Technical Report 1251 

Identifying the Core Content and Structure 

of a Schema for Cultural Understanding 

Joan R. Rentsch and Ioana Mot 

Organizational Research Group

Allison Abbe 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

 June 2009 

 

United States Army Research Institute 

 for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

A Directorate of the Department of the Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 

Authorized and approved for distribution: 

 

 MICHELLE SAMS 

 Director 

Technical review by 

Kimberly Metcalf, U. S. Army Research Institute 

Gerald F. Goodwin, U. S. Army Research Institute 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Technical Report has been made by ARI. 

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPC-ARI-ZXM, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926. 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Technical Report may be destroyed when it is no longer 

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

NOTE: The findings in this Technical Report are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
i 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

June 2009 

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)

July 2007 – October 2008

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

W91WAW-07-C-0053

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Identifying the Core Content and Structure of a Schema for 

Cultural Understanding 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

622785

5c. PROJECT NUMBER

A790

5d. TASK NUMBER

333

6. AUTHOR(S): 

Joan Rentsch and Iona Mot (Organizational Research Group) 

Allison Abbe (U.S. Army Research Institute) 

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-BR 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

ARI 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

Technical Report 1251

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

ARI contact: Allison Abbe (703) 602-7918

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

Multicultural perspective taking skills enable Army leaders to adapt quickly when encountering individuals or groups from 

unfamiliar cultures and function effectively in multinational alliances. In previous research, a schema for cultural 

understanding was identified as a key component of multicultural perspective taking. The primary objective for the present 

research was to identify core content and structure of a schema for cultural understanding that can be used to inform training 

for Soldiers deploying to unfamiliar cultures. Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, we extracted 

schema content through interviews and identified common themes and concepts. This process resulted in schema content 

consisting of attributes of culture, goals in using cultural knowledge, and tactics for cultural learning. Findings indicated that 

concepts of religion, values and beliefs, and customs or traditions were central attributes of cultural understanding. These 

findings can inform training development and guide further research on the skills needed to function effectively in multicultural 

environments. Whereas traditional cultural awareness training typically focuses on understanding members of a specific 

culture or country, augmenting this training by focusing on a schema for cultural understanding developed through practical 

experience will afford Army leaders broader cultural capability. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

Cultural Understanding, Culture, Cultural Schema, Cultural Expertise

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 

16. REPORT 

Unclassified

17. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

18. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

19. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

Unlimited

20. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

31 

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Ellen Kinzer 

Technical Publication Specialist 

703-602-8049
ii 
iii 

Technical Report 1251 

Identifying the Core Content and Structure of a Schema 

for Cultural Understanding

Joan R. Rentsch and Ioana Mot 

Organizational Research Group, LLC

Allison Abbe 

U. S. Army Research Institute 

Basic Research Unit 

Paul A. Gade, Chief 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

June 2009 

Army Project Number Personnel, Performance 

622785A790 and Training Technology 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
iv 

 
v 

 IDENTIFYING THE CORE CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF A SCHEMA 

FOR CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

Increasingly, the United States Army operates in multinational, and therefore, 

multicultural, environments. Teamwork within such settings requires the ability to see events as 

members of other cultures see them. The goal of the research was to identify a schema for 

cultural understanding, a key multicultural perspective taking competency that will enable Army 

leaders to function effectively in multinational alliances. The primary objective for this research 

was to identify core content and structure of a schema for cultural understanding that can be used 

in future training for Soldiers deploying to unfamiliar cultures. 

Procedure: 

The research was conducted using interviews to extract cultural schema content from two 

samples of Soldiers. Data were collected at Fort Riley from returning members of Military 

Transition Teams and from Soldiers at Fort Bragg. Participants were identified as having some 

experience working successfully in another culture. The interview data were summarized 

yielding an initial set of cultural schema content statements. A third sample of Soldiers, also 

returning Military Transition Team members sorted the statements and made structural ratings. 

These data were subjected to Pathfinder analysis. The most central items were used to develop a 

structural assessment of a schema for cultural understanding. Several subject matter experts 

completed the assessment and the results were used to identify the structure of attribute core 

content of a schema for cultural understanding. 

Findings: 

The core content of a schema for cultural understanding identified as relevant to Army 

Soldiers consisted of attributes of culture, goals in using cultural knowledge, and tactics for 

cultural learning. Sixteen items representing core attribute content were identified, and the 

structural relationship among these items was identified. Findings indicated that concepts of 

religion, values and beliefs, and customs or traditions were central attributes of cultural 

understanding. 

Utilization and Dissemination of Findings: 

These findings can inform training development and guide further research on the skills 

needed to function effectively in multicultural environments. Traditional cultural awareness 

training typically focuses on understanding members of another culture from an American’s 

perspective. However, augmenting this training by focusing on a schema for cultural 

understanding that has been developed by actual Army Soldiers with relevant experience will 

afford Army leaders broader cultural capability. Additional research is needed to understand how 

goals and tactics for cultural learning are incorporated into a schema for cultural understanding. 
vi 
vii 

IDENTIFYING THE CORE CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF A SCHEMA 

FOR CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Schema for Cultural Understanding................................................................................................ 2 

A Schema for Cultural Understanding Based on Experience......................................................... 7 

Expert Schemas........................................................................................................................... 7 

Overview Of The Present Research................................................................................................ 8 

Data Collection 1: Extraction of Schema Content........................................................................ 9 

Methods....................................................................................................................................... 9 

Results....................................................................................................................................... 10 

Data Collection 2: Extraction of Schema Content....................................................................... 10 

Methods..................................................................................................................................... 10 

Results....................................................................................................................................... 11 

Combining Results From Data Collections 1 And 2: Identification of Schema Content ............ 12 

Data Collection 3: Identification of Core Schema Content for Attributes................................... 13 

Methods..................................................................................................................................... 13 

Results....................................................................................................................................... 15 

Data Collection 4: Identification of the Structure of Core Schema Content for Attributes......... 17 

Methods..................................................................................................................................... 17 

Results....................................................................................................................................... 18 

General Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 19 

 Structure of Core Schema Content for Attributes..................................................................... 19 

 Training Implications................................................................................................................ 20 

 Future Research ........................................................................................................................ 21 

 Conclusions............................................................................................................................... 22 

References..................................................................................................................................... 23 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Cultural Dimensions in the Literature ............................................................................. 5 

Table 2. Sample Items for Each Category ................................................................................... 13 

Table 3. Cultural Attributes Presented to Sample 3..................................................................... 14 

Table 4. Summary of 16 Core Attributes from Sample 3 ............................................................ 17 

Table 5. Experience Reportd by Sample 4................................................................................... 18 
viii 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Framework of Multicultural Perspective Taking Competencies.................................... 2 

Figure 2. Illustration of a Schema for Cultural Understanding ...................................................... 7 

Figure 3. Data Analysis Process for Combined Items ................................................................. 12 

