Examining the Development of Intercultural Maturity Among

College Students

Rosemary J. Perez, Woo-jeong Shim

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 61, Number 4, Jul-Aug

2020, pp. 405-421 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2020.0048

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/762183

[ Access provided at 7 Dec 2021 11:44 GMT from University of Manchester ]

Examining the Development of Intercultural
Maturity Among College Students
Rosemary J. Perez   Woo-jeong Shim
Using comparative case study methods, we ana­
lyzed longitudinal data from the Wabash National
Study of Liberal Arts Education to examine if
and how 23 college students’ capacities for inter­
cultural maturity (ICM) changed over the course
of their college experiences. Those whose capacities
increased often had immersion experi­ences wherein
they were able to sustain contact across differences
in culture and/or socially constructed identities.
Moreover, they also had multiple experiences
of exploring one socially constructed identity
(e.g., race, class) that high­lighted one domain
of development (i.e., cognitive, intra­personal,
inter­personal). In contrast, partici­pants who
maintained, but did not increase or decrease, their
capacities for ICM had experiences wherein they
explored multiple socially constructed identities
and cultures across all domains of development.
 
Many scholars have argued that higher edu­
cation in the US should enhance students’
cul­tural competency if they are to effectively
engage across differences in socially constructed
iden­ti­ties, values, and beliefs and work together
to improve society (American Association of
Colleges and Universities, 2007; Bowen, 1999).
In service of this aim, researchers have examined
the educational practices and condi­tions that
increase students’ awareness of other cultures
and their openness to diversity (Bowman,
2012; Bowman & Park, 2015; Engberg, 2004;
Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Shim
& Perez, 2018). This scholarship has enhanced
Rosemary J. Perez is Associate Professor of Higher Education and Student Affairs at Iowa State University. Woo-jeong
Shim is Assistant Professor of Education at Hannam University. Support provided by the Center of Inquiry in the
Liberal Arts at Wabash College and the National Center for Institutional Diversity at the University of Michigan.
July–August 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 4 405
educators’ understandings of how to create
interventions and campus environments that
foster opportunities to engage across difference;
however, educators have limited insight into
how individuals make meaning of these
experiences or what this might indicate about
their developmental capacity to understand
and interact across differences in socially
constructed identities, values, and beliefs.
With this in mind, King and Baxter
Magolda (2005) created a multidimensional
framework that described the development
of intercultural maturity (ICM). Their model
integrated theories of human development
(e.g., Kegan, 1994) and intercultural sensitiv­
ity (Bennett, 1993) to illustrate increasing
complexity across the cognitive, intrapersonal,
and interpersonal domains of development as
individuals cultivate their abilities to under­
stand and interact across cultural differ­ences
and socially constructed identities. Although
King and Baxter Magolda did not define
culture explicitly, their model was consistent
with Bennett’s (1993) work on intercultural
sensitivity, which addressed multiple socially
constructed identities (e.g., race, ethnicity,
gender, class, religion, sexual identity, ability)
and framed culture as shared practices, histories,
experiences, beliefs, and values among a group
of people. King and Baxter Magolda’s model
described the features associated with increasing
complexity at the initial, intermediate, and
mature levels of ICM. Notably, their work was

