ability to tolerate ambiguity 5. Increased ability to cope in trying conditions 6. Increased self regulation The following social/interpersonal objectives are also considered essential: 1. Awareness of one's effect upon others 2. Sense of responsibility to host nationals 3. Ability to work as a team member 4. Increased empathy 5. Increased communication skills 6. Increased interest in others 7. Increased ability to relate without conditions 8. Increased tolerance and appreciation for others As with every agency sponsoring representatives over— seas, the problem is one of heterophily--the differentness of our representative from his host culture. The problem to us becomes that of selecting and training representatives so that heterophily will be reduced. The Peace Corps has had a remarkable record of successes. Unfortunately, its mistakes capture headlines in both the domestic and foreign press. The "Problem" with Metropolitan Police Increasingly our large cities are becoming traps for minority groups. Police who patrol the neighborhoods of these cities did not create the problems of crowded housing, 1Albert R. Wight and Glendon Casto, Training and Asgesg— ment Manual for a Peace Corps Instrumented Experimental Labor— atory.(Estes Park, Colorado: Center for Research and Educa- tion, 1969), p. 31. CM “11.1 0.51» .‘v A -; 4025 ~, 1‘”. .J. a ,. \lly '.~~ if) FTC/311 46 poor schools, unemployment, broken families and racism. Somehow they must cope with people who are often hostile toward authority, confused and generally bitter toward the world. (Increased skills in cross Cultural interaction will not solve all of the basic problems of our cities but they can lessen the number and tone of the incidents between police and citizens. Simply stated, "the problem of police-community rela— tions is one of developing mutual respect and confidence."1 But a crowd of 500, spoiling for trouble, spilling down Springfield Avenue in Newark, New Jersey is hardly a simple prOblem to solve. A survey in Washington, D. C. revealed that the police themselves feel that only a few of their ranks are responsible for the bad police-community relationships. They feel that too much of their time is spent going after "little things“ while the really "bad ones" areignored.2 They admit that too many from their own ranks seem to enjoy "pushing people around".3 Over half of the citizenry contacted in the survey be- lieved that being Black made a difference in how police 1Report of the President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia, MetrOpolitan Police Department (Wash- ington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 62. 2Ibid., p. 64. 3Ibid., p. 65. 47 treated them. One fourth believed that the police physically mistreat Blacks. Ten percent reported incidents of being mistreated.1 There was an interesting correlation along the lines Of socioeconomic class. People from the lowest economic level felt that they were picked on for "little things". They were also the ones who thought that the pay for policemen should be increased. People from the lower income levels did not identify with civil rights in terms of race or ideology so much as they did in terms of rights of the accused. People from the upper income brackets tended to be much more pleased with the way police act in their neighbor— hood. Sympathy was expressed for the police who have a "tough" job and who sometimes need to "get a little roug " to accomplish it.2 Viewed from a distance we might say that this is another example of heterophily. The police apparently feel more "at one" with the wealthy than they do with the destitute. Our problem is, therefore, one of increasing empathy on the part of the police with the clientele in the poorer neighbor- hoods. It is indeed disheartening that we seem to learn so little from our own recent history. In the 1968 riot in Washington, D. C. the police admitted that many mistakes were 1Ibid. 2Ibid., p. 66. 48 made. But few realize the positive factors which emerged. Once apprehended, looters were amazingly cooperative. They were handled with amazing ease by police of their own race.1 Administrators saw the wisdom of reducing heterophily. During the 1967 Detroit riOts, over 100,000 rounds of ammunition were fired at what was later determined to be 14 confirmed snipers. This, if the rounds were actually fired only at snipers, comes to 7,142 shots taken at each sniper. Such over-reaction says a great deal about regard for the equal importance of people of other races as well as the marksmanship of Detroit's police.2 The author was asked to testify before the California Commission on Riot and Civil Disorder Control in August 1970. While there he noted that in the previous fiscal year, 77% of the Commission's funds had gone for new police equipment and 4% went to the Marin County Human Rights Commission. In fairness to the Governor's Commission, the Marin County request was the only one in the state asking for help with empathy training for its police. The "Problem" in the Inner City Schools As long as inner city schools are staffed by teachers living in the suburbs and are pOpulated by students of low 1Ben w. Gilbert, Ten Blocks From the White House (Washington, D.C.: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968), pp. 96f. 2Philip Meyer, "Telling It Like It Is", The Seminar, September, 1968, p. 16. “w 6“ a fly, v.5. O $.g 49 socio-economic status, we afe going to have severe communi- cation prOblems in those schools. Even when teachers return directly from college to their home towns to teach, there is a heterophily problem. Four years in a "foreign" culture is enough to produce both an age and a communication gap. The teacher-student role expec- tation creates heterophily in itself. Our teacher education programs have been noticeably lacking in opportunities for prospective teachers to improve their interpersonal skills. Corrective action seems sorely needed. Summary In this brief glance through the history of American involvement with people of other cultures overseas and at home, we may make the following Observations: (l) The more heterophilous the interaction between change agents and their clientele, the greater the need for increased self awareness, increased tolerance for ambiguity, increased empathy and self confidence. (2) The more contemptuous the expression of heterophily, the more damaging the reaction to operational productivity and future accord. (3) Whenever cross cultural interaction involves the threat of violence, e.g., in riot control or military opera- tions, pre-deployment and in—service personal interaction training are even more crucial to successful communication. :‘eart :31- uvd Al! I I, I «NU 50 The history of our overseas-involvement reflects a dearth of predeployment training beyond language skills and the transfer of area information. Lest these mistakes be endlessly repeated it would seem that interpersonal skills should be central to future training. Chapter Three describes sOme of the fundamental knowledge now available to assist in the design of that training. V. .3: '.'1 5.4 's CHAPTER III REVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEARCH In this chapter we shall attempt to look first to the research which has been done in the field where change agents are at work and are in the process of cross cultural interaction. We hope to extract the variables which most interest us as being (a) crucial to personal interaction and (b) attitudes, skills or information which can be modi— fied or transferred in a training context. We hope next to look at the previous research and theoretical bases for the learning of similar interpersonal skills. Upon completion of this second survey, we shall attempt to fit together a model which will apply theory to demonstrated needs. This will, of necessity, be a rather eclectic model using what we think are the most relevant findings from already established "schools" of cross cultural interaction training. Previougly Reported Crops Cultural Interaction Research The Peace Corps One of the richest sources of research data on cross cultural interaction comes to us from those having had a part 51 Nil 52 in selecting, training and supervising Peace Corps Volun- teers. Early Peace Corps training seemed to be modeled after the classical Foreign Service institute approach. Language training and area studies dominated the curriculum. The rationale seemed logical. Robert Politzer reported, "If we teach language without teaching at the same time the culture in which it Operates, we are teaching meaningless symbols. . . ."1 His words were echoed by Robert Maston who felt that area studies were closely interrelated to the primary learning need——language. Maston wrote, "To separate the language training from area studies . . . will desiccate his [the volunteer's] motivation, and render lifeless and meaning- -less the medium of interpersonal communication, and language."2 A short time later "sensitivity training" was added as the third most important element of training.3 Though it seemed that no two universities under contract to assist with training could completely agree on curriculum, more uni— versities did put formal "sensitivity training" into their schedules.4 1RObert Politzer, Report of the Fifth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Teaching in N. Brooks, Language and Langggge Learning (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964), p. 89. 2Robert Maston, "Holistic Preparation of Volunteers", Mimeo, Peace Corps, Washington, D. C., 1966. 3Deborah Jones, The Making of a Volunteer (Washington, D. C.: Office of Evaluation, Peace Corps, 1968), p. 70. 4Ibid., p. 2. 5'3 By 1968, many in Peace Corps training positions (e.g., Albert R. Wight, Mary Anne Hammons, John Bing, and Julia Lydon) were saying that of prime importance was the ability to be aware of one's self, one's own values and how one is coming across to others.1 A growing number of trainers felt that experiental learning was perhaps a better mode than classical studies for the acquiring of the ability to piece together one's own COping strategies. More emphasis was placed on recognizing the individual- ity of each volunteer. Self Awarene§§_became the first response to the author's question to many Peace Corps trainers, "What is the most sorely needed ability in your Volunteers?" The need to be aware of ourselves and aware of how we are coming across to our associates loomed larger from 1966 on in the author's conversation with trainers. Some said, "It is the warm response of one human being to another, a highly individual thing; that is most important for effective Peace Corps service."2 By 1969 several who were responsible for training had redefined their objectives. ’Their priorities were to create opportunities so that each individual volunteer might 1“ 1Albert R. Wight, Mary Jane Hammons, John Bing, Cross CulturaiiTraining (Estes Park, Colorado: Peace Corps, Center for Research and Education, 1969), p. 13. 2Ibid., p. 25. develop:1 a. b. c. d. e. f. g. 54 increased self-insight and understanding increased self confidence and self reliance reduced need for recognition increased ability t5“tolerate ambiguity increased ability to COpe, to bounce back increased self regulation and self control increased awareness, clarity of perception Next followed social objectives: a. b. C. awareness of effect upOn others sense of responsibility to the host national people ability to develop effective relationships with host national and Peace Corps superiors, peers and counterparts increased concern and consideration for others increased ability to communicate increased interest in others increased interest in relating to others in a way that is neither punishing, demanding nor belittling, with warmth increased tolerance and appreciation for ideas, values, traditions quite different from one's own ' 1Albert R. Wight and Glendon Casto, Training_and Assess- ment Manuaiiior a Peace Copps Instrumented Experiential Laboratory (Estes Park, Colorado: Center for Research and Education, 1969), pp. 30f. 55 When we look at the training objectives of the same Peace Corps just eight years earlier, we see-the following priority:1 (1) to provide technical and organizational skills and respect for the dignity of labor. . . . (2) to break through barriers of mutual suspicion and misinformation. . . . (3) to give excellent preparation to a carefully selected group of young Americans for overseas work. (4) to provide an opportunity for personal expression of American ideals. It seems that eight years of experience helped, among other things, to isolate and to make more explicit the cen- tral training needs for effective cross cultural interaction of Volunteers. The curriculum for Peace Corps Volunteers as suggested in 1961 reflects a much more classical, academic training agenda:2 Politics 30 sessions 2 hours each Culture 30 sessions 2 hours each Area Studies 30 sessions 2 hours each U.S. Civilization 30 sessions 2 hours each 1Maurice L. Albertson, Final Report, The Peace Corps (Fort Collins, Colorado: State University Research Founda- tion, May 1961), pp. 3—9. 2Ibid., pp. 1-5. 56 Teaching Methods 30 sessions 2 hours each Language 60 sessions 4 hours each Orientation 12 sessions 4 hours each We could find no empirical research relating desired field behaviors to training curriculum. Considerable re- search has been conducted on the validity of tests for Peace Corps Volunteer selection (Arnold 1967; Thomson, 1963; and English, 1964).1 Inferentially, by looking at curriCula in 1961 and 1969, we conclude that Peace COrps administrators and trainers found that their early objectives were not satisfactory. On the basis of the field experience of thou- sands of Volunteers, the above objectives were modified so that self awareness had highest priority. Other American Civilian Agencies Overseas It is difficult to estimate just how many Americans are overseas at any one moment. The State Department's Adminis- tration for International Development employs thousands of professional change agents and technicians in other cultures. American businesses and voluntary agencies sponsor even more. 1Ibid., pp. 12—18. 2In 1959 there was a total of 1,590,000 Americans liv— ing abroad. By 1969 there were 2,800,500 servicemen and their dependents living abroad. Harland Cleveland, Gerard J. Mangove and John C. Adams, The Overseas Americans (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960), p. 4; and informa- tion from Comptroller Manpower and ReservevAffairs, Departr ment of Defense, Washington, 1969. 