This study focuses on the relationship between cultural intelligence and ethnocentrism. Researchers have established relationships between certain factors of the Big 5, such as Openness to Experiences, and Cultural Intelligence but have not found a directional relationship between Cultural Intelligence and Ethnocentrism. Researchers in the present experiment attempted to introduce participants to an intervention (interacting with individuals from different cultures) to see how levels of ethnocentrism and cultural intelligence would be affected.

First, read the article excerpts explaining the research design and results. Next, respond to the questions [3-4 sentences minimum for answers 2 & 3]. The peer-reviewed research article is attached but reading in its entirety is not necessary for completing this assignment.

• Ethnocentrism – People’s preference for their own cultural group over individuals of other groups.
• Cultural Intelligence – The ability to function effectively in cross-cultural interactions at home or in another culture.

Article excerpts:

Intro – Cultural intelligence (CQ) has been presented as a conceptually-differentiated construct from prior conceptualizations of cross-cultural skills. CQ is “culture-free,” meaning it is not culture-specific and represents a person’s capability to adapt effectively in new cultural contexts, no matter what they are. The capacity to adapt to any culture provides a more flexible approach to traditional cross-cultural training given that “in the current global environment it is often difficult to identify the target culture group as there are sometimes many represented.”
Those with greater CQ achieve greater performance, suffer lower burnout, experience greater adjustment and well-being, cope better with conflict, and develop greater trust and cooperation in culturally-diverse contexts (Kim, Kirkman, & Chen, 2009; Rockstuhl & Ng, 2009). While documentation of the positive benefits of CQ accumulate, researchers, however, have yet to uncover its predictors.
Interest in the relationship between CQ and ethnocentrism is relatively new and related evidence is far from clear. While Ang et al. (2007) proposed that ethnocentrism may be a predictor of CQ, the reverse has also been proposed (Triandis, 2006). Harrison (2012) researched the relationship between the two, finding a negative relationship, but did not examine whether one predicted the other. Hence, the nature of the relationship between ethnocentrism and CQ remains unresolved.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): An experiential CQ training approach of four weeks will reduce ethnocentrism in an experimental group relative to a control group.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Ethnocentrism and CQ will be negatively related.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): CQ will predict the change in ethnocentrism during the measurement period.

Study Design – A quasi-experimental, field design was employed in this study. The treatment group was comprised of students studying business management and enrolled in a hospitality human capital course at a Mountain West university in the U.S. The training intervention consisted of participation in a four-week long formal, diversified mentoring program. Diversified mentoring relationships are those in which the mentor and protégé differ in terms of group membership – such as race, ethnicity, gender, class, disability, national origin, and sexual orientation (Ragins, 1995). Participants were assigned to mentor a refugee from Africa, the Middle East, or South Asia being resettled in the state of Colorado. The refugees participated in a training program focused on preparing them for food service industry jobs; the class, taught at the university, was administered and taught by staff from a local resettlement agency. The student mentors were nearly all White and of above average affluence; each mentored a protégé who differed on almost all major dimensions, including age, class, race/ethnicity, culture, religion, language, and citizenship. Several sections of a lodging management course (n= 96; 26 male and 70 female, ranging from 18 to 22 years old) formed the control group.

Results – Ethnocentrism rose over a nine week period in both the treatment and control groups, though significantly less in the treatment group than the control. This result is important because it points to a slowly growing body of work that indicates that ethnocentrism appears to be more dynamic and contextually influenced than previously conceived.
The results around H2 presented here provide support for an inverse relationship between the two constructs, with higher CQ associated with lower ethnocentrism. Overall CQ was significantly and negatively correlated with ethnocentrism, as were three of the four dimensions of CQ.
The results from the test of H3 indicate that overall CQ, which is more subject to change from a short-term intervention, did not significantly predict the change in ethnocentrism experienced over the 9 weeks that included the four week DMR experience.

