Empathic responses in intercultural contexts

An observational descriptive study measuring the influence of time spent abroad,

age, gender, and nationality of parents on empathy for the main character in a

story with a non-Dutch cultural perspective.

Inge Janssen

reg. no. 880305395060

Master thesis, September 2014

Supervised by:

Rico Lie

Gert Jan Hofstede

Nick Degens

External examinor:

Marijn Poortvliet

COM 80430 MSc thesis communication & innovation studies

ii

Preface and acknowledgements

When I reflect on the creation of this thesis I don’t see one path, but many different journeys that are linked and

have resulted in this final product. Writing the proposal was definitely the hardest part. It took time and patience of

myself and my supervisors. Choosing a topic that was totally new for me as well as interdisciplinary, was especially

challenging at the start. In this creative, uncertain, and brainstorm-like phase I was guided intensively by Nick

Degens. I’d like to thank him for the time we spent sharing ideas and trying to find a feasible and innovative

research topic. I learned a lot about the reality of doing research, and Nick helped me to find my own way as a

researcher. After I accepted that my initial ideas were too ambitious, , I felt supported by all my supervisors to find

something that was feasible within the scope of this master thesis. I’d like to thank Gert Jan Hofstede for sharing his

expertise with regard to culture, and for reviewing the statistical data analysis. Even though I wasn’t able to use the

Hofstede cultural dimensions as much as I would have wanted, I feel greatly enriched by the knowledge and

awareness that I received though his lively explanations and examples. I’d like to thank Rico Lie for his calm and

steady support throughout my thesis. I felt empowered by Rico’s clear feedback which allowed me to see the

difference between the issues and the details. I could always count on him to guide me concerning the thesis

requirements. I’d like to thank all supervisors for giving me the time and freedom to explore and for all their help in

finalizing this master thesis.

1

Table of contents

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 3

2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Culture & cultural dimensions ..................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Empathy ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Cultural vignette .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Empathic responding ................................................................................................................................... 6

3 THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................. 8

4 JUSTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................................... 9

5 OPERATIONALIZATION ............................................................................................................................. 10

5.1 Seven point Likert scale ............................................................................................................................ 10 5.2 Perceived similarity ................................................................................................................................... 10 5.3 Cognitive empathy ..................................................................................................................................... 11 5.4 Affective empathy ..................................................................................................................................... 11 5.5 Cross-cultural experience .......................................................................................................................... 11 5.6 Study phase ................................................................................................................................................ 12

6 DATA ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................................... 13

7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS & HYPOTHESES ............................................................................................. 14

7.1 Research questions .................................................................................................................................... 14 7.1.1 Gender ................................................................................................................................................... 14 7.1.2 Nationality of parents ............................................................................................................................ 14 7.1.3 Age ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 7.1.4 Study phase............................................................................................................................................ 15 7.1.5 Perceived similarity............................................................................................................................... 16 7.1.6 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience ............... 16

7.2 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................................ 16 7.2.1 Gender ................................................................................................................................................... 16 7.2.2 Nationality of parents ............................................................................................................................ 16 7.2.3 Age ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 7.2.4 Study phase............................................................................................................................................ 17 7.2.5 Perceived similarity............................................................................................................................... 18 7.2.6 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience ............... 19

8 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 20

8.1 Cultural vignettes ....................................................................................................................................... 20 8.1.1 Cultural vignette Negotiate (protagonist: Jane) ................................................................................... 20 8.1.2 Cultural vignette Lunch (protagonist: Mike) ........................................................................................ 20

8.2 Criteria for participants .............................................................................................................................. 21 8.3 Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................................. 21 8.4 Pre test ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 8.5 Selection of courses ................................................................................................................................... 22 8.6 Execution of experiment ............................................................................................................................ 22 8.7 Data analysis plan ...................................................................................................................................... 22

9 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 27

9.1 Factor analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 27 9.2 Vignettes .................................................................................................................................................... 27 9.3 Countries ................................................................................................................................................... 29 9.4 Gender ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 9.5 Nationality of parents ................................................................................................................................ 31 9.6 Age ............................................................................................................................................................ 32 9.7 Study phase ................................................................................................................................................ 32

9.7.1 Bachelor versus master students ........................................................................................................... 32 9.7.2 Study year in the bachelor ..................................................................................................................... 32

2

9.8 Perceived similarity ................................................................................................................................... 33 9.9 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience .................... 33

9.9.1 Correlations between cognitive and affective empathy ......................................................................... 33 9.9.2 Correlations between cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience .............................................. 33 9.9.3 Correlations between affective empathy and cross-cultural experience ............................................... 34

9.10 Study ..................................................................................................................................................... 37 9.10.1 Bachelor biology ............................................................................................................................... 40

1 0 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 41

10.1 Vignettes ............................................................................................................................................... 43 10.2 Perceived similarity ............................................................................................................................... 43 10.3 Cross-cultural experience ...................................................................................................................... 44 10.4 Gender ................................................................................................................................................... 44 10.5 Nationality of parents ............................................................................................................................ 44 10.6 Age ........................................................................................................................................................ 45 10.7 Study phase ........................................................................................................................................... 45 10.8 Study ..................................................................................................................................................... 46 10.9 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience ............... 46 10.10 Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity ...................................................................................... 47 10.11 Nelson and Baumgarte (2004) ............................................................................................................... 47 10.12 Main conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................... 48

1 1 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 49

APPENDIX 1. QUESTIONNAIRE WITH VIGNETTE LUNCH (PROTAGONIST MIKE) ............................ 50

3

1 Introduction

Intercultural communication is important in an increasingly globalizing world. People need smooth intercultural

communication when they meet people from different cultures in their leisure, study, or job. Intercultural

communication is generally described as challenging (Bennett, 1998; Chen & Starosta, 1998; Cushner & Brislin,

1997; Hall, 2005). There are many books and articles written about the topic of intercultural communication and the

majority of them aim to improve intercultural communication (Bennett, 1998; Chen & Starosta, 1998; Cushner &

Brislin, 1997; Hall, 2005). In the world of today there are still intercultural misunderstandings and therefore

intercultural communication remains an important area of research. In the present study, culture is defined as the

“collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from

another” (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2011). Communication is “an interdetermining process in which we

develop a mutually dependent relationship by exchanging symbols” (Chen & Starosta, 1998, p. 21). Intercultural

communication is “communication between people from two different cultures” (Chen & Starosta, 1998, p. 28).

Many scientists have done research on and/or have theorized about what characteristics people have that

are very successful in intercultural communication. Personality characteristics and various skills were identified.

Milton Bennett has developed a model of intercultural sensitivity that describes the development of intercultural

sensitivity in six sequential stages: denial, defence, minimization, acceptance, adaptation, and integration (Hammer,

Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). The term ethnocentrism encompasses the first three phases of intercultural sensitivity

(denial, defence, and minimization) and reflects the culturally less sensitive mind-set. Ethnorelativism encompasses

the latter three stages of cultural sensitivity (acceptance, adaptation, and integration) and reflects the culturally more

sensitive mind-sets. People who are in the first stage (denial) are unable to see any cultural difference and only have

access to their own cultural worldview. People who are in the last stage (integration) are able to see complex cultural

differences between two or more cultures and have incorporated those cultures into their identity.

(Hammer, et al., 2003)

In the present study we will use Bennett’s concept of a continuum of intercultural sensitivity. Bennett has

developed a tool that can place someone in a stage on the continuum. This tool is proprietary and cannot be accessed

given the limited financial resources of this study. Still, Bennett’s theory provides insights that are meaningful to

shape the present study. In the present study we develop a tool to measure cross-cultural experience. We will focus

only on one of the aspects that define intercultural sensitivity: empathy. Bennett mentions empathy in the

integration phase (Hammer, et al., 2003).

Empathy is regarded as an important concept in intercultural communication (Broome, 1991). Empathy in

intercultural communication mostly doesn’t occur easy and naturally. Empathy is therefore recognized as an

important training goal in the field of cross-cultural training (Cushner & Brislin, 1997, pp. 205-220). Research of

Nelson and Baumgarte (2004) shows that it's harder to empathize with people of a different cultural perspective.

Broome recognizes the difficulties to empathy in intercultural communication and states that “we can have no direct

knowledge about the mental experiences of another person” (Broome, 1991, p. 237).

Intercultural communication and empathy in intercultural communication are regarded as challenging. The focus of

cross-cultural training on empathy as a skill suggests that it could be trained. Empathy is also seen as a logical result

of becoming more culturally sensitive. However, there is no research in the field of cross-cultural training which

examines the effect of training on empathy in particular.

4

Given the importance of enhancing empathy in intercultural communication and the difficulties of enhancing

it, the present study will focus on understanding the relationship between someone’s previous cross-cultural

experience could influence his/her empathic response.

Aim: to find out whether there is a correlation between the amount of cross-cultural experience

someone has had in his/her life, (paying special attention to the experiences during his/her study) and

his/her empathic response towards a different cultural perspective.

Future research

Fulfilling this aim could will give more insight in the factors that influence (enhance or inhibit) empathy. This

knowledge could be used in designing cross-cultural training that specifically targets the enhancement of cross-

cultural empathy. The step after that would be to test the effectiveness of this cross-cultural empathy training.

5

2 Background

Firstly, culture and cultural dimensions will be discussed; secondly, the concept of empathy is discussed. Thirdly,

the tool for replicating the experience of a cross-cultural encounter, a cultural vignette, which is used in this study,

will be defined. Fourthly, empathic responding and will be discussed.

2.1 Culture & cultural dimensions

In the present study, the definition of culture comes from the book "cultures and organizations - software of the

mind" (Hofstede, et al., 2011). There, culture is defined as a: "collective programming of the mind that distinguishes

the members of one group or category of people from another". Culture is seen as a set of expectations, values,

beliefs, ideals, and views of life people hold. Hofstede (Hofstede, et al., 2011) describes that culture manifests itself

at two levels: values and practices. Values form the heart of a culture. They are feelings and are distinguished from

practices. Values deal with what is: moral vs. immoral, good vs. bad, abnormal vs. normal, etc.

For identifying the dimensions where cultures differ, several taxonomies have been developed. For example,

Hofstede (Hofstede, et al., 2011) defined six dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, indulgence versus

restraint, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, and long-term versus short-term

orientation. (Hofstede, et al., 2011) Examples of important values in individualistic cultures are: close friendships,

tolerance of others, and trustworthiness (Hofstede, et al., 2011). An example of a cultural practice is how deep one

should bow in different social contexts in Japan.

2.2 Empathy

Empathy is in the present study defined as “the result of the ability to put oneself in another’s place, to know others’

experiences from their perspective, while at the same time recognizing that the source of one’s experience lies in the

other” This definition is based on the definition of empathy in the book of Cushner and Brislin (1997, p. 205).

Putting ‘oneself in another’s place’ and ‘to know others’ experience from their perspective’ can result in empathic

feelings (for example feeling bad for someone) and in empathic thoughts (for example understanding how

someone’s previous experiences explain their actions). We call emotional aspects of empathy, affective empathy,

and the mental aspects of empathy cognitive empathy. Nelson and Baumgarte (2004) use in their study questions to

measure cognitive and affective empathy. The present study uses the same questions as Nelson and Baumgarte –

though translated in Dutch. The concept of empathy is divided into cognitive and affective empathy because it

provides basis for deeper theoretical analysis. Nelson & Baumgarte (2004) found that cognitive empathy seems to

be the mediator in intercultural empathy. This means that increasing cognitive empathy will probably increase

affective empathy as well.

Empathy is in literature distinguished from sympathy (Broome, 1991). Sympathy is feeling with someone under the

assumption that the other is identical to you. When sympathizing, you wonder how you would feel in someone’s

situation, regardless of how the other actually perceived it. Empathy overlaps with sympathy in the cases where

someone feels exactly the same as you would (imagine to) feel in their situation. Empathy is different from

sympathy because empathy requires some degree of mental flexibility to adopt the unique perspectives (feelings,

thoughts, associations, memories, drives, relationships) of the other (regardless of how you would feel in the

situation).

6

There are many ways in which empathy has been conceptualized in literature. In the present study, the

conceptualization of a well-known article by Decety and Jackson (2004, p. 75) is used:

- “affective sharing between the self and the other, based on perception-action coupling that lead to shared

representations;

- self-other awareness. Even when there is some temporary identification, there's no confusion between self

and other;

- mental flexibility to adopt the subjective perspective of the other and also regulatory processes”

In the subjective experience of empathy the three aspects interact and work together. As the self-other awareness is

only problematic in the case of total identification with the other (contagion) (Decety & Jackson, 2004) and we will

not include this aspect in our research.

2.3 Cultural vignette

We define a cultural vignette as “a short impressionistic scene that gives an insight into a certain cultural

perspective”. A cultural vignette contains narrative elements. The main character of the story, the protagonist of the

story, experiences an unpleasant situation that is caused by the interaction of the protagonist with one or more

people –the antagonist(s) of the story. The antagonist(s) have a different culture than the protagonist. The vignette

describes the feelings and thoughts of the protagonist and not those of the antagonist(s).

We will give Dutch participants cultural vignettes in which the antagonist represents the Dutch perspective to the

situation, and the protagonist represents the non-Dutch perspective to the situation (this represents the dissimilar

story from Nelson and Baumgarte as will be described in chapter 2.4). For example, the antagonist is Dutch and the

protagonist is African.

