This report presents a framework for cross-cultural competence in Army leaders, reviews empirical research on predictors of intercultural effectiveness, and describes existing measures of cross-cultural competence and related constructs.
This report discusses cross-cultural competence (3C) training, development, and assessment in the U.S. Army.
Increasingly, the United States Army operates in multinational, and therefore, multicultural, environments. Teamwork within such settings requires the ability to see events as members of other cultures see them. The goal of the research was to define a set of multicultural perspective taking skills that will enable Army leaders to function effectively in multinational alliances.
This report discusses the need for an improved SOF language training and education program consisting of improved initial language and culture training, advanced regional studies and in-country immersion.
The contemporary operational environment is often characterized by ambiguous, multi-cultural contexts, where Army Soldiers must rapidly adapt without extensive prior knowledge of a region or its people. Ongoing training development efforts are addressing the need for general cross-cultural competence, but this broad competence must be clearly defined and assessed in order to determine if Soldiers are being adequately prepared.
The purpose of this set of studies was to assess whether the ability to distinguish between real and fake gestures in a foreign setting is positively associated with cultural adjustment to that setting.
This report describes a conceptual framework for teaching specific nonverbal behavior (NVB) concepts and cues designed to provide maximum benefit to Soldiers and makes specific recommendations about how such a curriculum may be taught.
Two studies provided direct support for a recently proposed dialect theory of communicating emotion, positing that expressive displays show cultural variations similar to linguistic dialects, thereby decreasing accurate recognition by out-group members.
The author examines the following limitations of research on individualism and collectivism: It treats nations as cultures and culture as a continuous quantitative variable; conflates all kinds of social relations and distinct types of autonomy; ignores contextual specificity in norms and values; measures culture as the personal preferences and behavior reports of individuals; rarely establishes the external validity of the measures used; assumes cultural invariance in the meaning of self-reports and anchoring and interpretation of scales; and reduces culture to explicit, abstract verbal knowledge.