57 We looked for research related to their preparation for overseas assignment. Francis C. Byrnes found in his study of technicians overseas that few reported signs of culture shock until about the sixth month and that many frustrations were then related to their American sponsors. The chief source of discontent reported in Byrnes' study was in the world of work, i.e., the level of satisfaction of overseas Americans was highly correlated with the extent to which they fulfilled 1 Byrnes noted that "For work their own work expectations. related interaction with nationals knowledge of the local language is perceived as relatively unimportant, except in French and Spanish speaking countries."2 .Hodgson studied the interaction of 250 American and Western European employees who worked for an oil firm with 17,500 Iranians. His study tested the hypothesis that "men of good will from diverse cultures will function highly in— efficiently in an industrial partnership as a result of their inability to recognize the basic differences in one another's 3 culture patterns." This led him to survey the status of 1Francis C. Byrnes, "Americans in Technical Assistance: A Study of Men's Perceptions of Their Own Cross Cultural Experience," Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1963, pp. 1-4. 2Ibid., p. 2. 3Francis Xavier Hodgson, "Cross Cultural Conflict: An Illustration of the Implications for American Business Manage— ment Overseas," Michigan State University, 1961, p. l. 58 orientation programs Offered by 41 United States firms in sending people to the Near East. He found, among other things, that: 4 firms provided mimeographed bulletins prior to departure 1 firm had a formal predeparture orientation program 2 firms offered some printed literature from tourist agencies 34 firms had no programs and offered no literature.1 More recently there has been an emphasis upon change models and systems analysis for overseas technical assis- tants. The work of J. S. Johnson is representative of this emphasis. He found that strategies for change comprised the essential ingredient differentiating successful from 2 His and similar 'unsuccessful cross cultural performance. findings imply that if we more heavily emphasized community development in our training, our overseas agents would interact more effectively with host populations. Recently several clergymen have reported on the chang- ing styles of preparation of missionaries for overseas assignment. The substitution of the title "fraternal worker" for "missionary" seems to be indicative of a more enlightened 11bid. , p. 120. 2Jay S. Johnson, "Some Methods and Functions of Evalua- tion for Cross Cultural Clinicians," Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, 1969, p. 113. 59 approach. Dr. Ted Ward1 has been active in bringing on-the scene learning experiences to such "fraternal workers" already in the throes of culture shock. Many research efforts are in progress to aid overseas educators and other change agents with specific cross cul— tural problems. Stump, Jordan and Friesen are at work on an eleven-nation study concerning attitudes toward education and disability for vocational development. They are particu— larly interested in assisting educators in understanding how people gain their identity in particular cultures and how cultural changes and vocational develOpment interact.2 Leonard Goodwin3 and Gullahorn and Gullahorn. studied the adaption behaviors of American professors traveling over— seas under the Fulbright-Hays Program. They showed that systematic probing strategies quite similar to classical scientific methods will work successfully. 1National Council of Churches, Observations on Overseas Service 9; Youth. Reflections of a Consultative Committee, Authorized by the Department of International Affairs, New York, 1961. 2Walter L. Stump, John E2 Jordan and Eugene W. Frieson, "Cross Cultural Considerations in Understanding Vocational Development," mimeo, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1970. 3Leonard Goodwin, "A Study of the Selection and Adaption of Fifty American Professors Under the Fulbright-Hays Program,‘ Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State, Washington, D.C., 1964. 4John T. and Jeanne E. Gullahorn, "The Role of the Aca- demic Man as a Cross-Cultural Mediator," American Socio- logical Review, 25:3, June 1960, pp. 4-14. 4. i R .- .. «an nub . 1 EU: 9 v w a W ‘ u hie Ce .1. M \\ :-- cg! :1!- \ ‘l F: l a It: 60 Norman Cleary studied the reverse phenomenon when stu— dents from overseas return to their homelands as change agents.1 Domestic Cross Cultural Research Recent research in large urban centers has focused upon the heterophily gap between ghetto residents on the one hand and police, teachers and welfare officials on the other. The Bureau of Social Science Research found in Washington, D. C., for example, that police give more thought- ful protection to those precincts in which they feel more homophilous. Residents also respond more supportively to police whom they see as "one of their own". It boils down to a matter of develOping mutual trust and respect.2 However, the commission warned that no one should underesti— mate the gulf of experience and misunderstanding which separates the police from poorer bIack citizens. Many see the police as the symbol of an uncaring establishment which cracks down only on certain offenses. Many police see everyone in a poor neighborhood as hostile adversaries. 1Norman B. Cleary, "Cross-Cultural Communication, Power— lessness, Salience, and Obeisance of Professional Change Agents," Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1966. (He found a high correlation between the feeling of powerlessness and change type (goals or no goals). He found no significant correlation between Obeisance and salience). 2Report of the Presidentls Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia on the Metropolitan Police Department. (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966), pp. 62-64. 61 Lepper, Fawson, Newman, Berger and Littlefield1 have studied cross cultural factors which have increased hetero- phily between teachers and their inner city pupils. The conclusion seems all too apparent that we can accurately describe the entropy and noise of domestic cross cultural communication. We have the wherewithal to modify attitudes and increase trust. We thus far seem to lack the will to apply our knowledge to this increasingly serious heterophily gap. Research in the United States Armed Forces Abroad and at Home Troop-Community Relations Program. The first large scale effort to modify the attitudes of United States service- men toward their hosts overseas was manifested through an Army Research Office contract to the American Institutes for Research in 1964. Beginning that year with two United States Army Divisions in Korea, the prOject expanded to Thailand in 1968.2 Attitude surveys were conducted across all ranks of Army men and among those civilians having most contact with the military. Dr. Robert Humphrey, Dr. Paul Spector and Dr. Troy Parris then used this survey data in an ideological and informational effort to develop in Americans higher regard for host nationals. 1Loc. cit. 2Richard W. Brislin, The Content and Evaluation of Crogg Culturai_Training Programg, Institute for Defense Analyses, Science and Technology Division, November, 1970, p. 10. RIB. ‘3 “a 5 AI..\ Q‘v \ t 62 The author is indebted to these gentlemen for their assistance from 1966 onward as he worked with a similar project with the United States Marine Corps. Efforts were made to evaluate the effectiveness of this training. Repeated surveys were taken among United States Army and Republic of Korea Army personnel showing improve- ments in attitudes over time.1 The Pergonal Response Project. Started by a few chap— lains upon the request of Lieutenant General Victor Krulack, USMC to the Navy Chief of Chaplains, Rear Admiral James W. Kelly, this project began on an orientation-information mode and soon switched to an emphasis upon attitude modification through such interpersonal means as role reversal, simula— tions and non-verbal drills. CDR RObert Mole, CHC, USN was the first chaplain sent to South Vietnam to work on the project. His research2 was concentrated upon the collection of religious and cultural data felt to be helpful for United States personnel trying to understand the Vietnamese peOple. 1Paul Spector, "An Ideological Weapons System" in Conference on Research in Cross-Cultural Interaction, spon- sored by the Office of Naval Research and the Chaplain Corps Planning Group, 1968, pp. 129—154." 2RObert M. Mole (Warren Newman, editor), Religion; in Vietnam in Faith and Fact, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific, 1967; The Montagnards (Tribes-PeOple)gi_I Corps, South Vietnam, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific (Forward)l966:’Viet— namege Time Concepts and Behavior Patterns, U. S. Naval Support Activity, Saigon,l968; The Role of Buddhism in the Contempoigiy Development of Thailand, U. S. Naval Support Activity, Saigon, 1968. 63 CDR W. Warren Newman, serving as coordinator of the project, provided counsel, support, services and key inputs to training materials for use in the field and in predeploy- ment training.1 The first systematic random sample of United States Marine Corps attitudes was taken by the author in September, 1966.2 The purpose of the survey was to locate problem areas, gather critical incidents for training materi- als and get an overall estimate of the flow of attitudes toward the Vietnamese civilian and military populations. When asked how they felt about the local peOple, only 37% of United States Marines expressed unqualified likes. Only 3r% reported liking the Vietnamese soldiers.3 This meant that roughly two thirds of every one of our patrols had bad or mixed feelings toward the peOple they had come to help. In a war in which squad-sized units operate with great independence, far away from their responsible seniors' super- vision, we were risking a great deal of hostile communication between American military personnel and their Vietnamese allies, both military and civilian. 1CDR W; Warren Newman, CHC, USN, "The Personal Response Project" A Communications Perspective in Conference on Research in Cross Cultural Interaction, 9p. cit., pp. 1—13. 2R. A. McGonigal, "Report of Survey Taken in III MAF TAOR Among USMC and USN PersOnnel to Determine Their Attitudes Toward ARVN, PFs and the Indigenous Local Pe0ple," September 1966. Fleet Marine Force, Pacific (Forwardf. See Bibli~ ography for other survey reports, 1966—1968. 3Ibid., p. 6. 64 Several patterns were noticed in the 1966 survey. Our sergeants and lieutenants were most critical toward the local peOple. (This produced genuine alarm for sergeants and lieutenants are our small unit leaders!) There also seemed to be a slump in attitudes which con- tinued from about the third through the tenth month of a thirteen month tour. ‘5 LIKE LOCAL PEOPLE 80J 40‘ 20‘ 4m LIME ARVE‘J 3 PF! FIGURE 3-1. Percentage of Marines expressing positive attitudes toward Vietnamese civilians and military personnel by time in country. The following chart shows the pattern of attitudes expressed by United States Marines toward the Vietnamese 65 militiry (M) and civilians (C) when asked how Marines in general feel (GEN) and how they personally feel (PERS), (see Figure 3—2, page 66). It is also interesting to note what problem areas were most frequently mentioned by the Marines. Those things which United States personnel noted about the people most frequently are'given in Table 3-1 on page 67. Other than the peOple, the things liked and disliked_ about the assignment in Vietnam, are given in Table 3-2 on page 68. Surveys were repeated among the Marines in 1967, 1968 and 1969, but this was giving us only the American side of the Opinion patterns. We needed information from the Vietnamese military personnel, civilian workers and local citizenry. Polling instruments were designed, tested, redesigned and employed to gather their sentiments. The early Vietnamese returns showed us that 78% of the local people generally liked us but that already only 42% thought that we liked them:1 We also learned that the Vietnamese military had only 44%.Who expressed likes toward the Americans (see Table 3-3, on page 69). While this information was useful to us, we had a strong feeling that--if anything—-the Vietnamese were being overly 1Ibid., p. 25. .LLH \- 66 Ek‘f‘\\\‘ swwNnnnps.vs n§nnnnannn§eynu ,.asnannnnnnannnnnnnnnps we ’ tnnnuusfispns NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNfiwnNu I -. \ , . .\\\\_\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ES‘\“\\\V ~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\M\\\\\\\\\\“\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘F‘_.\‘a\\\‘ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘é\\“\\\\‘ \\\\\\\\\\\\V\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘;‘. .‘ . \\\‘ annnnnnnnnngnwns ~~nnnnnennnnneennnupsgnx funnuueunnannunnnws annnnneannnnspu.us we °¢nnnnmannnesps Vs \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Vl\\\‘[‘£\\‘.‘\\\\' teennnnepsans \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘[‘,.\\“P\\\V «Neunnunnnunnnpstns J C) 0 3-5 Staff Sergeant o '02 86-9 Private First Class Lance Corporal E4 E3 E l.2 —LEGEND— through Lieutenant Colonel through Sgt. Major Lieutenant Captain E6-9 1 Sergeant E4 = Corporal E1,2 E5 E3 SNNN CW ILIAN - WI. ln————unmun' E] [73:] — ma. Ln: muse ietnamese military and Attitude of USMC by rank toward V civilian personnel. FIGURE 3-2. 