theoretically rather than empirically grounded.
Acknowledging this limitation, Perez,
Shim, King, and Baxter Magolda (2015)
utilized Wabash National Study of Liberal
Arts Education (WNS) data to examine the
extent to which students’ interpretations of
their intercultural experiences reflected the
developmental trajectory described in King
and Baxter Magolda’s (2005) ICM model.
Their findings were consistent with the over­
arching developmental trajectory, described by
King and Baxter Magolda, in which students
demon­strated increasingly complex ways
of under­standing cultures (i.e., cognitive),
socially constructed identities (i.e., intra­
personal), and interactions across cultural
differences (i.e., interpersonal). Additionally,
Perez et al. extended the theory by identifying
additional features within various levels of the
ICM model and describing transitional phases
between some levels of the original model.
Although the models described in King
and Baxter Magolda (2005) and Perez et al.
(2015) have added to our understanding of
how educators might conceptualize ICM,
this work did not use empirical data to
explore if and how students increased their
capacities for ICM during college. We sought
to extend the work of Perez et al. by using
WNS data to examine the following questions:
How do students’ developmental capacities
for ICM change over time, if at all, across
their intercultural experiences? What factors
influence shifting or maintaining students’
developmental capacities for ICM?
Literature Review
Prior research on ICM and intercultural
effectiveness have been focused on identifying
what constitutes the capacity for ICM and how
this capacity could be assessed. This stream of
research mirrors what Spitzberg and Changnon
(2009) referred to as a compositional model
406 Journal of College Student Development
Perez & Shim
of intercultural competency in their exten­sive
review of intercultural literature. Compo­sitional
models feature hypothesized compo­nents of
inter­cultural competence without detailing how
these components are related to each other. These
models represent lists of relevant traits, charac­
teristics, and skills assumed to be productive or
constitutive of effective intercultural interaction.
For example, Deardorff (2006) attempted to
delineate empirically grounded components
by adopting a Delphi methodology in which
23 intercultural experts were asked to invoke
their conceptual perspectives and theories of
intercultural competence. Synthesizing experts’
conceptions of intercultural competence,
Deardorff revealed a pyramid model of inter­
cultural competence where requisite attitudes,
knowledge, and skills in the lower levels of
the pyramid produce desired internal and
external outcomes in the upper levels. In other
words, effective behavior and communi­cation
in intercultural situations are achieved by
acquir­ing (a) appropriate attitudes such as
respect, openness, and curiosity, (b) critical-
think­ing skills that enable the acquisition and
evaluation of appro­priate cultural knowledge,
and (c) global perspectives and the ability to
understand other worldviews.
Similarly, Merrill, Braskamp, and Braskamp
(2012) worked to develop an assess­ment tool for
intercultural outcomes. They postu­lated that the
acquisition of cultural attitudes (e.g., desire to
interact with diverse others), knowledge, and
skills (e.g., emotional comfort) were essential
to effective and appropriate intercultural com­
mu­ni­cation. What is distinctive in the assess­
ment framework they developed is that more
com­plex epistemological processes, identities,
and interpersonal relationships should con­
trib­ute to the achievement of mature inter­
cultural outcomes. As a result, their Global
­Perspective Inventory (GPI) measures both the
development and acquisition of intercultural
outcomes within three dimensions: cognitive,
Intercultural Maturity Among College Students
intrapersonal, and interpersonal. For example,
the cognitive dimension measures how people
know about other cultures (i.e., development)
as well as what they know about other cultures
(i.e., acquisition). The development of one’s own
cultural identity in the intrapersonal dimension
and the level of commitment to interdependent
living and the common good are assessed along
with acquisition of affect and emotional skills.
The framework for the GPI (Merrill et al.,
2012) was partly informed by the constructivist
developmental perspective (Kegan, 1994;
Piaget, 1954), which asserts that indi­viduals’
abilities to interpret and make mean­ing of
their experiences develop over time toward a
more adaptive and complex construction of
meaning. Kegan (1994) argued that individuals’
capac­ities to set their under­standing apart from
externally prescribed cultural assumptions is
requisite to entertain competing constructions
of cultures as valuable and to create respectful
and interdependent relationships across differ­
ence. This capacity is self-authorship: the ability
to coordinate external influences with internally
defined beliefs, identities, and social relations.
Intercultural research grounded in the
constructivist developmental tradition maps
changes in the elements of ICM or inter­
cultural effectiveness across different levels
of development, which often represent stages
of maturity through which intercultural
competence is hypothesized to evolve. For exam­
ple, Bennett’s (1986) model of intercultural
sensitivity describes developmental shifts in
the complexity of cultural perspectives, moving
from an ethnocentric perspective (three
stages) to an ethnorelative perspective (three
stages). On the continuum of ethnocentrism
to ethnorelativism, people who were closer
to ethnocentric orientations were likely to
avoid cultural differences, either by denying
their existence, by raising defenses against
them, or by minimizing their importance.
In contrast, as individuals move closer to
July–August 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 4 407
ethnorelative perspectives, they are likely to
seek other cultural perspectives by accepting
differences, by adapting perspectives to take
differences into account, or by integrating the
whole concept of difference into a definition
of identity. The transition to more complex
ethnorelative stages depends on acquiring
the abilities to shift cognitive and behavioral
frames of reference, both of which require
the cognitive complexity to have at least two
cultural perspectives at the same time.
Chávez, Guido-DiBrito, and Mallory
(2003) made a similar case in their model
of individual diversity development, which
describes stages of increasing sophistication in
how people understand many dimensions of
diversity (e.g., race, gender, class). They posited
that individuals could progress toward maturity
in any identity dimension through periods of
unawareness, dual awareness, questioning and
self-exploration, risk-taking, and integration.
The progress toward integration involves anxi­
ety and stress; thus, it is crucial to create a safe,
supportive environment to assist individuals in
questioning their own culture and exploring
cultural differences.
While the theoretical models previously
discussed describe the progression of inter­cul­
tural capacities, researchers have empirically
examined how differing intercultural capacities
manifest during intercultural contact. King,
Baxter Magolda, and Massé (2011) used
WNS data to examine college students’
responses to diversity experiences where they
felt uncomfortable interacting with peers.
Analyzing 55 experiences reported by 49
students at 6 institutions, King et al. (2011)
found three types of reactions that were
manifested at different levels of developmental
complexity for ICM across these experiences
(King & Baxter Magolda, 2005). Students who
displayed the initial level of ICM generally
reported feeling “stuck” or unsure of how
to respond. For these students, interaction

with diverse peers was generally threatening
and was considered something to be avoided.
Some students at the initial level of ICM were
immobilized by interactions across cultural
differences. The second group demonstrated
the intermediate level of ICM and were prone
to continuing to explore differences. Although
these students were not quite sure how to
resolve their uncomfortable feelings, they
did not shy away from diversity and chose to
question their cultural beliefs in an attempt to
resolve their discomfort. Finally, the third group
reframed their perspectives to reflect capacities
associated with the advanced level of ICM.
King, Perez, and Shim (2013) also used
WNS data to examine students’ intercultural
experiences, but they took a comprehensive
approach to examining college students’
responses in any intercultural setting. They
analyzed 207 intercultural experiences from
161 college students at 6 higher education
institutions and found that intercultural
learning occurred when students encountered
otherness, meaning experiences and voices that
represented cultural perspectives other than
their own. Furthermore, feelings of safety were
important in sustaining intercultural learning
and were fostered by environmental supports
(e.g., instructors, peers). King et al. (2013)
also found that participants displayed many
approaches to intercultural learning, with
varying degrees of complexity and agency that
ranged from simply listening and watching to
deeply empathizing with others. These findings
reaffirmed the relevance of developmental
complexity to mature, effective intercultural
interaction and learning.
Collectively, these studies provide useful
frames of reference as well as empirical evi­dence
that developmental complexity is necessary
for mature, mutually beneficial intercultural
interactions. Analyzing cross-sectional data,
however, does not reveal how much or how
wide the scope of intercultural development
408 Journal of College Student Development
Perez & Shim
is and whether or how much variation exists
in the patterns or directions of change.
Development, by definition, is a longitudinal
process, and to understand the cultivation of
ICM, it is necessary to map out the patterns of
change empirically by conducting longitudinal
analyses. Consequently, this study spotlights
college students’ longitudinal narratives across
their intercultural experiences and extends the
line of research on intercultural development
in ways that attend to the hypothesized
direction and features of development.
Theoretical Perspective
This inquiry was rooted in the constructivist
developmental tradition (Kegan, 1994; Piaget,
1950). It was constructivist in that we were
interested in how individuals made meaning
of their experiences and, in so doing, how
they constructed their realities (Crotty, 1998).
Our work was also developmental in that we
sought to understand if and how individuals’
capacities to make meaning of cultural
differences increased in complexity over time.
Both the original (King & Baxter Magolda,
2005) and revised models (Perez et al., 2015)
of ICM reflect constructivist developmental
assumptions in that they illustrate increasing
complexity in how students make meaning of
cultural differences (i.e., cognitive), their own
socially constructed and cultural identities (i.e.,
intrapersonal), and their abilities to interact
across cultural differences (i.e., interpersonal).
These models also reflect the assumption that
cultural competence and effective interactions
across cultural differences require maturity in
the cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal
domains of development. In both models of
ICM, individuals shift from viewing socially
con­structed identities and cultures as mono­
lithic and characterizing others’ perspectives as
strange or wrong to holding nuanced views of
and appreciation for other cultures. Moreover,
Intercultural Maturity Among College Students
individuals develop increased awareness of their
identities as socially constructed and of how
social systems affect people’s lived experiences.
At the initial level of ICM, individuals
tend to view other cultural perspectives as
wrong, or they may root their understanding
of other cultures in stereotypes. Moreover,
they may lack awareness of their own social
identities and privileges and may conform to
dominant norms without questioning them.
Individuals at the initial level of ICM also tend
to have relationships with those who share
their socially constructed identities, and they
may lack awareness of how social systems shape
and constrain individuals and groups.
As individuals enter the transitional phase
between the initial and intermediate levels of
ICM (Perez et al., 2015), they express more
curiosity about other cultures; however, they
tend to minimize cultural differences and
struggle to make sense of multiple cultural
perspectives existing concurrently. In this
transitional phase, they begin to explore
their own socially constructed identities and
may start to feel tensions between how they
define themselves and how others view them.
Within relationships, individuals begin to
“suspend judgment when interacting with
others across difference” (Perez et al., 2015,
p. 767), and they start to recognize the impact
of social systems on others; however, they
often express a need for others’ approval and
are highly concerned about making mistakes
when interacting across cultural differences.
When individuals move into the inter­
mediate level of ICM, they begin to view
cultures as having more complexity (e.g.,
not mono­lithic, influenced by political and
histor­ical contexts), are able to see the value
of multiple cultural perspectives, and start to
create their own means of sorting through
various cultural perspectives. Furthermore,
they tend to engage in more exploration of
their own socially constructed identities and
July–August 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 4 409
values while concurrently recognizing the
value of others’ cultural perspectives. Within
relationships, individuals at the intermediate
level of ICM are increasingly willing to interact
with others across difference, to acknowledge
both cultural similarities and differences, and
to consider the ways in which social systems
affect themselves and others.
As individuals transition between the
intermediate and mature levels of ICM, they
begin to explore “how to challenge overt acts
of oppression and how to act as an advocate”
(Perez et al., 2015, p. 768). Once they are
more firmly within the mature level of
ICM, individuals are better able to cultivate
interdependent relationships that acknowledge
and value cultural differences. Moreover, they
are better able to understand how society is
(re)organized to create and sustain inequity,
which may in turn increase their willingness
to advocate for others’ rights. Within the
mature level of ICM, individuals are better
able to use multiple cultural perspectives.
They also have a firmer sense of self that
includes an understanding of their own socially
constructed identities, values, and beliefs.
Method
We utilized data from the WNS, a large-scale
mixed-methods study that addressed the
institutional practices and student experiences
that were significant to the development of
self-authorship (Baxter Magolda & King,
2012; Kegan, 1994) and growth related to
seven liberal arts outcomes (King, Kendall
Brown, Lindsay, & Van Hecke, 2007).
Wabash National Study of Liberal
Arts Education Methodology
To explore the development of ICM, our study
drew upon WNS longitudinal interview data.
We were particularly interested in interview data
related to the intercultural effectiveness liberal arts

