Intergroup differences in values and thinking styles in

relation to intercultural experience

Speak to people about their time abroad and their eyes will light up.
Tema Milstein
Magdalena Bobowik*, María Ángeles Bilbao R.*, Roman Zawadzki**
*University of the Basque Country, Spain; ** Warsaw University, Poland

Introduction Results Conclusions

This study analyses the relation between intercultural experience, values This study can be considered pioneer investigation which combines individual
and thinking styles, trying to identify positive aspects of sojourning as an The Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested with univariate ANOVA, whereas for
values model and mental self-government theory. Additionally, the theoretical
international exchange student. the Hypothesis 3 verification bivariate correlations analysis with r Pearson
model created was applied to a specific sample: sojourners. The aim of this study
Related research was mostly focused on negative effects of intercultural statistics was performed. Lineal regression analysis demonstrated that was to verify whether studying abroad can be a factor that differentiates people in
experience. Young people studying abroad experience a culture shock, neither age nor sex resulted significant for the model. their thinking styles and values leading their lives. Data presented above seems to
which can have not only negative but also positive outcomes. Intercultural Experience and Thinking Styles support most of hypotheses of the study. Statistically significant differences in
thinking styles and values between students with experience of studying abroad
Research on sojourners or international exchange students revealed, for ANOVA results did not show any statistically significant differences
and those who did not have such experience were discovered. Interesting
example, that intercultural experience is related to: between two groups (IE and NIE) in reference to thinking styles type I and relations between thinking styles and values were also revealed.
- perceived increase in communication self-efficacy (Milstein, 2005) type II (Hypothesis 1). However, results obtained for thinking styles type I
- higher intercultural awareness, a positive halo effect regarding the host approach the significance level assumed for this study (F(1,68)=3,901; Intercultural experience and thinking styles – intergroup
culture and willingness to go back the host country after going back to their p=.052) and the mean values indicate that the effect direction is congruent differences (Hypothesis 1)
homelands, changes in values: participants became more prosocial, with the hypothesis. Results for the 13 thinking styles were neither
perceived others more positively, started to take on responsibility for other significant. Regarding thinking styles, it was expected that thinking styles type I would be
people and presented higher levels of empathy then before their used more frequently among students with intercultural experience, whereas the
same group would use thinking styles type II less frequently. Results were not
intercultural experience (Ryan and Twibell , 2000)
statistically significant regarding both types of styles. However, a strong tendency
This study combines two interesting perspectives: one centered in towards statistical significance was shown as far as styles type I are concerned. It
cognitive preferences (thinking styles) and the other focused on each can be assumed the small sample was the factor that impacted the effect. Why do
individual’s motivational goals and theirs hierarchy (values) in the context of people with intercultural experience prefer thinking styles type I? Firstly,
intercultural experience. students who decide to study abroad might have some specific cognitive
preferences ad hoc. Secondly, changing cultural environment involves applying
new cognitive strategies to manage problems and everyday situations; thinking