67 TABLE 3-1. Traits of Vietnamese Most Frequently Noted By United States Marine Corps Personnel Likes --their friendliness --their ability to work hard --make a lot out of little --their family life and love of children —-their patience and perseverance --their bravery --their religious devotion --sympathy with their strain of having to fight their own people, sometimes relatives --their generosity —-their quiet pride and dignity --their artistic ability Dislikes --their "apparent greed" -—continual begging and double price standards ——their "apparent untrustworthiness and lack of patriotism" —-their lack of sanitation --their unCOOperativeness --their letting their younger children wander while the adults work --their ignorance --their laziness --their stealing --their corruption or apathy toward corruption 68 TABLE 3-2. Factors Most Frequently Associated with Viet- namese Assignment Likes ——pay benefits --combat experience ——a feeling of patriotism, pride in fighting communism and doing something good for the world -—the opportunity to travel and really get to know a new nation of people --the rapid advancement in rank --the weather and the food Dislikes --the climate (dust, heat and rain) —-the risks of war --death of friends —-troop harassments, the changing word, inspections -—lack of liberty —-jealousy toward the Air Force and Army who get liberty in our TAOR -—separation from loved ones -—apparent lack of consistent national politics --disagreement with military rules of engage— ment 69 TABLE 3-3. Traits of Americans Most Frequently Noted by the Vietnamese The specific traits the Vietnamese admired in the Americans were (in order of frequency mentioned): Americans unite and help our peOple. They bring security to this place. They are kind toward our children. They are hard working. . They are generous with what they have. They are brave and risk their lives for us. They are usually merry, jocund. They have a high sense of duty. Their most frequently voiced complaints included: Americans violate our customs. They scorn us, speak as the teacher to the child. They will not speak our language-~only French or English. They belittle our religiOns. They cause inflation. They are~loud and profane. The Americans insult our women. They have no regard for our property. They capture some people without reason. They refuse our advice about VC sympathizers.* *"Report on Vietnamese and American Attitudes in Combined Action Units, III Marine Amphibious Force" 30 March 1967, p. 27. , 7O polite. There is a serious demand characteriStic to be guarded against even though Vietnamese civilians were admin- istering the questionnaire. We thus moved to projective instruments, e.g., the Bogardus Social Distance Scale, Word Associations, the Echo Instrument (Barthol) and Flanagan's Critical Incident technique. We boldly designed our own Thematic Apperception Test with the paintings done by a Vietnamese artist. Fourteen Vietnamese graduate students, trained in projective techniques administered the instrument throughout the five northern provinces of South Vietnam. The returns from the six parts of this instrument gave us much more "feel" and "color" of how the local population was feeling.1 (See Figure 3-8, page 71.) The problem of heterophily existed for other American forces in Vietnam as well. The United States Navy picked the project up in the Fall of 1967. The Army began a lecture series in the Spring of 1968. Progress for the Marines is noted in Table 3—4 on page 72. This positive trend continued in a straight line through 1968 but fell off sharply in 1969 (perhaps due to the severe negative reactions toward the war by citizens at home). .The Marines were interested in behavioral differences. They wanted to know, for example, what impact the training project was-having on the number of lives being saved. A Marine 1"Progress Report Projective Data Collection Instrument" III MAF, Vietnam, March, 1968, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific. 71 FIGURE 3-3. Examples of Thematic Apperception Test designed by and for the Vietnamese. 72 TABLE 3-4. Overall Flow of United States Marine Corps Attitudes Toward Vietnamese Civilians Over Time 1966* 41967** 1968*** USMC Toward Local PeOple (General) Like 37% 49.1% 59% Dislike 35 26.2 17 Mixed 28 24.7 24 USMC Towgpd LocaigPeople (Personal) Like ‘ 44 55.5 66 Dislike 37 20.7 18 Mixed 19 23.8 16 *nesoo, I% of TAOR x2, 9<.01 (1966) ** ,.,n€3,54l, 5% of TAOR p<.001 (1967) * * *nezao, 4%.of 2 infantry regiments p<.025 (1968) cclhel be 73 colonel began keeping track in his own Division. He did not know at the time that one of the two regiments in his Division's TAOR was not cooperating. This regiment thus actually served as an excellent control group. TABLE 3—5. Behavioral Results of the Project in Two Regi— ments . . ' T . Cooperative l Uncooperolave Regimen? Regiment m lsfi ‘m h . ' o. o - Q o. O I‘- ‘l’ C 5 ‘é: ‘1’ c .0 1""- fl) *- ? I t l " “35ers 96o" 4 E O a Q) C322 i. . E :*O C. as, :5 Hh :3 . 0 all :.*~' g D a 0 (D . 0 «f'hll>03l° 13.:- >0. 5‘0 $022.; I ‘9- 0:11 a) c o g... 0.. t.) . 5: lo E U. .5 '9 Fwd-224:5 l ‘3 '5 >05: ‘3 11' £312i25 335? z: ., Q3 5 3; £3 E52: ‘- c C U" '“ Ch 3- 1' U 3: c g: 33 e --ul“,§9:l 9 - :9 s--~ go 5’ l 5’ NEE.E2PAI:E%§ 5: :5 i:§.fi2 |i|"_, fl . . August 1967 2 4l7l9gmi4ll 1: cl September 1967. 1 l7 7 13%; - g 2 g - - page. 1967 a 15 3_j 211:; l , 5 - 2 E TOTALS 11 (36 17 L433; 2 l '51 l 3 _l Collected and Recorded by: G-l, Isl Marine Division, FM? PAC (C03. WEEEEcm EcrneyflSl‘nC) Thi project bother reasons i’ld re. Of Ame. Study ”Scar: inter n H teen: 74 This finding sparkplugged tremendous support for the project among hard-line Marines. Strangely, it seems to bother some that a project originated for humanitarian reasons should also save lives in combat. Upon reflection and re-examination of the data it is felt that the pattern of American-Vietnamese relationships in the area under study moved positively across what might be called a ”scorn (——) acceptance" continuum. Using our fourteen Vietnamese graduate students as interviewers, we made two sweeps of I Corps to get Vietnamese feedback. On the first we used a modified Thematic Appercep- tion Test developed by Dr. Phillip Worschel (University of Texas). On the second we used a six part projective instru- ment including the TAT which we designed and described earlier. We randomly chose 260,members of the Popular Forces (local militia) to interview in 1967. In 1968, we system- atically interviewed families in every tenth home in those same hamlets. We completed 473 such interviews before the TET offensive and the North Vietnamese modified our plans in 1968. We dutifully scored both TAT instrument responses with both the Murray and McLelland scales and on these American continua found low need for power and achievement and high need-press for affiliation. We used portions of these re- sponses in our training literature and recorded all of the ‘responses in eight volumes of narration and translation. 75 Upon reading those volumes again, the author spot checked one hundred of these responses and now notes that nearly 74% of the responses could be placed along a rejection-acceptance or scorn-respect continuum. The recurring theme of sons coming home, of Viet Cong returning to the government side, of Saigon landlords leaving the farmers alone, of American G.I.s not "scorning the people" etc., is so constant that we were probably ill-advised to even look at the Murray or McLelland scales. It is as if they (the Vietnamese) were paraphrasing the modern lyric "let me be! . . . let me be!" This and subjec— tive experience leads the author to second the Peace Corps findings in 1969, namely that Our central objectives fOr cross cultural interaction training should be to induce greater self aWareness, greater awareness of our effect upon others, less need for recognition, more tolerance for ambiguity and in- creased self confidence in interactions with people. We need increased sensitivity to those occasions when we are perceived as cold, boorish or scornful. We need to hesitate more in cross cultural interaction, to not leap so quickly with our stereotypes and our instant responses. One leaves South Vietnam with the notion that the wrong ally provided advisors to the other ally! Theoretical Bases for Learning Interpersonal Skills The following models illustrate recent experimentation to demonstrate particular interpersonal skill learning. 1Wight,_e$ 2;” 92. cit., p. 30. 76 The Culture Assimilator Developed by Triandis, Giedler, Mitchell, Foa and Chamers at the University of Illinois, this training approach seeks via programmed instruction to prepare learners for culturally specific stimulus responses. The assimilators which have thus far been prepared for Iran, Thailand, Greece, Honduras and the Arab countries are largely weighted toward recognizing approPriate roles.1 The work of Triandis, McGuire, Saral, Yang, Lohard and Vassiliou, in 1968, to factor out five role differentiation discriminators from some 1620 subjects from America, Greece, India, Peru and Taiwan is still being tested in these assimilators.2 Triandis hopes to reduce his theory to three norms: (a) giving vs. denying affect, (b) giving vs. denying status, (c) intimacy vs. formality. Based on the role theory of Biddle and Thomas the model is essentially one of cogni- tive pattern recognition. If one can correctly identify pat— 3 terns he is well on the way toward success. The work of Triandis, Fiedler and Vassiliou“ is quite 1Brislin, 92. cit., p. 19. 2Harry C. Triandis §§_§l., ii’A Cross Cultural Study of Role Perceptions," Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, University of Illinois, 1968, p. 6. 3Loc. cit. 4Harry C. Triandis, Vasso Vassiliou, "A Comparative Analysis of Subjective Culture," Technical Report No. 55, Advanced Research Projects Agency, October 1967. 3X9 tin in fied :12— ;11/c l m l / 77 naturally influenced by their fellow department members Osgood, Tannenbaum and Suci. .Their focus is to find semantic axes along which to measure cultural phenomena and to con- tinue with factor regression until we are left with manage— able constructs for explaining a given culture and our entry into it. It is a method which‘begins inductively, formulates deductive postulates and tests them empirically. It remains to be seen if "every day" Americans will pause to use these constructs or even if they can comfort— ably think deductively after being exposed to so many induc- tive learning experiences. Attitudinal Modification in Pre Deployment Training One of the better designed experiments in cross cultural behavioral modification was conducted by Sidney Gael and Todd Eachus at the Ohio State University.1 Having influenced learner's attitudes by exposing them first to positive, nega- tive or neutral literature, they then introduced the learners to a role playing situation. Measures from Osgood'sSemantic Differential were compared with Hall's Behavioral Differen- tial to determine a significant effect between behavior and attitude modification. The focus of Gael's study, like ours, was upon the learning within the training package. 1Sidney Gael, "Cross Cultural Behavior as a Function of Attitude," Ph.D. Thesis, The Ohio State University, 1966, pp. l6-20. ' 78 ' Culture Shock Simulations Samuel Taylor and Martin Sternin have, from different origins described learning strategies to directly address culture shock. Taylor cites the work of Dr. Edward H. Spicer at Cornell who in order to prepare them for culture shock introduced change agents to a dose of shock by dropping them off a few miles from a village in an Indian reservation and leaving them to fend for themselves for five or six days.1 This could be labeled experiential and/or discovery learning. Sternin's concern is with promoting good judgment. Like Taylor, Sternin believes that a key step to surviving culture shock is to first recognize its symptoms.2 Sternin believes that "a man's ability to absorb frus- tration and to tolerate embarassment and ambiguity appear to be important in allowing him to quickly take a more "3 He feels that Americans are stressful involvement. especially threatened by ambiguity and that in their frantic striving for clarity, they sometimes exhibit inappropriate or offensive reactions such as cultural blindness, Pollyanna Syndrome, cynicism, zealotry, going native, excessive intel- lectualization or acts of physical force, e.g., taking property, challenging authority, initiating a fight. 1Samuel Tayldr, "The Realities of Culture Shock." Mimeo, University of Pittsburgh. 2Martin Sternin, "Toward Specification of an Adaptation Process in Americans Overseas," Conference on Cross Cultural Interaction Training, pp. cit., pp. 233-280. 31bid., p. 250. 79 Sternin sees the learning as a continuous repetition of the sensitization--shock-accommodation cycle.1 He he- lieves that the real learning takes place in-country as one starts a cultural exploration process which begins with groping, leads to systematic inquiry and finally to hypothe- sis testing. His thought here is quite similar to Ward, (1970)2 and McGonigal (1971).3 It also resembles the maze- way strategy of Anthony F. C. Wallace.4 Donald C. Stone, of the University of Pittsburgh, sees the problem of culture shock still more simply. To him there are only three reactions: "flight", "fight" and "adaptation".5 He sees the problem as primarily one of in- sufficient understanding and he believes that it can be remedied by tighter selection procedures, orientation for newcomers, getting the wives involved in voluntary activities, circulation of literature and liaison with our embassy.6 lIbid., p. 261. 2Ward,gp. cit., p. 3. 3R. A. McGonigal, "A Process Probing Guide for Cross Cultural Interaction Training." A working Paper for Human Learning Research Institute, Michigan State University, 1971. 4Anthony F. C. Wallace, Culture and Personality (New York: Random House, 1966), p. 16. 5Donald C. Stone, "Bridging Cultural Barriers in Inter- national Management," prepared for American Society for Training and Development, May 1968, pp. 1f. 61bid., p. 11. Dr. Sto interna St appear adapta1 The cu pend h kid to 3021915 Tram rem: "ad 1“ titer ::5‘ ‘E 80 Dr. Stone is frequently consulted for his Opinions upon international business problems by our larger corporations. Sternin's observations are less comforting but they appear to be germane to the real point. The point is that adaptation really means taking on a substitute-lifestyle.1 The cultural sOphisticate may be able to temporarily sus- pend his commitments to his home and to his host systems, and to neutrally balance between the two. Most people never completely, if only temporarily, adapt or acculturate. Training, for Sternin, consists of helping the learner to realize that he can temporarily give up his protective values and roles without permanent loss.2 Extinction (or Denial) The Office of Public Safety (OPS) of the Agency for International Development has conducted a fascinating experi— ment in its training of police agents from other countries. To them the most useful goal is training a man to tolerate *foreign people and their ways for a short time period (30 days).3 The effect is to repress, or possibly extinguish, the-learning of negative information about one's hosts. As yet no one has presented data on the effectiveness of this method. 1Sternin, 92. cit., p. 270. zIbid., p. 278. 3Donald B. Haines, "Training for Culture-Contact and Interaction Skills," Behavioral Sciences Laboratory, Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, December, 1964, p. 8. 