outcome, which was defined as “knowledge of
cultures and cultural practices (one’s own and
others’), complex cognitive skills for decision
making in intercultural contexts, social skills
to function effectively in diverse groups, and
personal attributes that include flexibility and
openness to new ideas” (King et al., 2007,
p. 5). Although the WNS was not intended for
explicit examination of ICM, we believed that
data related to intercultural effec­tive­ness would
yield insights about how students made meaning
of experiences that provided oppor­tunities to
engage across cul­tural differences or to explore
their socially constructed identities more deeply.
The WNS interviews were collected
from students at 6 colleges and universities.
These institutions consisted of 4 small private
colleges, 1 mid-sized private university, and
1 large public university; 2 were Hispanic-
serving institutions, and 1 enrolled 50%
African American students. Interview partici­
pants were selected from those who com­
pleted the quantitative survey component
of the WNS and indicated their willingness
to be interviewed.
A sample of 315 students were interviewed
in Fall 2006 (Year 1) of which approximately
33% were racially minoritized (i.e., African
American / Black, Asian / Asian American,
Latino/a/x, Native American, Pacific Islander,
or Multiracial), and 54% were female. WNS
researchers interviewed 228 of these partici­
pants again in Fall 2007 (Year 2), 204 in Fall
2008 (Year 3), and 117 in Fall 2009 (Year
4). The WNS demographic information was
initially collected in the quantitative survey by
asking students to select only one cate­gory for
race/ethnicity (nonresident alien; White, non-
Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; Asian
/ Pacific Islander; American Indian / Alaska
Native; race/ethnicity unknown). During
the qualitative data collection in Fall 2008,
participants were given another opportunity
to report their race/ethnicity background in a
410 Journal of College Student Development
Perez & Shim
way that allowed them to select all categories
that applied to them. These combined data
sources provided a more complete picture of
participants’ demographic information.
The WNS annual interview was semi­struc­
tured and was organized into three segments
to elicit information about the conditions
that foster growth on the seven liberal arts
outcomes and to assess students’ approach
to meaning making or their capacities for
self-authorship (Baxter Magolda & King,
2012). The opening segment of the interview
explored students’ background characteristics
and personal history. The second and most
salient portion of the interview elicited the
educational experiences that students regarded
as key to their development. Specifically,
students were asked to describe their under­
standing of important experiences and how
these experiences affected them. The third
segment asked respondents to synthesize their
experiences. Interviews lasted 60–90 minutes
and were transcribed verbatim. Participants
were compensated $30 for each interview.
After the data were collected, members of
the WNS research team created two summaries
of each interview. The first summary (Phase 1)
contained an overview of the student’s back­
ground, a description of each experience
the participant described as significant, and
information about the effects of the experience
on the student and the relationship of the
effects to the WNS outcomes. In contrast,
the second summary (Phase 2) assessed the
student’s capacity for self-authorship, which
was described across domains of development
using the 10-position model developed by the
WNS team (Baxter Magolda & King, 2012).
Analytic Sample
For this analysis, we used purposeful sampling
(Patton, 1990) to select WNS participants who
had the potential to provide rich narratives of
their intercultural experiences and evidence of
Intercultural Maturity Among College Students
longitudinal shifts in their meaning making of
these experiences. We used two criteria. First,
we selected those participants who described
3 or more intercultural experiences as being
important to them over the course of their
participation in the WNS study. Second,
because of our interest in the development of
ICM, our sample included only those who
participated in WNS interviews over multiple
years. To identify participants, we used the
experiences from the Phase 1 summaries that
were identified by members of the WNS research
team as being relevant to the intercultural
effectiveness outcome. Our sampling strategy
yielded an analytic sample of 23 students from
5 institutions; 22 participants attended a small
or midsize private institution, and 1 attended
a large public university; 10 were racially
minoritized; and 12 were female (see Table 1).
Researcher Positionality
As scholars who are utilizing a constructivist
theoretical framework and methodology in
our research, it is imperative that we examine
how our socially constructed identities and
lived experiences influence how we have made
meaning throughout the research process.
Perez is a second-generation, middle-class,
heterosexual, cisgender Filipina American
woman who was raised and educated in pre­
domi­nantly and historically White environ­
ments. She was a member of the WNS
research team and was actively involved in
collecting and analyzing these data for several
years. Shim is a middle-class, heterosexual,
cisgender Asian woman. She was born and
raised in an Asian nation and sojourned in the
US for a decade to pursue higher education
and her professional career. She was also a
member of the WNS research team and was
engaged in data analysis over 10 years. Our
experiences sensitized us to the experiences of
students who were minoritized within their
institutional contexts and who were trying to
July–August 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 4 411
navigate White, patriarchal, and individualistic
cultural norms. Our extensive experience with
the WNS made us familiar with the data and
the institutional contexts in which students
were embedded; this aided in our efforts to
understand students’ experiences and how they
made meaning of them.
Data Analysis
We utilized constructivist comparative case
study methods to examine our analytical
sample (Merriam, 1998). Due to the nature
of our research questions, case study methods
were appropriate for our inquiry since they
are designed to create “an intensive, holistic
description and analysis of a bounded pheno­
menon such as a program, an institution, a
person, a process, or a social unit” (Merriam,
1998, p. xiii). We defined each participant in
our analytic sample as a case, and we engaged
in comparison across cases to better understand
the development of ICM.
To create each case, we first used the refined
ICM model (Perez et al., 2015) as a guide to
independently review students’ longitudinal
interviews in order to assess their levels of ICM
in each year of the study and to determine
the dimensions of ICM that were most
prominent across their experiences. Then, we
used these longitudinal assessments to deter­
mine if participants increased, decreased, or
maintained their demonstrated level of ICM.
We reviewed the independent assessments of
each student, and any discrepancies in coding
were discussed to reach consensus about the
pattern of development we observed.
Then, we used a constant comparative
approach to generate insights across cases
(Charmaz, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Speci­fically, we examined any patterns with­in
and across those participants who displayed
similar devel­op­mental trajectories: (a) those who
increased their ICM capacities and (b) those
who maintained their ICM capacities. In
 Perez & Shim

