The procedure started with interviews with people who had experience in two cultures, e.g., A and B. The questions asked for “episodes” or “critical incidents” that surprised and confused members of culture B when they interacted with people from culture A. Student samples from the two cultures were asked to explain why the problem or confusion occurs. When the explanations given by the students from culture A were different from the explanations given by members from culture B, there was something to teach. For example, teachers from the U.S. are annoyed that pupils from Latin America do not look at them when they talk. Why is that ? The explanation is that in the U.S. people usually pay attention to the speaker by looking at the speaker, but in Latin America it is “insolent” to look at a high status person in the eyes . One is supposed to look down. The result is a training program that makes people more comfortable in working in the other culture. This was tested by assigning trainees randomly to two groups. One group gets the assimilator training, and the other gets geography training, such as what are the physical features of culture A. After the training the trainees go to the other culture and the effectiveness of their interactions in that culture and the comfort they experience while they live in the other culture is measured. The results show that the assimilator training is helpful. Training does not make the trainee an ambassador , that was too much to hope , but the trained individuals have a better experience in the other culture than those who did not receive the culture assimilator training.
The procedure started with interviews with people who had experience in two cultures, e.g., A and B. The questions asked for “episodes” or “critical incidents” that surprised and confused members of culture B when they interacted with people from culture A. Student samples from the two cultures were asked to explain why the problem or confusion occurs. When the explanations given by the students from culture A were different from the explanations given by members from culture B, there was something to teach. For example, teachers from the U.S. are annoyed that pupils from Latin America do not look at them when they talk. It was explained that in the U.S. people usually pay attention to the speaker by looking at the speaker, but in Latin America it is “insolent” to look at a high status person in the eyes : one is supposed to look down. The result is a training program that makes people more comfortable in working in the other culture. This was tested by assigning trainees randomly to two groups. One group gets the assimilator training, and the other gets geography training, such as what are the physical features of culture A. After the training the trainees go to the other culture and the effectiveness of their interactions in that culture and the comfort they experience while they live in the other culture is measured. The results show that the assimilator training is helpful. Training does not make the trainee an ambassador , but the trained individuals have a better experience in the other culture than those who did not receive the culture assimilator training.
R
Why is that ? The explanation is that
It was explained that
R
. One
: one
D
, that was too much to hope