81 ClinicalyBehavior Style Dr. Thd Ward and others, at Michigan State University, has developed a model to assist Americans in preparation for overseas service. The clinical behavior style is the . . . particular and stylized set of behaviors and mental processes of a person who has been specifically trained to utilize his experiences as a continuing source of new learning through which he improves his skills and increases his knowIedge. There are three phases each having two basic types of activity: (1) the Reflecting Phase (describing, analyzing), (2) the Proposing Phase (hypothesizing, prescribing) and (3) the Doing Phase (treating, and seeking evidence on con— sequences). Balance Theory A useful dimension of cross cultural interaction learn- ing is that of balance and imbalance. Quite similar to communication phenomena noted by Heider and Newcomb2 this aspect of learning has to do with the necessity of imbalance and renewed balance for any growth to take place. Robert Foster and Jack Danielian refer to it as unfreezing and moving and refreezing.3 Those who would penetrate new -1- 1Ted Ward gt al., "Social-Cultural Preparation of Americans For Overseas Service,“ Learning Systems Institute and Human Learning Research Institute, Michigan State Univer- sity, December 1965, pp. 5f. 2Chester A. Insko, Theories of Attitude Change (New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1967), pp. 161-165. 3RObert J. Foster and Jack Danielion, "An Analysis of Human Relations Training and Its Implications for Overseas 82 cultures need to travel through this cycle if new behaviors are to be adoPted. They must allow themselves to be thrown off balance. The Foster Theory This threefold approach in which the-learner is en- couraged to (1) recognize the motivations of his hosts, (2) redefine his mission or innovation to conform to the host culture, and (3) develOp decision making skills1 seems to be an almost purely cognitive model. It is less logically organized than that of Dr. Ted Ward. Everything hinges upon the accuracy of the first phase. No introductory skills are included. The Contrast-American Technique The Human Resources Research Office has developed a role ~playing encounter technique for more effective cross cultural communication.2 Simply stated, an actor confronts the trainee in a specific problem solving scenario which is videotaped. The actor deliberately chooses positions in contrast to the expected American responses. Feedback is given to the”- learner on how our expectations are culturally biased. Performance," Human Resources Research Office, Technical Report 66-15, The George Washington University, 1966, p. 6. 1Robert J. Foster, Examples of Cross Cultural Problems Encountered by Americans Working Overseas, An Instructor's Handbook, The George Washington University, May 1965, p. 9. 2Brislin, gp. cit., p. 24. 83 Army advisors and Westinghouse executives have been tested with significant treatment effects. The University—Alternative Model Designed by Roger Harrison and Richard L. Hopkins, this model specifically tries to help the learner: (a) become more independent of experts (b) deal with feelings created by value conflicts (c) make‘decisionSLiQ.stressful situations (d) use his own and others' feelings as information.1 The authors point out that: University Education Overseas Education written expression is empha- communication is oral and sized non-verbal prOblems solved by the problems are solved by individual groups information comes from s individuals gather their experts own information reason is paramount emotions and feelings count The first group to use the model was composed of 82 Peace Corps Volunteers on their way to Ecuador, Chile and Boliva. They were forced into immediate decision making. There would be no program unless they planned it. Classroom teaching was minimized and experience-centered learning was maximized. 1Roger Harrison and Richard L. Hopkins, "The Design of Cross Cultural Training: An Alternative to the University Model," Journal ongpplied Behavioral Science, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1967. m he‘te imc thi tec' int SUC n) .. A! (J: P “I. (I? 84 Theoretical Bases for the Variables of Immediate Interest Heterophily Everett Rogers is currently studying the use of less >heterophilous change agent aides as a means of increasing innovation diffusion. He found that the relationship of heterophily to innovation difquion is curvilinear.1 And this applies only where the heterophily has to do with technical competence. The same does ggt_apply for effective interpersonal communication. Everett Rogers found that successful communication patterns are mostly hom0philous.2 To get beyond this stalemate--the fact that cross cul- tural communication is heterophilous and most successful communication patterns are hom0philous--it may be worth asking, "of what else is this also a problem?" It seems possible to think of heterophily as a case of sensory depri- vation. In this sense, heterophily can be seen as culture 3 shock in the classic use of that term by DuBois to mean that anxiety which results from ldsing all our familiar signs 1Everett M. Rogers and Dilip K. Bhomik, "Monophily- Heterophily: Rational Concepts for Communication Research," Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journal- ism, Berkeley, August 1969, p. 14. 2Ibid., p. 22. * 3Cora DuBois, "Culture Shock," Special Publication Series, No. 1, Institute for International Education, New York, 15 December 1951, p. 22. and has ' Univ depr aoto: tatil isola how ; 3:031 Cent] M I “- ‘qskl I 4 E E: I :1 4' n! L...‘ 85 and symbols of social intercourse. Considerable research has been done in sensOry deprivation at McGill and Princeton Universities. Vernon found that associated with sensory deprivation are: decreased tolerance for pain and greater motor control instability, color confusion, time disorien- tation and irritability.1 HeterOphily might also be viewed as a case of social isolation. Bakwin and Stone studied human loneliness and 2 how it adversely affects health and mental perceptions. Brownfield feels that sensory iSOIation greatly reduces con- centration.3 Heterophily could also be viewed as sensory saturation-- such a heavy overload of new stimuli that the individual is unable to process any information. Time disorientation, motor impediments and hallucinations are common character- istics of the sensory saturated drug user. Heterophily studied as an obstacle to communication, and to diffusion of innovations or as sensory deprivation, satura- ‘tiOn cu: isolation remains a precondition of most cross cultural interaction. 1Jack A. Vernon, Inside the Black Room (New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1965), p. 101. 2Ibid.. pp. 110-144. 3Charles A. Brownfield, Isolation, Clinical and Experi— znental Approaches (New York: Random House, 1965), p. 101. it? he anot? in tr as t) 86 Empathy Empathy is the ability to project one's self into another's role.1 Van Zelst2 and Anikeef3 measured empathy in behavioral terms and with projective instruments. In social—psychological terms, we look toward empathy as the bridge between conditions of heterophily and homophily. State of Heterophily - State of Homophily between persons between persons FIGURE 3—4. Relationship of heterophily, homophily and empathy. . The thoughtful observer may be experiencing a "déja vue".' For, again, the early‘Greeks had five words t0' describe what they felt were distinct levels on a continuum of empathy.4 1Rogers, pp. cit., p. 13. 2Raymond H. Van Zelst, "Empathy Test Scores of Union Leaders," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 36,(l952), ,pp. 253-295. 3C. Alexis Anikeef, "ReciprOCal Empathy, Mutualender- standing Between Leadership and Empathy," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 49 ( ), pp. 156-157. 4Rogers, pp. cit., p. 218. C01 C03 to Cl». \ ‘h- \‘I\ . ‘ 87 The early Greeks saw distinct shades of empathy. The continuum began with knowing and caring for someone. It continued on toward emotional involvement or entanglement to a complete bursting in upon another's life. 21111111 03 (em-pie-yos) -- "knowing " Eunégoum (em-padz—o-ma-i)—-"to take care of" éum‘iegs (em-path-ace)--"to be emotionally affected with "someone" gurakéoow (em-pala-so)-—to become entangled together Emndfio (em-pai-yo)--"to strike in, stamp or burst in upon Such a definition of empathy might cause counselors and therapists to cringe. Most modern psychotherapists prefer to think of empathy as "sensitive awareness".1 Theodore Reik saw empathy as a means of reducing social distance.2 Self Awareness Dr. Friederich (Fritz) S. Perls held that to increase our awareness of others we must first attend to our spon- taneous selves. Self Awareness is, "the spontaneous sens— ing of what arises in you, of what you are doing, feeling, _ planning, communicating."3 1RObert C. Campbell, The Development and Validation of a Multiple Choice Scale to Measure Affective Sensitivity (Empathy), Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1967. 2Theodore Reik in Robert Katz, Empathy, Its Nature and ‘Uses (London: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963), p. 9. 3F. s. Perls, R. F. Hefferline and P. Goodman, Gestalt 'Eherapy (New York: The Julian Press, 1951), p. 75. Cha dix D) w self vs. awar en 65 So ability “'9er the syn OPEIatj r mm the 0p« W seen t estahl ShCMH 88 Charles B. Truax developed a set of scales (see Appen- dix D) which when used in'a differential configuration of self vs. peer measures, can give quantification to selfl awar en es 8 . Ability to Reveppe Roles Sometimes thought of as a manifestation of empathy, the ability to reverse roles'is not necessarily implanted in everyone. Piaget found substitution (I'll be a cowboy) in the symbolic period of child development.1 The concrete operational stage does not always exhibit the ability to reverse roles. With some that ability does not come until the operational stage.2 We.have yet to see demonstrated empirically what would seem to be a logical sequence, i.e., that we must first establish role identity, and then role differentiation, before we could genuinely achieve role reversal. Role playing studies by Janis and Mann and Elms3 have shown that the public act of temporarily reversing roles can be a powerful modifier of attitudes. We would hope that our trainees could internally reverse roles at will. 1Herbert Ginsberg and Sylvia Opper, Piaget's Theory of Intellectual Development (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1969), pp. 80 and 205. 2Ibid. 3A. C. Elms "New Frontier: The Peace Corps," The Nation, December 3, 1960. capacit develo V. b“ :1 5t ’1 1‘1 m (I. l D (I! u! 89 Thus far we lack evidence as to whether everyone has the capacity for role reversal or how well it can actually be develOped and/or modified in training. Dogmatism Rokeach (1956) says that dogmatism is the degree of openness or closedness of belief systems. The extent to which a person's belief system is open is . . . the extent to which the person can receive, evalu— ate, and act on relevant information received from the outside on its own intrinsic merits, unencumbered by irrelevant factors in the situation arising from within the person or from the outside.1 Rokeach's D Scale, designed to measure this phenomenon has been correlated with scales measuring anxiety, paranoia, self rejection, authoritarianism (the F Scale), rigidity, ethnocentrism, conservatism, left Opinionation and right opinionation.2 From the research thus far it seems that there is some overlap of'dogmatism with authoritarianism and that it is related to anxiety. The Rokeach D Scale is frequently used by Peace Corps training centers as part of the portfolio of learners jpersonality measures. There is, however, little data on how sensitive dogmatism is to change. 1Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York: JBasic Books, 1960), p. 57. 2Milton Rokeach and Benjamin Fruchter, "A Factorial Study of DOgmatism and Related Concepts," Journal of Abnormal _§§d.Social Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 3 (November 1956), pp. 356-360. -l . us AU . RAIN d m Burl .1... 51 E I 11‘ a: p1 t 3 a n ta t E) 9O Tolerance for Ambigpity Closely allied to dogmatism, but apparently a factor distinguishable from dogmatism is a general tolerance for ambiguous messages and situations. Budner defined intoler- ance of ambiguity as "the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as sources of threat; tolerance . . . as the tendency to perceive them as desirable."1 This concept is of interest to us because it seems crucial to our ability to pause and to reflect before mak- ing cross cultural decisions ppp_to withstand anxieties pushing us toward pre—mature assessments. Budner's research on intolerance seems to be consis- tent with Adorno's work on the authoritarian personality.2 Robinson and Shaver feel that intolerance of ambiguity is a part but only a part of the authoritarian syndrome.3 The theoretical base is that intolerant persons and authori- tarian persons tend to perceive long continua as dichotomies, to seek unambiguous answers for complex questions and to exhibit rigid, categorical thinking. 18. Budner, Ph.D. Thesis, Columbia University, 1960, czuoted in Robinson and Shaver's "Measures of Social Psycho- logical Attitudes," Survey Research Center, Ann Arbor, 1970, p. 317. I. A 2T. W. Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harpers, 1950). 3Robinson and Shaver, pp. cit., p. 322. nat ear at to cei bet ide 91 Self Esteem Hunt, Singer and Cobb were interested in establishing a central dimension in the syndrome of depression. They found that dimension to be low self esteem.1 We are naturally interested in this research because, as we noted earlier with Sternin's work, low self esteem is often associ- ated with culture shock. It is our feeling that self esteem may also be an indicator of general elan and the motivation to communicate. Cade measures self esteem much more carefully. He per— ceives self esteem to be negatively related to the gap between the way a personperceives himself and his perceived ideal self.2 Thus, if a person is deeply depressed but also has a very low ideal self, be, clinically, could be said to have high self esteem. The author in this study is more inter- ested in using 'self esteem: in its more general, if less ‘well defined, denotation of overall good feeling. Regard for the Value of Equality Kluckhohn, Insko, Anderson and Cote, Allport, Fishbein, Sherif and Rokeach have had keen interests in where the 1S. Hunt, K. Singer, S. Cobb, "Components of Depression: Identified From a Self-Rating Depression Inventory for Survey Use, " Archives of General Psychiatpy, _l_6_ (1967), pp. 441—447. 