We expect that Dutch participants who are in one of the ethnocentric phases will have more trouble understanding

the thoughts and feelings of the protagonist than participants who are in one of the ethnorelativistic phases and that

hence the former will experience less empathy for the protagonist than the latter.

2.4 Empathic responding

The existence of intercultural misunderstandings highlights that intercultural understanding cannot be taken for

granted. This subchapter will explain why it is harder to feel empathy for people of a different culture, and what

aspects could raise or lower empathy.

Viewing culture as "a mental programming of the mind", makes it easier to understand why there are intercultural

communication problems, obstacles, difficulties, and misunderstandings. In everyday communication people make a

lot of assumptions and hold many expectations. When two people with different sets of expectations meet, chances

are that miscommunications arise. A simple example is the ‘thumbs up’ gesture which means ‘one’ in Germany,

‘five’ in Japan and ‘good job’ in North America. Interpreting intercultural situations involves mental automatisms

which are mostly coloured by culture. These automatisms quicken and smoothen daily communication on the one

hand but may lead to misattributions on the other hand, especially when communicating across cultures.

7

In the research of Nelson and Baumgarte (2004), it is shown that it's harder to empathize with people of a different

cultural perspective. In their study, US participants were asked to read small stories in which the main character,

‘target’ (identical to the term protagonist in the present study –which will be used instead of target henceforth), was

either culturally similar or dissimilar with the US culture. The US culture is individualistic. In the culturally similar

story featured an individualistic protagonist and a collectivistic antagonist. In the culturally dissimilar story featured

a collectivistic protagonist and an individualistic antagonist. Nelson (2004) hypothesized that the U.S. participants

would find it easier to relate to the story with an individualistic main character because the U.S. culture is

categorized as individualistic. People from individualistic cultures would be more familiar with individualistic

perspectives and find it easier to understand perspectives, beliefs, and values that coincide with individualistic

perspectives, beliefs, and values. The research concluded that the U.S. participants felt indeed less empathy after

reading the story with a collectivistic main character and could relate less with the collectivistic main character.

The mental flexibility to adopt the subjective perspective of another person can be steered consciously. An

experiment by social psychologist Erza Stotland in 1969 (Decety & Jackson, 2004, p. 84) shows that the deliberate

act of imagining someone's pain in a video causes bigger physiological stress than just watching. Students who

watched a video of someone having a conversation, were more empathic when they were asked to take the

perspective of this person (Regan & Totten, 1975). There is much more evidence to the notion that the ability to

adopt someone else's point of view is an effortful and controlled process. This makes empathy and intentional

capacity and makes it susceptible to social cognitive intervention through, for example, training or enhancement

programs. (Decety & Jackson, 2004)

There is some literature on empathy training outside the field of intercultural communication. Stepien and

Baernstein (2006) reviewed twelve studies on training clinical empathy. Also in literature on sex offenders and

psychotherapy, there is a focus on enhancing empathy in respectively sex offenders and therapists.

Nelson (2009) found that feeling good promotes intercultural empathy, probably because feeling good promotes

open-mindedness. An inhibitor of empathy is the perceived fairness of others. In a research where participants

watched a video of someone who received pain stimuli while playing an economic game, the participants felt less

empathy for players who played unfair. (Singer et al., 2006)

Research has shown that females score significantly higher on empathy than males (Myyry & Helkama, 2001).

8

3 Theoretical assumptions

Based amongst others on the literature that was presented in the background, several theoretical assumptions are

made in the present study. The first theoretical assumption is that the items to measure affective empathy, cognitive

empathy, and perceived similarity, derived from Nelson and Baumgarte (2004), are reliable and precise. These

items will also be used in the present study. Secondly, we assume that the extent of cross-cultural experience is

mainly shaped by the amount of time spent abroad and the amount of different countries visited for residing, work,

study, and holidays. We assume that the more cross-cultural experience someone acquires, the more empathy,

compassion, understanding, etc. he or she develops for different cultural views. We assume that the more empathy

someone had for different cultural views, the more empathy he or she will experience for a ‘foreign’ protagonist. We

assume that we can measure these empathic experiences using the items created by Nelson & Baumgarte (2004). We

assume that the Dutch student population is comparable to the US student population and we assume that the Dutch

student would experience less empathy for a dissimilar vignette than to a similar vignette, just like the US

participants experienced in the study of Nelson & Baumgarte (2004).

9

4 Justification

In today's increasingly globalized world, intercultural communication is more important than ever. However,

intercultural communication has many challenges and is not naturally easy. (Bennett, 1998; Chen & Starosta, 1998;

Cushner & Brislin, 1997; Hall, 2005) Two cultures have, depending on how much the cultures differ, different

values (Hofstede, et al., 2011). Research has shown that it is more difficult to empathize with someone who has a

different cultural perspective (Nelson & Baumgarte, 2004). There are things that contribute to bridging this gap -for

example, positive affect increases intercultural empathy. (Nelson, 2009)

In cross-cultural training empathy has not been researched separately. To help understand what factors could

contribute to enhancing intercultural empathy the present study researches the effect of cross-cultural experience on

cross-cultural empathy. In order to do this, a set of questions is developed to measure cross-cultural experience. Two

cultural vignettes will be used to simulate the experience of intercultural encounters. Questions to measure empathy

are derived from Nelson and Baumgarte, because the items that were used in this study were highly intercorrelated

(Cronbach’s alpha affective empathy: 0,92; Cronbach’s alpha cognitive empathy: 0,85) and were able to measure

differences in empathy between two groups (Nelson & Baumgarte, 2004).

10

5 Operationalization

To assess whether cross-cultural experience is linked to empathic responding, the present study will collect

quantitative data whenever possible, (such as number of countries visited or months spent abroad for study) creating

scale data. When using scale data is not possible, when we are for example interested in the degree to which

participants agree with propositions (such as I like foreign cultures) we use a seven-point Likert scale, creating

ordinal variables.

This chapter will operationalize the seven-point Likert scale in sub-chapter 5.1. Empathy is measured with a seven-

point Likert scale and divided into cognitive empathy (sub-chapter 5.3) and affective empathy (sub-chapter 5.4).

Perceived similarity (sub-chapter 5.2), also measured on a seven-point Likert scale. Cross-cultural experience (sub-

chapter 5.5) is measured with both quantitative and Likert scale questionnaire items. Study phase is operationalized

in subchapter 5.6.

5.1 Seven point Likert scale

A Likert scale is used to assess the degree to which participants feel agreement to a certain proposition ranging from

not at all to completely. The Likert scale is very suitable for assessing such subjective measurements (Jaeschke,

Singer, & Guyatt, 1990). The number of categories used to assess the extent of agreement on a Likert scale can vary

from three categories to ten categories or more. With an even number of categories there is no middle, or neutral,

category. In the present study we want to give the participant the choice to answer neutral so we choose for an odd

number of categories. We want to measure the slightest difference between the participants and will use a scale with

many different choices so they can score precisely how they feel. Using too many categories, however, is also not

desired due to unnecessary complication. The disadvantage of using Likert scale is that it produces ordinal data. The

visual analogue scale (VAS) is a continuous scale and produces continuous data. The disadvantage of the VAS is

that it is time consuming to use for the researcher. Every answer of every participant needs to be measured with a

ruler. Research that compared VAS and seven-point Likert scale showed that both methods had comparable

responsiveness and validity. (Jaeschke, et al., 1990) Due to the fact that the Likert scale is easier to administer and

provides data that is equal to that of the VAS, we will use a seven-point Likert scale.

The seven possible choices of the Likert scale that are presented to the participants are: completely disagree,

disagree, slightly disagree, neutral, slightly agree, agree, and completely agree. Each category receives a code which

is used to label the category: 1 = completely disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = neutral, 5 = slightly

agree, 6 = agree, and 7 = completely agree. The seven-point Likert scale will be used for the following questions: 2

– 13 (perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, and affective empathy), 18 & 19 (frequency holidays abroad), 22 – 24

(interaction with other cultures within and outside studies, and interest in foreign cultures).

5.2 Perceived similarity

The variable perceived similarity measures how similar the participant feels to the non-Dutch protagonists (Mike

and Jane). The degree to which the participants agree to the proposition in question 2 of the questionnaire (appendix

1), ‘I feel similar to Mike’, indicates the amount of perceived similarity. This question was also used in Nelson &

11

Baumgarte (2004). We will measure the extent of perceived similarity with a seven-point Likert scale which makes

it an ordinal variable.

5.3 Cognitive empathy

The items on cognitive empathy measure the extent to which the participants experience cognitive empathy towards

the non-Dutch protagonists (Mike and Jane, from now on referred to as Mike) in the cultural vignette. Cognitive

empathy will be measured by asking the participants the extent to which they agree with the following six

statements: Mike is to blame for his bad feelings (reversed); Mike's distress a result of the unpleasantness and

difficulty of the situation; Mike's emotional reaction is appropriate to the situation; I find it difficult to relate to what

Mike is feeling (reversed); an average person would have responded the same way as Mike; I would have responded

differently than Mike (reversed) (questions 3-8 of the questionnaire in appendix 1). These questions are based on

Nelson & Baumgarte (2004). The extent of cognitive empathy will be measured with a seven-point Likert scale,

which makes it an ordinal variable.

The items on cognitive empathy are used to make a composite index of cognitive empathy: cogn_index. The data

analysis plan in sub-chapter 8.7 shows how this cogn_index is composed. This index will be used to answer the

research questions and hypotheses regarding cognitive empathy.

5.4 Affective empathy

Affective empathy will be assessed by asking the participants how sympathetic, compassionate, moved, warm, and

soft-hearted they felt as they read the story (questions 9-13 of the questionnaire in appendix 1). These questions are

based on Nelson & Baumgarte (2004). The extent of affective empathy will be measured with a seven-point Likert

scale, which makes it an ordinal variable.

The items on affective empathy are used to make a composite index of affective empathy: aff_index. The data

analysis plan in sub-chapter 8.7 shows how this aff_index is created. This index will be used for answering the

research questions and hypotheses regarding affective empathy.

5.5 Cross-cultural experience

Cross-cultural experience will be measured with questions 14-24 of the questionnaire (see appendix 1). These

questions measure how often participants interact with people of a different cultural background inside their studies

(question 22) and outside their studies (question 23); whether participants are interested in different cultures

(question 24); how often participants go on holidays abroad (questions 18 & 19); how much time participants have

spent abroad for study, residing, and work (questions 14-17); and how many countries participants have visited for

study, residing, work, and holidays (questions 14-17 and 19). Questions 14 – 17 and 20 provide numerical data

(number of countries and time spent abroad) and create scale variables. Questions 18, 19, and 22 – 24 create ordinal

variables using a seven-point Likert scale.

Questions on cross-cultural experience are used to place participants on a scale, ranging from “low cross-cultural

experience” to “high cross-cultural experience”. This scale is used to measure the extent to of cross-cultural

12

experience. The data analysis plan in sub-chapter 8.7 shows how the questions of the questionnaire are used to rank

participants on this scale.

The composite index of cross-cultural experience will be called exp_index. Sub-chapter 8.7 explains how this index

variable is created.

5.6 Study phase

The variable study phase measures how far the student is his/her studies. In the course of their study, students have

to finish a bachelor program before they can enrol into a master program. Students can therefore be classified as

either bachelor student, or as master student. Studying in the master is successive to studying in the bachelor. Not

all students that do a bachelor proceed with doing a master but all students who are enrolled in a master program

have finished a bachelor program.

Study year within the bachelor and the master are also measured as indicator of progress in the study. Although a

bachelor officially takes three years and a master takes two years, students often study longer than this and are

enrolled in their bachelor or master for longer than three resp. two years.

13

6 Data assumptions

This chapter will explain the assumptions that are made about the data that will be collected. These assumptions

underlie the research questions and hypotheses. During data analysis will be checked whether the data meet the

following expectations:

There is an equal proportion of males and females within:

bachelor and master students

students in different study years within the bachelor and the master,

students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and students who have

two non-Dutch parents,

students of different ages,

students who had vignette lunch and students who had vignette negotiate.

Within bachelor students, master students, and students of each different study year there is an equal

proportion of:

students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and students who have

two non-Dutch parents,

students who had vignette lunch and students who had vignette negotiate.

Within students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and students who

have two non-Dutch parents there is an equal proportion of:

students of different ages,

students who had vignette at lunch and students who had vignette negotiate.

Regarding vignette lunch and negotiate the age distribution is the same within each vignette.

Students who had vignette lunch and students who had vignette negotiate will not report different levels of:

perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience.

14

7 Research questions & hypotheses

Since Bennett’s (Hammer, et al., 2003) questionnaire to measure intercultural sensitivity is proprietary, and since the

present study lacks time and resources to reinvent this questionnaire, we focus on one aspect of Bennett’s theory:

empathy. Empathy is recognized to be important in intercultural communication and training.

The main research question is: assess whether exposure to non-Dutch cultures moves Dutch students to later

stages of the Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity. The main hypothesis is: Dutch students who had more

cross-cultural experiences will report more empathy for a non-Dutch protagonist.

It should be kept in mind throughout this chapter that the participants are Dutch students aged 18-35 years old. More

specific information about the criteria of the participants can be found in subchapter 8.2. Table 1 shows which

variables are used in which research question and hypotheses.