Figure 4. Example Rating Grid with Example Ratings ............................................................... 15 

Figure 5. Representation of Core Schema Content for Attributes............................................... 16 

Figure 6. Structure of Core Cultural Attributes ........................................................................... 18 

Figure 7. Illustration Of A Multilevel Expert Schema For Cultural Understanding ................... 22 
1 

IDENTIFYING THE CORE CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF A SCHEMA 

 FOR CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING 

 

 Army doctrine highlights the importance of cultural factors across the spectrum of 

military operations and emphasizes the need to improve Soldiers’ ability to operate in a 

multicultural environment and (FM 6-22). Multicultural perspective-taking competencies can 

contribute to the capability needed to work effectively in joint, interagency, and multinational 

(JIM) operations. These competencies enable leaders to take the perspective of another within 

the cultural context, to apply cultural lenses, and to adapt quickly when encountering individuals 

or groups from unfamiliar cultures. U.S. Army leaders can develop multicultural perspectivetaking skills through well-designed, efficient, and effective training in the forms of selfdevelopment, institutional training, and operational assignments. However, it is essential to 

clearly define the competencies required. Initial research (Rentsch, Gundersen, Goodwin, & 

Abbe, 2007) involved a broad scan of the research literature. This research identified a set of 

multicultural perspective-taking competencies, which serve as a solid starting point for 

developing multicultural perspective taking in Army leaders. 

The goal of multicultural perspective taking is to function effectively within a crosscultural environment. This ability requires one to extract and interpret relevant cues within a 

multicultural setting. As shown in Figure 1, a schema for cultural understanding plays a key role 

in multicultural perspective taking. Interpretation is directly influenced by the schema for 

understanding culture and regional expertise (a specialized portion of the schema for 

understanding culture). Extraction of cultural information is necessary for the interpretation of 

cultural information. 

 A schema for understanding culture is culture-general – that is, it reflects knowledge that 

applies to all cultures. This knowledge can be used in conjunction with regional knowledge, or 

to supplement where regional or specific cultural knowledge is lacking. Interpretation may 

involve a comparison of cultural information with cultural knowledge contained in the schema 

for cultural understanding and regional expertise. The product of this process may be subjected 

to visualization, integration, and cognitive reconstruction (i.e., interpretation competencies) 

yielding a refined interpretation of cultural information. 

 A well-developed schema for understanding culture will support the ability to elicit and 

detect cultural information. The ability to identify patterns and to triangulate will be enhanced to 

the extent that individuals possess well-developed schemas for understanding culture. 
2 

Figure 1. Framework of Multicultural Perspective Taking Competencies (Rentsch et al., 2007) 

 Based on a broad overview of the research literature, Rentsch et al. (2007) identified an 

important multicultural perspective-taking competency to be a schema for cultural 

understanding. This literature provided one source of information on potential content for a 

schema for cultural understanding. However, this information should be augmented by 

information provided by subject matter experts or individuals with relevant experience. In order 

to be useful to the Army, a full articulation of a schema for cultural understanding must be made 

in a manner that can inform training systems supporting the development of this knowledge. 

Building on previous research (Rentsch et al., 2007), the objective of the present research was to 

identify core content and structure of a schema for cultural understanding that draws on the 

experiences of Soldiers. 

Schema for Cultural Understanding 

Rentsch et al. (2007) identified a schema for cultural understanding as a primary 

multicultural perspective-taking competency. A schema is a mental model representing general 

and abstract knowledge of a topic (Kellogg, 1995). Schemata guide expectations, learning, and 

behavior, providing a basis for action when one lacks either detailed information or the resources 

Extraction 

Self-Awareness 

Personal & Interpersonal 

 Skills 

Regional Expertise

Schema for 

Understanding Culture

Interpretation 

Take-perspective 

using another’s 

cultural & personal 

lenses 

Function effectively 

within the cultural environment 
3 

to process it (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Graesser & Nakamura, 1982). Schemata are dynamic and 

shift in response to specific experiences or new information encountered. An existing schema 

facilitates learning (Tse et al., 2007), enabling rapid integration of new associations, even when 

learning opportunities are relatively limited in number. A schema can also serve an organizing 

function by specifying relationships between concepts, which facilitates pattern detection. 

Rentsch et al. (2007) proposed that a schema for cultural understanding may aid novices 

to quickly learn a novel culture. Forming a schema for cultural knowledge may be particularly 

helpful, because abstract cultural concepts can serve as a guide even when one’s familiarity with 

a specific culture is limited. Entering a new, unfamiliar culture often involves high anxiety and, 

initially, only superficial knowledge of the location and people. A cultural schema may include 

features or concepts that have proved salient or useful in previous intercultural situations. 

Generalizing from these specific past experiences may help guide appropriate behavior, reduce 

anxiety, and facilitate learning the specific culture. Although other research has emphasized 

schemas specific to the host culture (Nishida, 1999), we argue that schema for culture-general 

concepts and intercultural interactions have particular importance for military personnel, whose 

missions and responsibilities involve contact with many cultures and with a variety of 

individuals and organizations, including civilians, nongovernmental agencies, and other foreign 

militaries.. 

A schema for cultural understanding is more than just a stereotype about the members of 

a culture. Whereas stereotypes tend to be rigid, a schema is dynamic and subject to revision. 

Whereas stereotypes tend to simplify and ignore group differences, a schema can be quite 

complex. In fact, research suggests that schema complexity is indicative of higher expertise in a 

domain (Ceci & Liker, 1986; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Hess, Osowski, & LeClerc, 2005). Schema 

complexity is also associated with receptivity to disconfirming information (Stein, 1994). In 

other words, a complex schema is both stable and flexible, adjusting to accommodate new 

information. 

 A schema for cultural understanding provides leaders with the capability to organize and 

make sense of novel cultural information. Based on the literature, a schema for cultural 

understanding with respect to multicultural perspective-taking should include (1) understanding 

of cultural impact, (2) understanding of cultural identifiers, and (3) understanding of cultural 

barriers. 

 Understanding cultural impact involves understanding that individuals exist 

simultaneously in multiple cultures and that these cultures influence individuals’ identity, 

thoughts, and behavior. An understanding of cultural impact will also include the knowledge 

that others have a view of one’s own culture and some knowledge of what that view is. Perhaps 

most importantly, an expert understanding of the impact of culture will contain knowledge that 

variance exists within cultures and explicit recognition that similarities and differences exist 

across cultures (e.g., Hofstede, 2001; Pedersen, 2004). 

 Another component of an expert schema for cultural understanding is the understanding 

of cultural identifiers, which involves knowing that cultural information is embedded in artifacts, 

beliefs, values, assumptions (e.g., physical settings, stories, symbols, heroes, rituals, 
4 

jargon/language, and social structure). In other words, leaders need an understanding of where 

cultural information and clues are embedded. 