Thinking Styles styles type I occur to be those which require creativity, complex information
The theory of mental self-government argues that people, like society, need processing and innovation.
to organise and govern their activities (Grigorienko & Sternberg, 1997).
With this purpose they apply many different strategies, choosing these ones Figure 3. Thinking styles type I and type II – mean values in two groups: IE and NIE. Intercultural experience and values – intergroup
which make them feel secure and comfortable (Zhang, 2002). The theory of differences (Hypothesis 2)
mental self-government describes 13 thinking styles, placed on five Intercultural Experience and Values
dimensions related to the government metaphore (Figure 1). As far as group differences in values are concerned (Hypothesis 2), In regard to differences in values, the study hypothesis can be considered
ANOVA test revealed statistically significant differences between IE and confirmed with only few exceptions. Consistently with predictions, the
participants who studied abroad reported self-direction and stimulation
NIE group in tradition (F(1,68)=14.062, p<.05), security (F(1,68)=3.988,
(openness to change), and also achievement to be more important for them than
p<.05), stimulation (F(1,68)=8.414, p<.05), self-direction
those who did not have such experience. On the other hand, international
(F(1,68)=4.874, p<.05) and achievement (F(1,68)=10.203, p<.05), as exchange students did not consider important neither tradition nor security.
regards basic values, and openness to change (F(1,68)=8.577, p<.05) Logically, intercultural experience was revealed to be related with openness to
and conservation (F(1,68)=7.736, p<.05) in reference to bipolar change values, given that people appreciating stimulation and self-direction are
dimensions. Results are presented in Table 2. both seeking them and start attributing even more relevance to these values when
gaining new experience abroad. New cultural environment provides new stimuli
Table 2 and requires confronting the unknown and unexpected. In consequence,
ANOVA results - intercultural experience and values (10 basic values and four general stimulation as value becomes more crucial as a rule that guides one’s life. Self-
goals)
direction is also important as one needs to undertake challenges and new
IE NIE activities, to show independence and ability to make decisions in a new cultural
Figure 1. Thinking styles and five dimensions. M SD M SD F p context. Finally, these unknown and distant environmental conditions are an
ideal background to demonstrate one’s skills and abilities, what could explain
Various studies demonstrated that thinking styles can be classified into two UNIVERSALISM 4.5857 .88522 4,4914 .75591 .230 .6 33
why achievement is more important to those students abroad. Although expected,
groups (Zhang, 2002, 2003; Zhang & Postiglione, 2001). Thinking styles BENEVOLENCE 4.5714 .89231 4.9714 1.05679 2.927 .092 there were no significant differences in self-transcendence values, hedonism or
type I are more creativity-generating and require more complex cognitive power. However, it is worth mentioning that for students from both groups the
processing, whereas thinking styles type II are those which involve carrying TRADITION 2.8143 .97079 3.7571 1.12702 14.062 .000 self-transcendence values are relatively important. This can be explained with the
out tasks according to existing norms and procedures, obeying authorities cohort effect: generation of young people tends to give more importance to post-
CONFORMITY 3.2500 1.26880 3.5294 1.12776 .921 .341 materialistic and prosocial values as their basic needs were mostly fulfilled in the
and require simplified information processing. Four thinking styles can
show characteristics of both already described types and are nominated SECURITY 3.1429 1.26358 3.7143 1.12646 3.988 .050
last decades.
thinking styles type III (Table 1).