Table 1.
Participant Demographics, Patterns of ICM Development, and
Types of Intercultural Experiences
Pattern in ICM
Pseudonym Race Sex Development Types of Intercultural Experiences
Asian
Archita Female Increase Interpersonal contact, cultural events
(International)
Beatriz Hispanic Female Increase Service experiences, classes, study abroad

Calvin White Male Increase Interpersonal contact, study abroad

Helen White Female Increase Study abroad, diversity workshop, classes

Irene Asian Female Increase Student organization, classes, service experiences

Asian Student organizations, classes, study abroad, interpersonal
John Male Increase
(International) contact
Service experiences, friendships, classes, student
Juliana Black Female Increase
organizations, campus events
Kaitlyn White Female Increase Friendships, campus events, classes, study abroad

Kevin White Male Increase Service trips, friendships, study abroad

Interpersonal contact, classes, identity exploration, study
Melinda Hispanic Female Increase
abroad
Owen White Male Increase Interpersonal contact, service trips, study abroad, classes

Reese White Female Increase Classes, study abroad, service experiences

Ryan White Male Increase Internship, study abroad

Steve White Male Increase Student organizations, interpersonal contact, study abroad

Talyah White Female Increase Service trips, classes, friendships, internship, peer mentoring

Teke Hispanic Male Increase Student organizations

Tyler Black Male Increase Student organizations, study abroad

Daryl Black Male Maintain Interpersonal contact, classes, study abroad

Jade White Female Maintain Classes, interpersonal contact, study abroad

Asian
Keynes Male Maintain Interpersonal contact, classes, campus climate
(International)
Paul White Male Maintain Campus events, classes, study abroad

Samantha White Female Maintain Interpersonal contact, service trips, study abroad

Viola White Female Maintain Interpersonal contact, classes

Note. Friendships were defined as sustained, close relationships with peers. In contrast, interpersonal contact refers to interactions with
others that were brief and/or were superficial in nature. Here, identity exploration occurred independently, though it may have been
initially prompted by another experience (e.g., class readings, friendships).

412 Journal of College Student Development

Intercultural Maturity Among College Students
contrast to our initial coding, our exami­nation
of patterns within and across groups was more
inductive. We considered factors such as the
kinds of experiences students had, the domain
of development that was most salient within
the experience, and students’ domi­nant and
minoritized identities. Through­out our analytical
process, we wrote memos to document potential
themes and insights about the development of
ICM. Subsequently, we shared and discussed
our memos to find coherent themes related to
each pattern of development observed among
the participants in our analytic sample.
Study Limitations
Because of the design of the WNS and our
analytic strategy, our study has several limita­
tions. The WNS interview was designed to
elicit information about the experiences that
are important to participants and how they
make meaning of these experiences. Through­­
out college, students may have had inter­cultural
experiences that could provide infor­ma­tion
about their developmental capacities for ICM;
however, these experiences may not have been
important enough to share during the WNS
interview. As such, our analysis examined
the development of ICM among participants
who had salient intercultural experiences. Our
approach might also have provided different
insights if we had examined all of the transcripts
associated with the study to seek information
related to ICM or if we had used an interview
protocol that asked questions directly related to
ICM. Thus, because of the sampling approach
of the WNS and this inquiry, our study may
have limited transferability.
Trustworthiness
Recognizing the limitations of our work, we
attended to the trustworthiness of our research
using various strategies throughout the data
July–August 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 4 413
collection and analysis processes. During
data collection, WNS researchers’ prolonged
engagement with participants, over at least 4
years of college, enhanced the credibility of
our data (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2014;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As members of
the WNS research team, we participated in
extensive train­ing and met regularly to discuss
our analytic process, which contributed
to the dependability (Lincoln & Guba,
1985) of the Phase 1 coding from which our
sample was drawn.
For this particular inquiry, we met through­
out the research process and discussed our
emerg­ing insights as we coded these data.
When we disagreed about our assessment of
a particular parti­cipant’s capacity for ICM,
we discussed how the interview data reflected
our under­standings of the ICM model and
eventually came to consensus about our
develop­mental assessment. Thus, our efforts
to triangu­late our findings among multiple
researchers and our use of pooled judgment
enhanced the trustworth­iness of our work
(Jones et al., 2014).
Findings
Our analysis illuminated two patterns of devel­
op­ment (or lack thereof ) across partici­pants.
Specifically, we found that partici­pants either
increased or maintained their develop­mental
capacities for ICM over the course of the
study. In the descriptions of each pattern to
follow, we highlight (a) features of students’
experiences, (b) observations about domains
of development, and (c) insights related to
students’ socially constructed identities.
Increasing Demonstrated Capacities
for ICM
We found that most students in our sample
increased their capacities for ICM over the
course of their years participating in the WNS