Table 1. Overview of which variables are used in research questions and corresponding hypotheses (1.1 – 15).

Gender Parents’

nationality

Age Study

phase

Perceived

similarity

Cogn_index Aff_index

Perceived similarity 1.1 2.1 3.1 4 9 - -

Cogn_index 1.2 2.2 3.2 5 10 - -

Aff_index 1.3 2.3 3.3 6 11 13 -

Exp_index 1.4 2.4 3.4 7 12 14 15

Age - - - 8 - - -

7.1 Research questions

The research questions (RQs) will be explained in this sub-chapter. Since it is not clear whether it will be possible to

recruit substantial amounts of students of every category, RQs may be cast aside due to lack of data. For example, if

there are not enough fifth year master students to acquire a significant sample.

7.1.1 Gender

RQ 1: Do males and females score differently regarding the extent of perceived similarity, cognitive empathy,

affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience?

Sub-RQ 1.1: Do males and females score differently regarding the extent of perceived similarity?

Sub- RQ 1.2: Do males and females score differently regarding the extent of cognitive empathy?

Sub- RQ 1.3: Do males and females score differently regarding the extent of affective empathy?

Sub- RQ 1.4: Do males and females score differently regarding the extent of cross-cultural experience?

7.1.2 Nationality of parents

RQ 2: Do students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and students who have

two non-Dutch parents score differently regarding the extent of perceived similarity, cognitive empathy,

affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience?

Sub-RQ 2.1: Do students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and

students who have two non-Dutch parents score differently regarding the extent of perceived similarity?

Sub- RQ 2.2: Do students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and

students who have two non-Dutch parents score differently regarding the extent of cognitive empathy?

15

Sub- RQ 2.3: Do students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and

students who have two non-Dutch parents score differently regarding the extent of affective empathy?

Sub- RQ 2.4: Do students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and

students who have two non-Dutch parents score differently regarding the extent of cross-cultural experience?

7.1.3 Age

RQ 3: To what extent is age correlated with the extent of perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, affective

empathy, and cross-cultural experience?

Sub-RQ 3.1: To what extent is age correlated with the extent of perceived similarity?

Sub- RQ 3.2: To what extent is age correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy?

Sub- RQ 3.3: To what extent is age correlated with the extent of affective empathy?

Sub- RQ 3.4: To what extent is age correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience?

7.1.4 Study phase

RQ 4: To what extent do students in different phases of their study perceive similarity?

Sub- RQ 4.1: Do bachelor and master students score differently regarding the extent of perceived

similarity?

Sub- RQ 4.2: To what extent is study year in the bachelor correlated with the extent of perceived

similarity?

Sub- RQ 4.3: To what extent is study year in the master correlated with the extent of perceived similarity?

RQ 5: To what extent do students in different phases of their study experience cognitive empathy?

Sub- RQ 5.1: Do bachelor and master students score differently regarding the extent of cognitive empathy?

Sub- RQ 5.2: To what extent is study year in the bachelor correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy?

Sub- RQ 5.3: To what extent is study year in the master correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy?

RQ 6: To what extent do students in different phases of their study experience affective empathy?

Sub- RQ 6.1: Do bachelor and master students score differently regarding the extent of affective empathy?

Sub- RQ 6.2: To what extent is study year in the bachelor correlated with the extent of affective empathy?

Sub- RQ 6.3: To what extent is study year in the master correlated with the extent of affective empathy?

RQ 7: To what extent have students in different phases of their study had cross-cultural experience?

Sub- RQ 7.1: Do bachelor and master students score differently regarding the extent of cross-cultural

experience?

Sub- RQ 7.2: To what extent is study year in the bachelor correlated with the extent of cross-cultural

experience?

Sub- RQ 7.3: To what extent is study year in the master correlated with the extent of cross-cultural

experience?

RQ 8: To what extent is age correlated with study phase?

Sub- RQ 8.1: Is the age distribution within bachelor students different from the age distribution within

master students?

Sub- RQ 8.2: To what extent is study year in the bachelor correlated with age?

Sub- RQ 8.3: To what extent is study year in the master correlated with age?

16

7.1.5 Perceived similarity

RQ 9: To what extent do participants feel similar to the protagonist?

RQ 10: To what extent is the extent of perceived similarity correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy?

RQ 11: To what extent is the extent of perceived similarity correlated with the extent of affective empathy?

RQ 12: To what extent is the extent of perceived similarity correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience?

7.1.6 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience

RQ 13: To what extent is the extent of affective empathy correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy?

RQ 14: to what extent is the extent of cross-cultural experience correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy?

RQ 15: to what extent is the extent of cross-cultural experience correlated with the extent of affective empathy?

7.2 Hypotheses

The hypotheses (hyp) and the reasoning behind the hypotheses will be explained in this chapter.

7.2.1 Gender

Hyp 1: Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, and

affective empathy and males and females do not score differently with regard to the extent of cross-cultural

experience.

Sub- hyp 1.1: Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of perceived similarity.

Sub- hyp 1.2: Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of cognitive empathy.

Sub- hyp 1.3: Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of affective empathy.

Sub- hyp 1.4: Males and females do not score differently with regard to the extent of cross-cultural

experience.

Research has shown that females report more feelings of empathy than males (Myyry & Helkama, 2001). We

hypothesize that females score higher on both affective (sub-hyp 1.3) and cognitive (sub-hyp 1.2) empathy. Since

we hypothesize that perceived similarity with the protagonist and empathy are correlated (see hyp 10 & 11), we also

expect that women perceive the protagonist as more similar to themselves (sub-hyp 1.1). This last hypothesis is

however a quite speculative one. There is no information that suggests that males and females have different levels

of cross-cultural experience so we expect that they do not score differently.

7.2.2 Nationality of parents

Hyp 2: Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-Dutch parent score

intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard to the extent of

perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience.

Sub- hyp 2.1: Students with two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-Dutch

parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard to the

extent of perceived similarity.

Sub- hyp 2.2: Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-

Dutch parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard to

the extent of cognitive empathy.

17

Sub- hyp 2.3: Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-

Dutch parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard to

the extent of affective empathy.

Sub- hyp 2.4: Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-

Dutch parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard to

the extent of cross-cultural experience.

We hypothesize that students will experience foreign influences in their upbringing when one or two of the parents

is non-Dutch. This is a very generic hypothesis and is influenced by many factors. When the parent is, for example,

from a culture that is very similar to the Dutch culture, the contribution to cross-cultural experience will be small.

Also when the parent(s) has / have not played an active (or even absent) role in the upbringing of the student the role

of the parent is minimalized.

7.2.3 Age

Hyp 3: Age is positively correlated with the extent of perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, affective empathy,

and cross-cultural experience.

Sub- hyp 3.1: Age is positively correlated with the extent of perceived similarity.

Sub- hyp 3.2: Age is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy.

Sub- hyp 3.3: Age is positively correlated with the extent of affective empathy.

Sub- hyp 3.4: Age is positively correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience.

We hypothesize that older students will have had more cross-cultural experiences because they have had more time

to travel (sub-hyp 3.4). In sub-sub-chapter 7.2.6 we hypothesize that empathy and cross-cultural experience are

positively correlated (hyp 14 & 15). Combining sub-hypothesis 3.4 and hypotheses 14 & 15 lead to sub-hypotheses

3.2 & 3.3: age is positively correlated with empathy.

In sub-sub-chapter 7.2.5 we loosely hypothesize that perceived similarity is positively correlated with empathy (hyp

10 & 11). Combining sub-hypotheses 3.2 & 3.3 and hypotheses 10 & 11 results in hypothesis 3.1: perceived

similarity and age are positively correlated.

7.2.4 Study phase

Hyp 4: Students who are further in their study perceive more similarity.

Sub- hyp 4.1: Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of perceived

similarity.

Sub- hyp 4.2: Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of perceived similarity.

Sub- hyp 4.3: Study year in the master is positively correlated with the extent of perceived similarity.

Hyp 5: Students who are further in their study experience more cognitive empathy.

Sub- hyp 5.1: Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of cognitive

empathy.

Sub- hyp 5.2: Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy.

Sub- hyp 5.3: Study year in the master is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy.

Hyp 6: Students who are further in their study experience more affective empathy.

Sub- hyp 6.1: Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of affective empathy.

18

Sub- hyp 6.2: Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of affective empathy.

Sub- hyp 6.3: Study year in the master is positively correlated with the extent of affective empathy.

Hyp 7: Students who are further in their study have had more cross-cultural experience.

Sub- hyp 7.1: Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of cross-cultural

experience.

Sub- hyp 7.2: Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience.

Sub- hyp 7.3: Study year in the master is positively correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience.

Hyp 8: To what extent is age correlated with study phase?

Sub- hyp 8.1: Bachelor students are younger than master students.

Sub- hyp 8.2: Study year in the bachelor is positively correlated with age.

Sub- hyp 8.3: Study year in the master is positively correlated with age.

We hypothesize that the longer Dutch studies students are enrolled in their study, the more empathy they will report

for non-Dutch protagonists.

The underlying assumption is that along the trajectory of their study, Dutch students gain intercultural awareness.

Especially during their master because they accumulate intercultural experiences such as: encounters with non-

Dutch students in a lecture, group work, at the University canteen, etc.; discussing previous intercultural experiences

with fellow Dutch students, etc. Students are categorized according to amount of years they’ve been enrolled into

their current master program.

We assume that Dutch students have less contact with international students during their bachelor than during

master program, so within the bachelor there is no steep correlation between study year and empathy and perceived

similarity. Although students become older in the trajectory of the bachelor, so age on the other hand may influence

(bias) the measurements. At Wageningen University, bachelors are only thaught in Dutch and most bachelor

students have Dutch as native language. Probably the largest non-native speakers group is Germans that took a six

week course Dutch prior to entering the bachelor. Also the largest student organizations (Ceres, KSV, Unitas, and

SSRW) that many students join in their first year in Wageningen have (almost) exclusively Dutch members. We

speculate that the main sources of cross-cultural contact between Dutch bachelor students and non-Dutch students,

aside from the Germans, are through housing and recreational activities. In the main buildings for Dutch students

(Haarweg, Dijkgraaf, Hoevestein, and Asserpark) are often one or two international rooms on each corridor. The

location Droevendaal is a lot more international location but not very large compared to the other student housing

facilities, so the amount of Dutch students on Droevendaal is relatively small.

Older students are usually more advanced in their studies, so age most likely coincides with study phase, since

students that are further in their study are usually older.

7.2.5 Perceived similarity

RQ 9: The participants do not feel similar to the protagonist (score lower than 4, neutral, on the 7 point Likert scale,

which means that they disagree with the proposition that they feel similar to the protagonist).

Hyp 10: The extent of perceived similarity has a positive correlation with the extent of cognitive empathy.

Hyp 11: The extent of perceived similarity has a positive correlation with the extent of affective empathy.

Hyp 12: The extent of perceived similarity has a positive correlation with the extent of cross-cultural experience.

19

In Nelson’s study (Nelson & Baumgarte, 2004), perceived similarity towards the protagonist was used to distinguish

two types of cultural vignettes. In one type of vignette the protagonist was culturally similar to the (US) participants

and in one type of vignette the protagonist was culturally dissimilar to the (US) participants. Their hypothesis that

the US participants felt more similar to US protagonists than to non-US protagonists was confirmed. In the present

study we assume that Dutch participants would respond the same way in a similar study. However due to limited

resources we can test only one type of vignette: the dissimilar vignette. To verify that our participants indeed feel

not similar to the protagonist, we do the similarity check (hypothesis 9). Perceived similarity should be on average

lower than ‘4 = neutral’ –the participants should disagree with the propositions that they feel similar to the

protagonist.

One of speculative hypotheses is that perceived similarity correlates positively with the extent of cross-cultural

experience (hypothesis 12). According to the main research question, someone who had had a lot of cross-cultural

experience would be in a later stage of the Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity, and certain foreign

culture(s) would be incorporated more into their identity. If someone would have incorporated a culture into their

identity, they would indicate that they feel more similar to someone of that culture. It is however not certain that this

identification process is linear. It could be possible that the identification only begins in one of the last stages of

intercultural sensitivity. Combining the expectation that people with more cross-cultural experience perceive

themselves as more similar to the protagonist and the expectation that cross-cultural experience and empathy are

positively correlated (hyp 14 & 15), it’s logical to assume that perceived similarity and empathy are also positively

correlated (hypotheses 10 and 11).

7.2.6 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience

Hyp 13: The extent of affective empathy is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy.

Hyp 14: The extent of cross-cultural experience is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy.

Hyp 15: The extent of cross-cultural experience is positively correlated with the extent of affective empathy.

Cognitive and affective empathy measure a different kind of empathy and should therefore not completely overlap

with each other, otherwise both variables should be combined because they measure the same thing. However

cognitive and affective empathy are both components of empathy and should therefore correlate but not negatively.

It’s relevant to discover how affective empathy and cognitive empathy relate to each other, because they are part of

the same construct, but not identical (hypothesis 13).

Hypotheses 14 and 15 are crucial to answering the main research question (to assess whether exposure to non-Dutch

cultures moves Dutch students to later stages of the Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity), because they test

whether cross-cultural experience is positively correlated with empathy.