 A third component is the understanding of cultural barriers. This understanding includes 

the knowledge that cultural information is tacit and subtle. Leaders must understand that 

important cultural clues exist in what is and what is not said, seen, heard, or done. It is critical to 

“hear” what someone may be thinking but not saying. Furthermore, cultural barriers exist in 

part, because some cultural information is so deeply assimilated that it exists in the subconscious. 

In addition, leaders must grasp that trust may be a major cultural barrier and that trust and other 

barriers are expressed and understood differently in different cultures. 

 Other examples of knowledge that should be included in a schema for understanding 

culture are knowledge related to understanding that culture affects perceptions of reality 

(including one’s own) and actually serves to “blind” one from fully deciphering and 

understanding another’s culture. This understanding is clearly related to self-awareness, 

particularly with respect to understanding one’s own cultural biases (e.g., Hofstede, 2001; 

Pedersen, 2004). A schema for understanding culture should contain the knowledge that culture 

influences verbal and nonverbal communication, and that it influences the expression of respect, 

saving face, trust, and other interpersonal variables many of which will affect relationship 

building 

 A schema for cultural understanding may also include knowledge of macro-level features 

of national cultures. Understanding various differentiating national value profiles may aid Army 

leaders to gain an initial understanding of cultural differences (e.g., Hofstede, 2001; 1980; 

House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta, 2004; Schwartz, 1992; Trompenaars, 1994). A 

primary example of such an approach is Hofstede’s work, which is highly recognizable in the 

culture literature (Hofstede, 1980). Hofstede organized cultural differences into overarching 

patterns based on individualism and collectivism, power distance, masculinity, and uncertainty 

avoidance. Other influential research in the cross-cultural literature include Hall (1959), 

Kluckhohn (1951), Schwartz (1992, 1994), Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner (1997), 

and the work of Project GLOBE (House et al.). A summary of the cultural dimensions identified 

in this research is presented in Table 1. 
5 

Table 1. Cultural Dimensions in the Literature

Author/Researcher Dimensions/features/culture 

concepts 

Hofstede (1980, 1991) Power distance 

Individualism vs. collectivism 

 Masculinity vs. femininity 

 Uncertainty avoidance 

Long vs. short term 

orientation 

Schwartz (1992, 1994) Individual level values: 

 Power 

 Achievement 

 Hedonism 

 Stimulation 

 Self-direction 

 Universalism 

 Benevolence 

 Tradition 

 Conformity 

 Security 

Openness to change vs. 

conservation 

Self-enhancement vs. selftranscendence 

Culture level - dimensions 

Conservatism vs. autonomy 

Hierarchy vs. egalitarianism 

 Mastery vs. harmony 

GLOBE Project Uncertainty avoidance 

(House et al., 2004) Power distance 

Collectivism 1: societal 

collectivism 

Collectivism 2: in-group 

collectivism 

 Gender egalitarianism 

 Assertiveness 

 Future orientation 

 Performance orientation 

 Humane orientation 
6 

Table 1 (continued) 

 

Trompenaars & Charles HampdenTurner (1997) Universalism vs. particularism 

 Individualism vs. 

communitarianism 

 Neutral vs. affective 

 Specific vs. defuse 

Achieved status vs. ascribed 

status 

 Time orientation 

 Internal vs. external 

orientation 

Kluckholn & Strodtbeck (1961) The nature of people 

The relationship with nature 

Duty towards others 

Mode of activity/ determinism 

 Temporal orientation 

High vs. low context cultures 

Polychromic vs. monochromic 

time orientation 

 

 One caution is that relying exclusively on macro-level cultural features may limit 

multicultural perspective-taking. Nationality may serve as a basis for stereotyping rather than for 

understanding, when applied uniformly to all members of that culture. In addition, nationality is 

only one cultural target of which there may be many. However, these models may provide 

useful frameworks for perceiving and organizing differences between cultures. 

 In addition, according to the literature, a schema for cultural understanding should 

include information regarding respect for each person’s unique cultural experience with the 

recognition and acceptance that others’ ways of viewing their internal and external worlds are 

valid. This does not mean that the observer should adopt another’s way of thinking. Rather, the 

observer should recognize that culture, indeed reality, is experienced subjectively and is socially 

constructed, while simultaneously appreciating that subjective realities become reified and serve 

as potent forces to guide and restrict behavior (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). A schema for 

understanding culture should also include a recognition that others have developed an 

understanding of their own culture (Pedersen, 2004). 

 We expect that, over time, individuals will develop increasing levels of expertise with 

respect to their understanding of culture. The development of an expert schema for cultural 

understanding may be highly beneficial to aid individuals to adapt quickly to working in novel 

cultures. 
7 

A Schema for Cultural Understanding Based on Experience 

 In general, schemas are knowledge structures that influence individuals’ expectations and 

interpretations (Graesser & Nakamara, 1982; Rumelhart, 1980). Schemas develop with respect to 

any content domain. They aid in sensemaking, and influence attention, information processing, 

perception, and recall. They are formed through direct or indirect experience (e.g., through 

interaction and communications with others). For example, individuals have schemas for 

understanding vehicles that might include classification of type of vehicle (e.g., airplane, train, 

automobile, motocycle), types of within specific classifications (e.g., sports car, family car, 

luxury car), how the vehicle is made, technological features, costs, uses, and so on. Knowledge 

and categories for culture may be similarly structured. An illustration of a hypothetical schema 

for cultural understanding is presented in Figure 2. 

 Figure 2. Illustration of a Schema for Cultural Understanding 

Expert Schemas 

 

 Expert schemas increase an individual’s ability to adapt to novel situations. Expert 

schemas enable experts to acquire new knowledge more easily and more quickly than novices, 

because experts can understand and retain new information by linking it to their existing schemas 

(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1986). The schemas of experts can be characterized as deep and 

Social 

Structure 

Technology 

Customs/ 

Traditions

Taboos 

Economics &

Resources 

Religion

Cultural 

Artifacts 

Projection of 

power 

Education

Family

Values/Beliefs/ 

Ethical morality

Leadership

Political Style 

Government 

Business 

Etiquette 

Dress
8 

multileveled – containing many connections between and within levels. In contrast, novices 

develop shallow schemas consisting of many details connected to a few general ideas. 

 Experts typically represent problems in terms of general, abstract principles, whereas 

novices tend to use concrete surface features (Chi, Glaser, & Rees, 1982; Hillerband & Claiborn, 

1990). An expert's recognition of the underlying principles often aids in reaching a correct 

solution. Because of their in-depth knowledge of the domain, experts can use efficient 

problem-solving strategies. For example, experts develop rules that enable them to engage in 

more forward search, a strategy that reduces strain on working memory and lessens the chance of 

making errors. 

 

 Expert schemas may exist for abstract social contexts. For example, evidence has been 

obtained to support the existence of expert schemas for teamwork (Rentsch, Heffner, & Duffy, 

1994). An expert schema for cultural understanding will increase the likelihood that leaders will 

perceive observable, including the most subtle and obscure, cultural clues (e.g., cultural 

artifacts). The schema for cultural understanding will also influence the interpretation of cultural 

cues. For example, an expert schema will provide general categories to consider in the 

interpretation process. Schemas will provide a structure for organizing the cultural information. 

