Multicultural Skills (manual coursebook) - Asier Barandiaran, Dmitrii Enygin, Venera Midova (graded readers .txt) 📗

difficult task is often more fun;

Many of our rules regarding modesty and sexual behavior are just conventions, and do not take them too seriously.

 

 

Diagnosing general communicative tolerance

 

The method of diagnostics of general communicative tolerance, proposed by V. Boyko (Practical Psychodiagnostics, 1998), allows to diagnose tolerant and intolerant personality attitudes, manifested in the process of communication.

According to the author of the technique, communicative tolerance, or tolerance in communication, is subdivided into situational, typological, professional and general. The level of situational tolerance is determined by the attitude of a person to a particular partner in communication (spouse, colleague, casual acquaintance), typological - attitude towards the collective type or group of people (representatives of any nationality, profession, social stratum). Professional communicative tolerance manifests itself in the working environment, in interaction with those people who have to deal with the type of activity (clients, patients). General communicative tolerance is conditioned by life experience, character properties, moral principles and to a large extent predetermines other forms of communicative tolerance.

Below are the items of the questionnaire, grouped into 9 scales.

 

 

Instructions: Assess how far the following judgments are correct in relation to you. If you answer, use points 0 to 3, where

0 is completely wrong,

1 is true to some extent,

2 - it is true to a great extent,

3 - right to the highest degree.

 

Scale 1. Rejection or misunderstanding of the individuality of another person

 

№

Statements

Points

1.

Slow people usually get on my nerves

 

2.

I am annoyed by fussy, restless people

 

3.

Noisy children's games I can hardly endure

 

4.

Original, non-standard, bright personalities most often act on me negatively

 

5.

Perfect in every respect, a person would alert me

 

Total:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale 2. Using yourself as a reference in assessing behavior and thinking

 

№

Statements

Points

6.

I am usually unbalanced by an unbalanced interlocutor

 

7.

I am amazed by amateurs to talk

 

8.

I find it difficult to talk to an indifferent fellow in a train (an airplane), started on his initiative

 

9.

I would be burdened by the conversations of an occasional fellow traveler who is inferior to me in terms of knowledge and culture

 

10.

I find it difficult to find a common language with partners of a different intellectual level than I have

 

Total:

 

Scale 3. Categoricity or conservatism in the assessments of other people

 

№

Statements

Points

11.

Modern youth causes unpleasant feelings with their appearance (hairstyles, cosmetics, clothes)

 

12.

The so-called "new Russians" usually produce an unpleasant impression either by lack of culture or by self-effacement

 

13.

Representatives of some nationalities in my environment frankly do not like me

 

14.

There is a type of men (women) that I can not stand

 

15.

I can not stand business partners with a low intellectual or professional level

 

Total:

 

Scale 4. Inability to hide or smooth out unpleasant feelings when confronted with non-communicative qualities of partners

 

№

Statements

Points

16.

I believe that you should respond to rudeness in the same way

 

17.

I find it difficult to hide if a person displeases me

 

18.

I am irritated by people who want to insist in their argument

 

19.

I am displeased with self-confident people

 

20.

Usually it is difficult for me to refrain from commenting on an angry or nervous person who is being pushed in transport

 

Total:

 

 

 

Scale 5. Aspiration to remake, re-educate partners

 

№

Statements

Points

21.

I have a habit of teaching others

 

22.

Ill-bred people revolt me

 

23.

I often find myself trying to educate someone

 

24.

I habitually constantly make comments to someone

 

25.

I love to command my relatives.

 

Total:

 

 

Scale 6. The desire to adjust the partner for yourselves, make "convenient"

 

№

Statements

Points

26.

I'm annoyed by the old people, when they are in the rush hour in public transport or in shops

 

27.

Living in a hotel room with a stranger is just torture for me

 

28.

When a partner does not agree in some way with my correct position, it usually irritates me

 

29.