20

8 Research methodology

8.1 Cultural vignettes

The two cultural vignettes (see 8.1.1 and 8.1.2) that are used in the present study are derived from columns in

Resource, a magazine of Wageningen University for students and personnel that comes out every two weeks. The

column ‘Negotiate’, was written by an Indonesian student, (Anggrek, 2011) and ‘Lunch’ was written by a Ghanaian

student (Bryant, 2012). The columns are written by international students who have had an experience in the

Netherlands that is strange, funny, or awkward to them and that they have characterized as ‘typically Dutch’. The

advantage of using these columns is that the students can relate to the topics: they are contemporary and within the

frame of reference of students’ lives.

In the two selected vignettes, the main characters (protagonists) of the cultural vignettes are a Ghanaian

and Indonesian student who experience an uncomfortable situation in the Netherlands due to a perceived cultural

difference between the Ghanaian or Indonesian culture and the Dutch culture. The participants in the present study

are Dutch, so when compared to the research of Nelson (2004), both vignettes are characterized as culturally

dissimilar. In the study of Nelson (2004) the cultural similar condition was also used. The advantage of using two

vignettes as opposed to one, is that it decreases the risk that an abnormality in the vignette largely influences the

outcome of the research.

8.1.1 Cultural vignette Negotiate (protagonist: Jane)

Jane came to the Netherlands to do a PhD at Wageningen University. She is friends with Monica, a Dutch fellow

PhD student. One day Monica invites Jane to her house for a home cooked diner. At the evening of the dinner, Jane

enjoys the food and the conversation with Monica and Monica’s husband John. They discuss work and hobbies and

discover that they all play tennis. Monica suggests that they should play together some time. During the dinner

Jennifer, Monica’s 8 year old daughter, is moving restlessly in her chair and looking bored. When the dessert is

served she eats it up quickly and stands up to leave the table. John says “Jennifer, get back in your chair”. Jennifer

replies “Why do I have to sit? This meal is taking for ever!” John: “Wait until everyone finished their dessert”.

Jennifer: “But I am so bored and my TV program almost begins”. John: “The show is not on until 10 minutes. Wait

5 minutes, and then you can leave the table”. An hour later Monica said to her daughter: “Jennifer, you must stop

watching television”, then Jennifer replied “Why?” Monica answered to her that she had watched long enough and

should stop. Every time Monica or John said: “No”, they had to give an explanation to stop Jennifer from asking

more questions. Jane was embarrassed to see how little respect Jennifer had for her parents. Clearly Monica and

John couldn’t handle both a job and raising a child properly, Jane thought. She felt sorry for Jennifer for the lack of

discipline she received from her parents and was worried for Jennifer’s future. She concluded it would be best not to

accept future invitations for dinner or tennis since this would put a strain on the time Monica and John can spare for

the upbringing of Jennifer.

8.1.2 Cultural vignette Lunch (protagonist: Mike)

Mike is an exchange student at Wageningen University. He meets a Dutch guy, named Tom in one of the lectures.

They often sit next to each other, talk about all sorts of topics, and Mike has the feeling they get along very well. In

one of their talks Tom proposes to have lunch together at the campus restaurant the next day. Mike is exited and

looks forward to an elaborate lunch. Since his stay in the Netherlands he had a lot of unforeseen expenses, this lunch

21

was a welcome treat to look forward to. Then next morning Mike dresses nicely for the occasion. That afternoon

Mike and Tom take a seat at one of the tables in the restaurant. Tom opens his bag, takes out a plastic bag with

sandwiches and starts eating. Mike feels confused but patiently waits for Tom while they are chatting. When Tom

has finished the bread, Mike thinks what he will take for lunch in the restaurant. Then Tom says: “It was nice having

lunch with you”, and walks away, leaving Mike shocked and insulted. What have I done to deserve to be treated so

rude, thinks Mike. Mike was under the impression that Tom could be a friend but feels confused and offended now.

8.2 Criteria for participants

The participants for the present study will be male and female Dutch students at Wageningen University and Avans

Hogeschool aged 18 to 35. Wageningen University and Avans Hogeschool will be used because it is easy to gain

access. Wageningen University is easy because we work / study there. Avans Hogeschool is easy because we have

close access to one of the teachers. The age range 18-35 years represents the phase of early adulthood in the theory

of the developmental psychologist Erik Erikson (Erikson, 1965). This phase distinguishes itself from the other

phases because intimacy vs. isolation is the main conflict in this life phase. In the adolescence phase (12-18 years)

identity vs. role confusion is the main conflict. In the phase following early adulthood, late adulthood, creativity and

care for the next generation are important. Because the age groups differ it is best to choose one age group because

this decreases bias due to different life phases. Also, each age group has experienced different world events (such as

nine eleven) and different influential figures, this also distinguishes the age groups from each other.

8.3 Questionnaire

The questions in appendix 1, to measure empathic response, are derived from an earlier study by Nelson &

Baumgarte (2004) in the US, but Nelson’s hypotheses were different from the present study. Therefore part of the

outcomes can be compared to their research. The data that is derived from these questions is measured on a seven

point Likert scale. The items on cognitive empathy were highly intercorrelated in Nelson’s study (2004)

(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85) as well as the items on affective empathy (Cronbach’s alpha = 0,92). Path analysis

indicated that cognitive empathy was mediating the link between cognitive empathy and affective empathy. The

importance of using the same questions as Nelson and Baumgarte is evident: we hope to find high Cronbach’s

alpha’s in our research, which would indicate high reliability. Also, cognitive empathy and affective empathy are

complex concepts and can be defined and interpreted in many different ways. Altering the questions could lead to

measuring something else than cognitive and affective empathy as defined in Nelson and Baumgarte. Since we want

to build on the findings of their research -that US participants had less empathy for non-US protagonist than for US-

protagonist (Nelson & Baumgarte, 2004)- we shall use the same questions.

Demographical questions will also be asked: age, sex, nationality, nationality of parents, study year, study,

and country of residence.

To measure how much cross-cultural experience the Dutch students had, questions will be asked to the

students about their international experiences on the areas study, work, residing, and holidays. These questions will

be developed in the present study and aim to give a broad view of the amount of cross-cultural experience that the

students have had in their life. To trigger participants to remember all the countries they have visited for holidays, a

list of the most popular holiday destinations of the Dutch (CBS, 2013) will be pre-printed on the questionnaire

(question 20).

22

The data of the experiment will be treated anonymously.

8.4 Pre test

Five Dutch students are asked to judge whether they find the vignettes believable and realistic and whether there are

no abnormalities that stand out. Questions such as: ‘What do you notice about this text?’, ‘How does it make you

feel?’, ‘What do you think about the main character?’, ‘Do you find it realistic?’, ‘Is it understandable?’, ‘Are there

any weird things that stand out?’, etc. will be asked.

8.5 Selection of courses

A list of all courses that are given in period 6 is randomized using random.org/lists. The first ten courses of the list

are selected and teachers are contacted. When the teacher doesn’t give permission or cannot be contacted, the

eleventh, twelfth, etc. course of the list is selected until ten classes are included in the research.

8.6 Execution of experiment

The experiment will be held in May and June. During that time data will be collected at Wageningen University and

Avans Hogeschool. Prior to data collection I will contact teachers of courses that are given in period 6 that are

selected (preferable personal or through telephone) to ask to cooperate with this research. I will shortly explain my

research and how long it will take.

When the teacher has given permission to include the students of his/her course in the research, I will go to the class

to hand out the questionnaires or I will let the teacher do so. The questionnaire can be handed out without special

introduction (other than ‘make it individually in silence’ and ‘please cooperate’) because the introduction text on the

questionnaire is sufficient. The questionnaire also provides the possibility to fill in the respondent’s email address to

learn more about results of the research.

Half of the participants will receive the vignette lunch and half will receive the vignette negotiate. To make sure this

happens, the two vignettes will be placed alternately on the stack before they are handed out (outside the view of the

students).

8.7 Data analysis plan

See tables 2, 3, and 4 for all variables that are mentioned in this chapter.

Step 1. All reversed items will be re-coded so that they are not reversed anymore.

Step 2. Perform explorative factor analysis on all the items to see which items are regarded by the

participants as belonging to separate categories. According to this analysis, questions on cognitive empathy,

affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience should come forward as separate categories.

Step 3. Cronbach’s alpha will be performed to measure internal consistency within items on cognitive

empathy (items 3 -8), affective empathy (items 9-13), and within all items on empathy combined (items 3-13).

23

Cronbach’s alphas for cognitive and affective empathy should be 0,60 or higher. Deviant items will be removed.

The remaining items of cognitive and affective empathy will be summed up for each participant to create the

indexes cogn_index and aff_index respectively (table 2).

Step 4. Check whether the two different vignettes (lunch and negotiate) do not differ with regard to

perceived similarity (using variable 1), affective empathy (using aff_index), and cognitive empathy (using

cogn_index) using Mann-Whitney U test (which is the same as the Wilcoxon rank sum test (Ott & Longnecker,

2001, p. 289)).

Step5. Transform items 18 and 19 to a seven point Likert scale: variable B. (tables 3 and 4) Perform

Cronbach’s alpha to measure internal consistency within items on cross-cultural experience: items 14 – 24 (table 3

& 4). Deviant items will be removed and the remaining items should have a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.60 or higher. The

remaining items are summed up for each participant to create an index on cross-cultural experiences, exp_index.

Step 6. To answer sub-hypotheses 1.2, 1.3, 5.1, and 6.1 (that females (versus males) and bachelor (versus

master) students report more empathy for non-Dutch protagonists) using Mann-Whitney U test. The variables that

are used for empathy are cogn_index and aff_index, which are both ordinal variables. The two variables gender and

bachelor versus master are binominal. This makes the Mann-Whitney U test very suitable to test whether reported

empathy significantly differs between the two sexes and between bachelor and master students. The significance

level will be set on 5 per cent (p 0.05).

To answer hypotheses 14, 15, 5.2, 5.3, 6.2, and 6.3, Spearman Correlation or Kendall’s tau will be used. This test

is suitable because it can be used to measure correlation between two ordinal variables. Hypotheses 14 & 15 are

about the correlation between cross-cultural experience (exp_index) and empathy (cogn_index and aff_index).

Hypotheses 5.2, 5.3, 6.2, and 6.3 are about the correlation between study year and empathy (cogn_index and

aff_index). All these variables are ordinal. The level of significance should be ten per cent or lower (p 0,05).

24

Table 2. Questionnaire items 2 – 13 and cogn_index and aff_index variable

Questionnaire item Variable Index variable:

No. Question: Type 1

Possible

values

Possible

values

2 I feel similar to Mike. O 1-7 2 - -

3 Mike is to blame for his bad feelings. reversed O 1-7 2

Cogn_index 6 – 42 3

4 Mike's distress a result of the unpleasantness and difficulty of the situation. O 1-7 2

5 Mike's emotional reaction is appropriate to the situation. O 1-7 2

6 I find it difficult to relate to what Mike is feeling. reversed O 1-7 2

7 An average person would have responded the same way as Mike. O 1-7 2

8 I would have responded differently than Mike. reversed O 1-7 2

9 While I read the story, I felt sympathetic. O 1-7 2

Aff_index 5 – 35 4

10 While I read the story, I felt compassionate. O 1-7 2

11 While I read the story, I felt moved. O 1-7 2

12 While I read the story, I felt warm. O 1-7 2

13 While I read the story, I felt soft-hearted. O 1-7 2

1. Scale variable (S), ordinal variable (O), or nominal variable (N).

2. Seven point Likert scale from not at all to completely

3. The seven-point Likert scales of the six items are summed up, resulting in a variable that ranges from 6 (when

scoring the 1 on every item) to 42 (when scoring 7 on every item).

4. The seven-point Likert scales of the five items are summed up, resulting in a variable that ranges from 5 (when

scoring the 1 on every item) to 35 (when scoring 7 on every item).

25

Table 3. Questionnaire items 14 – 29, 31 and variables A – D

Questionnaire item Variable

Questionnaire items that are

used to create variables A – D.

No. Subject of item Type1 Possible

values A B C D

14 Current country of inhabitance 14.1 Country N 1 – 193 3 - - O -

14.2 Duration in yr. S 0 – 35 4 O - - -

15 Past foreign countries of inhabitance 15.1 Country N 2 – 193 3 - - O -

15.2 Duration in yr. S 0 – 35 4 O - - -

16 Visits abroad for study 16.1 Country N 2 – 193 3 - - O -

16.2 Duration in yr. S 0 – 35 4 O - - -

17 Visits abroad for work 17.1 Country N 2 – 193 3 - - O -

17.2 Duration in yr. S 0 – 35 4 O - - -

18 Have you ever been on holiday abroad? N

0 = yes

1 = no - O - O

19 How often do you go on holidays abroad on average? O 2 – 7 5 - O - O

20 Countries visited for holidays abroad S 2 – 193 3 - - O -

21 Other experiences abroad (open question) 21.1 Country N 2 – 193 3 - - O -

21.2 Duration in yr. S 0 – 35 4 O - - -

22 Interaction cultures: in study O 1 – 7 2 - - - O

23 Interaction cultures: outside study O 1 – 7 2 - - - O

24 Interest in foreign cultures O 1 – 7 2 - - - O

25 Age S 18 – 35 - - - -

26 Gender N

1 = male

2 = female - - - -

27 Second nationality N 2 – 193 3 - - - -

28 Nationality father 28.1 First N 1 – 193 3 - - - -

28.2 Second N 1 – 193 3 - - - -

29 Nationality mother 29.1 First N 1 – 193 3 - - - -

29.2 Second N 1 – 193 3 - - - -

31 Study phase 31.1 BSc/MSc N

1 = BSc

2 = MSc - - - -

31.2 BSc year O 1 - x - - - -

31.3 MSc year O 1 - x - - - -

1. Scale variable (S), ordinal variable (O), or nominal variable (N).

2. A seven-point Likert scale ranging from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (7).

3. Each country receives a numerical code. This code varies from 1 (1 = The Netherlands) to 193 (total number of countries in the world).