Therefore, an expert schema for core cultural understanding may be incorporated into training. 

 Although, as stated above, potential content of a schema for cultural understanding has 

been extracted from the literature on cultural dimensions, additional research is required for a 

full understanding of this schema in the context of military operations. Schema extracted from 

individuals who have relevant intercultural experience would be particularly informative in 

identifying the schema content to be trained. Soldiers require an understanding of culture that 

enables them to adapt quickly to cultural differences, to support multicultural perspective taking, 

and to support negotiating with members of the culture in order to complete their mission. 

 Prior to their first deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan, Soldiers often received cultural 

training that was minimal and superficial, or received training perceived as irrelevant to their 

area of operations (Center for Army Lessons Learned, 2005). Though cultural training programs 

and resources are now more widespread (Longo, 2008), Soldiers’ exposure to cultural content 

and experiences during training continues to vary greatly. For many, cultural awareness has been 

acquired primarily through first-hand experience in observing and interacting with the local 

population during deployment. 

 Therefore, a primary purpose of the present research was to identify the core content and 

structure of a schema for cultural understanding from individuals who are experienced in 

working in a foreign culture. 

Overview of the Present Research 

 Four data collections were undertaken for the present research. Data Collections 1 and 2 

used qualitative methods and were aimed at extracting the content of a schema for cultural 

understanding. The results from these data collections were combined and reanalyzed to identify 

schema content. In a subsequent phase, quantitative ratings were obtained to determine the core 
9 

schema content and structure. The purpose of Data Collection 3 was to identify the core or 

essential content of a schema for cultural understanding. Data Collection 4 was directed toward 

identifying the structure of a schema for cultural understanding. 

The participants in this research were sampled from mission types with a high level of 

opportunity for intercultural interaction. The samples in data collections 1 and 3 were members 

of Military Transition Teams returning from assignment as military advisors in Iraq. Because 

these participants varied considerably in their level of cultural experience, even with some 

similarity in their roles and time abroad, we also sampled from Special Operations Forces (SOF). 

Though we could not independently confirm levels of expertise, SOF missions generally require 

a high degree of intercultural interaction relative to other military operations and therefore offer 

extensive opportunities for experience-based learning about culture. Participants in data 

collection 4 were volunteers and were recruited based on their interest in the topic. 

Thus, we attempted to obtain samples who would have moderate to high levels of cultural 

experience and include fewer novices than individuals in more traditional military missions and 

roles. The methods and the results from each data collection are described below. 

Data Collection 1: Extraction of Schema Content 

Methods 

 Sample. Data were collected at Fort Riley from a sample of U.S. Army Soldiers 

returning from Iraq after having served a deployment of approximately 11 months in Military 

Transition Teams. The sample consisted of four Captains, two Majors, and three Lieutenant 

Colonels, all males ranging in age from 28 to over 50 years of age. Their relevant cultural 

experience consisted of prior overseas assignments ranging from 11 months to over 5.5 years in 

countries such as Iraq, Korea, Kuwait, Brazil, Bosnia, Germany, Thailand, and Japan. The 

average number of countries for which participants reported significant experience was 

approximately four. One individual also had experience in Brazil, Finland, Vietnam, Portugal, 

Spain, Austria, and China. Their military experience varied across a wide variety of domains 

such as field artillery observer, quick reaction support leader, fireman, logistics advisor, brigade 

military transition team chief, Apache pilot, advisor, J-7 construction engineer, project 

purchasing officer, military communications, and military exercise planning. 

Assessment. The interview protocol questioned participants for their conceptual 

understanding of culture and for their methods to acquire additional cultural understanding. 

Questions were asked regarding their idiosyncratic approaches to understanding culture. The 

interviews included several questions regarding how the Soldier thought about culture and how 

he tried to learn about culture. The interviews were structured insofar as the questions were 

previously determined and all participants were asked the same questions. However, due to 

careful phrasing, the interview protocol included only open ended questions. Therefore, the 

interviewees were not restricted in their choice of answers. The same question could have 

potentially triggered a different response from different individuals. In addition, questions were 

asked regarding the participant’s background with respect to experience in multiple cultures. 
10 

 Procedure. Participants were interviewed individually by one interviewer (one 

participant was interviewed by two interviewers). The two interviewers had experience working 

on cross-cultural studies and were familiar with the current culture literature. This ensured that 

the interviewers were able to rephrase and reformulate questions and to re-direct the flow of the 

interview in order to obtain clear answers to the questions of interest. Each interview lasted 

approximately one hour. The interviews were conducted in the late afternoon and until about 

nine o’clock in the evening. All participants were interviewed on an individual basis in order not 

to contaminate responses and in order to insure their full participation. Additionally, in order to 

put the participants at ease, none of the interviews were videotaped or recorded. The answers to 

all questions were recorded in writing by the interviewers. 

Results

 The interview notes were individually summarized by interviewers and then compiled 

into one document that contained 296 statements regarding understanding culture. Two 

researchers, one of whom was blind to the data collection procedure and purpose of the research 

and who was a relative novice regarding culture, sorted the statements to identify redundancies. 

Fifty-five items reflective of a culture from a specific country (i.e., the information referenced a 

cultural practice specific to a country that was not generalizable to other countries) were 

identified and withdrawn from the dataset. This sort resulted in 88 unique items. 

 Three researchers independently reviewed the set of cultural items with the objective of 

identifying obvious categories. A set of categories was not readily apparent. Therefore, in an 

effort to minimize the influence of the researcher’s schema for cultural understanding, but in 

order to gain some manageable structure for the data, the researchers agreed on two broad 

categories: cultural attributes, which were characteristics of culture or sources of cultural 

variability, and methods for acquiring cultural information. Two researchers then sorted the 

items into to these two categories. Three items were unclear, and no agreement could be reached 

among the researchers regarding the meaning of the items. Rather than interject researcher 

interpretation into the data, the items were dropped. This sort resulted in identifying 29 items 

representing cultural attributes (e.g., religion, government). Fifty-six items were identified as 

methods for acquiring cultural information (e.g., training courses, observation, building rapport). 

 Two researchers knowledgeable about culture reviewed the lists carefully and came to 

consensus that the methods items seemed to contain two foci. Therefore, two researchers 

(including the blind researcher) differentiated these items with respect to two categories: tactics 

for acquiring cultural knowledge and goals for acquiring cultural knowledge. Thirty-eight items 

were identified as tactics, 18 items were identified as goals. 