(n = 17), although some gains were small shifts
(e.g., from initial level to a transitional level
between initial and intermediate). Notably,
most participants who made gains had at
least one immersion experience (e.g., study
abroad, service learning, internship) that put
them in sustained contact with people across
cultural differences. Since many of these
immersion experiences placed participants in
cultural contexts that were not their own, they
described feelings of otherness and a desire to
understand the cultural norms, values, and
perspectives in which they were embedded.
Moreover, they tended to engage in reflection
during and after these immersion experiences.
At the beginning of his second year
of college, Owen’s thinking reflected the
transitional level between the initial and inter­
mediate levels of ICM. Owen identified as a
White male and said this about his friendships:
I really like getting to know a wide
variety of people, not just hanging out
with people who are like me, or who are
like each other. . . . And [here] there are
people who—even if they’re not ethnically
different—have very differing viewpoints
and interests. And in high school, I hung
out with a lot of guys who were White,
upper middle class, Dutch.
Owen’s desire to actively seek opportunities
to interact with people different from himself
suggested that his thinking was more complex
than the initial level of ICM; however, he
had yet to think about the meaning of the
differences he encountered, and he thought of
them categorically, which suggested he had yet
to move into the intermediate level of ICM.
Nonetheless, his interest in meeting people
who were different from himself along with
his commitment to service led him to spend
two months volunteering in an orphanage in
Honduras before his third year of college. This
immersion experience prompted him to engage
in more sustained reflection upon his return:
414 Journal of College Student Development
Perez & Shim
I did whatever I could for these couple
of days to—to love them, to help them
out, to—just to be there for them, and
in the end it doesn’t really mean very
much, but I can’t beat myself up about
the fact that they’re in this really difficult
situation. . . . Now at the same time,
when I get back here and I’m living in
this first world culture of excess, I sort of
do feel responsible for it, because a lot of
my actions here are in some ways creating
poverty in places like Honduras and
making the problem worse, I feel. But I
really feel like for now I need to finish my
education. And so there will come a day
when it is more my responsibility, or at
least more in my control to do something
to—to hopefully better the lives of some
people in the developing world.
While in Honduras, Owen did his best to
“help” but understood that his efforts did little
to break the cycle of poverty. After returning
from his trip, he continued to reflect on his
experience abroad and felt tension about his
class privilege and the ways he contributed to
global poverty. Owen’s willingness to explore
his privilege and his recognition of the ways
in which others were affected by social systems
were reflective of the intermediate level of ICM.
Notably, participants who made gains also
tended to have multiple experiences exploring
one dimension of socially constructed identity
(e.g., race, class, religion). For instance, Talyah,
a White female, explored race and racism
over all 4 years of her college experience.
During her second year of college, she took
a racial and ethnic relations course where she
was immersed in a compositionally diverse
classroom; she “learn[ed] more from listening
to what people say in that class than reading
the book.” In addition to highlighting her
peers’ perspectives, this particular course led
her to think more about social systems:
I think learning about ethnocentrism has
been like the most interesting thing. Just
Intercultural Maturity Among College Students
realizing that no matter what, everyone
does like put their ethnos first and com­
pare everything to their own. And I think
just being aware of that and trying not to
is the best you can do, you know? But I
just think a lot of people don’t understand
that their culture is not like the only one.
Although she was very interested in the course,
Talyah hesitated to speak during discussions
since she did not want to get “all emotional
and worked up.” Instead, she talked to friends
and used her course journals to process
her thoughts. Talyah’s recognition of the
validity of multiple cultural perspectives, her
openness to others’ cultural views, her early
exploration of how social systems affect others,
and her concerns about how she would be
perceived by others were consistent with the
intermediate level of ICM.
As Talyah continued through college, she
explored how race interacts with other socially
constructed identities. During the interview
con­duc­ted in her third year of college, she
reflec­ted on several relationships that helped her
better under­stand how minoritized individuals
are negatively affected by racism, sexism,
hetero­sexism, and the intersections of these
systems of oppression. By her fourth year of
college, Talyah’s thinking was consistent with
the mature level of ICM. Reflecting on her
learning about race in courses, relationships,
and a trip to the Dominican Republic, she said:
Everything is about race to me now. . . . At
a certain point in time, I would have been,
like, “I’m color-blind. I love people for
who they are.” But I’ve realized, so much
of who we are is our culture and where we
come from, and part of that is race and,
how the world perceives us. And so I feel
like I’m super sensitive to race, and I just
kind of feel like I see how race is social
construction, but at the same time how
so many of our actions are based upon it,
and it’s subconscious. And I just see a lot
July–August 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 4 415
of offensive behavior among my peers, but
it’s, like, “What can I do?”
Continued exploration of race and racism
contributed to Talyah’s growth since she had
a better understanding of how race is socially
constructed and how it influences individuals’
experiences. Despite her increase in ICM,
Talyah struggled to translate her awareness
into action to disrupt systems of oppression.
While Talyah’s experiences suggested
that both the cognitive and interpersonal
domains of ICM were prominent in her
thinking, most participants’ learning was
centered on only one domain of development.
For example, the intrapersonal domain of
ICM was foregrounded as Irene continually
explored her ethnic identity through her
Filipina sorority and her Asian American
studies classes. In contrast, the interpersonal
domain predominated when Juliana, a Black
female, described her increased understandings
of her privileges as a US citizen after working
with Latinx immigrants across multiple
experiences. For Ryan, a White male, the
cogni­tive domain was prominent as he com­
pared and contrasted the multiple cultural
per­spec­tives he encountered in courses and
while studying abroad.
Among students who increased their capa­
cities for ICM over time, many of them had
salient minoritized or subordinated socially
constructed identities (e.g., Irene, Juliana).
Those with privileged identities in the context
of their intercultural experiences often had
their views and stereotypes challenged, which
led them to consider other cultural perspectives
more deeply (e.g., Owen, Talyah, Ryan).
However, unlike Owen and Juliana, several
of these participants did not recognize their
privilege or how social systems affect individuals
and groups in ways that grant privilege to some
and subordinate others.