POWER 3.000 1.15045 2.9429 1.05560 .047 .829 Thinking styles and values (Hypothesis 3)
Table 1
ACHIEVEMENT 4.6714 .96971 3.8714 1.12029 10.203 .002 The hypotheses were also largely confirmed with regard to relation between
Thinking styles and their classification. Adapted from Sternberg & Zhang (2005)
HEDONISM 3.9714 1.02141 3.8429 1.31603 .208 .650 thinking styles and values. It was found that students who preferred thinking
styles involving creativity, independence and complex information processing,
STIMULATION 4.6714 .89888 3.9286 1.21959 8.414 .005 above all, attribute importance to openness to change values (stimulation and
self-direction). This relation was also the strongest one, especially for stimulation.
SELF-DIRECTION 4.9286 .77784 4.4571 .99537 4.874 .031 Furthermore, higher the openness to experience, lower the preference towards
thinking styles type II. As expected, conservation values (security and conformity)
OPENNESS TO CHANGE 4.7929 .71096 4.1929 .98161 8.577 .005 were associated with thinking styles type II.
Interesting results were obtained regarding self-enhancement values. The only
CONSERVATION 3.0738 .95588 3.6571 .79103 7.736 .007
relation was observed between achievement and thinking styles. Surprisingly, this
SELF-ENHANCEMENT 3.8810 .78857 3.5524 .88817 2.679 .106 basic value was related not only to thinking styles type I as predicted but also to
thinking styles type II, although this relation was not as strong as with thinking
SELF-TRANSCENDENCE 4.5786 .74993 4.7314 .69230 .785 .379 styles type I. On the other pole of this dimension, self-transcendence
(particularly, universalism) was related to thinking styles type I.
It is also worth mentioning that significant relations between some specific
Taking into consideration the means for each variable in both groups (Table thinking styles from the 13 proposed by Sternberg and values were found.
2), results yield support for the Hypothesis 2, except for values: However, as it was not the central goal of this study, this results are not presented
benevolence and universalism (self-transcendence), hedonism and power in this poster.
(self-enhancement), and also conformity. To sum up, the results of the study lent support that there is a strong link between
the cognitive and motivational sphere of each individual.
Figure 4 and 5 present how the value hierarchy differs in IE and NIE group.
IE scored significantly higher on achievement, stimulation and self-
Limitations and suggestions for future investigations
direction, but lower on tradition and security (Figure 4).
One of the shortcomings of this investigation is relatively small sample size and
for this reason some relations might have not resulted statistically significant (for
example, regarding, thinking styles).
Secondly, the model proposed does not enable to state whether intercultural
experience causes some cognitive changes and in the structure of the values
Individual Values hierarchy or some cognitive and motivational preferences prompt students to
undertake the challenge of studying abroad. It is recommended to conduct
Values are analysed in this study from the perspective of Schwartz Individual
longitudinal studies or include, for example, Big Five personality model as
Values model, which describes transcultural structure of 10 motivationally additional operational variable, as both values and thinking styles are found to be
distinct types of values which are organised on the two orthogonal, bipolar related to personality dimensions.
dimensions (Figure 2). Finally, the same model could be applied in distinct populations, such as
OPENNESS TO SELF-
immigrants or in different cultural groups (as Polish students as a national group
CHANGE
SELF-DIRECTION
UNIVERSALISM TRANSCENDENCE share specific value hierarchy which might have caused a cultural bias in this
study and as representatives of quite individualistic culture show specific
BENEVOLENCE
cognitive preferences).
STIMULATION