Respond to each of the questions below pertaining to the research article above [3-4 sentences minimum for questions 2 & 3].

1. Briefly describe the experimental design.

2. How did levels of ethnocentrism change over the course of the experiment across all groups and how would you explain those findings? [3-4 sentences minimum]

3. Researchers found that there was a negative relationship between ethnocentrism and cultural intelligence. Would you have hypothesized this to be the case and why or why not? [3-4 sentences minimum]

Following the guidelines in our course textbook for addressing the How and Why questions in the Project Plan section, your initial contribution to this week’s discussion will be to create a map that addresses the how question and a table that addresses the why question. The mapping allows you to see the potential (re)solutions, while the table helps you frame your argument. Use pages 79-85 in Writing Proposals to help create your map and table. Then, frame the map and table for your classmates. Where are you struggling to think about your project plan? What questions do you have about organization and structure of the project plan? Where else might your classmates help you think through this section?

Assignment Goals:

• To choose and summarize one idea covered in class over the last week
• To make a meaningful connection between the class idea and some element of your prior understanding and experience

Requirements

• Two paragraphs (approx. 250-500 words)
• Standard written English with appropriate tone for academic writing
• No style (e.g. APA/AMA/CMOS/MLA) required for this assignment

Instructions

1. Choose one concept that we covered in class. It can from lecture, in-class discussion, assigned readings, or your small group discussions.
2. In your first paragraph, present a summary of the concept as you understand it. Your goal is to demonstrate that you understand the concept you chose.
3. In your second paragraph, make some meaningful connection between your chosen concept and another idea. This second idea may be some element of your prior knowledge or experience, another concept from this class, or something you learned from another class. Your goal here is to connect what you’re learning in this class to other elements of knowledge and experience.
4. Upload your composition into the appropriate Blackboard drop box.

For your first paragraph, please choose something we’ve covered in class since your last TWIL.

Note: I will attach two documents of power point so maybe it is gonna help

By the way I am Muslim but I have to take this course

Help me write this paper:

Topic (Infant Sign): Infant sign language and early language development

ABOUT THIS PAPER

For this assignment, you will be conducting a brief analysis and discussion of a selected research area. First you would have to read the initial reading “Impact of Symbolic Gesturing on Early Language Development” by Goodwyn S.W., Acredolo, & Brown that is attached. Then you would have to select THREE articles from the ones that are listed in the bottom under (Infant Sign- Initial Readings). FOLLOW THE SAMPLE PAPER THAT IS ATTACHED!!!

INSTRUCTIONS

Part 1: (11⁄2 -2 pages) Read the article and briefly summarize the research. Be sure you fully address the following questions: What is the purpose of this research or study? What conclusions or findings does/do the researcher(s) make? What implications are there for future research, inquiry, or analysis in this area?

Part 2: (2-3 pages) Summarize the research and findings of the first additional reading you are using. Compare this research to that of the initial reading you selected (Topic A, B, or C). How does it differ (if at all) from the initial study or research? What additional new findings are addressed in this study?

Part 3: (2-3 pages) Summarize the research and findings of the second additional reading you are using. Compare this research to that of the initial reading you selected (Topic A, B, or C). How does it differ (if at all) from the initial study or research? What additional new findings are addressed in this new study?

Part 4: (11⁄2 -2 pages) What are your own conclusions about this area of research and the readings as a whole? What additional areas do you think could or should be addressed in future studies? What aspects of the research do you think were overlooked or not adequately addressed? Is there any recent controversy concerning the research in this area? Remember to focus on the research and not on your personal feelings. Be objective and analytical!