Maintaining Demonstrated
Capacities for ICM
Although most students in our sample showed
an increase in their capacities for ICM, several
participants’ (n = 6) capacities for ICM neither
increased nor decreased over time despite
having multiple intercultural experiences. Four
participants who maintained the same level
of ICM began in the intermediate level; that
is to say, they had more developed capacities
for ICM than many of their peers who
entered college at the initial level. Participants
who maintained intermediate capacities for
ICM over the course of the study seemed to
strengthen this position by engaging in cross-
cultural immersion experiences that helped
them learn about various cultural contexts.
For example, Keynes was a student from
Bangladesh who came to study in the US
at an institution with a large international
student population. His collegiate experiences
consistently immersed him in cultures that
were not his own, and he described multiple
opportunities to learn about his fellow
international students’ home countries and
cultures. However, his intermediate capacity
for ICM did not increase given the constant
demands on him to navigate another culture.
Other participants who maintained their
capacities for ICM over the course of their
participation in the WNS tended to explore
multiple cultural differences and domains
of development across their experiences
rather than deepening their learning in a
particular area. For instance, Paul, a White
male, learned more about other cultural
perspectives by performing in plays during his
first year of college:
Well honestly it kind of broadened my
worldview. In terms of empathy, having
empathy and understanding for people and
knowing that not everyone’s brain works
the same, and you’ll step back and look
416 Journal of College Student Development
Perez & Shim
at a situation and what people are doing,
and sometimes we just generally make a
broad generalization and say, “I don’t really
understand what’s going on. Why are they
doing this? . . . If I was there, I wouldn’t be
doing this.” But being an actor and being
able to take yourself and put yourself in
different situations where you’ve become
someone else, you’re able to understand
why people do the things [they] do. . . .
Now that’s not to say that I have become
a complete cultural relativist and I say that
everything that everyone does is right and
correct, but I’ve come to the realization
that you can’t judge at face value.
Acting allowed Paul to regularly engage in
perspective taking, which in turn supported
his abilities to empathize with others and
to consider multiple cultural viewpoints.
Although he was not a “complete cultural
relativist,” he did broadly recognize the value
of others’ cultural perspectives and how they
may influence both thinking and behavior,
which was consistent with the intermediate
level of ICM. As a first-year student, while
acting allowed him to widely consider others’
cultural perspectives (i.e., cognitive domain),
Paul’s engagement in sustained reflection
during his second year of college helped him
to better understand his faith identity and
signaled exploration within the intrapersonal
domain of ICM. Then, his study-abroad
experience in London as a third-year student
prompted him to examine social class in
another cultural context:
There’s like a class system . . . even in the
accent. I had a friend from Manchester
and he had this accent that—that—that
slurred together. . . . It was kind of
like Cockney, . . . and then I had this
friend who was [a blueblood] from big,
old money. . . . It was something I had
never experienced before, you know. In
America, we value the independent spirit
in everyone who can pull themselves up
from the ground up, even though that’s
Intercultural Maturity Among College Students
not always true, but at least that’s the ideal
that we have. So experiencing where—
place where, well you’re born in this
family, so you have this. Obviously it’s not
as prevalent there as, you know, as it used
to be, but it’s that—that sense lingers.
Paul’s experience studying abroad highlighted
his willingness to engage across cultural
differences and to try to understand how
social and historical contexts affect individuals,
demon­strating the interpersonal domain of
ICM at the inter­mediate level. Although Paul’s
capacity for ICM did not change over time, he
may have solidified or strengthened his abilities
across the cognitive, intrapersonal, and inter­
personal domains of ICM at the intermediate
level. In doing so, he may be better equipped
to subsequently begin the move toward the
mature level of the ICM model.
Two participants began at the initial
level of ICM and did not appear to move
toward more complex thinking as they went
through their intercultural experiences. These
individuals seemed to have superficial contact
experiences and thought formulaically about
culture. Those who remained at the initial level
of ICM across their years of participating in
the WNS also did not view their privileged,
socially constructed identities as connected
to social systems. For example, Jade, a White
female, explored her Irish identity after taking
an Irish language course as a first-year student.
She seemed to embrace stereotypical and
mono­lithic thinking about her ethnic identity:
“I really think that because I’m Irish that it
really makes me more of a standoff person, or
someone who is more conflicting or, you know,
like the fighting Irish stereotype.” As a third-
year student, she studied abroad in Ireland and
lived with roommates from Belgium, France,
and Singapore. Jade noted that she was most
comfortable with the student from Singapore
since “our cultures were the most similar,” and
the other two students spoke French. Since
July–August 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 4 417
she felt comfortable with her roommate from
Singapore, Jade “made fun of her because the
way she would talk sounded like early ’90s
American slang.” Although Jade engaged in
exploring her own ethnic identity, sought out
an immersion experience, and had extended
contact with peers from other cultures, she
maintained formulaic thinking and preferred
to engage with people whose culture was
more similar to her own. Moreover, Jade’s
inclination to make fun of her roommate from
Singapore, based on her use of “’90s American
slang,” suggests that Jade may have viewed her
roommate as strange or different for speaking
English in ways that were different from what
she defined as “normal” English.
Discussion
Our longitudinal analysis of college students’
intercultural experiences provided insight into
the nature and the patterns of college students’
intercultural development. Two major patterns
of intercultural development were evident
in our analysis: increasing capacity for ICM
and maintaining existing capacity for ICM.
These findings support the direction and the
patterns of students’ intercultural development
hypothesized in the ICM model (King &
Baxter Magolda, 2005; Perez et al., 2015).
In other words, many participants in our
ana­lytic sample demon­strated increasing
com­plexity in their under­standing of other
cultures, their understanding of their own
socially constructed identities and how they
hold meaning in interactions with others, and
their abilities to build relationships with others
across cultural differences.
Notably, there were no participants in
our analytic sample whose capacity for ICM
decreased over the course of their participation
in the WNS. This was in contrast to Shim
and Perez’s (2018) quantitative analysis of
the WNS data, which suggested a decrease in