Data Collection 2: Extraction of Schema Content

Methods 

 Sample. Sample 2 data were collected at Fort Bragg with U.S. Army special operations 

personnel. The sample consisted of two female and three male participants. The represented 

ranks were: one Staff Sergeant, two Master Sergeants, one Lieutenant Colonel, and one Chief 
11 

Warrant 3. Participants ranged in age from 32 to 44 years of age. Their relevant cultural 

experience was attributable to previous overseas assignments ranging from 3 months to 3 years. 

Their military expertise ranged across several domains such as counter-narcotics missions, 

tactical training, humanitarian aid, the training of local forces, civil affairs, artillery, and Army 

Special Forces military training. The participants’ combined cultural experience spanned across 

a multitude of countries including Afghanistan, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia, Canada, Columbia, 

Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guam, Guatemala, Haiti, Holland, Honduras, Iraq, Italy, Japan, 

Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Nassau, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, 

Puerto Rico, Qatar, Serbia, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, and Uruguay. The average 

number of countries reported in which participants believed they had significant experience was 

approximately eight. 

Assessment. The interview protocol probed participants for their conceptual 

understanding of culture and for their tactics to gain more cultural understanding. Based on the 

results from Data Collection 1, the interview protocol was adjusted to include several questions 

focused on cultural concepts or attributes. These items were explicitly included because the 

participants in Data Collection 1 indicated that cultural concepts and attributes were important to 

their understanding of culture. Again, the questions were structured insofar as they were 

previously determined and all participants were asked the same questions. Due to the openended nature of all the questions, the participants were not restricted in their answers. The same 

question could have potentially triggered a different response from different individuals. In 

addition, questions were asked regarding the participant’s background with respect to experience 

in multiple cultures. 

 Procedure. The same two interviewers who conducted the interviews for Data Collection 

1 also conducted Data Collection 2 interviews. Each interview lasted two hours and interviews 

were conducted during regular working hours. Each participant was interviewed by both 

interviewers. For each interview, one interviewer took the lead and asked the questions while 

the second interviewer ensured that none of the answers went unwritten and asked additional 

questions for clarification purposes when needed. Due to the extended interview time and due to 

the revised interview protocol, the questions asked and the responses obtained in Data Collection 

2 were more detailed than in Data Collection 1. 

Results

 The interview notes were summarized by the interviewers and then compiled resulting in 

356 cultural items. Two researchers, one of whom was uninformed about the nature of the 

project, identified and removed redundant items and items related to specific cultural 

information. This resulted in 283 unique items. Then, the two researchers sorted the items into 

three categories. Forty-three items were determined to be cultural attributes, 56 items were 

coded as goals, and 184 items were categorized as tactics. 

 Then, the two researchers reviewed the items within each category (e.g., cultural 

attributes) and grouped similar items together (e.g., dress & attire). Next, the third researcher 

wrote a single item or chose an item that best represented each set of similar items. The resulting 

list of items was presented to the two other researchers who coded the items into one of the three 
12 

major categories. Items on which coders agreed were retained. This resulted in 37 items 

representing attributes, 54 items representing tactics, and 32 items representing goals. 

Combining Results from Data Collections 1 and 2: 

Identification of Schema Content 

 Next, the results from the two data collections were combined. The researchers 

performed a four step process, shown in Figure 3, to analyze these data. Step 1 involved two 

researchers identifying redundancies within each of the three categories of items (attributes, 

goals, tactics). For Step 2, they grouped items that were similar (e.g., dress and attire). In Step 

3, a third researcher combined the grouped items by either selecting a representative item or 

writing a representative item. Step 4 was a modified retranslation where two researchers 

combined all items and sorted them into the three categories. Again, items on which coders 

agreed were retained. The final result was 40 unique attribute items, 36 unique goal items, and 

67 unique tactics. Sample items are shown in Table 2. 

Figure 3. Data Analysis Process for Combined Items. 

Result 

Attributes - 40 items Goals - 36 items Tactics - 67 items 

2 37 54 32

1 29 38 18

Sample Attributes Tactics Goals

Step 1 

Identified 

redundancies 

Step 2 

Grouped 

similar items 

Step 3 

Combined 

items 

Step 4 

Sorted all 

items 
13 

Table 2. Sample Items for Each Category 

Attribute Goal Tactic 

 

Economics and resources (e.g., 

money, SES) 

In order to understand and 

manage my relationships 

with others 

Attend to topics and 

conversations 

 

Religion To build credibility Use the language (e.g., order 

food, ask questions, greet) 

 

Customs/traditions/courtesies To build trust Interact with the locals (e.g., 

have tea with them, eat with 

them) 

 

Social structure (e.g., 

relationships between men and 

women, tribal organization) 

To develop my lens, which 

can put other stuff in focus 

Learn from interpreter (ask 

questions about what you 

observe, rehearse with 

interpreter, listen to 

interpreter) 

 

Government To maintain 

security/safety/health 

Be aware of your body 

language and tone 

 

Data Collection 3: Identification of 

Core Schema Content for Attributes 

Methods 

 Sample. Sample 3 data were collected at Fort Riley. The sample consisted of 27 male 

Soldiers returning from Iraq where they were members of Military Transition Teams. A 

requirement for participation was having worked in at least two countries other than the United 

States of America. Nine Soldiers were identified as the primary respondents for Data Collection 

3. These individuals were identified on the basis of having provided complete and high quality 

data, which was indicated by relatively high congruence scores (see Results section). These nine 

individuals were 2 Captains, 3 Majors, 2 Staff Sergeants, and 2 Master Sergeants who ranged in 

age from 29 to 37 years. The range of Army experience was from 9 to 19 years, and the average 

number of countries in which they reported having experience was approximately 3. The sample 

had experience in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Germany, Hungary, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kosovo, 

and Saudi Arabia. 

Procedure. The data collection occurred in sessions that lasted approximately two hours 

and included 2 to 10 participants. For each data collection session, at least one interviewer was 
14 

present in order to read instructions and to make any necessary clarifications. Participants 

worked independently on a series of tasks. First they provided demographic information Second, 

they were given a set of 40 cards. On each card was written one of the cultural attributes 

determined from the previous data collections. The 40 items are listed in Table 3. 

Table 3. Cultural Attributes Presented to Sample 3 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Geography and climate 

Economics and resources 

Subcultures 

Family 

Values/Beliefs/Ethics/Morality 

Customs/Traditions/Courtesies/Daily life 

Education 

External influences 

Dress 

Food 

Gender 

Government 

History 

Hobbies/Games/Leisure 

Orientation toward U.S. 

Military/Civilian 

Religion 

Technology 

Time 

Work 

Taboos 

Social structure 

Similarities and differences 

Key leaders 

Language/Dialect 

Speech/Communication patterns 

Expression of emotion 

Cultural artifacts 

Body language/Posture/Gestures 

Typical interactions among locals 

Business etiquette 

Key informants 

Relationship between religion and government 

Power/Projection of power 

Political system and values 

Leadership styles 

Openness to other cultures 

Ability to travel 

Cleanliness/Sanitation 

Conflicts 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

The participants were instructed to group the attributes. In other words, they were asked 

to sort attributes that were highly related together to form a stack. They could create as many 

stacks as they wished and they could form the stacks using any criteria that were meaningful to 

them. Third, after sorting the attributes, the participants were asked to think of a name or label 

that best described each of the stacks, or groups, they compiled. They wrote each label onto a 

blank card and placed the card on top of the stack it represented. Fourth, they wrote the labels 

into a grid. 