2Alex Cade, "The Relationship Between Counselor-Client Chfittural Background Similarity and Counseling Progress," Ph.D. Thesis, 1963. im :00: 1R7 92 value for each other as equally important human beings fits into personal value hierarchies.1 Rokeach feels that values are really more dynamic EOnstructs than attitudes.2 He is especially interested in observing what happens to the values of equality and freedom when his subjects are exposed to a message saying in effect, "You obviously care more about your own freedom than you do about your neighbor's." The release of dissonance within the subject's cognitive processes has, according to Rokeach, led to demonstratable behavioral changes as observed over periods of eighteen months.3 In this study we shOrtened Rokeach's sixteen item value .inventory to twelve items. we did ppp_make any reference ‘to the word 'equality' during the two treatment periods and we still observed significant changes in the ranking of the value 'equality' between pre and post measures. Rokeach's behavioral measures include participation in civil rights demonstrations, signatures on civil rights petitions and support of the NAACP. We do not as yet.have such measures. Non-Verbal Communication A growing amount of research is accumulating in the 1Insko, pp, cit., pp. 1-180. 2Milton Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes and Value§ (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969), p. 159. 3Ibid., p. 181. area Gray, amass mover Etpha verba all < r" :r—g /O (D ‘_‘ Sent 1 flare 93 area of non-verbal communication. Ekman,1 Exline, Gray, Schuette,? Rosenfeld,3 Minitz,4 and Goffman5 have amassed data on facial expression, gesture, body position and movement. Much of Ekman's work is with a transcultural emphasis. He and Harrison are interested in isolating non- verbal messages which can be accurately sent and received in all countries. Application of Theory to Perceived Needs for Model Building The Matching of Desired Field Behaviors to Interpersonal Skills If we go back to the problems encountered by our repre— sentatives overseas and in new subcultures at home, we might make the following connections. (a) BehaviOrs Needed in the Field 1. Introductory skills (the ability to actually meet people) 2. Communication skills (verbal and non verbal) 1Paul Ekman, "Body Position, Facial Expression and Verb- al Behavior During Interviews," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 4§_(1964), pp. 295-301. 2Ralph Exline, David Gray and Dorothy Schuette, “Visual Behavior in a Dyad as Affected by Interview Content and sex of Respondent," Journal of Personalitypand Social Psychology, .1,'196S. " 3Howard Rosenfeld, "Instrumental Affiliative Function of Facial and Gestural Expressions," Journal of Personality and §pcial Psychology, 1, 1966. 4Z. L. Minitz, ”Effects.6f Esthetic Surroundings," Journal of Psychology, 3;, 1956. 5Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual (Garden City: Anchor Booksh 1967. 94 3. Maintenance skills (the ability to feed, house, remain healthy and satisfy one's needs in the new environment) 4. MObility (the ability to actually move around in the new culture) 5. Production (the ability to produce what one was sent to produce) " 6. Termination skills (the ability to egress from the cul- ture with maximum residual good feeling) (b) Interpersonal Skills Related to Field Behaviors: Field Behavior ‘ Interpersonal Skill/Characteristic 1. Introductory Self awareness, tolerance for ambiguity, dogmatism, regard for equality 2. Communication Regard for equality, language, non- verbal communication, empathy, genuine- ness, warmth and Openness 3. Maintenance Self esteem, tolerance for ambiguity, dogmatism 4. Mobility Tolerance for ambiguity 5. Production Self esteem, tolerance for ambiguity 6. Termination Self awareness, empathy, warmth, genuineness Matching of Interpergonal Skills Matching of interpersonal skills with instruments for observable measures and theoretical bases we come up with the following connections (see pages 95 and 96). T95 .Ouw .moomu Hoguo mo mHoUMOH .muofimoaoaounucm ..umcH OOH>HOm cmqouom .mwpccwna muumm mumps .ompmz.ucm>um .Hn .ououwumcH season ..qu mcflcemus Accoeunz swoon can HDHMfloum mooHoOmoM .Hm no GOmeme .cmSmwoo «coexm Noose Noose wanna anoznumux .muomom .xm5HB .Hm Do mcwnmm .uopm Hoccom .Hm so encodes .susorom .Hm um ceonnmqm .sosoxom mauom .NmOHB mflmmm Hmowyouoosh “Vain HUUEHVNJ.‘ {W flhfiinrv sun-n‘i‘l'alnv I:-ifliI\J\- n. “‘3" t, 'filll!I1I-’\ v‘.‘“ I: x 0‘1! .mcoaum>uomno G30 Hams“ oMmE ou mucocoum mafia luom .mmsoum mooHflsaououon scum oamomm nvfiS mmcwumoe cumulouroomm .mmcapmom .mocmumgo mamscw>flpcfl Oflmwoomm Que? uumnmucfi ou mcowumuuocom HmuouaoOIQOm .oucmc nmsounu anaconmzm anomcom .mcacemuu omnomcma coamH058e .maawup HsQHo>Iooz oucowMoaxm mcflcumoq mo mmNB coupon Hocmm\ommuoopw> oamum Noose mason Noose mason NMSHB mason xmoHB mason m.u£dm mason m.um:com macaw Q nomoxom >H0pco>cfl gomoxom moamom Nmone Emflumemon .muwsmflnfi< How OUCMHOHOB maaflxm GOHDMOHGSEEOU Umwz vamflm coflDMOHcoafioo amnuo>lcoo .n mmoccomo .e £DEHM3 .3 mmococeoomw .m >£ummEo .m Edmund maom .0 huflomeQEm How mocmuoaou .c Emwumfimop .o huwamovo moam> How pummou .Q mmflflOHM3m Hflwm .. m onsmmoz ucoEonmcH oeumfluouomumno\aaexm HmoomuoauoucH 96 amend com mmmum .mounmesm Duonom .Houoomm doom HO>OAONE .sommaumo .sauam .Heoz .mQEMHu .ocouoz .AuflEm .U .m .muuwmoaonomum HnwOOu .muouoouumcw muss Houoona .mumeuasumow .oanom posh .nuumom_aumu .OusuwumcH coasnm .Nuogum .Hoguoou .Houcmu smocmoa .mouwmx .oocopcomoccw mo cowumumaooc :30 m.oco mcfluen3 .coemmoomeo .xucnpoum unannoucooo .hmamou 0mm» loopa> .mEmuplonommm .mamucroeuom .mGOflumuuocom Hmuouaoornom .moeumssup .mcwxme oe>OE .mucoacmemmm moH>Hom Emdnoum .nuonuo Ga upon» can oucopfimcou mama paflon ou mucoacmemmm Huspw>flcca .momeouoxo moocoumzs muomcom .mmsoum Houaooocm muflamovm How pummom assumes coauoaurosommao oat roauooamaurooH meom oucmumoood com moosoum3< «How 97 Summary We-have tried in this chapter to survey those opera— tionalrprograms for cross cultural interaction training now in existence, experimental prOgrams and recent theoretical bases for these programs. Finally, we tried to outline the theoretical skeleton for this model. We do not yet know the isolated treatment effect of each of these learning experiences. . It is our hope that the combined "package" effect will improve personal interaction skills. Our central focus, it should be remembered, is not so much on the 8POnsor's goals or the type of innovations spread,but on the human interaction between the change agent and his clientele. CHAPTER IV RESEARCH DESIGN OF THE TRAINING MODEL Keeping in mind the early cases of the heterOphily problem as cited in Chapter Two and attaching heavy weight to the reflections of Peace Corps trainers and the feedback from host nationals who have interacted with Americans as reviewed in Chapters Two and Three, the principal needs for improved cross cultural interaction training may be stated 38: Increased self awareness and self esteem Heightened tolerance for ambiguity and reduced dogmatism Greater ability to sense the feelings of others (empathy) In this study, we have directed our efforts to the de- sign implementation and evaluation of a series of training experiences by which we intended to modify the following factors, deemed important in interpersonal interaction: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Regard for the value of equality Dogmatism Tolerance for ambiguity Self esteem Empathy as perceived by the individual Empathy as perceived by the group Genuineness as perceived by the individual Genuineness as perceived by the group Warmth as perceived by the individual Warmth as perceived by the group 98 99 11. Openness as perceived by the individual 12. Openness as perceived by the group 13. Ability to communicate non-verbal messages 14. Self-awareness-—the degree of congruence between self and peer ratings of items (6-12) We saw in our literature review that the perceived problems in cross cultural interaction overseas (at peace and at war) are very similar to the problems of interpersonal communication between members Of sub—cultures in our own country. Our purpose, then, was to develop and test a generalized training model which would assist adults in their interaction overseas or at home with civilians or mili- tary, young or old, male or female. ‘We.mentioned earlier that considerable research has been conducted on the ability of given instruments to predict cross cultural effectiveness in the field. Blessed little attention has been paid to what actually happens inside the training phase. The focus of this design is thus on what happens in the training phase to the above listed fourteen variables. In this chapter we attempt to explain how we went about investigating modifications on those variables. We look at the hypotheses we advanced, the kinds of data we needed to test those hypotheses, the population in which the testing was done, selection procedures for leaders and groups, and the design of our evaluation phase. 100 Hypotheses to be Tested Our central hypothesis to be tested, then, might be summed up as follows: Young adults can, throngh a planned sequence of human relations training experiences, be seen to have improved their ability to function according to four— teen selected criteria identified in the literature as most consequential for successful cross cultural interaction. ' More specifically, we prOposed the following hypotheses, that upon participation in the training model the following phenomena would be Observed in the behavior of these young adults: 1. 2. 8. 9. 10. Self awareness would be increased. The ability to reverse roles (empathy) would be improved. ' Non—verbal communication skills would be improved. Tolerance for ambiguity would be increased. Regard for the value of equality would be measurably elevated in the individual's hierarchy of values. Self esteem would be increased. Dogmatism would be reduced in the individual. Self awareness would be increased. Warmth, genuineness and Openness would be increased. These observed changes would not be leader-dependent, i.e., dependent upon the leadership style of the small group facilitator. The reader will please note that we have not concerned ourselves with cultural or area information nor with language facility. It was felt that those factors are easier to ma ab L‘ U Q ele Uni and clil its iliz Sity 101 manipulate and that more is known about them than about the above factors we had selected for study. Methodology Population of Interest The 288 subjects for this study were students (94%) and non-students (6%) who voluntarily participated in an elective course in the College of Education at Michigan State University entitled, "Interpersonal Skills in Teaching". We cannot at this moment say that the model we designed and tested here will work with other pOpulations in other climes. We cannot even say that our subjects were represen— tative of the student body at Michigan State University or its College of Education. Nor is there any intent to gener- alize from a study among university students to a population of military men where only 78% have finished high school and 16.5%«have gone to a university.1 Our intent at the Univer- sity was to prepare a largely white, middle class group of perspective teachers for better adjustment in inner city schools. We have not generalized to any population other than these volunteers who were interested, obviously, in a course on interpersonal skills. We do believe, however, that the 1R. A. McGonigal, "Report on Vietnamese and American Attitudes in Combined Action Units," III Marine Amphibious Force, 30 March 1967. bar duc 102 hypotheses of this study, given the findings they have pro— duced, merit testing among other pOpulations. Selection of Treatment and Control Groupp Because this investigation was conducted in a series of elective courses there could be no random assignment of subjects to treatment and control groups. Though we acknowl- edge that random assignment is an almost universal require- ment for experimental research design, we could not ethically deny half of the students an Opportunity to interact with others in an effort to deve10p their interpersonal skills when they had registered expecting to do exactly that. The following design was Constructed to achieve a reason— ably defensible control group for each treatment group. Treatment Groups 1-6 Groups 7—20 Groups 21-28 1, Compare 4’ Compare Control Groups 7-20 Groups 21-28 .FIGURE 4-1. Configuration of treatment and control groups, by time. Educational research Often must resort to such a design when random assignment of subjects is impossible. Campbell and Stanley have created a series of designs to control for the inability to have concurrent treatment and control groups. Their "posttest—only control group design," "the separate sample pretest, posttest design,“ and "the separate sample 103 pretest, posttest control group design" are most closely related to the design we have chosen.1 D. R. Cox discusses the problem in his cross-over designs and holds that these are legitimate where the number of treatments is limited and there is little carryover effect. A-single sequence design tends to have higher precision than where there are many treatments or many compartmentalized treatments . 2 Toward the close of each academic quarter, at the same time in which the treatment groups were being given their postetests, those wishing to take the course in the next quarter were asked to come by for a series Of pre-tests on the same variables. This helped control for the possible effect of time of testing. By measuring within the same week, we controlled for such things as weather, campus mood, etc. The fact that groups 7-20 were common to both treatment and control conditions (at different times) made it necessary to make separate analyses of their perceived variances. This analysis is reported in Chapter Five. The 288 subjects who made up these groups had the follow- ing characteristics: 1Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi—Experimental Designs for Research (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963), pp. 25, 53, and 55. 2D. R. Cox, Planning ofrExperiments (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958), pp. 116-128. 104 91% were students in the COllege of Education, 3%.were students from other colleges, and 6%.were non students. 74%.were undergraduates or outside participants, 26% were graduate students. 