I am impatient when they object to me

 

30.

It annoys me if a partner does something in his own way, not in the way I want

 

Total:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale 7. Inability to forgive others for mistakes, awkwardness, unintentionally caused you trouble.

 

 

№

Statements

Points

31.

I usually hope that my offenders will get what they deserve

 

32.

I am often reproached in grumbling

 

33.

I remember for a long time the insults inflicted on me by those whom I value or respect

 

34.

You can not forgive co-workers tactless jokes

 

35.

If a business partner inadvertently touches my pride, I'm on him, though, I will be offended

 

Total:

 

Scale 8. Intolerance to physical or mental discomfort created by other people

 

 

№

Statements

Points

36.

I condemn people who are crying in someone else's vest

 

37.

Inwardly, I do not approve of my acquaintances, who at a convenient opportunity tell about their illnesses

 

38.

I try to get out of the conversation when someone starts complaining about their family life

 

39.

I usually listen without special attention to the confessions of friends

 

40.

I sometimes like to annoy someone from family or friends

 

Total:

 

 

Scale 9. Inability to adapt to the nature, habits and desires of others

 

№

Statements

Points

41.

As a rule, it is difficult for me to make concessions to partners

 

42.

I find it difficult to get along with people who have a bad character

 

43.

I usually have difficulty adapting to new collaborative partners

 

44.

I try not to maintain a relationship with a few strange people

 

45.

Most often I insist on the principle of my own, even if I understand that the partner is right

 

Total:

 

 

Processing Results

For each scale, the total score is calculated. The maximum number of scores on each scale is 15, the total for all scales is 135. The higher the number of points scored by the respondent, the higher the degree of his intolerance to others. On average, the surveyed recruit: caregivers preschool institutions - 31 points, nurses - 43, doctors - 40 points. Consideration of answers on individual scales allows to reveal the most characteristic aspects and tendencies of manifestation of communicative tolerance and intolerance.

 

Acceptance skills

(Bogardus Social Distance Theory)

 

In the 1920s, American sociologist Emory Bogardus developed a scale for measuring social distance, which he viewed as a degree of intimacy or alienation between two groups of people.

Bogardus formulated a list of seven judgments, reflecting a different degree of social distance. In the survey, the respondents noted the judgment that corresponded to the proximity they allowed to members of a given group.

 

Instruction: Before you there is the list of statements and the list of groups***.

A. For each group from the proposed list, indicate the only true statement for you, which can be the end of the following phrase: "It is possible for me personally and preferably to have a representative of this group ..."

 

as a close relative (for example, a marriage partner)

as a close friend

as a housemate

as a colleague at work

as a citizen of my country

as a guest (tourist) in my country.

I would not like to see him or her in my country.

 

***Note to the teacher: The list of groups is compiled according to the study topic. If necessary, representatives of sexual minorities, certain adherents of political parties and social movements can be included in the list. Thus, the Bogardus scale can be used to measure social distances, not only between racial and ethnic groups, but also between groups that differ in a variety of ways: age, sex, profession, religion, etc.

 

Measurement questionnaire for general social attitudes

(E. Frenkel-Brunswick)

 

This questionnaire allows an indirect examination of the existing level of prejudice in adolescents. Else Frenkel-Brunswick found that highly prejudiced against other ethnic groups, children tend to share certain views that are not directly related to ethnic attitudes. Based on this conclusion, she created a questionnaire for measuring general social attitudes in children. The connection of each of the statements of the questionnaire with prejudice is confirmed by research.

Instruction: Answer yes or now to the following statements

 

 

There is only one right way to do something.

If a person is not afraid of anyone, he may be trapped.

It would be better if the teachers were more open-minded.

Only a person like me has the right to happiness.

Girls should learn only what will help them in their household chores.

Wars will always be a part of human nature.

Character and personality are given to man by nature.