 Fifth, the participants rated the relatedness of the attributes as they thought about culture 

in general. They used an 11-point relatedness scale (ranging from -5 = highly unrelated to 5 = 

highly related) to rate the relatedness of each of the attributes to one another. For a graphic 

example of the grid, please refer to Figure 4. 
15 Government 

Behavior Safety Harmony 

Govenment 5 -5 2 

Behavior 4 1 

Safety 3 

Harmony 

Figure 4. Example Rating Grid with Example Ratings 

 The participants were also asked to sort two other sets of cards, one each for the goals 

and for tactics. These data were beyond the scope of the present research. Therefore, only the 

cultural attribute data were analyzed. 

Results 

 Two sets of analyses were conducted. First, the relatedness ratings provided by the 27 

participants were analyzed using Pathfinder. Pathfinder transforms relatedness ratings into 

distances and graphically maps these distances. Each participant’s Pathfinder network (PFNET) 

was first mapped individually and the coherence of each PFNET was computed. The network 

coherence refers to the internal consistency of the network and Pathfinder automatically 

computes it. There is no set standard for a network’s coherence and different networks can differ 

dramatically in terms of coherence. However, very low coherence values (less than 0.20) may 

indicate that raters did not take the rating task seriously or that they had no well formed schema 

(i.e., novice) (Schvaneveldt, 1990). Of the 27 participants, 9 had coherence coefficients above 

.65. The average coherence for the nine participants was .68. Data from these nine participants 

were subjected to the second set of analyses. 

 Each of the nine participants had sorted the cards into as many stacks as he wished. The 

number of stacks ranged from five to ten. The end result was an accurate sorting for each 

participant because the sorting instructions did not restrict the participant in any way with respect 

to the number of stacks or items per stack. However, the sorting could not be compared across 

participants. Therefore, the relatedness ratings were “unfolded,” to provide a lower 40 x 40 

triangular matrix listing one relatedness rating for each pair of culture attributes. In other words, 

as an alternative to using the relatedness ratings provided by participants for each stack, we 

generated a matrix that listed the relatedness ratings for each pair of cultural attribute items for 

each participant. This in turn enabled a comparison of the ratings across participants and the 

computation of an average matrix. 

 The individual unfolded matrices were analyzed using Pathfinder and the results 

indicated that average coherence for the nine matrices was .69. The nine matrices were then 

combined to form an average matrix that was subjected to Pathfinder analysis and it had a 

coherence of .62. 
16 

 Pathfinder also produces a network for each matrix analyzed. For each network, 

Pathfinder provides the number of links a node (in this case each node represents a cultural 

attribute) has with other nodes in the network. Therefore, for each network, we analyzed the 

number of links each of the 40 nodes had with the other nodes in the network. Based on this 

number of links, we isolated several cultural attributes which were most central or most 

commonly activated (at least two links), in the cultural schemas for at least two participants. 

These sixteen cultural attributes represent the core attribute content of a schema for cultural 

understanding. The mean number of participants for whom the retained items were central was 

4.5, and the average centrality value was 3.5. 

 The network produced from the average matrix is presented in Figure 5, which identifies 

the 16 common attributes and their location in the network. Table 4 shows the 16 attributes, the 

number of links for each, and the number of participants having that number of links in his 

individual network. 

Economics & 

Resources

Family

Values/ Beliefs

Customs/ 

Traditions

Education

Government

Religion

Technology

Taboos

Social

Structure

Cultural 

Artifacts

Projection 

of power

Political 

Style

Leadership

Style

Business

Etiquette

V24 Dress

V26

V23

V20

V37

V32

V16

V39

V15

V3

V27

V10

V25

V14

V11

V29 V13

V33

V8

V38

V30

V1

V40

V19

Figure 5. Representation of Core Schema Content for Attributes 
17 

Table 4. Summary of 16 Core Attributes from Sample 3 

Links Number of 

participants 

Attribute 

6 6 Taboos 

5 5 Religion 

4 6 Dress 

4 5 Economics and resources (e.g., money, SES) 

4 5 Power distance/projection of power 

4 4 Social structure 

4 2 Family 

4 2 Cultural artifacts 

3 6 Government 

3 4 Technology 

3 4 Education 

3 3 Values/Beliefs/Ethical Morality/Standards 

3 3 Customs/traditions/courtesies/daily life routines 

2 7 Business etiquette 

2 6 Leadership 

2 4 Political system and values 

Data Collection 4: Identification of the Structure of Core Schema Content for Attributes 

Methods 

 Sample. Sample 4 participants were volunteers from several relevant online forums in 

Battle Command Knowledge System. The age of the obtained sample ranged from 26 to 49 

years, included 1 female and 6 males, and included 3 Captains, 3 Majors, and 1 SSG. The time 

in service ranged from 5 years to 29 years. The average number of countries in which 

participants reported experience was approximately 5. The countries and work roles of their 

experiences abroad are summarized in Table 5. 

Procedure. The Cultural Orientation and Recognition - Tactics, Attributes, and Goals 

(COR-TAG) Assessment for Attributes was generated from the 16 items that resulted from 

Sample 3. The assessment was available on several online forums on Battle Command 

Knowledge System. Individuals participating in the forum could volunteer to complete the 

assessment and submit their responses electronically. They also submitted demographic 

information for purposes of describing the sample. 

The COR-TAG Assessment for Attributes presented the 16 cultural attributes in a matrix 

such as that shown in Figure 3. Participants indicated the relatedness of each of the cultural 

attributes using the same 11-point rating scale used with Sample 3. 
18 

Table 5. Experience Reported by Sample 4 

Countries Types of Work performed 

Afghanistan 

Bosnia 

Germany 

Iraq 

Italy 

Korea 

Kuwait 

Combat operations 

Combat support operations 

Executive officer 

Medical support 

Mentor/Advisor 

Observer/Trainer 

Platoon leader 

Panama 

Saudi Arabia 

Spain 

Staff Officer 

Unit Chaplain 

 

Results 

Each participant’s data matrix and an average matrix computed using the participant 

matrices were analyzed using Pathfinder. Two individual matrices did not have coherences of .20 

or above. Therefore, the remaining five matrices were used to compute an average matrix. The 

averaged matrix had a coherence of .74. The average similarity value for the five matrices was 

.32. 

 The representation of the attributes in the schema for cultural understanding is shown in 

Figure 6. Items with the greatest number of links in this figure are the most central concepts in 

the schema for cultural attributes, as reflected in responses from the current sample. 