57%.were female, 43%.were male. 82%.were under thirty years of age. 10%.were of minority groups. Selection of Facilitators and Groups Facilitators were volunteers who were interviewed and later trained in encounter grOup techniques by the author. They were selected on the basis of prior experience and apparent warmth and good judgment. Training consisted of three-hour, weekly sessions in which the small group's activi— ties were modeled and in which facilitators themselves formed ongoing groups. During Spring and Summer quarters, three ongoing training groups were formed for facilitators. A pre- quarter marathon encounter just for facilitators proved to be especially helpful in establishing cohesiveness and insuring that the overall methodology, with its emphasis on trust build- ing, was followed. An undergraduate student facilitator and a graduate student facilitatOr were assigned to each group of eight to twelve students. .The experimental encounter groups were formed by a process called "milling". At the first class session, the students were asked to non verbally mill about and select someone with whom they would like to interact. Each of these 105 pairs then selected another pair. Foursomes then selected foursomes. In some cases, the foursomes selected five or six other people so that no one was left without a group. This procedure was used throughout the three quarters. Demand effects of the author were thus minimized. In retro— spect, it appears that the group formation procedure also made it difficult for students to blame anyone but them- selves or their partners for any unhappy consequences of the choice of members for their groups. A higher degree of commitment seemed to result from this self selection than what might have resulted through arbitrary assignment to groups. Heavy emphasis was placed upon an effort to develOp trust and confidence. Our rationale for that portion of our training may be described with the following figures. It is as if each participant stood on a trust pedestal. If this pedestal were too slim, he would not likely invest much good feeling or trust in ~ a relationship with anyone. To cut out a portion from this small pedestal and invest it in someone else would leave him FIGURE4w2. Inadequate more shaky and vulnerable. If, trust pedestal. however, that pedestal were 106 large and secure, he would feel at ease about investing a portion Of it in someone else. This good feeling about oneself can be thought of as the fulfillment of basic human needs, as posited by Maslow,1 or as vital life functions in terms which would please a physician. The point is that one can not afford to invest much trust or good feeling toward others when he has too little trust himself. We were out to build larger trust pedestals. A Galilean carpenter once urged men to love each other as FIGUREa4-3.Adequate trust they loved themselves. Perhaps pedestal. one reason so few of us achieve high levels of love for others is that we have such con- tempt for ourselves. It should not come as a surprise that the only rela- tionship a person with a narrow trust pedestal will some— times risk is a leaning or dependent relationship upon someone with a stronger trust pedestal. 1Abraham H. Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1968), p. 97. FIGURE 4-4. Dependence. FIGURE 4-5. Protectionism. 107 We were not in business to perpetuate leaning. Lean— ing distorts interpersonal communication. Leaning can happen in two ways. Not only can the weak lean toward the strong-— the strong can sometimes lean out over the weak in an un- healthy form of protectionism. We sometimes rationalize this leaning of the strong over the weak as "concern", "helping the deprived"; or "aiding the underdeveloped". This kind of leaning often eases the conscience of the protectionist and creates hostile resentment on the part of the one "being leaned over". It is too transparent that the well meaning "helper“ does not consider the other person as a complete human being, able to live in dignity and to manage his own life. 108 We hoped to assist ourselves and those around us toward a life where we stand on our own two feet. To be really free to be ourselves is a legitimate aim. Teachers who let students grow into what the students really want to be . . . teachers who respect the freedom to learn and the freedom not to learn . . . teachers who do not need to lean or be leaned upon . . . are considered excellent facilitators of learning!1 One of our explicit goals was to help each other accept ourselves and to be more comfortable with ourselves. FIGURE 4-6. Desired stance of learner. Procedures The group experience began with a series of trust exercises, some designed by Herbert Otto, William Schutz 11bid., pp. 46f. 109 and Frederick Stoller and some drawn from the author's experience. The early structure was weighted to give participants more self confidence and generous amounts of positive data about their peers. Crucial to the early stage was the Op- portunity for each participant to list and share his own achievements, things he felt rather proud to have accom- plished. Though seldom a "comfortable" experience, each student was asked to receive the positive feedback from his group. Early in the course, the first "stretching" assignment was introduced. Each student was asked to interview a stranger in an unfamiliar part of the community, e.g., a warehouse night watchman, a public health nurse, a "bench warmer" at the bus station, etc. These interviews were often taped and always critiqued for "mileage questions" (questions which lengthened responses) and to observe when empathy seemed to be established. Role taking and role reversal simultations were intro— duced. Several of them were videotaped for instant feedback. Simulations such as one in which a student would take the part of a teacher, a teacher the part of an indignant parent, and a parent the part of a school administrator, increased the feedback as to the kinds of emotions and the force of those emotions that we communicate when we are excited. Trust exercises such as the "trust walk" (in which one student 110 leads another who keeps his eyes closed), lifting and face tracing, were continued to keep the atmosphere supportive and non—threatening. After about three weeks, an all-night marathon session was held to draw the participants out into the "deeper waters" of interpersonal trust and communication. The groups began this session with non—verbal exercises to get in touch with their feelings so that later verbal exchanges might be more relevant in their encounters with each other. After the marathon session, students used the Truax scales (see Appendiij) to give each other feedback on their empathy, genuineness, warmth, and Openness. Less structure was provided after the fifth week. Students were encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning activities. Some chose to visit schools and Observe the interaction of teachers with students, teachers with administration personnel and teachers with teachers. Many students designed affective learning packages, some of which were immediately used by the public school teachers who were anxious to try them with their pupils. These were self con— tained, especially designed learning experiences to facili- tate the learning of such things as sharing, how it feels to be a minority person or the new child in school. Non-verbal exercises continued. At the eighth week the students traveled to a YMCA camp to spend a weekend to- gether. The encounter group mode continued. But, as on the 111 marathon, fantasy and non-verbal exercises were introduced to assist the participants in being more aware of their own feelings and thus not be left to solely cognitive exchanges. After a second use of the Truax scales, the students were able to see their apparent improvement or regression in the areas of empathy, genuineness, warmth and openness. Further feedback was given to them on how they scored on the other variables of interest, e.g., regard for the value of equality. A non-verbal meal was held at the conclusion of each quarter to "celebrate" the conclusion of the experience. Having improved non-verbal skills it seemed fitting to use them in a concluding experience. To be sure, the entire course was different from the usual academic offering. Its stated Objectives were to in— crease awareness of one's self and how one was being per- ceived by others in a variety of circumstances. It was assumed that this learning would have transferability to teaching situations with students of other races and back- grounds. The enrollment in the course grew from 35 students in the Fall to 147 in the Spring. Evaluation Normed and validated instruments were used for all but the non—verbal communication measures. Non-verba17communication skills. This was a locally designed procedure which consisted of presenting each student with one of three sets of six classroom type messages to 112 communicate non-verbally before a videotape camera. The students recorded their efforts to communicate the same messages on a second tape at the end of the course (see Appendix G). Both sets of tapes were later analyzed by a panel of six peOple who had demonstrated considerable sensitivity in interpersonal communication. Three were ex- teachers and three were undergraduates. It was possible for the panel to award a point for each message correctly per- ceived and up to four points for the strength of the per— ceived non-verbal message. The messages were randomly assigned. The tapes were randomly edited so that the panel had no clue as to whether a student was performing before Or after the treatment. Change in non-verbal skill was taken as the difference between beginning-of-course and end-of- course scores as assigned by the panel of judges. Abilityyto reverse roles. This measure was taken from the empathy portion Of the Truax scales (see Appendix E). One could score from one to five, representing a range from almost complete disinterest in another person to the ability to perceive unspoken feelings as well as overt characteristics of the other person. §plf awareness. This variable was a composite congru- ence measure using all of the Truax scales. If self aware- ness is the condition of knowing how one is actually feeling and how he is being perceived by others, it follows that a legitimate measure of this is to compare his self rating with 113 the group's rating. The lower the difference across all four variables, the more accurate is his awareness. Again, the range of possible scores was from one to five. Regard for the value of equality. Using a modification of Rokeach's Value Inventory (1969), we were interested only in the ranked position in which the student placed "equality". Mention of that word was studiously avoided by the author throughout the treatment period. Professor Rokeach's work involves the releasing of cognitive dissonance about where one places equality (usually lower than his regard for his own freedom).1 We were anxious to see if placement of this value, "equality", would move without specific mention of the term, just by the result of the interaction experience. Dogmatism. We used Rokeach's nationally normed D-scale to assess dogmatism in both pre—tests and post-tests. Tplpgance for ambiguity. Budner's Scale for Intolerance for Ambiguity was used to assess where our students seemed to be both before and after with respect to this varia— ble. To reduce "demand effect" we took the liberty of labeling it a "complexity scale". Self esteem. Hunt's Scale for Low Self Esteem (1967) was used before and after the training period to assess any change in self esteem. Empathy, genuineness, warmth and Openness. These are all_elements of the Truax scales. Self and group.mean scores k .— , .L.; tMilton R. Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes and Values (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey Bass, Inc., 1969), pp. 168-178. 114 for each individual were reported on each variable for each student as described above. Leadership style and group treatment effect. In our research design, we were concerned about the effect of leadership style upon perceived changes in our variables of interest. We wanted to be sure that, as far as possible, treatment effects would be due to the training activities and not a function of the particular style of the group leader. Daniel B. Wile, Gary D. Bron and Herbert B. Pollack have designed an instrument to define leadership styles in group therapy and/or encounter group settings. Called the "Group Therapy Questionnaire" (GTQ) (see Appendix G) this instrument consists of twenty realistic situations with each situation being the stimulus for one of nineteen responses. When those responses are coded and put in ratio.form, they present a picture of directive versus non-directive, group centered versus individual centered, and confronting versus reassuring styles of leadership.1 We asked all facilitators to fill out this question- naire so that we could later correlate their leadership styles changes on the dependent variables. We used three continua of leadership styles. They were the result of col- lapsing five more detailed continua into non-directive versus 1Donald B. Wile, Gary D. Bron and Herbert B. Pollack, "The Group Questionnaire: An Instrument for Study of Leader- ship in Small Groups," Psychological Reports, 1970, 21. 115 directive, reassurance versus confrontation, and group centered-individual centered approaches. Problems Expected and Found It is important to note with regard to research design that no assumption of independence between subjects could be met. Although the students were given these instruments in separate envelopes and asked to complete them individual— ly, there was no independence of treatment. They shared the same group experience. Therefore, group mean scores are reported for all measures. This causes a severe reduction Of degrees of freedom in the analysis and statistical loss of discriminating "power". This is simply part of our design problem. There ypp independence of treatment between groups. It should also be noted that there is a ceiling effect on some of the variables. College of Education students start Off four ranks higher on "equality" in Rokeach's Value Inventory than do Michigan State students in general.1 On a twelve item scale, if a group"aVeraged 1.6 on a pre-treatment measure, the highest it could attain would be a 1.0, while if it started off at a 5.6, it would have much more room for improvement. The ceiling effect was a factor in the D Scale and on the Hunt and Budner Scales as well. It should also be noted that our population was expected to be more homogeneous than a complete cross section of MSU 1Rokeach, pp. cit., p. 169. 