students’ intercultural learning over the first
year of college. One possible explanation for
this discrepancy might be the difference in
sampling between the two studies. Participants
in this longitudinal study were selected
for their prolonged, multiple reports of
intercultural experiences. Those who were open
to other cultures and were ready to grow (e.g.,
Owen) might have been more apt to report
their salient intercultural experiences, which in
turn may have contributed to the finding that
many participants increased their capacities for
ICM over time. Alternatively, students who
had negative intercultural experiences, as in the
study conducted by King et al. (2011), may
not have pursued additional opportunities to
learn across cultural differences and as such
were less likely to be in our current analytical
sample. With this said, it would be beneficial
for researchers to conduct longitudinal studies
to learn more about how negative intercultural
experiences affect students and their develop­
mental capacities for ICM. If educators are
to better support the development of ICM in
these individuals and in turn enhance their
capacities to contribute to a diverse society,
it is vital to gain better understanding of how
students respond when they consider diversity
experiences and educational opportunities
to be negative or deleterious (Bowen, 1999;
Gurin et al., 2002).
Consistent with prior research (Allport,
1954; Bowman, 2012; King et al., 2013;
Pettigrew, Christ, Wagner, & Stellmacher,
2007), having multiple intercultural inter­
actions and experiences emerged as an impor­tant
factor for promoting intercultural develop­ment
among our participants. Addi­tionally, our
analysis revealed that those whose immer­sion
experiences allowed for sustained explora­tion
of one facet of identity or who focused their
reflection on one dimension of develop­ment
appeared to increase their capacities for ICM
(e.g., Talyah). However, although it might
418 Journal of College Student Development
Perez & Shim
seem counterintuitive, multiple inter­cultural
experiences did not by themselves foster
developmental growth. Rather, when there was
sustained engagement with a particular form
of culture or social identity, it was the intensity
or the coherence of experiences that mattered.
A study using WNS data conducted by Perez
and Barber (2018) highlighted the importance
of integrative, reflective experiences as key
to integrating learning across intercultural
experiences. Thus, our study presents insights
across the research on diversity learning and
suggests that continued engagement with
diversity (Bowman, 2012; Bowman & Park,
2015; Engberg, 2004; Gurin et al., 2002),
coupled with integrative, reflective learning
(King et al., 2013; Perez & Barber, 2018), is
key to promoting the development of ICM.
Importantly, participants who displayed
increased ICM were likely to have minoritized
or subordinated social identities. Feminist
schol­ars have asserted that minoritized identity
provides a stand­point that allows them to better
under­stand how power structures operate in
society since they have deep knowledge of
inequity and how it operates in daily life
(Collins, 1986; Haraway, 1988; Harding,
1991; Hartsock, 1983). The transition from the
intermediate to the mature level of ICM hinges
on the recognition of the social struc­tures
that influence and perpetuate social inequities
(King & Baxter Magolda, 2005; Perez et al.,
2015). Minoritized participants’ lived experi­
ences have primed them to recognize how
power, privilege, and oppression operate;
these experiences may have supported their
readiness to engage in further experiences that
promote intercultural development. Similarly,
Perez and Barber (2018) found that students
who engaged in reflection that led to more
complex ways of integrating their learning
across intercultural experiences were often
minoritized in the context of these experiences.
Thus, being minoritized prompted many WNS
Intercultural Maturity Among College Students
participants to engage in the kind of sustained
reflection across experiences that contributes
to the development of ICM.
Taken together, the findings from our
study suggest several implications for practice.
First, providing sustained immersion and
contact across cultural differences is critical
to promoting development; however, some
immersion experiences, particularly those
that require extended time away from campus
(e.g., study abroad, campus exchanges), are not
always accessible to all students. For instance,
low-income students may not be able to engage
in immersion experiences because of the cost of
the trips and the potential restrictions on their
ability to work. Additionally, some students
may be less apt to participate if immersion trips
impede progress to completing their degree
due to the potential limited transfer of course
credits. With this in mind, educators should
consider an array of funding models to support
students’ engagement in immersion experiences
and work with faculty to explore opportunities
for providing students with credit for in-class
and cocurricular experiences while away
from their home campus. Educators can also
reimagine immersion experiences by creating
opportunities for sustained cross-cultural
interaction within local communities, which
may alleviate some students’ concerns about
the cost of trips and extending time to degree.
Second, as we previously noted, multiple
contact experiences across cultural differences
are insufficient for promoting the development
of ICM. With this said, as students interact
with people who may hold different socially
constructed identities, values, and beliefs, edu­
cators should intentionally create opportunities
for reflection during, after, and across these
experi­ences over the course of college. This
regular reflection may help students understand
the complexities of social systems, their iden­
tities, and their inter­actions with others across
difference. Engaging in regular reflection with
July–August 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 4 419
sup­port may be particularly valuable for students
who are privileged in the context of their inter­
cultural experiences or who have had negative
diversity experiences and are hesitant to re-
engage across difference. To facilitate reflection,
educators should consider using tech­nology to
prompt students to make meaning of their inter­
cultural experiences. For example, educators can
create opportunities for students to record their
ongoing insights in blogs or in video diaries, and
they can subse­quently return to these entries
with students to explore how their thinking
has changed over time. Some students already
document their inter­cultural experiences via
photos, videos, and blogs, and they may benefit
from additional prompts or discussions to
promote continued reflection during and after
their experiences. Thus, educators can leverage
students’ existing documentation to generate
additional opportunities for reflection.
Third, curricular and cocurricular experi­
ences are often offered in silos, and the connec­
tions between experiences may be difficult
for students to make without support. Many
campuses have programs (e.g., service-learning,
study abroad, living–learning communities)
that can provide opportunities for sustained
engagement with differences across cultures and
socially constructed identities; these oppor­tu­
nities may increase integrative learning (Barber,
2012) if structured to do so. For example,
living–learning communities that continuously
explore social justice and inclusion can leverage
multiple forms of intercultural experiences
(e.g., formal educational workshops, academic
courses, informal conversations with friends)
while providing opportunities for sustained
contact and reflection. Thus, fostering develop­
ment of ICM requires educators to consider
how they might provide students with the
opportunities and supports they need to
deeply explore a particular culture or socially
constructed identity; to reflect upon these
experiences; and to integrate their learning