4. Amount of time expressed in years. This number cannot exceed the age of the participant. The age limit of the participants is 35 years.

5. 2 = once every three years or less; 3 = once every two years; 4 = once every year; 5 = twice per year; 6 = three times per year; 7 = four times per year or more.

26

Table 4. Variables A - D

Variable Questionnaire items that are used to create variable

Type1 Possible

values No. Subject of the question

A. Total time spent abroad for

residing, studying, working,

and other in years.

S 0 – 35 2

14 Current country of inhabitance (14.2 duration in years)

15 Past foreign countries of inhabitance (15.2 duration in years)

16 Visits abroad for study (16.2 duration in years)

17 Visits abroad for work (17.2 duration in years)

21 Other experiences abroad (open question) (21.2 duration in years)

B. Average amount of times

participant goes abroad on

holidays yearly.

O 1 – 7 3

18 Have you even been on holidays abroad?

19 How often do you go on holidays abroad on average?

C. Total number of different

countries visited abroad for

residing, studying, working,

holidays, and other.

S 0 – 192 4

14 Current country of inhabitance (14.1 country)

15 Past foreign countries of inhabitance (15.1 country)

16 Visits abroad for study (16.1country)

17 Visits abroad for work (17.1 country)

20 Countries visited for holidays abroad

21 Other experiences abroad (open question) (21.1 country)

D. Combined Likert scale

questions on intercultural

experience / interest.

O 4 – 28 5

18

19

Average amount of times participant goes abroad on holidays yearly.

(Have you even been on holidays abroad? How often do you go on

holidays abroad on average?)

22 Within my studies, I frequently interact with people who have a

different cultural background than me.

23 Outside my studies, I frequently interact with people who have a

different cultural background than me.

24 I am interested in different cultures.

1. Scale variable (S), ordinal variable (O), or nominal variable (N).

2. Amount of time expressed in years. This number cannot exceed the age of the participant. The age limit of the

participants is 35 years.

3. 1=never; 2=once per three years; 3=once per two years; 4=once per year; 5=twice per year; 6=thrice per year; 7=four

times per year or more.

4. Number of countries cannot exceed 192 (total amount of countries in the world excluding The Netherlands)

5. The seven-point Likert scales of the four items are summed up, resulting in a variable that ranges from 4 (when scoring

the 1 on every item) to 28 (when scoring 7 on every item).

27

9 Results

All the 344 Dutch students that were included in the study currently live in the Netherlands so variable 14 (current

country of inhabitance) was discarded. Question 21 (open question regarding experiences abroad) did not contain

information about countries that were visited abroad nor about time spent abroad that wasn’t already mentioned in

questions 15 (past foreign countries of inhabitance), 16 (visits abroad for study), 17 (visits abroad for work), and 20

(countries visited for holidays abroad).

Cronbach’s alpha was performed on items of cognitive and affective empathy. Items on cognitive empathy were

intercorrelated (alpha=0,64), and items on affective empathy were highly intercorrelated (alpha=0,89). Items on

cognitive and affective empathy were summed up to create cogn_index and aff_index respectively.

9.1 Factor analysis

Affective empathy came forward as the first component in the principal component analysis and explained 23 per

cent of the variance in the data. The Likert scale questions on cross-cultural experience (variable B: frequency

holidays abroad, 22 interactions with cultures within study, 23 interactions with cultures outside study, and 24

interest in cultures) came forward as the second factor explaining ten per cent of the variance.

Variables 15.2 (time spent abroad for residing), 16.2 (time spent abroad for study), and 17.2 (time spent

abroad for work) were overlapping with variable A (total time spent abroad) and could not be included in the factor

analysis at the same time. Performing two separate factor analyses showed that using variable A resulted in the

highest percentage of explained variance, and was used instead of variables 15.2, 16.2, and17.2.

Scree plot revealed that there were four components with an eigenvalue greater than one, so the number of

‘factors to extract’ was set to four, and Varimax rotation with Kaiser Nomalisation was applied. The first component

explained twenty percent of the variance, the second component fourteen per cent, the third component ten per cent,

and the fourth component explained nine per cent of the variance. All components combined explained 53 per cent

of the variance. The first component contained all affective empathy items (with extraction values between 0,75 and

0,85). The second component included the item 2 (perceived similarity) and four items on cognitive empathy (item

numbers 5, 6, 7, and 8) with extraction values ranging from 0,51 to 0,75. The third component consisted of four

variables: 22 (interactions with cultures within study), 23 (interactions with cultures outside study), 24 (interest in

cultures), and variable A (total time spent abroad), with extraction values ranging from 0,43 to 0,85. The fourth

component included two variables: variable C (total number of different countries visited) and variable B (frequency

holidays abroad), with extraction values between 0,81 and 0,84. The variables in the third component were not

highly correlated (Cronbach’s alpha = 0,47) and could therefore not be used to create a new index.

When setting the amount of ‘factors to extract’ to three, all cross-cultural experience variables were included in

the third component and the extraction values became lower.

9.2 Vignettes

There were 175 students who had vignette lunch with protagonist Mike, and 169 students had vignette negotiate

with protagonist Jane. Mann-Whitney test revealed that vignettes lunch and negotiate were different with regard to

28

the extent of perceived similarity (item 2 I feel similar to <name protagonist>) (p=0,00), and participants felt least

similar to Mike in vignette lunch (figure 1).

Figure 1. Histogram of perceived similarity in vignette lunch and negotiate

Mann-Whitney test also revealed that vignettes lunch and negotiate were different with regard to the extent of

affective empathy (using aff_index) (p=0,00), and cognitive empathy (using cogn_index) (p=0,01). Participants felt

the most cognitive and affective empathy for Mike in vignette lunch (figures 2 and 3). Because of these differences,

vignettes lunch and negotiate will be analysed separately with regard to perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, and

affective empathy.

Figure 2. Histogram of affective index scores of vignettes lunch and negotiate

29

Figure 3. Histogram of cognitive index scores of vignettes lunch and negotiate

9.3 Countries

All students together visited 118 different countries for residing, study, work, or holidays with an average of nine

different countries per student (figure 4).

Figure 4. Histogram of total number of countries visited (variable C)

30

Table 5. Countries and number of different students visiting per country

Country Number of students

that visited country

Country Number of students

that visited country

Country Number of students

that visited country

France 306 Tanzania 8 Japan 2 Germany 290 Aruba 7 Jordan 2 Belgium 273 Romania 7 Macedonia 2 Spain 229 Argentina 6 Madagascar 2 Italy 227 Latvia 6 Nicaragua 2 Great Britain 216 Peru 6 Panama 2 Austria 188 Slovakia 6 Sri Lanka 2 Switzerland 139 Tunisia 6 Saudi Arabia 2 Czech Republic 123 Brazil 5 Taiwan 2 Greece 113 Cambodia 5 Vatican City 2 Norway/Sweden/Finland 105 Cuba 5 United Arab

Emirates

2 Portugal 90 Costa Rica 5 Belarus 2 Turkey 84 Philippines 5 Zimbabwe 2 united states 71 India 5 South Korea 2 Denmark 64 Kenya 5 Lebanon 2 Luxembourg 43 Mexico 5 Montenegro 2 Poland 42 Botswana 4 Bahamas 1 Croatia 40 Bosnia 4 El Salvador 1 Hungary 36 Dominican

Republic

4 Gran Canaria 1 Canada 30 Lithuania 4 Iraq 1 Egypt 29 Serbia 4 Cameroon 1 Ireland 21 Zambia 4 Kosovo 1 Thailand 20 Fiji 3 Liechtenstein 1 Indonesia 18 Gambia 3 Moldova 1 Morocco 18 Laos 3 Mongolia 1 Australia 16 Namibia 3 Mali 1 Slovenia 15 Netherlands

Antilles

3 Paraguay 1 South Africa 15 Nepal 3 Puerto Rico 1 Russia 12 Oman 3 Pakistan 1 Curacao 11 Saint Martin 3 Swaziland 1 Vietnam 11 Singapore 3 Trinidad 1 Burkina Faso 10 Suriname 3 Trinidad &

Tobago

1 Iceland 10 Andorra 2 Tibet 1 Malaysia 10 Bolivia 2 Venezuela 1 Malta 10 Canary Islands 2 Switzerland 1 new Zealand 9 Cyprus 2 Guatemala 1 China 8 Columbia 2 Cape Verde 1 Ecuador 8 Chile 2 Bonaire 1 Estonia 8 Ethiopia 2 Ukraine 8 Israel 2

Countries were sorted from ‘visited most frequently’ to ‘visited least frequently’ (table 5). The eleven most popular

destinations for residing, study, work, and holidays were: France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Great Britain,

Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Greece, and the cluster ‘Norway/Sweden/Finland’, which were visited by

309, 290, 273, 229, 227, 216, 188, 139, 123, 113, and 105 different students respectively. These countries were used

to create a new variable, Countr_very_popular, to measure how many of these countries were visited by each

student. The ten second most frequently visited countries were: Portugal, Turkey, United States, Denmark,

Luxemburg, Poland, Croatia, Hungary, Canada, and Egypt, which were visited by 90, 84, 71, 64, 43, 42, 40, 36, 30,

and 29 different students respectively. These ten countries were used to create a new variable, Countr_popular, to

measure how many of these countries were visited by each student. Fifteen countries that were each visited by ten to

twenty-one different students, were bundled in the category Countr_scarce, and the remaining countries were

bundled in the category Countr_very_scarce.

We also divided the countries in categories based on continent: Europe, North-America, South-America,

Africa, Asia, and Oceania.

9.4 Gender

There were 182 male and 162 female participants. Within the group of bachelor students in the present study, 56 per

cent of the group consisted of men. Within the group of master students, 42 per cent was male. Within each study of

31

the bachelor, gender was distributed roughly evenly, except for the second year, in which seventy per cent were

men.

The vignette lunch had 81 male and 94 female participants, and vignette negotiate had 101 male and 68 female

participants. Mann-Whitney test indicated that males and females did not differ with regard to perceived similarity

in vignettes lunch and negotiate. Mann-Whitney test revealed that in vignette lunch women scored higher on

affective empathy (p=0,000) and cognitive empathy (0,016) than men (using aff_index and cogn_index). Mann-

Whitney showed that men and women did not differ with regard to cognitive and affective empathy in the vignette

negotiate.

Mann-Whitney test revealed that males and females differ with regard to cross-cultural experience. Women have

spent more time abroad than men (variable A; p=0,001), especially for (volunteer) work (p=0,001). Women have

visited more countries than men (variable C; p=0,02), especially the countries that were overall least visited by the

students were visited more often by the female students (countr_very_scarce, p=0,001). Men reported more

interactions with people from a different cultural background within their studies than women (p=0,013).

Since analysis showed that women and men scored significantly different with regard to empathy and cross-cultural

experience (and because previous literature has shown that men and women differ with regard to empathy), men and

women will be analysed separately.

9.5 Nationality of parents

The large majority, 321 of the students, had two Dutch parents and 23 (15 males, 8 females) students had at least

one non-Dutch parent.

Mann-Whitney test revealed that Male students with at least one non-Dutch parent spent more time abroad for

residence (variable 15.2) (p=0,039), and visited more Asian (p=0,038) and South-American (p=0,003) countries

than Male students with two Dutch parents. Female students with at least one non-Dutch parent visited more North-

American countries (p=0,025) than female students with two Dutch parents.

Within vignette lunch differences in perceived similarity and empathy between students with Dutch parents

and students with at least one non-Dutch parent, were compared using Mann-Whitney test. The women with at least

one non-Dutch parent (n=5) did not differ significantly from the women who had two Dutch-parents. Then men with

at least one non-Dutch parent (n=5) assigned more blame (item 3) (p=0,001) to Mike than the men who had two

Dutch parents.

Within vignette negotiate, differences in perceived similarity and empathy between students with Dutch

parents and students with at least one non-Dutch parent were compared using Mann-Whitney test. Women with at

least one non-Dutch parent (n=3) did not differ significantly from women who had two Dutch-parents. Men with at

least one non-Dutch parent (n=10) felt more similar to Jane (p=0,007), thought that Jane’s response was more

appropriate to the situation (item 5) (p=0,027), and agreed more with the statement that they would have responded

the same way as Jane (item 7) (p=0,027) than the men who had two Dutch parents.

32

9.6 Age

The ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 32 and the students were on average 21 years old. Age was normally

distributed. Men were on average older than women (p=0,045).