CONFORMITY

HEDONISM TRADITION Figure 4. 10 basic values – means in two groups: IE and NIE.

ACHIEVEMENT SECURITY In relation to four bipolar dimensions in the value model, IE scored
SELF- significantly higher on openness to change, but lower on
POWER
CONSERVATION
ENHANCEMENT conservation (Figure 5).
 
Figure 2. 10 motivational types of basic values and four general goals (Schwartz &
Boehnke, 2004)

Hypothesis and Theoretical Model

HYPOTHESIS 1: Participants with intercultural experience will score
higher on thinking styles type I scales and lower on thinking styles type II
scales, in comparison to participants without such experience.
HYPOTHESIS 2: Participants with intercultural experience will score
higher on self-direction, stimulation, benevolence, universalism, References
achievement and hedonism and lower on: tradition, security, conformity Milstein, T. (2005). Transformation abroad: Sojourning and the perceived
and power, in comparison to participants without such experience. enhancement of self-efficacy. International Journal of International
HYPOTHESIS 3: Thinking styles I will correlate with: self-direction, Relations, 29, 217-238.
stimulation, benevolence, universalism, achievement and hedonism will be Ledzińska, M., Matczak, A., Piotrkowska, A. & Toeplitz, Z. (1999).
found, whereas thinking styles type II will correlate with: tradition, security, Kwestionariusz Preferencji. Warsaw: Individual Differences Psychology
conformity and power . Figure 5. Four general goals – means in two groups: IE and NIE. Departament of Warsaw University.
  Ryan, M. E. & Twibell, R. S. (2000). Concerns, values, stress, coping, health
All the hypothesis are visualised below (Figure 3). Thinking Styles and Values and educational outcomes of college students who studied abroad.
The Hypothesis 3 was largely supported. Thinking styles type I were International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 409-435.
OPENNESS TO CHANGE correlated positively with universalism (r=.245, p<.041), achievement
(SELF-DIRECTION, STIMULATION) Schwartz, S. & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values
(r=.386, p<.05), stimulation (r=.471, p<.05) and self-direction (r=.339, confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38,
TYPE I p<.05). The positive correlation between thinking styles type II and
SELF-TRANSCENDENCE 230-255.
(BENEVOLENCE, UNIVERSALISM) security (r=.479, p<.05), power (r=.237, p<.05) and – like styles type I – Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., & Harris, M. (2001).
YES
achievement (r=.276, p<0.5) was observed, whereas negative - with self- Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values
SELF-ENHANCEMENT direction (r=-.267, p<.05).
INTERCULTURAL EXPERIENCE with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural
(ACHIEVEMENT, HEDONISM) On the bipolar dimensions level, thinking styles type I were correlated Psychology, 32, 519–542.
(STUDYING ABROAD) THINKING
INDIVIDUAL VALUES STYLES positively with openness to change (r=.468, p<.05) and self- Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorienko, E. L. (1997). Styles of thinking, abilities and
NO
enhancement (r=.321, p<.05). Thinking styles type II were correlated academic performance. Exeptional Children, 63(3), 295-312.Sternberg, R.
SELF-ENHANCEMENT (POWER) positively with conservation (r=.378, p<.05), whereas negatively with J. & Wagner, R. K. (1991). Inwentarz Stylów Myślenia MSG. Manual.
TYPE II openness to change (r=-.286, p<.05). Results are presented in Table 3.re Sternberg, R. J., Zhang, L. (2005). Styles of thinking as a basis of
CONSERVATION (SECURITY, presented in table 5. differentiated instruction. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 245- 253.
TRADITION, CONFORMITY) Table 3
ANOVA results - intercultural experience and values Sztabiński, P.B., Sztabiński F. (2004). Kwestionariusz Ludzkich Wartości.
European Social Survey 2004/2005. Warsaw: Social Studies Center,
STYLES TYPE I STYLES TYPE II Philosophy and Sociology Institute of Polish Academy of Science.
Figure 3. Theoretical model of the study.
r p r p Research Project.
UNIVERSALISM .245 .041 -.072 .552 Zhang, L., Postiglione, G. A. (2001). Thinking styles, self-esteem, and socio-
BENEVOLENCE .118 .329 .084 .487 economic status. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1333-
TRADITION -.111 .359 -.037 .764
1346.Zhang, L. (2002). Thinking styles and cognitive development. The
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(2), 179-195.
Method CONFORMITY -.022 .858 .424 .000
Zhang, L. (2003). Contribution of thinking styles to critical thinking
Participants: 70 students of Warsaw University and Warsaw University of SECURITY .057 .637 .479 .000 dispositions. The Journal of Psychology, 6(137), 517-544.
Technology (40 female and 30 male, age: 19-26), forming two groups: POWER .133 .272 .237 .048
IE - students with intercultural experience – participants of Socrates-Erasmus ACHIEVEMENT .386 .001 .276 .021
Exchange Program in 2004/2005;
NIE - students without intercultural experience; HEDONISM .208 .084 -.088 .469
Instruments: STIMULATION .471 .000 -.234 .051
Thinking Styles Inwentory (Sternberg & Wagner, 1991) adapted by Ledzińska, SELF-DIRECTION .339 .004 -.267 .025
Matczak, Piotrkowska & Toeplitz (1999); 104 items (13 scales corresponding 13 styles)
Personal Values Questionnaire (Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann, Burgess & Harris, 2001) OPENESS TO CHANGE .468 .000 -.286 .016 For further information
Please contact
adapted by Sztabiński i Sztabiński (2004); 21 items (10 scales corresponding 10 values CONSERVATION -.037 .759 .378 .001 Magdalena Bobowik
and 4 main dimensions corresponding 4 general objectives) SELF-ENHANCEMENT .321 .007 .182 .131
megiceo@hotmail.com

SELF-TRANSCENDENCE .220 .067 .017 .888

Note: positive correlation negative correlation