Leadership 

Style

Social 

Structure

Customs/Traditions/

Courtesies

Political 

Style

Projection of 

Power

Government Education

Family

Economics and 

Resources

Technology

Business 

Etiquette

Cultural 

Artifacts

Religion

Taboos

Dress

Values/Ethics

Coherence = .74

Figure 6. Structure of Core Cultural Attributes 
19 

General Discussion 

 The objective of the present research was to identify a core content and structure of a 

schema for cultural understanding based on Soldiers’ experiences. We built upon previous work 

by examining a schema for cultural understanding, which Rentsch et al. (2007) identified as a 

key multicultural perspective taking competency. By extracting information and experiences 

from Soldiers who had deployed to many countries, we were able to identify schema content and 

structure that was based on relevant experience. Therefore, the schema of cultural understanding 

obtained in this research may be useful as a framework for developing cultural training. Below, 

the nature of the schema for cultural understanding identified here will be described in more 

detail and the usefulness of the schema for training will be elaborated. Then, future research will 

be addressed. 

Structure of Core Schema Content for Attributes 

 In the present research, effort was directed at extracting content from experienced 

individuals and maintaining the content as expressed by the participants. Although, in order to 

design a manageable structured assessment, some condensing was required, in general the 

content is in the form provided by the participants. One aim of the present research was to 

augment cultural frameworks developed for research purposes. We were interested in 

identifying a schema that is relevant to Soldiers who have successfully completed their missions 

in novel cultures. These experienced Soldiers were expected to have a unique schema for 

cultural understanding. Their schema was expected to be different from the schemas represented 

in the academic literature. Academics and Soldiers have a very different purpose for 

understanding culture. Although, the academic work is highly informative and useful to 

Soldiers, a schema for cultural understanding that is directly relevant to military operations will 

be most informative. 

 The data obtained in the present research revealed that rather than thinking of culture in 

terms of the etic, cross-cultural dimensions used in organizational psychology (e.g., Hofstede and 

GLOBE dimensions), Soldiers represent culture more in terms of emic concepts. For example, 

comparing Table 1 and Figure 6 reveals that the cultural dimensions frameworks contain 

different concepts than the attribute content articulated by the Soldiers in our samples. The 

attribute content described by the Soldiers more closely resembles the concepts used in 

anthropological discussions of culture (see Selmeski, 2007, for one example). This may reflect 

the nature of participants’ intercultural interactions. For example, working with host nationals in 

a foreign culture may lead to somewhat different knowledge structures than working in a 

multinational team in a coalition headquarters. 

As noted by Rentsch et al. (1994), expert schemas are expected to converge, and the 

Pathfinder results obtained in the present research are indicative of convergence. The coherence 

values were used in the present research to identify high quality (expert-like) schemas and all 

matrices used had coherence values above .50. Both the coherence values and the similarity 

values obtained in the present research were as high as or higher than those obtained in past 

research using Pathfinder to evaluate schemas (e.g., Acton, Johnson, & Goldsmith, 1994; Cooke, 

Kiekel, Salas, Stout, Bowers, & Cannon- Bowers, 2003; Day, Arthur, & Gettman, 2001; 
20 

Goldsmith, Johnson, Acton, 1991; Kivlighan, Martin, Stahl, & Salahuddin, 2007; Miles & 

Kivlighan, 2008; Pilar, Canas, & Bajo, 1994). 

Thus, current findings suggest that the attributes and structure identified are indicative of 

schema for culture beyond that of a novice. Participants in this research had broad experience 

working in foreign cultures, and we selected samples from mission types with relatively high 

levels of intercultural interaction – Special Operations and military advising. However, it is 

unclear whether the participants had the extensive deliberate practice needed for the development 

of expertise (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996), and we were unable to obtain other indicators of 

expertise. Nevertheless, convergence in the present sample strongly suggests at least a moderate 

level of intercultural understanding. 

In addition, although the present research focused on the attribute content of a schema for 

cultural understanding, Soldiers also identified goals and tactics for gaining an understanding of 

cultural attributes as part of their schema for cultural understanding. Interviews clearly indicated 

that Soldiers’ schemas for culture include not just the “what,” but also the “why” and “how” of 

cultural learning. Cultural concepts and their organization may differ depending on what 

purposes one’s cultural knowledge serves. Different schema may develop over time, or different 

schema may be activated, depending on one’s goals. For example, the relevant schema for 

culture may differ for someone engaged in military advising, where effective interpersonal 

interaction is critical, as compared with someone conducting intelligence analysis on a brigade 

staff. 

Assessing this schema content is critical to determining how cultural understanding 

develops over time. In general, we would expect cultural schema to become more abstract, 

complex, and organized as intercultural expertise increases (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). At higher 

levels of intercultural development, one’s cultural schema can accommodate inconsistencies and 

cultural paradoxes (Osland & Bird, 2000), using disconfirming information to advance one’s 

understanding through sensemaking processes (Sieck, Smith, & Rasmussen, 2008). The rating 

task used in the present research may be a relatively simple way to assess culture-general 

expertise and can provide a snapshot of the changes in cultural schema produced by 

sensemaking. Future research will determine whether the COR-TAG Assessment for Attributes 

used here converges with other potential indicators of cultural expertise and can provide a source 

of information on individuals’ culture-general understanding. 

Training Implications 

 Cultures are complex and it is not always practical to train each Soldier for each new 

culture he/she will encounter. Furthermore, it may be nearly impossible to provide complete and 

sound training for specific aspects of regional cultures in some countries due to the numerous 

subcultures that might exist (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan). Therefore, training a succinct framework 

(i.e., schema) to guide how to gain an understanding of a culture may be key to successful 

negotiation in a new culture. The present research is aimed at this practical goal. 

 The 16 attributes identified as content for a schema for cultural understanding represent 

the core knowledge that Soldiers find useful in learning a new culture. The Soldiers expressed 
21 

that they tend to search for information regarding these attributes in order to understand a new 

culture. Thus, addressing these 16 attributes in Army cultural training and education may be 

beneficial. 

 Soldiers should also be trained on how the attributes are interrelated. The schema 

represented in Figure 6 may be useful for this purpose. In particular, core or central attributes 

deserve attention in training. Central attributes are those that have the most connections to other 

attributes in the schema. For example, Values/Ethics is an attribute with many connections to 

other attributes. Instruction on relationships among different cultural attributes may help 

accelerate cultural learning by providing a framework for organizing knowledge, so that 

observations about a foreign culture are not experienced as lists of isolated facts, but rather begin 

to form a coherent narrative about a society or organization. In constructivist learning theory, 

these narratives provide a critical source of meaning (Clark & Rossiter, 2008). 