Spearman correlations between age and cross-cultural experience were analysed. Age within men was

positively correlated with several indicators of cross-cultural experience: time spent abroad for study (item 16.2)

(0,218; p=0,003), time spent abroad for work (item 17.2) (0,165; p=0,026), interactions with foreign cultures within

the study (item 22) (0,305; p=0,000), total time spent abroad (variable A) (0,254; p=0,001), and number of African

countries visited (0,158; p=0,034). Within women, age was positively correlated in with: the amount of interactions

with foreign cultures within the study (item 22) (0,412; p=0,000), and total time spent abroad (variable A) (0,215;

p=0,006).

Within vignette lunch and negotiate, Spearman correlations were used to find correlations between age and

percieved similarity and empathy. There were no correlations found between age and empathy in men. Within

women who had vignette lunch, age was negatively correlated with perceived similarity (item 2) (-0,267; p=0,009).

Within women who had vignette negotiate, age was negatively correlated with perceived similarity (item 2) (-0,269;

p=0,027) and the reversed version of item 6 (item 6: I find it difficult to relate to what Jane is feeling) (-0,390;

p=0,001).

9.7 Study phase

There were 270 bachelor students and 74 master students. Of the bachelor students, 73 students were in their first

year, 116 were in their second year, 66 were in their third year, 11 were in their fourth year, and 4 were in their fifth

year. Study year in the bachelor will be used for analysis because it follows a normal distribution, but study year in

the master could not be used for analysis because the data were clustered: 61 of the 74 master students were in their

first year.

9.7.1 Bachelor versus master students

Mann-Whitney test revealed that bachelor students felt more similar to Mike in vignette lunch than master students.

There were no differences between bachelor and master students with regard to cognitive and affective empathy in

vignette lunch or in vignette negotiate. Mann-Whitney test indicated that master students are older than bachelor

students (p=0,000). Master students have spent more time abroad in total than bachelor students (variable A;

p=0,000), especially for study (p=0,001). Master students have visited more countries than bachelor students

(variable C; p=0,012), especially countries in the most popular segment (countr_very_popular; p=0,012). Master

students report more interactions with cultures in their study than bachelor students (p=0,000).

9.7.2 Study year in the bachelor

According to Spearman’s correlations there were no correlations within vignette lunch and negotiate between study

year in the bachelor and: perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, and affective empathy.

Spearman’s correlations showed that study year in the bachelor positively correlated (0,629; p=0,000) with age –

students who are further in their bachelor are older. It also showed that study year in the bachelor positively

correlates with amount of time spent abroad for study (variable 16.2) (0,173; p=0,004), and with interaction with

cultures within their study (question 22) (0,174; p=0,004). No significance was found in any other item or index on

cross-cultural experience.

33

9.8 Perceived similarity

A one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed that participants did not feel similar (Median, M 4) to Mike in

vignette lunch (p=0,00), nor to Jane in vignette negotiate (p=0,00).

Spearman’s correlations showed that in vignette lunch, perceived similarity was positively correlated with

cogn_index (0,504; p=0,000) and aff_index (0,162; p=0,033). It also showed that in vignette negotiate, perceived

similarity was positively correlated with cogn_index (0,504; p=0,000) and aff_index (0,362; p=0,000).

There were no correlations found between perceived similarity and indicators of cross-cultural experience.

9.9 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural

experience

This chapter summarizes the Spearman correlations between: cognitive and affective index (sub-chapter 9.9.1);

cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience (sub-chapter 9.9.2); and affective empathy and cross-cultural

experience (sub-chapter 9.9.3). The sub-chapters will submit the individual items on cognitive empathy in the

analyses but not the individual items on affective empathy, since affective empathy is a clear and uniform construct

and its items are highly intercorrelated. An overview of the correlations between cross-cultural experience and

empathy can be found in table 6 and 7.

9.9.1 Correlations between cognitive and affective empathy

Affective and cognitive empathy were positively correlated using Spearman’s correlations. In vignette lunch,

cogn_index and aff_index had a correlation of 0,471 (p=0,000) in men and a correlation of 0,338 (p=0,001) in

women. In vignette negotiate, there was a correlation of 0,460 (p=0,000) in men and a correlation of 0,418

(p=0,001) in women.

9.9.2 Correlations between cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience

In vignette lunch there were eighteen correlations between cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience (see

table 6).

Within the group of men who had vignette lunch there were twelve correlations between cognitive empathy

and cross-cultural experience. The eight positive correlations were between: number of countries visited in the

Continent Oceania with cognitive empathy; the number of countries visited in the Continent Oceania with item 3;

the number of countries visited in the Continent Oceania with item 8; countr_scarce with item 3; number of Asian

countries visited and item 7; number of Asian countries visited and item 8; countr_popular and item 8; and

interactions with cultures within study (item 22) and item 7. The four negative correlations were between: variable B

and item 3; variable A and item 6; interaction with cultures within study (item 22) and item 6; and

countr_very_popular and item 7.

Within the group of women who had vignette lunch there were six correlations between cognitive empathy

and cross-cultural experience. The four positive correlations were between: item 24 and item 6; item 22 and item 6;

item 15.2 and item 8; and item 15.2 and item 6. The two negative correlations were between countr_very_popular

and item 7, and between number of Asian countries visited and item 8.

In vignette negotiate there were seventeen correlations between cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience

(see table 7).

34

Within the group of men who had vignette negotiate there were ten correlations between cognitive empathy

and cross-cultural experience. The two positive correlations were between: item 24 and item 3, and number of

African countries visited and item 8. The eight negative correlations were between: number of European countries

visited and cong_index; countr_popular and cogn_index; variable C and cogn_index; variable B and item 6; variable

C and item 6; countr_popular and item 6; countr_scarce and item 6; and number of European countries visited and

item 6.

Within the group of women who had vignette negotiate there were seven correlations between cognitive

empathy and cross-cultural experience. The five positive correlations were between: variable B and item 3; number

of African countries visited and item 3; variable 24 and item 6; number of African countries visited and item 6; and

number of countries visited in the continent of Oceania and item 7. The two negative correlations were between item

22 and item 6, and between number of North-American countries visited and item 7.

9.9.3 Correlations between affective empathy and cross-cultural experience

In vignette lunch there were six correlations between cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience (see table 6).

These six positive correlations can be found amongst the female students. Affective empathy was correlated with:

item 17.2; item 22; item 23; item 24; countr_very_scarce; and number of North-American countries visited.

In vignette negotiate there were no correlations between affective empathy and cross-cultural experience.

35

Table 6. An overview of significant Spearman correlations between cross-cultural experience and empathy in vignette lunch

Cognitive empathy Affective empathy

Cross-cultural experience Cogn_index Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Aff_index

men women men women men women men women men women men women men women men women

15.2 Total time spent abroad for residing 0,205* 0,210*

16.2 Total duration of visits abroad for study

17.2 Total duration of visits abroad for work 0,259*

22 Interaction cultures: in study -0,277* 0,286**

23 Interaction cultures: outside study 0,314** 0,316** 0,276**

24 Interest in foreign cultures 0,209* 0,466**

Var. A. Total time spent abroad for residing, studying, working, and other in year.

-0,261*

Var. B. Average amount of times participant goes abroad on holidays yearly.

-0,294**

Var. C. Total number of different countries abroad visited for residing, studying, working, holidays, and other.

- Countr_very_popular -0,255* -0,205*

- Countr_popular 0,252*

- Countr_scarce 0,248* - Countr_very_scarce 0,241*

- Europe

- North America 0,248*

- South America

- Africa

- Asia 0,245* 0.240* -0,255*

- Oceania 0,223* 0,256* 0,240*

Item 3. <Protagonist> is to blame for his/her bad feelings. (The reversed version is used in data analysis) Item 4. <Protagonist>’s distress is a result of the unpleasantness and difficulty of the situation. Item 5. <Protagonist>’s emotional reaction is appropriate to the situation. Item 6. I find it difficult to relate to what <Protagonist> is feeling. (The reversed version is used in data analysis) Item 7. An average person would have responded the same way as <Protagonist>. Item 8. I would have responded differently than <Protagonist>. (The reversed version is used in data analysis) * At a level significance level of 0,05 ** At a level significance level of 0,01

Negative correlation

36

Table 7. An overview of significant Spearman correlations between cross-cultural experience and empathy in vignette negotiate

Cognitive empathy Affective empathy

Cross-cultural experience Cogn_index Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Aff_index

men women men women men women men women men women men women men women men women

15.2 Total time spent abroad for residing

16.2 Total duration of visits abroad for study

17.2 Total duration of visits abroad for work

22 Interaction cultures: in study -0,248*

23 Interaction cultures: outside study

24 Interest in foreign cultures 0,211* 0,259*

Var. A. Total time spent abroad for residing, studying, working, and other in year.

Var. B. Average amount of times participant goes abroad on holidays yearly.

0,287* -0,231*

Var. C. Total number of different countries abroad visited for residing, studying, working, holidays, and other.

-0,217* -0,271**

- Countr_very_popular

- Countr_popular -0,236* -0,310**

- Countr_scarce -0,201* - Countr_very_scarce

- Europe -0,238* -0,263**

- North America -0,261*

- South America

- Africa 0,257* 0,372** 0,210*

- Asia

- Oceania 0,274*

Item 3. <Protagonist> is to blame for his/her bad feelings. (The reversed version is used in data analysis) Item 4. <Protagonist>’s distress is a result of the unpleasantness and difficulty of the situation. Item 5. <Protagonist>’s emotional reaction is appropriate to the situation. Item 6. I find it difficult to relate to what <Protagonist> is feeling. (The reversed version is used in data analysis) Item 7. An average person would have responded the same way as <Protagonist>. Item 8. I would have responded differently than <Protagonist>. (The reversed version is used in data analysis) * At a level significance level of 0,05 ** At a level significance level of 0,01

Negative correlation

37

9.10 Study

The sample included 47 students of Avans Hogeschool studying HBO Business IT & Management (of which 2 women)

and 297 students from Wageningen University. The Avans students did not differ significantly from the Wageningen

University students. The students from Wageningen University were enrolled in 15 different bachelor and 20 different

master studies. When calculating the ‘perfect amount of students’ from each study that should have been included in our

research, we find that our sample is not at all representative for the student population of Wageningen University (figures

5-7). Especially the biology students are over-represented with 145 people in our sample. Figures 5-7 show how many

students of each study were included in our study, and how may were needed to create a representative sample.

38

Figure 5. Distribution of male and female participants enrolled in each Wageningen University bachelor study (excluding BSc biology), compared to

distribution of males and females in a hypothetical perfect sample

Figure 6. Amount of male and

female participants enrolled in the

bachelor biology, compared to the

amount of males and females in a

hypothetical perfect sample

39

Figure 7. Distribution of male and female participants enrolled in each Wageningen University master study, compared to distribution of males and females in a hypothetical perfect sample

40

9.10.1 Bachelor biology

In addition to the analyses that were described in the previous sub-chapter, the bachelor biology students were

analysed separately. The BSc students did not feel similar to Mike nor to Jane (p=0,000), according to the one-

sample Wilcoxon rank test. They felt least similar to Mike in vignette lunch, according to Mann-Whitney test

(p=0,025). The BSc biology students reported more affective empathy (according to aff_index) in vignette lunch

than in vignette negotiate (Mann-Whitney test; p=0,000). Cogn_index did not differ (p=0,055) between the two

vignettes. There were no correlations found between aff_index and indicators of cross-cultural experience in vignette

lunch, nor in vignette negotiate. There were no correlations found between cogn_index and indicators of cross-

cultural experience, but there were some individual items within cognitive empathy that were related to cross-

cultural experience.

The men in the group of BSc biology students were older (Mann-Whitney test, p=0,001) and further in their

bachelor, according to study year (Mann-Whitney test, p=0,024), than the women.

Mann-Whitney test indicated that within BSc biology students, males and females did not differ with regard to

perceived similarity in vignettes lunch and negotiate. Mann-Whitney test revealed that in vignette lunch, women

scored higher on affective empathy (p=0,006) than men (using aff_index). Women score almost significantly higher

on cognitive empathy (p=0,052) (using cogn_index). Mann-Whitney showed that men and women did not differ

with regard to cognitive and affective empathy in the vignette negotiate.

Mann-Whitney test revealed that, within BSc biology students, males and females differ with regard to cross-

cultural experience. Women have spent more time abroad than men for (volunteer) work (p=0,014) (variable 17.2).

Women have visited more countries than men (variable C; p=0,025), especially countr_very_scarce (p=0,042) and

countr_popular (p=0,018).

Men reported more interactions with people from a different cultural background within their studies (item 22) than

women (p=0,008).

41

10 Conclusions and discussion

The importance of empathy in intercultural communication has been discussed in literature, amongst other by

Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman (2003); Broome (1991); and Nelson & Baumgarte (2004). Empathy is mentioned

in Bennett’s intercultural sensitivity framework as a quality that is useful for acquiring intercultural competence

(Hammer, et al., 2003) . It seems obvious that traveling abroad and other ways of interacting with foreign cultures

would increase intercultural competence and hence also empathy. This relationship between cross-cultural

experience and empathy has however previously not been researched according to the best of our knowledge. In the

present study we researched the link between cross-cultural experience and empathy and we operationalized the

concept ‘cross-cultural experience’. Empathy was measured using the questions that were used by Nelson and

Baumgarte (2004) in their research. The outcomes of the present study allow new insights to emerge regarding the

relationship between empathy and cross-cultural experience. The explorative part of our study - developing

questions to measure cross-cultural experience – can be used as a source of inspiration for future research.