in ways that may lead to more complex
understandings of themselves, of others, and
of the world. Moreover, it requires educators
to create authentic and sustained partnerships
within and between departments and divisions
(e.g., academic affairs and student affairs) if
they are to create alignment across students’
experiences and in turn foster the development
of ICM. Rather than focusing on individual
programmatic or course outcomes, educators
and students would be well served by thinking
about how the student experience at an
institution is collectively designed to support
the development of ICM as students progress
through their studies.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly,
edu­cators need to create intentional oppor­
tunities for students to learn about and
consider their roles in systems of oppression.
Although many participants in this study
were cognizant of differences in identities,
values, and beliefs, they did not consistently
consider the implications of these differences
within systems of oppression. To enhance
students’ under­standings of power, privilege,
and oppression, educators must explicitly
name these concepts and provide opportunities
for students to learn about how they operate
in various facets of their lives (e.g., classes,
organizations, relationships). Furthermore,
educators should support students as they
navigate the discomfort that comes with
420 Journal of College Student Development
Perez & Shim
under­standing their privilege and as they work
to contest insti­tutional policies and practices
that perpetuate oppression. In doing so,
educators may support students’ movement
toward the mature level of ICM and their
efforts to translate their thoughts into actions
that advance equity and inclusion.
In sum, this study shows advances in edu­
cators’ understandings of the development of
ICM. Educators can support this development
of ICM by creating opportunities for sustained
contact across difference that allow students
to deeply explore a particular facet of identity
and domain of development. Furthermore,
students benefit from regular reflection about
their intercultural experiences, particularly
reflection structured to support integration
of their learning across these experiences.
Creating educational environments that foster
ICM requires intentional scaffolding and
coordination among experiences. This time
and energy is well spent since more purposeful
and coordinated intercultural experiences may
ultimately contribute to students’ abilities to
understand cultural differences and systems
of oppression and to engage with others in a
diverse democratic society.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Rosemary J. Perez, 2623 Lagomarcino
Hall, 901 Stange Road, School of Education, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA 50011; rjperez@iastate.edu.
Intercultural Maturity Among College Students
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007).
College learning for the new global century. Washington,
DC: Author.
Barber, J. P. (2012). Integration of learning: A grounded theory
analysis of college students’ learning. American Educational
Research Journal, 49, 590‑617.
Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (2012). Assessing
meaning making and self-authorship: Theory, research, and
application. ASHE Higher Education Report, 38(3). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for
intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 10, 179‑196.
Bennett, M. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental
model of intercultural sensitivity. In M. Paige (Ed.), Educa­
tion for the intercultural experience (pp. 21‑71). Yarmouth,
ME: Intercultural Press.
Bowen, H. (1999). The intended outcomes of higher education.
In J. Bess & D. Webster (Eds.), Foundations of American
higher education (pp. 285‑294). Needham Heights, MA:
Simon & Schuster.
Bowman, N. A. (2012). Promoting sustained engagement with
diversity: The reciprocal relationships between informal
and formal college diversity experiences. Review of Higher
Education, 36, 1‑24.
Bowman, N., & Park, J. J. (2015). Not all diversity interactions
are created equal: Cross-racial interaction, close interracial
friendship, and college student outcomes. Review of Higher
Education, 56, 601‑621.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Chávez, A. F., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Mallory, S. L. (2003).
Learning to value the “other”: A framework of individual
diversity development. Journal of College Student Development,
44, 453‑469.
Collins, P. H. (1986). Learning from outsider within: The
sociological significance of black feminist thought. Social
Problems, 33, 514‑532.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and
perspectives in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of
inter­cul­tural competence as a student outcome of inter­
nation­ali­za­tion. Journal of Studies in International Education,
10, 241‑266.
Engberg, M. E. (2004). Improving intergroup relations in
higher education: A critical examination of the influence of
educational interventions on racial bias. Review of Educational
Research, 74, 473‑524.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory.
Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diver­
sity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational
outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330‑366.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledge: The science question
in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist
Studies, 14, 579‑599.
July–August 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 4 421
Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking
from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hartsock, N. C. M. (1983). The feminist standpoint: Devel­op­ing
the ground for a specifically feminist historical materi­alism.
In S. Harding & M. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality:
Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, method­
ology, and philosophy of science (pp. 283‑310). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Reidel/Kluwer.
Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the
complexities of qualitative research in higher education (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of
modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental
model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student
Development, 46, 571‑592.
King, P. M., Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Massé, J. C. (2011).
Maximizing learning from engaging across difference: The
role of anxiety and meaning making. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 44, 468‑487.
King, P. M., Kendall Brown, M., Lindsay, N. K., & VanHecke, J.
R. (2007). Liberal arts student learning outcomes: An inte­grated
approach. About Campus, 12(4), 2‑9. doi:10.1002/abc.222
King, P. M., Perez, R. J., & Shim, W. (2013). How college
students experience intercultural learning: Key features and
approaches. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6, 69‑83.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study
applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merrill, K. C., Braskamp, D. C., & Braskamp, L. A. (2012).
Assessing individuals’ global perspective. Journal of College
Student Development, 53, 356‑360.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research
methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Perez, R. J., & Barber, J. P. (2018). Intersecting outcomes:
Promoting intercultural effectiveness and integration of
learning for college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 11, 418‑435. doi:10.1037/dhe0000067
Perez, R. J., Shim, W., King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B.
(2015). Refining King and Baxter Magolda’s model of inter­
cul­tural maturity. Journal of College Student Development,
56, 759‑775.
Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J.
(2007). Direct and indirect intergroup contact effects on
prejudice: A normative interpretation. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 31, 411‑425.
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence (M. Piercy & D.
Berlyne, Trans.). London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in a child. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Shim, W., & Perez, R. J. (2018). A multi-level examination
of first-year students’ openness to diversity and challenge.
Journal of Higher Education, 89, 453‑477.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing
intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The
SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2‑52).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.