Findings on goals and tactics for cultural learning also have implications for cultural 

education and training. Current cultural training focuses heavily on the “what” for culture, with 

emphasis on culture-specific information. These findings suggest that the “why” and “how” are 

equally important. Learning objectives should target this tacit knowledge along with the 

declarative knowledge of cultural facts and attributes that is more commonly taught in cultural 

training and education. Understanding the links among attributes, goals, and tactics would 

provide more generalizable knowledge. Goals can be highly informative in determining what 

attributes are most relevant to particular contexts and tasks. In addition, teaching the tactics for 

acquiring that knowledge better enables individuals to learn on the ground, minimizing the 

impact of pre-deployment training that is inevitably incomplete and occasionally of little 

relevance in the area of operations. 

Future Research 

 The Soldiers who participated in the present research articulated goals and tactics as part 

of their schema for cultural understanding, and this content needs further examination for a 

complete representation of the schema for cultural understanding. That is, the methods by which 

Soldiers acquire cultural information and the goals for using that information have been 

identified in the present research. The next step is to identify how these goals and tactics are 

structured and linked to the core attribute content. 

Future research should elaborate the representation of the initial schema for cultural 

understanding that was obtained in the present research. The elaborated schema representation 

will include cultural attributes, goals for understanding cultural attributes, and tactics for 

learning cultural attributes. It is expected that the resulting representation of the schema for 

cultural understanding will contain characteristics of an expert schema. It is expected to be 

multileveled and will contain connections between and within levels. An illustration of a 

hypothetical schema representation appears in Figure 7. A novice schema is expected to contain 

fewer links, particularly between levels.
22 

Build Rapport

Mission Goal

Build Trust

Customs

Religion

History

Observe

Converse

Adapt

Be Flexible

Methods

Culture

Attributes

Goals

Government

Maintain 

Security

 Figure 7. Illustration of a Multilevel Expert Schema for Cultural Understanding 

Conclusions 

 In the present research, we identified three components of a culture-general schema: 

cultural attributes, goals for cultural learning and knowledge, and tactics for acquiring cultural 

knowledge. We explored the attributes portion of the schema in greater detail, which yielded a 

conceptual network of16 core attributes. These findings can potentially provide instructors and 

training developers with a better understanding of their training audience. Awareness of trainees’ 

cultural schema can contribute to designing and delivering instruction in a way that capitalizes 

on the cognitive structures learners use to make sense of cultural information. This research can 

help ensure that cultural education and training translates into mental models that are maximally 

useful for application of cultural knowledge in an operational context. 
23 

References 

Acton, W. H., Johnson, P. J., & Goldsmith, T. E. (1994). Structural knowledge assessment: 

Comparison of referent structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (2), 303-311. 

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1986). Educational relevance of the study of expertise. 

Interchange, 17, 10-19. 

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday. 

Ceci, S. J., & Liker, J. K. (1986). A day at the races: A study of IQ, expertise, and cognitive 

complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 255-266. 

Center for Army Lessons Learned. (2005). Impact of cultural awareness upon battle command 

(05-35). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Center for Army Lessons Learned. 

Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg 

(Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum. 

Clark, M. C., & Rossiter, M. (2008). Narrative learning in adulthood. New Directions for Adult 

and Continuing Education, 119, 61-70. 

Cooke, N. J., Kiekel, P. A., Salas, E., Stout, R., Bowers, C, Cannon- Bowers, J. (2003). 

Measuring team knowledge: A window to the cognitive underpinnings of team 

performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7 (3), 179-199.

Day, E.A., Arthur, W., & Gettman, D. (2001). Knowledge structures and the acquisition of a 

complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1022-1033. 

Department of the Army. (2006). Army Leadership (FM 6-22). Arlington, VA: Headquarters, 

Department of the Army. 

Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of 

maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273-305. 

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, P. J., Acton, W.H. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of 

Educational Psychology. 83(1), 88-96. 

Graesser, A. C., & Nakamura, G. V. (1982). The impact of schema on comprehension and 

memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in 

research and theory (Vol. 16, pp. 60-109). New York: Academic Press. 

Hall, E.T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 
24 

Hess, T. M., Osowski, N. L., & Leclerc, C. M. (2005). Age and experience influences on the 

complexity of social inferences. Psychology and Aging, 20, 477-459. 

Hillerbrand, E. T., & Claiborn, C. D. (1990). Examining reasoning skill differences between 

expert and novice counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 684-691. 

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related 

values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.) (2004). Culture, 

leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications. 

Kellogg, R. T. (1995). Cognitive psychology. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. 

Kivlighan, D.M., Martin, R.D., Stahl, J.V., & Salahuddin, N., M. (2007). Changes in the ways 

that group trainees structure their knowledge of group members with training. Group 

Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(3), 176-186. 

Kluckhohn, C. (1951). The study of culture. In D. Lerner & H.D. Haswell (Eds.), The policy 

sciences (pp. 86-101). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 

Kluckohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: 

Row, Peterson. 

Longo, R. C. (2008, Sept). Statement for the House Armed Services Committee, Oversight and 

Investigations Subcommittee. 

Miles, J. R., & Kivlighan, D.M. (2008). Team cognition in group interventions: the relation 

between coleaders’ shared mental models and group climate. Group Dynamics: Theory, 

Research, and Practice, 12(3), 191-209. 

Nishida, H. (1999). A cognitive approach to intercultural communication based on schema 

theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 753-777. 

Osland, J. S., & Bird, A. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural sensemaking in 

context. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 65-77. 

Pedersen, P. B. (2004). 110 experiences for multicultural learning. Washington, DC: APA. 

Pilar, G., Canas, J. J., Bajo, M. T. (1994). Structural representations in knowledge acquisition. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 601-616. 
25 

Rentsch, J. R., Heffner, T. S., & Duffy, L. T. (1994). What you know is what you get from 

experience: Team experience related to teamwork schemas. Group & Organization 

Management, 19, 450-474.

Rentsch, J. R., Gundersen, A., Goodwin, G. F., & Abbe, A. (2007). Conceptualizing 

multicultural perspective taking skills. (TR 1216). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). On evaluating story grammars. Cognitive Science, 4, 313-316. 

Schvaneveldt, R. W. (Ed.) (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge 

organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances 

 and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 

25, 1-65. 

Selmeski, B. R. (2007). Military cross-cultural competence: Core concepts and individual 

development. (Occasional Paper Series – Number 1). Royal Military College of Canada, 

Centre for Security, Armed Forces, and Society. 

Sieck, W. R., Smith, J. L., & Rasmussen, (2008) Expertise in making sense of cultural surprises. 

Paper presented at the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education 

Conference, Orlando, Florida. 

Stein, K. F. (1994). Complexity of the self-schema and responses to disconfirming feedback. 

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 161-178. 

Trompenaars, A. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global 

business. Burr Ridge, Illinois: Irwin Professional Publishing. 

Trompenaars, A., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding 

diversity in global business (2nd ed.). London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. 

Tse, D., Langston, R. F., Kakeyama, M., Bethus, I., Spooner, P. A., et al. (2007). Schemas and 

memory consolidation. Science, 316, 76-82.