The main research question of the present study was “assess whether exposure to non-Dutch cultures moves Dutch

students to later stages of the Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity”. The main hypothesis was “Dutch

students who had more cross-cultural experiences will report more empathy for a non-Dutch protagonist”. Table 9

provides an overview of the hypotheses with their status (accepted, rejected, etc.). Table 8 shows the numbers of the

hypotheses and the status of every hypothesis (accepted, rejected, etc.) and which variables corresponded to each

hypothesis. Sub-chapters 10.2, 10.4 - 10.7, and 10.9 explain how these conclusions are supported by the data. Sub-

chapter 10.2 perceived similarity goes deeper into hypotheses 9-12. Sub-chapter 10.4 gender goes deeper into

hypotheses 1.1-1.4. Sun-chapter 10.5 nationality of parents elaborates on hypotheses 2.1-2.4. Sub-chapter 10.6 age

elaborates on hypotheses 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, and 8.2 are explained in sub-chapter 10.7

study phase. Sub-chapter 10.9 elaborates on hypotheses 13-15.

Table 8. Overview of the numbers of the hypotheses (1.1 – 15) with their status (accepted, rejected, etc.) and the variables

(gender, age, etc.) that correspond with each of the hypotheses

Gender Parents’ nationality Age

Study phase Perceived

similarity

Cognitive

empathy Aff_index

BSc vs. MSc Study year in the

bachelor

Perceived similarity 1.1 rejected 2.1 slightly accepted 3.1 rejected 4.1 rejected 4.2 rejected 9 accepted

Cognitive empathy 1.2 partially accepted 2.2 ambiguous findings 3.2 slightly rejected 5.1 rejected 5.2 rejected 10 accepted

Aff_index 1.3 partially accepted 2.3 rejected 3.3 rejected 6.1 rejected 6.2 rejected 11 accepted 13 accepted

Cross-cultural

experience 1.4 rejected 2.4 accepted 3.4 accepted 7.1 accepted

7.2 partially

accepted 12 rejected

14 ambiguous

findings

15 women: accepted

men: rejected

Age 8.1 accepted 8.2 accepted

42

Table 9. Hypotheses and their status (accepted, rejected, etc.)

Hypotheses Status of

hypotheses: Nr. Hypotheses:

1.1 Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of perceived similarity. Rejected

1.2 Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of cognitive empathy. Partially accepted

1.3 Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of affective empathy. Partially accepted

1.4 Males and females do not score differently with regard to the extent of cross-cultural experience. Rejected

2.1 Students with two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-Dutch parent

score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard to the

extent of perceived similarity.

Slightly accepted

2.2 Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-Dutch

parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard

to the extent of cognitive empathy.

Ambiguous

findings

2.3 Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-Dutch

parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard

to the extent of affective empathy.

Rejected

2.4 Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-Dutch

parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard

to the extent of cross-cultural experience.

Accepted

3.1 Age is positively correlated with the extent of perceived similarity. Rejected

3.2 Age is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy. Slightly rejected

3.3 Age is positively correlated with the extent of affective empathy. Rejected

3.4 Age is positively correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience. Accepted

4.1 Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of perceived similarity. Rejected

4.2 Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of perceived similarity. Rejected

5.1 Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of cognitive empathy. Rejected

5.2 Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy. Rejected

6.1 Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of affective empathy. Rejected

6.2 Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of affective empathy. Rejected

7.1 Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of cross-cultural e. Accepted

7.2 Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience. Partially accepted

8.1 Bachelor students are younger than master students. Accepted

8.2 Study year in the bachelor is positively correlated with age. Accepted

9 The participants do not feel similar to the protagonist (score lower than 4, neutral, on the 7 point

Likert scale, which means that they disagree with the proposition that they feel similar to the

protagonist).

Accepted

10 The extent of perceived similarity has a positive correlation with the extent of cognitive empathy. Accepted

11 The extent of perceived similarity has a positive correlation with the extent of affective empathy. Accepted

12 The extent of perceived similarity has a positive correlation with the extent of cross-cultural

experience.

Rejected

13 The extent of affective empathy is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy. Accepted

14 The extent of cross-cultural experience is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive

empathy.

ambiguous

findings

15 The extent of cross-cultural experience is positively correlated with the extent of affective

empathy.

Women: accepted

Men: rejected

43

10.1 Vignettes

The assumptions that vignette lunch and negotiate were not different with regard to perceived similarity,

cognitive empathy, and affective empathy was falsified. Participants reported less similarity and more cognitive and

affective empathy for Mike in vignette lunch than for Jane in vignette negotiate. We can conclude that type of

vignette influences the degree to which people can relate to the main character of the vignette and the degree to

which people can empathize with the main character. Research is needed to uncover why certain vignettes elicit

more empathy than others. Future research could focus on identifying what elements in vignettes elicit empathy.

Since the degree of empathy was different for different vignettes, we recommend using multiple vignettes and/or

submit vignette(s) to elaborate pre-testing.

When speculating why the participants felt less cognitive and affective empathy for Jane than for Mike, we

could offer a few possible explanations. Perhaps the context of raising children in vignette negotiate was too

unfamiliar for the students which caused less empathy because they couldn’t relate to the situation. The fact that

there were four characters in vignette negotiate (compared to two in vignette lunch) could have been confusing for

the participant or lead their attention away from Jane. Moreover, the fact that Jane was not directly affected by the

‘problem’ (Jane felt discomfort because she believed that Jennifer received poor upbringing) of vignette negotiate,

could decrease empathy for Jane since Jennifer was the person that was directly affected by the ‘poor upbringing’

and not Jane.

To improve the quality of the vignettes they could be reviewed by a panel of people who have the same

nationality as the protagonist (for instance in a focus group discussion). We recommend using multiple vignettes to

reduce bias caused by a single vignette. To correct for interpersonal differences multiple vignettes could be

administered to a single participant. The present study incorporated two cultures in each vignette. Theoretically

more cultures could be incorporated in a single vignette. Since there are so many different cultures in the world, a

selection has to be made when designing a vignette because not all cultures can be incorporated. This is a limitation

in the use of vignettes.

Future research could analyse students’ empathic attitudes towards different cultures before and after traveling

abroad and compare those findings. When selecting students who are going to a certain country, for example France,

vignettes could be created that specifically represent the French culture. Presenting different ‘French’ vignettes

before and after for example an internship in France could measure how empathy towards the French culture

changes as a result of the trip. When also using a control group in such an experiment that doesn’t go to France

allows correcting for attitude changes that occur through, for example, media as a result of news events.

10.2 Perceived similarity

The participants did not feel similar to Jane or Mike, which confirms hypothesis 9. In the research of Nelson and

Baumgarte perceived similarity was used to check whether the cultural manipulation (similar versus dissimilar

protagonist) was successful. The fact that the participants did not feel similar with the main characters (that we

derived from columns of an Indonesian and a Ghanaian person) of the vignettes indicates that we were successful in

creating a non-Dutch perspective. This corresponds to the ‘dissimilar vignettes’ that were used in Nelson and

Baumgarte, which was what we intended. We cannot conclude that we were successful in creating an Indonesian

and a Ghanaian vignette since we did not check this.

44

Cognitive and affective empathy were positively correlated with perceived similarity in both vignettes

which confirms hypotheses 10 and 11 respectively.

There were no correlations found between perceived similarity and indicators of cross-cultural experience so

hypothesis 12 is rejected.

10.3 Cross-cultural experience

The present study faced some limitations regarding measuring the amount of cross-cultural experience.

Firstly, we made a single check box for the cluster ‘Norway/Sweden/Finland’ instead of asking about Norway,

Sweden, and Finland separately which decreased the level of precision for some of the variables, such as ‘total

number of countries visited’. Secondly, recall bias could have biased the results: the students may for example not

have remembered all countries that they visited in their life or all the study / work trips that they made abroad.

Thirdly, we didn’t measure how often participants visited each country. This could be a suggestion for future

research.

In the open question (item 21) about other cultural experiences several participants wrote down that they

had a foreign boy- or girlfriend or that they participated in online gaming with people of different cultures. We

suggest to include the following indicators of cross-cultural experience in future research: amount of friends of

different cultures, nationalities of (previous) girlfriend(s) / boyfriend(s) and online contact with different

nationalities (for example through gaming, forums, etc.).

10.4 Gender

Men and women did not differ with regard to perceived similarity in both vignettes so hypothesis 1.1 is rejected.

Women scored higher than men with regard to cognitive and affective empathy in vignette lunch, as

expected based on previous literature. We also expected that women would report more empathy in vignette

negotiate but that wasn’t the case. This could be attributed to the differences between vignettes lunch and negotiate.

These results partially confirm hypothesis 1.2 and 1.3.

Men and women were different with regard to cross-cultural experience which meant that hypothesis 1.4 is

rejected. The women in our sample had more cross-cultural experience than the men. Women spent more time

abroad for study, residing, and (volunteer) work combined (variable A) and more time abroad for (volunteer) work

(item 17.2). Women visited more countries in their life (variable C) than men and visited more countries of the least

popular segment (countries that were visited by nine or less different participants: countr_very_scarce). Men

reported more interactions with people from a different cultural background within their studies (item 22) than

women.

10.5 Nationality of parents

The men with at least one non-Dutch parent who had vignette negotiate felt more similar to Jane than the men who

had vignette negotiate and had two Dutch parents. There were no perceived similarity differences between students

who had at least one non-Dutch parent and students with two Dutch parents within males who had vignette lunch or

within in women. These results provided some support for hypothesis 2.1.

45

The findings with regard to nationality of parents versus cognitive empathy were ambiguous. Within male

students who had vignette lunch, males with at least one non-Dutch parent assigned more blame to Mike (item 3)

than males with two Dutch parents. This was the opposite of what we expected. Within male students who had

vignette negotiate, males with at least one non-Dutch parent thought that Jane’s response was more appropriate to

the situation (item 5) and agreed more with the statement that they ‘would have responded the same way as Jane’

(item 7) than males who had two Dutch parents. We can conclude that hypothesis 2.2 cannot be confirmed or

rejected. There were no differences found in affective empathy between students with at least one non-Dutch parent

and students with two Dutch parents so hypothesis 2.3 is rejected. The sample sizes of the analyses regarding

nationality of parents were small so this must be taken into account.

Hypothesis 2.4 can be confirmed since students with at least one non-Dutch parent had more cross-cultural

experience than students with two Dutch parents. Male students with at least one non-Dutch parent spent more time

abroad for residence (variable 15.2) and visited more Asian and South-American countries than male students with

two Dutch parents. Female students with at least one non-Dutch parent visited more North-American countries than

female students with two Dutch parents.

10.6 Age

The age range of the participants was chosen beforehand: 18 to 35 years old. The actual age range of the participants

was 18 to 32 with an average age of 21 years.

Perceived similarity was not correlated with age in men and negatively correlated with age within women

(in both vignettes) so hypothesis 3.1 is rejected.

The only correlation that was found between cognitive empathy and age was a negative correlation between

age and item 6 (I find it difficult to relate to what Jane is feeling) within women who had vignette negotiate. In the

absence of positive correlations hypothesis 3.2 is rejected. Affective empathy was not correlated with age in both

vignettes in men or women so we reject hypothesis 3.3.

We concluded that cross-cultural experience was positively correlated with age so hypothesis 3.4 is

accepted; age was within men positively correlated with: time spent abroad for study (item 16.2), time spent abroad

for work (item 17.2), interactions with foreign cultures within the study (item 22), total time spent abroad (variable

A), and number of African countries visited. Within women, age was positively correlated with: the amount of

interactions with foreign cultures within the study (item 22) and total time spent abroad (variable A).

10.7 Study phase

Bachelor students felt more similar to Mike in vignette lunch than master students so hypothesis 4.1 is rejected.

There were no differences between bachelor and master students with regard to cognitive and affective empathy in

vignette lunch or in vignette negotiate so hypotheses 5.1 and 6.1 are rejected. Master students were older than

bachelor students so hypothesis 8.1 is accepted. Master students have spent more time abroad in for residing, study,

and (volunteer) work combined (variable A), spent more time abroad for study (item 16.2), visited more countries in

their life (variable C), visited more countries in the most popular segment (countr_very_popular), and reported more

interactions with cultures in their study (item 22) than bachelor students. These results show strong support for

accepting hypothesis 7.1.

46

There were no correlations found between study year in the bachelor and: perceived similarity, cognitive empathy,

and affective empathy in vignette lunch or vignette negotiate. These results reject hypotheses 4.2, 5.2, and 6.2.

Study year in the bachelor was positively correlated with age, accepting hypothesis 8.2. Study year in the bachelor

positively correlated with amount of time spent abroad for study (variable 16.2) and with interaction with cultures

within the study (question 22) which means that there are indications that hypothesis 7.2 can be accepted.

10.8 Study

Our sample was not representative for Wageningen University according to distribution of number of students of

each study that was present in our sample. Especially bachelor biology students were overrepresented which allowed

us to analyse this group of students separately.

The present study only included students in higher education (HBO and University). It would be interesting

to expand the target group to people of 18-35 years old who are working, unemployed, and studying MBO. Since

the results of Avans Hogeschool and Wageningen University were comparable, this might indicate that the results of

the present study could be generalized to all students that are highly educated.