GENERAL GUIDELINES

• Use discipline-based (i.e., linguistic) terminology. Assume that your reader has a working knowledge of linguistics and language acquisition; this means that you don’t need to define terms common to the discipline and the concepts you are discussing.
• Refrain from using Wikipedia or other similar non-academic online sources for information as it will adversely affect your grade. Additionally, don’t use your instructor or class lecture notes as sources.
• Give each of the four sections (Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4) a separate heading, but do not start each section on a new page. The references page, however, will start on a new page. Page numbers should be continuous rather than restarting at page 1 for each part.
• Use APA format for in-text citations and your references page. If you are unsure about APA citation format, refer to a style manual such as Keys for Writers to see how quotations and paraphrases should be credited. Purdue’s Online Writing Lab (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/) is also a good resource for information on citing sources. (Note: You will not be writing an APA-style abstract for this paper nor will you be including a cover sheet.)
• Margins should be set at 1” all around, the text should be double-spaced ,and the pages should be numbered with your last name, the topic letter (A, B, C, or D) and the page number as the running head. Please use an easy-to-read font such as Arial or Times New Roman and insert page breaks to preserve formatting.
• Check the citation format, spelling, punctuation, and grammar on your paper carefully. A portion of your grade for this paper depends on your ability to write clearly and grammatically as well as on your thoroughness in including all the required information. Remember, this is a public presentation of your work, and you should want it to represent your best effort.

Topic: infant Sign (Initial Reading)

Goodwyn, S. W., Acredolo, L. P., & Brown, C. A. (2000). Impact of symbolic gesturing on early

language development. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 81-103.

Acredolo, L., & Goodwyn, S. (1988). Symbolic gesturing in normal infants. Child development, 450-466.

Brann, E. M. (2013). Relationship Between Young Children’s Gestures and Language Development

(Doctoral dissertation).

Cochet, H., & Vauclair, J. (2010). Pointing gesture in young children: Hand preference and language

development. Gesture, 10(2), 129-149.

Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition, 106(2), 1047-1058.

Dayanim, S., & Namy, L. L. (2015). Infants learn baby signs from video. Child development, 86(3), 800- 811.

de Villiers Rader, N., & Zukow-Goldring, P. (2010). How the hands control attention during early word learning. Gesture, 10(2), 202-221.

Gongora X., & Farkas C., (2008) Infant sign language program effects on synchronic mother-infant

interactions, Infant Behavior and Development, 32(2), 216-225

Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture paves the way for language development.

Psycho logical Science, 16(5), 367-371.

Iverson, J. M., Capirci, O., Volterra, V., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Learning to talk in a gesture-rich world: Early communication in Italian vs. American children. First Language, 28(2), 164-181.

Kirk, E., Howlett, N., Pine, K. J., & Fletcher, B. (2013). To sign or not to sign? The impact of encouraging infants to gesture on infant language and maternal mind‐mindedness. Child Development, 84(2), 574-590.

Meier, R. P., & Newport, E. L. (1990). Out of the hands of babes: On a possible sign advantage in

language acquisition. Language, 1-23.

Namy, L. L., & Waxman, S. R. (1998). Words and gestures: Infants’ interpretations of different forms of symbolic reference. Child development, 69(2), 295-308.

Normand, M. P., Machado, M. A., Hustyi, K. M., & Morley, A. J. (2011). Infant sign training and func- tional analysis. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 44(2), 305-314.

Özçalışkan, Ş., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture is at the cutting edge of early language develop- ment. Cognition, 96(3), B101-B113.

Thompson, R. H., Cotnoir-Bichelman, N. M., McKerchar, P. M., Tate, T. L., & Dancho, K. A. (2007).

Enhancing early communication through infant sign training. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 40, 15–23.

Thompson, R. H., Hustyi, K. M., Machado, M. A., & Morley, A. J. (2011). Infant sign training and

functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 305-314.

Thompson, R. H., McKerchar, P. M., & Dancho, K. A. (2004). The effects of delayed physical prompts and reinforcement on infant sign language acquisition. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 37(3), 379-383.

Vallotton, C. D. (2010). Support or competition?: Dynamic development of the relationship between manual pointing and symbolic gestures from 6 to 18 months of age. Gesture, 10(2), 150-171.