the roles of cultural competence and cultural motivation in cultural framing n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Roles of Cultural Competence and Cultural Motivation in Cultural Framing PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Roles of Cultural Competence and Cultural Motivation in Cultural Framing

The Roles of Cultural Competence and Cultural Motivation in Cultural Framing

332 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

The Roles of Cultural Competence and Cultural Motivation in Cultural Framing

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The Roles of Cultural Competence and Cultural Motivation in Cultural Framing Masters Thesis Defense Natasha Koustova Sept 12, 2011

  2. Introduction • Large immigrant population in Canada • Engaged in lifelong process of negotiating between heritage and host cultural influences • Cultural framing theory suggests that biculturals may shift in behaviours and attitudes depending on situational cultural cues • Some biculturals seem to be more responsive to cultural cues • Present study examines two factors that may account for these differences: cultural competence and cultural motivation

  3. Cultural Framing • “the individual shift[ing] between interpretive frames rooted in different cultures in response to cues in the social environment” Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000 • Shift in Individualism-Collectivism • Chinese prime = collectivistic attributions on the interpretive task • American prime = individualistic attributions on the interpretive task

  4. Priming Individualism-Collectivism • South and East Asian cultures are more collectivist; North American culture is more individualist (Hofstede, 1997) • On an individual level, collectivism = interdependent self-construal; individualism = independent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) • Useful construct for cultural framing • bicultural East/South Asian Canadians should be more interdependent in response to heritage cultural cues and more independent in response to host cultural cues

  5. Cultural Competence • LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993: • Possession of a strong personal identity. • Knowledge and use of cultural beliefs and values. • Sensitivity to the affective processes of the culture. • Knowledge of the language and ability to communicate. • Performance of behaviours that are socially required. • Interaction with social groups within the culture. • Ability to engage with institutional structures of the culture.

  6. Cultural Motivation • Different theories (e.g., acculturation, ethnic identity, social identification) recognize importance of desire for membership in heritage or host cultures • In practice, operationalization often confuses motivation (desire) with competence • Cultural motivation - cultural attitudes, ethnic identity, reacting to positive and negative stress, and/or assessing utility of gaining competence (Rudmin, 2009) • Present study defines cultural motivation as identification with a culture • Some evidence that motivational factors can inhibit the success of priming

  7. Hypothesis In response to a culture-specific cognitive prime, individuals with high levels of competence and motivation with reference to the culture being primed will score significantly higher on a culturally congruent measure of interdependence/independence than individuals with low levels of competence and motivation.

  8. Method • Participants • 65 South Asian and East Asian Canadians • 11 males, 54 females, ages 18-44 (M = 23.1, SD = 5.69) • 47 first generation and 18 second generation participants • Age of arrival to Canada varied from 2.5 to 37 years (M = 13.07, SD = 7.85) • Had lived in Canada a minimum of 3 years • From Bangladesh, China, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, and Sri Lanka

  9. Procedure • Participants were randomly assigned to a culture priming condition • Participants filled out heritage and host cultural competence and cultural motivation measure • Participants completed a distraction task • Participants completed the culture priming task • Participants completed dependent variable: Interdependence and Independence scales. • Demographic questionnaire

  10. 2 (heritage or host culture prime) x 2 (high or low cultural competence) x 2 (high or low cultural motivation) between-subjects factorial design

  11. Culture Prime Conditions • Participants completed a word search puzzle that contained 10 culture-priming words • Heritage Culture Prime: Parents, Disciplined, Educated, Hardworking, Family, Intelligent, Motivated, Efficient, Traditional, Conservative • Host Culture Prime: Multicultural, Beloved, Polite, Free, Peaceful, Kind, Equality, Community, Wear flag, Educated

  12. Measures • Cultural Competence: Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS; Stephenson, 2000) • Heritage Culture Competence:17 statements, e.g., “I feel comfortable speaking the language of my heritage country” • Host Culture Competence: 13 statements, e.g., “I am informed about current affairs in Canada” • Cultural Motivation: Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AMAS-ZABB; Zea, Asner-Self, Birman, & Buki, 2003) • Heritage Cultural Motivation: 6 items, e.g., “I am proud of being a member of my heritage culture” • Host Culture Motivation: 6 items, e.g., “I am proud of being Canadian” • Dependent Measure: Interdependence/Independence Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994) • For Heritage Culture Prime condition: 12 Interdependence items, e.g., “I respect people who are modest about themselves” • For Host Culture Prime condition: 12 Independence items, e.g., “I am comfortable with being singled out for praise or reward”

  13. Preliminary Analyses • Reliability: • Cultural Competence • Heritage Culture Competence Scale α= .90 • Host Culture Competence Scale α= .81 • Cultural Motivation • Heritage Culture Motivation Scale α= .91 • Host Culture Motivation Scale α= .93 • Dependent Variable • Interdependence Scale α= .80 • Independence Scale α= .82 • ANOVA assumptions: • Both heritage and host Motivation distributions violated assumption of normality • Levene’s Test for homogeneity of variance was not significant

  14. Preliminary Analyses (Correlations)

  15. Principal Analysis

  16. Principal Analysis • Planned comparison of the high competence/high motivation mean (M = 5.36, SD = .78) to the low competence/low motivation mean (M = 4.65, SD = .81) was significant, t(1,44) = 2.99, p<.01 • Significant main effect for cultural competence, F(1, 65) = 3.88, p= .05, η2=.06, on the analysis of variance suggests that the significant difference between high competence/high motivation and low competence/low motivation participants is due primarily to competence rather than motivational differences

  17. Discussion • The study hypothesis was supported: • significant difference between participants with strong competence and motivation as compared to those with relatively weaker competence and motivation in the primed culture. • Main effect for cultural competence • Overall high interdependence scores • Cultural competence as separate factor from cultural motivation

  18. Limitations and Future Directions • Limitations: • Small sample size • Skewed distributions • Priming materials • Future directions: • Future research should include competence and motivation as separate factors; concept of motivation needs to be fleshed out and properly measured

  19. Implications • The study distinguished between competence and motivation to acculturate • Looked at roles of cultural competence and cultural motivation on responsiveness to cultural primes, which has not been assessed in cultural framing studies

  20. Thank you