 

Processing Results

According to the author of the methodology, the more the child agrees with the large number of the above statements, the more likely that he will be prejudiced against other ethnic groups.

 

 

 

Ethnical Identity

(by G. Soldatova)

 

This method allows to diagnose ethnic self-awareness and its transformation in the conditions of interethnic tension. One of the indicators of the transformation of ethnic identity is the growth of ethnic intolerance (intolerance). Tolerance / intolerance - the main problem of inter-ethnic relations in the face of rising tensions between nations - was a key psychological variable in the design of this questionnaire. The degree of ethnic tolerance of the respondent is assessed on the basis of the following criteria: the level of "negativism" with respect to one's own and other ethnic groups, the threshold of emotional reaction to the foreign ethnic environment, the severity of aggressive and hostile reactions to other groups.

Types of identity with different quality and degree of ethnic tolerance are identified on the basis of a wide range of ethnocentrism ranging from "denial" of identity, when negativism and intolerance towards one's own ethnic group are fixed, and ending with national fanaticism - the apotheosis of intolerance and the highest degree of negativity in relation to to other ethnic groups.

The questionnaire contains six scales that correspond to the following types of ethnic identity.

1. Ethnonigilism is one of the forms of hypoidentity, which is a departure from one's own ethnic group and the search for stable socio-psychological niches not according to ethnic criteria.

2. Ethnic indifference - the erosion of ethnic identity, expressed in the uncertainty of ethnicity, the irrelevance of ethnicity.

3. Norma (positive ethnic identity) is a combination of a positive attitude towards one's own people with a positive attitude towards other peoples. In a multi-ethnic society, a positive ethnic identity has the character of a norm and is characteristic of the overwhelming majority. It sets such an optimal balance of tolerance in relation to one's own and other ethnic groups, which allows considering it, on the one hand, as a condition for the independence and stable existence of an ethnic group, on the other, as a condition for peaceful intercultural interaction in a multi-ethnic world.

Strengthening of destructiveness in interethnic relations is caused by transformations of ethnic self-consciousness by the type of hyperidentity, which corresponds to three scales in the questionnaire:

4. Ethnoegism - this type of identity can be expressed in a harmless form on the verbal level as a result of perception through the lens of the construct "my people", but it can suggest, for example, tensions and irritation in communicating with representatives of other ethnic groups or recognition for their people of the right to solve problems for "someone else's" account.

5. Ethno-isolationism - the conviction of the superiority of its people, the recognition of the need to "cleanse" the national culture, a negative attitude towards inter-ethnic marriage unions, xenophobia.

6. Ethnophanatism is a readiness to take any action in the name of somehow understood ethnic interests, including ethnic cleansing, denial of the right to use resources and social privileges to other peoples, recognition of the priority of the ethnic rights of the people over human rights, justification of any victims in the struggle for the welfare of their people.

Ethno-egoism, ethno-isolationism and ethnophanatism are stages of the hyperbolization of ethnic identity, which means the emergence of discriminatory forms of inter-ethnic relations. In interethnic interaction, hyperidentity manifests itself in various forms of ethnic intolerance: from irritation arising as a reaction to the presence of members of other groups, to upholding the policy of limiting their rights and opportunities, aggressive and violent actions against another group and even genocide (Soldatova, 1998).

As a result of a series of expert assessments and pilot studies, 30 judgments were selected that interpret the end of the phrase: "I am a person who ..." Indicators reflect the attitude to one's own and other ethnic groups in various situations of inter-ethnic interaction.

 

Instruction: Below are the statements of various people on issues of national relations, national culture. Think about how yours coincides with the opinion of these people. Determine your agreement or disagreement with these statements:

 

Agree

Basically Agree

Agree partly

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

 

I'm a man who ...

1. prefers the way of life of my people, but treats other nations with great interest

2. considers that interethnic marriages are destroying the people

3. often feels the superiority of people of a different nationality

4. considers that the rights of a nation are always higher than