116 students. These instruments would not then discriminate as well in this population as they would in a larger and more heterogenous population. Statistically, we were looking at a relatively homogeneous segment from a wider and more variant population distribution. Because this was a pilot study, we were interested in getting many measures on each individual. From a statistical position, we overloaded ourselves. We have more measures than we have individuals within groups. We traded the like- lihood of getting statistical significance across all measures for the satisfaction of our curiosity. We are not sorry that we made this trade. Reporting ofyScores Test scores on each of these variables were recorded in two forms. Individual students' scores were averaged to- gether in their small groups to form raw group mean scores. These scores would be used in the treatment versus control analyses. With the assistance of Dr. Andrew Porter these raw group mean scores were converted into transformed standard scores for the repeated measures analyses. These scores-were .computed using the following steps: (1) performing a oneway analysis of variance across all groups for each variable, (2) pooling the mean square*within from pre and post treatment scores on the same variable, (3) taking the square root of the pooled quantity, and (4) dividing each raw group mean score by that product. 117 X /MSW Pre + MSW Post 2 We now had our scores for the repeated measures analy— ses arranged with a common metric. This would enable us to graphically portray all fourteen variables on the same axes. It also enabled us to compute analyses of variance across time, quarters, measures and groups. Expected:0utcomep When we began our study, we hoped that our treatment would show at least a monotonic effect across all measures. We knew, however, that an openness increased (as measured on the Truax scales) perceived warmth might very well decrease. We simply could not predict in which direction these Truax variables might move. We did expect strong correlations as follows: (a) intolerance for ambiguity with dogmatism (b) self esteem with perceived warmth (c) high regard for equality with high tolerance for ambiguity (d) Openness with non verbal communication skill (e) genuineness with self awareness The variables which we thought would change most marked- ly under the treatment condition were: (a) tolerance for ambiguity P~ Hard. ‘1... 118 (b) non verbal communication Skills (c) self esteem (d) empathy We expected that the variables most insensitive to treatment would be self awareness; regard for the value of equality, and openness. The study showed among other things that we lack enough data to make very good predictions about change in tolerance for ambiguity, self esteem and the Traux measures of warmth, genuineness and openness. Place Ofpthe Training Model in Future Experimentation It is important to note that this is a pilot study. NO presumptions of exhaustiveness are made. We noted on page five that there has been little study of within-training learning in cross cultural interaction. (Gael's study noted in Chapter Three was the only research found to be concerned with attitude change measures taken within the confines of training package.) At no place in this design have we had any legitimate theoretical bases to set criterion levels for our learning experiences. Some variables, such as self esteem and openness, may actually be curvilinear in their desired outcomes. The criterion.levels for self esteem and openness have yet to be established. fTherefore, we would do well to keep our model in.perspective as part of a larger body of continuing research. We shall need new models to address those variables not sig- nificantly effected by this model. 118a fie-39$:“ir. ‘- 5 zgéé§20bie¢cives ‘ ~ ~ .. ._ 7 ; ‘~ ‘T'Re—examine Set objec.tives'~ - _ Criteria - . Test against obserVed behsvxots in.rea1‘worldy ..... Design Produce Models Models FIGURE 4-7. System model for future training models. Having outlined the design for this training model, let us next look at the results which test data disclosed as we tested the model over three academic quarters. CHAPTER V TRAINING MODEL TEST RESULTS AND THEIR ANALYSES Upon enrolling the first students in our model training package in Winter Quarter, 1971, we began the evaluation .phase with a series of pre and post tests of our fourteen variables of interest. Our training model was designed to positively effect all fourteen variables. However, we were not really sure of how those variables would interact under treatment. We were not sure that we could achieve even a monotonic treatment effect across all fourteen variables. We did not know if our treatment would measurably change our test results in the desired direction to say nothing of whether or not these changes would be statistically signifi- cant. .For example, as one's Openness increased it might very well be that one's warmth as perceived by the group might decrease. Or if we increased self esteem, we were not at all sure that self awareness would also increase. Again, if we increased tolerance for ambiguity, it seemed that there might be~a chance that we would decrease perceived genuine- ness. We were hungry for the results from the tests. 119 120 Test Results The reader will recall that our study took place over three academic quarters. Our unit of analysis was the small group mean score on each variable. There were twenty eight experimental encounter groups, composed of a total of 288 students. The test data showed the following immediate results. Monotonic Treatment Effect There was an overall monotonic treatment effect in the desired direction for each of the fourteen variables. That is, the pre and post measures on all variables indicated change after treatment in the direction for which we hoped. Groppylmprovement by Variable Since we computed transformed standard scores for all group Observations, it is possible to present the change on each of those variables in a single histogram. Using our transformed standard scores, we can legitimately represent 1 These gains are gains as if they had a common base line. presented in Figure 5-1 on the following page. A further word is in order about the assumptions which »1ed us to consider the pre treatment scores of the Spring and Summer groups as legitimate control group scores for 1The-reader will find all raw scores, transformed standard scores, and the histogram for the growth on indi- vidual variables in Appendices I, J and H. 121 .mouoom Unspomum coeuommomnu cw connoumxo .mmnoum Houosouso mucozu mmouom muouomm cowuomuoucw coouusom mo some so nououm co mommouocu .Hlm HMDOHE min N1" H.H 02... m. m. h. w. m. d. m. N. p p t in p r b mmmooumsd mamm coflumowcoafiou HOQHO>IGOZ Amooumv mmoooomo Avenue unoccmmo Annoumvnueum3 AmaomvnuEHmk Amsoumv mmococflncoo Amaomv mmococwocow AnsonmvhsumaEfi Amammvmsummem seesaw meow mussoanem now oucmumaoa Emwumemon muaasovm How cummom manmnum> 122 Winter and Spring post treatment scores. We are saying essentially that these samples are from the same population, and that there is not significant difference between the pre test measures of the Winter and Spring groups, i.e., that there is no evidence of maturation or history effects. We also found that there was no significant difference between the post test measures of the Winter and Spring groups. We prove the above in our repeated measures analyses Vlater in this chapter where we show no significant differ- ence between times (pre and post) by quarters, between times by measures by quarters, between measures by quarters and between groups within quarters. For those who would rather look at the raw means and variances of these cells to judge the claim of equivalency we include the following two tables (Tables 5-1 and 5—2). In this section, we have attempted to show the levels of confidence with which we report treatment effects upon the variables of interest. We have summed up in advance how our analyses of the results caused us to accept or reject the null hypotheses that there were (1) no significant dif- ferences in group variances from a standard normal distribu- tion and (2) no significant differences in mean vectors ' -between treatment and control groups. "I’l‘ lllll‘lnI I‘ll “- 123 m¢MN.Ob mmam.al ohm¢.OI mmom.Hl mmmcmum3< mamm coaumu om~o.~m~ ommo.em~ sooa.oo~ omeo.mmm recesses Hanso> roz ssmo.m memm.m omom.m meo~.m ozone .maoccmoo mmoo.m emmo.m momm.m ooom.m meow .maosoooo semo.m mmom.m. oemm.m o>o¢.m moose .susums eemo.m oeao.m osmm.m. _ who~.m meow .sussms m¢me.m oomm.m mmoe.m - mmoo.m moose .mroeooasrmo moom.m mama.m omme.m sHNo.m «How .mmoooeaocoo some.m osem.m mseo.m mmmo.m moose .mrpmoem seam.m ommm.m oeme.m meme.m «Hem .msumoem semo.ms ommo.se sooa.oe shoe.ms smears meow enem.se memo.me mmms.~s ; omem.me suaomanem wormsosoe . msH~.mHH oom~.ems oooo.¢~s oma¢.-e sweetened seam.m Hmee.e oooo.m mHvH.e assesses osam> scosumose was douueoo com uaoeummse one aouuaoo use ossmanm> Dmouumom mowumm unououm seesaw unouuuom Houses unououm msflumm "1’ il awnhdscd HOHHcOO .m> ucoeucoufl .ncoez HHoU onoum 3mm .Hlm.aqm¢a 124 TABLE 5-2. Variances of Grand Means, Treatment versus Control Analysis First Phase Second Phase Value Equality 0.835497 1.209003 Dogmatism 71.746032 79.492857 Tolerance Ambiguity 12.642883 19.710866 Self Esteem 3.793479 14.524928 Empathy Self 0.179266 0.148218 Empathy Group 0.154961 0.082592 Genuineness Self 0.124670 0.107109 Genuineness Group 0.154196 0.078843 Warmth Self 0.160633 0.202000 Warmth Group 0.136458 0.082521 Openness Self 0.144784 0.063590 Openness Group 0.186849 0.086447 Non—Verbal Communication 1233.891531 1380.140177 Self Awareness 0.417598 0.211221 125 DECISION TO REJECT OR ACCEPT HYPOTHESIS THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL VARIANCES AND STANDARD NORMAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSES Treatment vs. Control > Repeated Measures Phase I Reject Phase I Reject Phase II Reject .. Phase II Reject DECISION TO REJECT OR ACCEPT HYPOTHESIS THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL MEAN VECTORS ANALYSES Treatment vs. Control Repeated Measures Phase I Accept Phase I Reject Phase II Reject Phase II Reject FIGURE 5—2. Decision matrix for null hypotheses. Analyses of Test Data These monotonic gains represent mean differences between pre and post measures. -However, they lend us no relative information until we test these gains to see if the gain on each variable, singly and collectively, is statistically sig— nificant. The fact that one variable had a very large gain may be nullified by a large measurement error. 126 The reader will recall that our original design problem (inability to randomly assign subjects to treatment or con- trol groups) led us to use the Spring quarter group scores on the pre-treatment test as a standard against which to compare the post-treatment scores on the Winter treatment group. The Summer quarter group scores on the pre-test were used as the standard of comparison for the post-treatment scores of the Spring treatment group. Thus the Spring group's test scores appear twice in this analysis, first as a control (pre test) for the Winter treatment group and second, as a treatment group (post test) to be compared with the Summer pre-treatment scores. This reuse of the Spring treatment group requires us to employ separate analyses of treatment versus control groups for Winter and Spring quarters (see model on next page). First Analysis (Treatment versus ContrpiL The Winter post—treatment scores and the Spring pre- treatment scores were compared with respect to mean perform- ance scores on each of fourteen variables. The purpose of this comparison was to determine whether there were differ— ences between the two self-selected groups of participants that could be ascribed to the treatment received by the »Winter participants. All fourteen variables were used in a single, simultaneous comparisOn of the two groups to avoid the redundancy that would be introduced by comparing the groups separately on the basis of each of fourteen highly TWO SEPARATE ANALYSES (1) (2) FIGURE 5-3. 127 TREATMENT CONTROL Model for analysis of Treatment versus Control groups. 128 related measures. The multivariate test of equality of the Winter post-treatment means and the Spring pre-treatment did not reveal a statistically significant difference be- tween the two groups (F=2.8114, P<<0.1299). While this was a surprising development it is felt to be a function of the smallness of the treatment cell. Later analysis of pre versus post measures on the Winter quarter showed a signifi— cance of P‘<.025. As we mentioned in chapter four, we lookedzat our test data from two continua: treatment versus control groups and pre versus post measures. The first phase takes the follow- ing format. Several different statistical criteria have been.pro- posed to determine whether two or more groups differ with 1 Since these criteria do respect to an array of variables. not always lead to the same conclusions, and statisticians differ as to the relative merits of the various criteria, four of the frequently employed criteria are cited. The multivariate F ratio showed P‘<.1299. If Roy's criterion is employed, the computed measure (9 = 0.8873) has an associ- ated probability, P<fi.1299, and supports retention of the null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment and control groups. .The use of Hotelling's trace criterion (1': 7.8721, 9<:0.1299) also supports retention of the null 1Dean K. Whitla (ed.), Handbook of Measurement and Assedsment in Behavioral Sciences (Reading, Mass.: Addison- 'Wesley, 1968). PP. 110-11. 129 hypothesis. Bartlett's Chi Square Test for Significance of Successive Canonical Variates is the single criterion which suggests rejection of the null hypothesis (7(2 = 24.0120, P<:0.0457). In view of the convergence of three Of the four most commonly accepted criteria for multivariate hypothesis tests to a single decision, that of retention of the null hypothesis, we will assert that no difference has been found between the pre treatment performance of the Spring quarter participants and the post treatment perform— ance of the Winter quarter participants. Since the overall multivariate test did not reveal dif- ferences between the treatment and control groups, the table of univariate and step-down-F-values is informative to us only in suggesting the extent of interrelationship among the fourteen variables. For example, if the treatment and con— trol groups had been compared solely with respect to the non- verbal measure, we would say that there was a difference between the groups (univariate F = 12.0602, P.410028): however, when this variable is considered in the context of the other twelve variables that precede it in the analysis, it is seen to contribute almost nothing to the detection of a difference between the treatment and control groups (stepdown F = .0211, P<:0.8894). This same relationship'xbetween univariate and stepdown F score) works in the Opposite direction as we shall see with the variable "self awarenEss" in the second step of the analysis of treatment versus control measures. 