10.9 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural

experience

Affective and cognitive empathy

Affective and cognitive empathy were positively correlated so hypothesis 13 is accepted.

Affective empathy and cross-cultural experience

Affective empathy was positively correlated with six indicators of cross-cultural experience within women who had

vignette lunch. The strongest correlation was found between interest in foreign cultures and aff_index in women

(rho=0,466). There were no correlations found between affective empathy and cross-cultural experience in men. We

can conclude that hypothesis 15 is accepted for women and rejected for men.

Cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience

Visiting countries in the continent Oceania was positively correlated with cognitive empathy index in men. Number

of countries visited in Europe was negatively correlated with cognitive empathy index in men. The magnitude of this

finding was supported by the fact that 86 per cent of all countries that were mentioned (which means: visited at least

once) by the students were European. Thus it is not surprizing that total number of countries visited was also

negatively correlated with cognitive empathy index in men. Since most of the countries in the group countr_popular

(consisting of the countries: Portugal, Turkey, United States, Denmark, Luxemburg, Poland, Croatia, Hungary,

Canada, and Egypt) are European, it is also not surprizing that countr_popular was also negatively correlated with

cognitive empathy index in men. When looking at individual items of cognitive empathy, the notion that the

findings with regard to cognitive empathy and cross-cultural indicators are very ambiguous is reconfirmed.

We speculate that the ambiguous correlations regarding European and Oceanian countries can be explained

by imagining two types of travel behaviour. The first type of traveller wants to visit beaches, hotels, beautiful

surroundings, and cities from a touristic (or external) perspective. This type would stay in the safe European

47

environment of the travel industry. Staying in hotels or on camping’s with other (Dutch) tourists and the interactions

with the host culture are minimalized to formal interactions with waiting staff, shop owners, etc. The second type of

traveller would want to experience the culture from the perspective of the host culture. This type would travel a lot,

also outside the realm of popular countries, and seek interactions with the host culture. It would be interesting to

analyse traveling types in future research by asking why people go abroad (what intentions and desires they have),

with whom they travel, and what activities they undertake while travelling. It would also be interesting to measure

the interests of the parents of the students because the parents could affect the empathy and travel interests of the

students. In addition, more research is needed to uncover why men and women differ with regard to cross-cultural

experience.

10.10 Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity

The Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity was used to create a link between the concepts ‘empathy’ and

‘intercultural experience’. Empathy is described in the adaptation phase of the framework of intercultural

sensitivity. Hammer, Bennett , and Wiseman (2003) created a tool that could place someone on the continuum from

ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. We could not access this proprietary tool due to financial limitations of the present

study and therefore we could not assess in which stages of the continuum our participants were. Since we couldn’t

assess in which phase (from denial to integration) each participant was, we were not able to reflect on the accuracy

of the framework nor its usefulness for the present research. Moreover, we only assessed empathy and not all

aspects that were mentioned in the framework of intercultural sensitivity. It must by noted that the framework of

intercultural sensitivity does not claim to measure the extent of intercultural experience but merely the extent of

intercultural competence. Therefore connections and links between the concept of cross-cultural experience and the

concept of intercultural sensitivity cannot be drawn based on the present study. We therefore can conclude that the

present study cannot support nor reject the hypothesis that cross-cultural experience moves students to later stages of

the Bennett framework.

10.11 Nelson and Baumgarte (2004)

Nelson and Baumgarte (2004) showed that U.S. participants found it harder to empathize with a non-U.S.

perspective. The present study did not compare the responses of Dutch participants to a Dutch and a non-Dutch

perspective. Therefore we cannot conclude that the results of Nelson and Baumgarte on U.S. participants can be

generalized to Dutch participants. However we did find that Dutch participants did not feel similar to the non-Dutch

protagonists. U.S. participants also didn’t feel similar to non-U.S. protagonists. More research is needed to confirm

whether Dutch participants respond the same as U.S. participants in other aspects as well. With regard to the use of

vignettes, the present study can confirm their usefulness for eliciting cognitive and affective empathy. We

recommend using vignettes when budget and duration of the study are limited. However, accuracy of vignettes

should be evaluated: whether real-life intercultural encounters elicit the same degree and type of empathy as

vignettes. We found that type of vignette greatly influences empathic responses and therefore the type of vignette

should be chosen carefully and undergo extensive pre-testing.

48

10.12 Main conclusions and recommendations

The main conclusions are:

Type of vignette influenced the degree to which people related to the main character of the vignette and the

degree to which people experienced cognitive and affective empathy after reading the dissimilar cultural

perspective.

Women scored higher on the indicators that were used for to cross-cultural experience than men.

Women scored higher on affective empathy than men.

Affective empathy was positively correlated with cross-cultural experience in women, but not in men.

Cognitive empathy had both positive and negative correlations with cross-cultural experience throughout

both vignettes and across both sexes. It is not clear how all these ambiguities can be explained.

Master students scored higher on the indicators of the cross-cultural experience but did not score higher on

empathy than bachelor students

Continents were ambiguously correlated with cognitive empathy (number of countries visited in Oceania

was positively and number of European countries was negatively correlated with cognitive empathy)

Age was positively correlated with cross-cultural experience (people who were older had more cross-cultural

experience) but not with empathy. Age could therefore not explain the correlations that were found between

empathy and cross-cultural experience. These results indicate that age wasn’t a confounding factor regarding this

relationship.

The main recommendations are:

Measuring what countries were visited could be useful, we found that correlations between empathy and

number of countries visited differed per continent.

Researching motives for traveling abroad could unravel the ambiguous relationships that were found

between empathy and cross-cultural experience.

Researching the differences between man and in women in travel behaviour and travel motives.

Using vignettes is a cheap and easy method.

Researching what elements in vignette trigger empathy (for example by using in-depth interviews to

examine how people perceived different vignettes)

49

11 References

Anggrek, J. (2011, November 3). Negotiate... Negotiate... Negotiate... Resource, 6(6).

Bennett, M. J. (1998). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings: Intercultural

Press.

Broome, B. J. (1991). Building shared meaning: Implications of a relational approach to empathy for

teaching intercultural communication. Communication Education, 40(3), 235-249.

Bryant, I. M. (2012, May 24). Luncher shock. Resource, 6(19).

CBS. (2013). Vakanties; kerncijfers. Retrieved from

http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=70232ned&D1=74-

117&D2=(l-9)-l&HD=140430-1747&HDR=G1&STB=T

Chen, G.-M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication: Allyn and Bacon

Boston, MA.

Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. W. (1997). Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for cross-cultural

training programs (Vol. 2): Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behav Cogn Neurosci

Rev, 3(2), 71-100. doi: 10.1177/1534582304267187

Erikson, E. H. (1965). Childhood and society. London: The Hogarth Press.

Hall, B. J. (2005). Among cultures: The challenge of communication: Thomson Wadsworth Belmont, CA.

Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The

intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421-

443. doi: 10.1016/s0147-1767(03)00032-4

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2011). Cultures and organizations - software of the mind:

McGraw Hill.

Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1990). A comparison of seven-point and visual analogue scales:

data from a randomized trial. Controlled clinical trials, 11(1), 43-51.

Myyry, L., & Helkama, K. (2001). University students' value priorities and emotional empathy.

Educational Psychology, 21(1), 25-40.

Nelson, D. W. (2009). Feeling good and open-minded: The impact of positive affect on cross cultural

empathic responding. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(1), 53-63.

Nelson, D. W., & Baumgarte, R. (2004). Cross‐Cultural Misunderstandings Reduce Empathic

Responding1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 391-401.

Ott, R. L., & Longnecker, M. (2001). An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis (fifth

edition ed.). USA: Duxbury.

Regan, D. T., & Totten, J. (1975). Empathy and attribution: turning observers into actors. Journal of

Personality and social Psychology, 32(5), 850-856.

Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2006). Empathic

neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439(7075), 466-469.

doi: 10.1038/nature04271

Stepien, K. A., & Baernstein, A. (2006). Educating for empathy. A review. J Gen Intern Med, 21(5), 524-

530. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00443.x

50

Appendix 1. Questionnaire with vignette lunch (protagonist Mike)

Master thesis Inge Janssen

Department of Communication science

Wageningen University

Dear student,

I’m doing a research to finish my master studies Development and Rural Innovation and I appreciate

your cooperation.

You are going to read a small text about Mike, an international student at Wageningen University.

Then you are asked to answer some questions about the text, about your experiences abroad, and

with different cultures.

When you are interested in the findings of the research I can send you an abstract of the research. In

that case you can fill in your e-mail address at the end of this questionnaire. The research will be

finished in half a year.

Participating in this research will take approximately fifteen minutes. Everything will be treated

confidential and anonymously.

Thank you so much in advance,

Inge Janssen.

51

Below you find a short text about Mike, an international student at Wageningen University. Please

read the text carefully and proceed on the next page with the questions.

Text

Mike is an exchange student at Wageningen University. He meets a Dutch guy,

named Tom in one of the lectures. They often sit next to each other, talk about

all sorts of topics, and Mike has the feeling they get along very well. In one of

their talks Tom proposes to have lunch together at the campus restaurant the

next day. Mike is exited and looks forward to an elaborate lunch. Since his stay

in the Netherlands he had a lot of unforeseen expenses, this lunch was a

welcome treat to look forward to. Then next morning Mike dresses nicely for

the occasion. That afternoon Mike and Tom take a seat at one of the tables in

the restaurant. Tom opens his bag, takes out a plastic bag with sandwiches and

starts eating. Mike feels confused but patiently waits for Tom while they are

chatting. When Tom has finished the bread, Mike thinks what he will take for

lunch in the restaurant. Then Tom says: “It was nice having lunch with you”,

and walks away, leaving Mike shocked and insulted. What have I done to

deserve to be treated so rude, thinks Mike. Mike was under the impression that

Tom could be a friend but feels confused and offended now.

52

These questions are about the text.

1. What is you initial reaction after reading this text?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Please rate to what extent you agree to the following statements:

Co

mp

lete

ly d

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Sli

gh

tly d

isag

ree

Neu

tral

Sli

gh

tly a

gre

e

Ag

ree

Co

mp

lete

ly a

gre

e

2. I feel similar to Mike.

3. Mike is to blame for his bad feelings.

4. Mike's distress a result of the unpleasantness and difficulty of the

situation.

5. Mike's emotional reaction is appropriate to the situation.

6. I find it difficult to relate to what Mike is feeling.

7. An average person would have responded the same way as Mike.

8. I would have responded differently than Mike

9. While I read the story, I felt sympathetic.

10. While I read the story, I felt compassionate.

11. While I read the story, I felt moved.

12. While I read the story, I felt warm.

13. While I read the story, I felt soft-hearted.

The next questions regard you’re experiences abroad and with different cultures.

14. Do you currently live in The Netherlands?

No In which country do you live? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How long have you lived here? . . . . . . . . . year / months (indicate which one applies)

Yes

53

15. Besides your current home, have you ever lived outside The Netherlands? (Aside from during study trip,

internship, thesis, or during (volunteer)work)

No

Yes, when I was between. . . . and . . . . years old I lived in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(and between. . . . and . . . . years old I lived in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )

(and between. . . . and . . . . years old I lived in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )

(and between. . . . and . . . . years old I lived in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )

16. Have you even been abroad for school or study? (For example, for a study trip, exchange program,

internship, or thesis)

No

Yes, all trips combined, I have been abroad for study. . . . . . . months (and . . . . weeks) in . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (multiple countries

possible)

17. Have you ever done (volunteer) work abroad? (Aside from work for study, such as an internship)

No

Yes, in total I have spent . . . . months (and . . . . weeks) in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (multiple countries possible)

18. Have you even been on holidays abroad?

No Please continue with question 22.

Yes

19. How often do you go on holidays abroad on average?

Once every three years (or less)

Once every two years

Once every year

Twice per year

Three times per year

Four time per year (or more)

54

20. In which countries have you been on holidays? (multiple countries possible)

Belgium

France

Spain

Portugal

Austria

Switzerland

Great Britain

Germany

Italy

Norway/Sweden/Finland

Greece

Czech Republic

Turkey

United States

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

21. Aside from study, work and residing have you had any relevant experience in foreign cultures?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Please rate to what extent you agree to the following statements:

Co

mp

lete

ly d

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Sli

gh

tly

dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Sli

gh

tly

ag

ree

Ag

ree

Co

mp

lete

ly a

gre

e

22. Within my studies I frequently interact with people of different

cultures.

23. Outside my studies I frequently interact with people of different

cultures.

24. I am interested in foreign cultures.

55

25. Age: . . . . . . . years

26. Gender: M / F (please indicate which one applies)

27. Nationality: O Dutch (second nationality)

O Other: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28. Nationality father: O Dutch (second nationality)

O Other: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I don’t know

29. Nationality mother: O Dutch (second nationality)

O Other: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I don’t know

30. Study year: O 1st year BSc. O 1

st year MSc. O Other: . . . . . . . . .

O 2nd

year BSc. O 2nd

year MSc.

O 3rd

year BSc. O 3rd

year MSc.

O 4th year BSc. O 4

th year MSc.

O 5th year BSc. O 5

th year MSc.

31. Study program: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32. Do you have any remarks or tips regarding this questionnaire? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

Thank you so much for participating in this research!

I want to receive a single e-mail with the results of this research: . . . . . . .