ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

27 (2003) 383–385

Editorial

The purpose of this special Training Section issue of IJIR, the first of its kind on
this particular topic, is to present a set of research articles that exemplify the growing
body of empirical knowledge regarding intercultural development. The articles
included in this issue all incorporate Milton Bennett’s (1986, 1993) Developmental
Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) (Bennett, 1986, 1993) as the core
theoretical structure. They also utilize the Intercultural Development Inventory
(IDI) (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, 2002), the instrument that has been developed to
assess intercultural sensitivity. This issue has been divided into two sections: IDI
development and validation studies (two articles) and IDI research studies that
examine the relationship of intercultural sensitivity to other human characteristics,
training programs, and educational experiences (four articles).
There has been considerable interest among intercultural trainers and researchers
in the DMIS since it was originally published in 1986 and a wealth of anecdotal
evidence has emerged over the years about the value of the model, particularly with
respect to training. Trainers have been using it to both ascertain their learners’
orientations toward cultural difference and to design training programs and
activities that would be appropriate for those learners. However, no DMIS-based
instrument existed that could help systematize these training implementations or, for
that matter, evaluate the results of a training program on intercultural sensitivity.
Researchers were interested in examining the relationship between intercultural
development and other human characteristics and experiences such as intercultural
training and education. In the absence of a valid and reliable instrument, potentially
fruitful lines of inquiry were on hold. By the mid-1990s, there was a strong call for an
instrument that could be used by trainers and researchers alike. As this issue
demonstrates, once the IDI was available it was rapidly employed by both groups.
The process for compiling this special issue was as follows. In the spring of 2001, a
call for papers was issued through the International Academy for Intercultural
Research. The call described the purpose of the issue as being a presentation of
research regarding intercultural development. The articles to be included were to
focus on the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity and the Intercultural
Development Inventory. September 30, 2001 was set as the deadline for the article
submission.
The call was well received and more articles were eventually submitted than space
in a single issue of IJIR would permit. Consistent with the journal’s procedure, the

0147-1767/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00028-2
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
384 Editorial / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 383–385

articles were then reviewed. As the guest editor, I was responsible for making the
final selection of articles to be included; I did so on the basis of the reviews and also
to provide the broadest range of research articles consistent with the purpose of the
issue. It should be noted that two of the articles (Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, Yershova, &
DeJaeghere; Klak & Martin) had been submitted to IJIR and reviewed prior to the
call for papers. At my request, the authors agreed to hold their papers for
publication in the special issue.
The first two articles by Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman, and Paige et al. discuss
the development of the IDI. Hammer et al. review the procedures that led to the
creation of the original 60-item version (Hammer & Bennett, 1998) and the revised,
50-item version of the IDI (Hammer & Bennett, 2002). The Paige et al. article reports
on the first independent assessment of the 60-item IDI, conducted in 1998–1999, the
findings of which helped establish the reliability and validity of the instrument and
served as the foundation for the revision process described by Hammer et al. The
research conducted by these two teams provide sound evidence regarding the
reliability and validity of the instrument.
The next set of articles explore the relationship of intercultural sensitivity, as
measured by the IDI, to intercultural education and training experiences as well as to
other human characteristics. Altshuler, Sussman, and Kachur describe an
intercultural training program for new physicians in a pediatric residency. On the
basis of both the IDI results and an independent clinical assessment of their
intercultural skills in a medical scenario, the authors conclude that intercultural
training does promote intercultural sensitivity. Turning to the higher education
setting, Klak and Martin present a study examining the impact over time of a
yearlong international program on a college campus. Their findings suggest that
intercultural sensitivity in favorably influenced by such a program. As hypothesized,
most of the ethnocentric subscale scores showed a statistically significant decline
between time 1 and time 2, whereas the ethnorelative subscale scores showed a
statistically significant increase. Straffon turns our attention to the very intriguing
but rarely studied setting of the international high school, which exist in many parts
of the world and in general are very culturally diverse. Using the case of one such
school located in Southeast Asia, the author explores the relationship between years
of attendance in such schools and intercultural sensitivity. The findings provide clear
support for the proposition that exposure to this kind of cultural diversity and
schooling is related to the development of intercultural sensitivity. This is a valuable
study for persons working with ‘‘third culture kids,’’ many of whom have studied in
international schools. The final study in this issue by Endicott, Narvaez, and Bock
examines the relationship between two forms of human development, intercultural
sensitivity and moral judgement as measured by the Defining Issues Test-2 (Rest &
Narvaez, 1998; Rest, Narvaez, Thoma, & Bebeau, 1999). They also looked at the
relationship of both to multicultural experiences as measured by a new instrument
and the Multicultural Experiences Questionnaire (MEXQ) developed by the authors.
As hypothesized, there are statistically significant and negative correlations between
the DIT Postconventional subscale and the ethnocentric subscales of Denial,
Defense, and Minimization, and a positive and statistically significant relationship
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Editorial / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 383–385 385

with the ethnorelative Acceptance subscale. Similar findings hold for multicultural
experiences, which are strongly associated with intercultural sensitivity and moral
development as predicted.
These studies are valuable contributions to the literature in their own right and
also suggest that the DMIS and the IDI have broad applicability in intercultural
education, training, and research.
In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the authors who
submitted manuscripts in response to the call for papers, IJIR for hosting this special
issue, IJIR editor Dan Landis for his support and encouragement of this project, and
the contributors to this volume for their excellent articles. I would also like to
recognize Siqin Yang, my research assistant, for her ongoing support to the authors
and myself throughout the process of putting this manuscript together. She played a
key role in bringing the project to fruition.

References

Bennett, M. J. (1986). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.

M. Paige (Ed.), Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations and applications (pp. 27–70). New
York: University Press of America.
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In M.
Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (1998). The intercultural development inventory (IDI) manual. Portland,
OR: Intercultural Communication Institute.
Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (2002). The intercultural development inventory (IDI) manual. Portland,
OR: Intercultural Communication Institute.
Rest, J., & Narvaez, D. (1998). Guide to Dit-2. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S., & Bebeau, M. (1999c). DIT2: Devising and testing a revised instrument
of moral judgement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 644–659.

R. Michael Paige
Educational Policy and Administration, University of Minnesota, 330 Walling Hall, 86
Pleasant Street, S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
E-mail address: r-paig@umn.edu