13o mo.odvm oooommmowmw .1 wo.ouvm mooommmowmw .1 3.0Vw ucoommmcmmw .1 I. .1 ma can a u Eopoonm mo mooumon mmwo.o seem.o romeo.o Homo.mm wwooomosm meow .sm «www.o mamo.o meromoo.o mooo.~m Honmo>ueoz .mm rmswo.o Nose.m ~mem.o memo.~ noose woosoooo .mm wees.o ewee.o sow~.o .aem~.m meow woooeooo .me wwmo.o omwm.e sam¢~o.o wwwo.w moose spasms .om weeo.o omww.m ormemo.o ewee.w meow spasms .w sewn.o oooo.~ wees.o aowme.o moose wooooemoooo .w omso.o swmm.o Nwww.o omom.o meow oworoemoeoo .e ewew.o Hwem.o mwmw.o ammo.o moose armosem .w owww.o wwow.o wemw.o .Mooo.o meow wroooew .w wwmo.o mooe.e arrwwoo.o cams.w eoooom meow .e wmww.o wew~.o wwmw.o .wwwm.o mumsmmnse .m «www.o emmo.o mwoe.o .osem.o somuosmoo .~ moom.o owmm.m Noom.o owmm.m someones oomo> .m case moon m m czopmoum cane anon m m ceamnm>dcb wdnmmum> mudfldfluflsw fiOHHSOh dd‘ OUGMHHONV NO mfinmdflflaw umhflh .mlm "Human”. 131 Second Analysis (Treatment versus Control) In this analysis we have more information with which to work. We have fourteen treatment groups instead of six. Data in this analysis are based on the observations of 166 people rather than 122, because of the higher registration of students in the course. And this time the F ratio for the multivariate test of equality of mean vectors is highly significant. It works out to be 4.3573 (with d.f. - l4, 7 our P value is less than 0.0289). See Table 5-4, on the following page, for all fourteen variables at one time. .Note in Table 5-4 that while the same thing that happened in the first analysis with non-verbal communication between the univariate F ratio and the stepdown F ratio, this time self awareness goes from a univariate F with Pd<.0001 to a stepdown F with P4<.0075e-highly significant. The variance of canonical variate 1 here is 8.7146. Roy's criterion (M=6, N=2.5) is .8971. Hotelling's trace criterion = 8.7146. Bartlett's Chi Square test for signifi— cance Of successive canonical variates = 29.5571 (d.f. = 14) (P<:.0088). The canonical form Of least squares estimates of variates effects = 5.851135. All of this suggests that with a more stable (higher degrees of freedom, less variance) treatment group we have more highly significant results. The Discriminant Function COefficients of the variable taken in standard order of presentation (with no thought to their ordering)is given in Table 5-5 on page 133. .DGMOHmmcmmn mm oa.nv onam> m m unom wwsu mo mosum poaflm m ca was» doom oomumuonusm meow "OQOZ mo. m oooommmowmw «11% mo. m mooommmommw as om. m oeoommmowmw .4. ON .H n .H.U 132 asaweoo.o smew.s roamooo.o wwwo.w~ woosomosa meow .sm some.o weee.o sswomo.o owow.e monso> :02 .mm omww.o oeom.o stw.o mmem.o ooomo wooerooo .NH mmmm.o wwwo.m swseo.o oaww.m meow wooesooo .HH -N~.O wseo.m wens.o oweo.o moose smears .om memo.o oses.w momw.o .mmeo.o mmow smears .w woes.o msmw.o eoom.o snow.m moose wwooormsooo .w oemm.o wao.m remaso.o osms.s meow owocoomoooo .e anew.o ~moo.o weo~.o some.m moose espouse .w wmwm.o owmw.m roowmo.o ovew.w mmow snowmen .w oeso.o wwmw.m aseoso.o owwe.s soooom meow .s owem.o moww.m, .eowo.o «awe.m mumswmnee .m moeo.o woww.e orsswoo.o mee~.w swmoosmoo .N wome.o omoa.o rrwwao.o onwe.w: someones oomo> .m acne mood m m czopmopm saga mood m m mucmuw>mcb manmmnm> moanwwua> cuouudom .ooauwuu> HO omnhancd pcooom .drm Manda 133 TABLE 5-5. Discriminant Function Coefficients, Fourteen Variables, Second Analysis Variable Raw Coefficient Standardized 1. Value Equality 0.296248 0.3257 2. Dogmatism -0.02214l —0.l974 3. Ambiguity -0.001917 -0.0085 4. Self Esteem -0.254098 —0.9684 5. Empathy Self -2.534410 -0.9757 6. Empathy Group 2.611634 0.7506 7. Genuineness Self 0.385265 0.1261 8. Genuineness Group -l.685188 -0.4732 9. Warmth Self 3.784016 1.7007* 10. Warmth Group -7.559594 —2.l716* 11. Openness Self -l.076483 -0.2715 12. Openness Group 2.122171 -0.6240 13. Non Verbal -0.002223 —0.0826 14. Self Awareness -2.948509 -l.3551* * The reader will note that when we take all fourteen vari— ables as a group, that warmth and self awareness account for the greatest amounts of variance. ' “ . ; 1...}-..fim‘. 134 Again, when we drOp down to six variables, our F ratio for the multivariate test of equality of mean vectors im- proves. Here F = 7.7623 (d.f. = 6, 15 and P is less than .0007) (see Table 5-6, on the following page). In the discriminant analysis for six variables, our variance of canonical variate 1 = 3.1049. Roy's criterion (M=2, N-6.5) is 0.7564. Hotelling's Trace criterion is 3.1049. This time Bartlett's Chi Square test for significance of successive canonical variates stays down (24.0072 with d.f. = 6, P<0.0006) . The canonical form of least squares estimates of variates X effects is 3.492551. In other words, when we select out those variables which the literature sug- gested would be most closely associated with effective cross cultural interaction, our significance jumps even higher. We should note that we are also now considering fewer observ- ations per group than people per group--a healthier statis— tical measure. Looking just at those six variables we see again how powerful is the variable of self awareness (see Table 5—7 on page 136) . The F ratio for the multivariate test of equality of mean vectors improves as we move down to four recorded variables (F=9 .8981, d.f.=4, 17 and P‘<.0003). Note the contribution of self awareness when all other variables are considered before it (see Table 5-8 on page 137)- 135 Ho. V m 0.35.. ucmummmcmmm mo.Uvm ouo£3 uncommmcmem k. as... .1 OH.V.m ouon3 DGMUHMHcmem .1 Aom tn n .méov emwm.o esww.m soowmo.o oeew.w meow mnoosem .w sw~o.o wwow.m arwwmo.o omwv.w someones oomo> .w ewmm.o osm¢.~ sss¢ooo.o mee~.w swmuosmoo .s memo.o mws~.o sewoo.o .mmwe.m momsmmnss .m omo~.o memm.m raeoso.o owwe.e soooom meow .N arsmooo.o wwwo.w~ sermooo.o wwwo.w~ woooomozs meow .m dose mmoq m m c300 moum Gaza moon m m mundum>mcb manmmwm> moanewus> xmm moan: documms> no mammascd pcooom .wlm wands L 3.73. {It‘s 136 TABLE 5-7. Discriminant Function Coefficients for Second Analysis, Six Variables Variable Raw Coefficient Standardized 1. Self Awareness 1.657408 0.7617* 2. Self Esteem 0.064739 0.2467 3. Ambiguity —0.016710 -0.0742 4. Dogmatism -0.031849 -0.2840 5. Value Equality -0.462884 -0.5090 6. Empathy Self 1.075294 0.4140 * . Note the contribution of self awareness. 137 mo.uvo .oooommmowmw ass wo.v.m .meoommmcmmw {.1 oive .oeoommmowmw k. AON .H u .m.vv meromoo.o s¢me.mm sermooo.o wwwo.w~ wowcomosm meow .e owem.o moww.m rosewoo.o mmoe.m momswmnem .m moso.o wowm.e aroswoo.o - mee~.w somuoemoo .m wwmo.o omwe.w rowwHoJo omos.w someones osmo> .m cone moon m m czopmoum Gaza mood m m oudmum>wcb manmmum> moanswus> Hsom .oocawus> Mo mmnhamcd pcooom .mlm Manda 138 Again, we note that in this ordering, self awareness is far and away the most powerful discriminator in explain- ing the variance of treatment versus control differences. TABLE 5-9. Discriminant Function Coefficients for Second Analysis, Four Variables Variable Raw Coefficient Standardized 1. Value Equality —0.514120 -0.5653 2. Dogmatism -0.021070 -0.1879 3. Ambiguity —0.048367 -0.2147 4. Self Awareness 11807291 0.8306* * Note the contribution of self—awareness. Here, the variance of canonical variate l was 2.3290. Roy's criterion (M=l, N=7.5) was .6996. Bartlett's Chi Square test for significance of successive canonical variates (21.6479, with d.f.=4) kept a low P value of less than .0003. The canonical form of least square estimates of variates X effects is 3.024813. §pmmspy ofyTreatment versus Control Analysis For the purposes of our training model and the theo- retical bases on which it was designed, the following observ- ations are presented: 139 (a) Self awareness (the variable with which we were most concerned) proved to be the most powerful discriminator and accounted for the most variance, particularly in the second analysis. (b) All fourteen variables were modified in the direc- tion for which we hoped, although some did not move as much as we would have liked. (c) Intolerance for ambiguity, as measured on the Budner Scale, proved to have been modified much less than originally anticipated. (d) Regard for the value of equality was modified con- siderably considering the high ceiling effect we had on our control groups. (e) Reduction of dogmatism proved more noticeable than we anticipated. The literature suggested that it would not move very much. (f) Self esteem showed considerable gain when all 14 variables were analyzed together but proved less important in the analyses of six and four variables. (g) Warmth as perceived by the group was a strong discriminator in the set of 14 variables. (h) The ability to communicate non-verbally had a high univariate F ratio in both analyses but seemed to account for little in the overall variance. Until this instrument is validated and normed, it is felt that it would have little use in future research. 140 (i) Empathy as perceived by the individual has note- worthy univariate F ratios in both treatment versus control analyses but contributed less than expected in the overall variance. (j) Genuineness as perceived by the individual seemed to discriminate well in the second analysis. It was rather disappointing as a discriminator (self and group). (k) Group Openness had a mildly significant step down F value on the first overall analysis but contributed less than expected to the variance in both analyses. (1) Going to four commonly accepted authorities we may sum up our confidence levels with the following table (see Table 5—8, on the following page). Pre versus Post Measurep (Repeated Measure Analysis) Two phases marked the pre versus post analysis. We used the Jennrich program for analysis of variance for repeated measures. This program will not take unequal cell sizes. We thus had to randomly select six out of fourteen Spring groups to match the six Of Winter quarter. However, once we established that there was no signifi- cant effect by quarter, we could pool all groups, on pre test scores and all groups on post—test scores without regard to the academic quarter in which the measurements were made. The phases of this analysis of variance are reported using the following model (Figure 5-4, on page 142). 141 mooo.v wowo.v ox o.mmomumom mooo.v mmmo.v momma m.mcwaaouom mooo.v mmmo.v cOmHouwuo m.mom mooo.v wmmo.v OHHdm m mundnm>wudaz e oooo.v hemo.v ax m.uumaummm hooo.v mmmo.v momma m.mcmaaouom hooo.v mmmo.v GOmHoumuo m.mom hooo.v mmmo.v Owudm m museum>wuaoz o mmoo.v smeo.v ox m.uuoauuom mmmo.v mmmH.v Amuoom mod cos we momma m.mcmaaouom ww~o.v wwmm.v commoommo o.mom ww~o.v wo~m.v amour m ooomuo>momoz an omega Ocooom cunnm unuem Duos moanmmum> osmo> e oomo> a mo sonssz monhdccd Honucoo mouuo> possusoua ca ouosUwumcmmm mom ounce usom .oalm mqmda PHASE ONE WUHER SPRING PHASE“TWO FIGURE 5-4. 142 PRE POST Pre versus Post measures. g. 513% 143 The first phase of the analysis showed the following results (see Table 5-11 on the following page). Seeing that there is no significant difference between Winter and Spring quarters on pre test measures and post test measures, we are free to restore the group scores which we had to ignore in order to keep equal cell sizes, and to test again for the strength of the differences of time (pre and post) and measures (1-13).1 We now had the pre and post measures from all twenty treatment groups. Using a format by Jerome L. Myers2 for the analysis of variance for a two factor repeated measurements design, we proceeded to test again for the main effect of Time. In this analysis, we are even more confident of the significant difference between timel and timeé. Our probability of chance related difference went from less than .025 to less than .005. Measures and the interaction of measures by times also had lower p values. A note is also in order about the Greenhouse and Geisser conservative F tests. If the first phase of the pre vs. post analysis of variance could meet this conservative test, we could avoid even having to examine the equality of 1It should be mentioned that self awareness was drOpped from consideration in both these phases because it is made up of the differences from each of the Truax pairs. To keep it in the analysis would have exaggerated our pre-post dif- ferences and possibly obscured the influence Of other varia- bles. 2Jerome L. Myers, Fundamentals of Experimental Design (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1967), p. 171. : eel. 144 omvwmd 033 QHM09 .m 0>H¥M>H¢QCOU HOMQM09 0G” UQSOSHHTTHU .4. Hmm.om NH nueuumsv Ge laud? mmooum x nonemoofi x nosme on .m.z mmo.a mnm.m~ NH muouusou x mongoose x mafia weapons: x seams .m.z Hmm m¢m.ma ma mmvpusov x couscous wmo.v a wmm.w wm~.wem mm mmmmmmmm hem.ma H muopumsd canum3 mmoouw x moses Ame .m.z Hen. 0mm.ma H . muouumov x moses wmo.v w «we.w sww.m~m H lowed coo omsv oosme omsouo omnums emm.ma OH muouumou aflnum3 mmoouw on .m.z mam. mm~.¢H H muoummoa -. mmdouw demanmm sooooummmsmmw ammom m we .m.o nomuommo> mo woomsow madam umuwm .moudmsoz pounmmmm .oUGMMHm> mo omnhamad .Hdrm mqmda 0‘! . 145 co—variances in our off diagonals. Briefly this meant we used.the following degrees of freedom instead of the usual (see Table 5-12). TABLE 5—12. Conservative Degrees of Freedom, First Analysis Source Regular ’ Conservative d.f. d.f. Quarter 1 1 Group within Quarter 10 10 Measure 12 1 Quarter by Measure . 12 1 Measure by Group within Quarter 120 10 Time (pre~and post) 1 1 Quarter by Time 1 1 Time by Group within Quarter ‘10 10 Measure by Time 12 1 Quarter by Measure by Time 12 1 Measure by Time by Group within 120 10 Quarter Summary of Pre Treatment verpps POpp Tgeatment Analysip It is felt that these second results should be weighted along with the first treatment versus control analysis and that the resultant conclusionwmust be that there was a sig- nificant main effect between pre and post measurements of the model as a whole (see Table 5-13 on the following page). 146 .conn ouo3 mummy m o>wumhuomcou Homomoo can endoscoouo ¥ mmm.om mmm masouw x noses x moHommoz wmo. v o sem.w wow.wsm mm ooEmm x monsoooz mm¢.Hm mNN nouonmoz x mmoouo moo. v m moe.aa mmo.omm NH sensuous omo.hv ma moses x nmsouw woo. v w www.mm wem.eww m looom one ones moses «mocooemwcmmm m monmovm coo: .m.c coaumflum> mo moOHoOm nauseous pounomom .oocswus> Ho nmmmascd ccouom .maum mqm