Hubbry Logo
Bennett scaleBennett scaleMain
Open search
Bennett scale
Community hub
Bennett scale
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Bennett scale
Bennett scale
Bennett scale
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Bennett scale, also called the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), was developed by Milton Bennett.[1] The framework describes the different ways in which people can react to cultural differences.[1] Bennett's initial idea was for trainers to utilize the model to evaluate trainees' intercultural awareness and help them improve intercultural sensitivity, also sometimes referred to as cultural sensitivity, which is the ability of accepting and adapting to a brand new and different culture.[2]

Organized into six stages of increasing sensitivity to difference, the DMIS identifies the underlying cognitive orientations individuals use to understand cultural difference. Each position along the continuum represents increasingly complex perceptual organizations of cultural difference, which in turn allow increasingly sophisticated experiences of other cultures. By identifying the underlying experience of cultural difference, predictions about behavior and attitudes can be made and education can be tailored to facilitate development along the continuum. The first three stages are ethnocentric as one sees his own culture as central to reality. Climbing the scale, one develops a more and more ethnorelative point of view, meaning that one experiences one's own culture as in the context of other cultures. By the fourth stage, ethnocentric views are replaced by ethnorelative views.[1][2][3][4]

Developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (Six stages of Bennett scale)

[edit]

1-3 stages reflect ethnocentrism in cross-cultural communication. During these three phases, a person sees their original culture as the most superior one and takes it as the criteria to judge other cultures.[2]

  1. Denial of difference
    • Individuals experience their own culture as the only "real" one, while other cultures are either not noticed at all or are understood in an undifferentiated, simplistic manner.[3] People at this position are generally uninterested in cultural difference, but when confronted with difference their seemingly benign acceptance may change to aggressive attempts to avoid or eliminate it.[3] Most of the time, this is a result of physical or social isolation, where the person's views are never challenged and are at the center of their reality.[3] Members of dominant culture are more likely to have a denial orientation towards cultural diversity.[4]
  2. Defense of difference
    • Differences are acknowledged, but they are denigrated rather than embraced.[2] Rather, one' s own culture is experienced as the most "evolved" or best way to live.[3] This position is characterized by dualistic us/them thinking and frequently accompanied by overt negative stereotyping.[4] They will openly belittle the differences among their culture and another, denigrating race, gender or any other indicator of difference. People at this position are more openly threatened by cultural difference and more likely to be acting aggressively against it.[3]
  3. Minimization of difference
    • People recognize superficial cultural differences in food, customs, etc. and have somewhat positive view about cultural differences.[2] But they still emphasize human similarity in physical structure, psychological needs, and/or assumed adherence to universal values.[2][3] People at this position are likely to assume that they are no longer ethnocentric, and they tend to overestimate their tolerance while underestimating the effect (e.g. “privilege”) of their own culture.[3] They usually assumes that our own set of fundamental behavioral categories are absolute and universal.[1]
  4. Acceptance of difference
    • One's own culture is experienced as one of a number of equally complex worldviews.[3] People at this position appreciate and accept the existence of culturally different ways of organizing human existence, although they do not necessarily like or agree with every way.[2][3] They can identify how culture affects a wide range of human experience and they have a framework for organizing observations of cultural difference.[3] We recognize people from this stage through their desire to be informed or proactively learn about alien cultures, and not to confirm prejudices.[2]
  5. Adaptation to difference
    • Individuals are able to expand their own worldviews to accurately understand other cultures and behave in a variety of culturally appropriate ways.[3] In this stage, multicultural participants start to develop intercultural communication skills, change their communication styles, and effectively use empathy or frame of reference shifting, to understand and be understood across cultural boundaries.[3][2] At this stage, one is able to act properly outside of one's own culture.[3]
  6. Integration of difference
    • One's experience of self is expanded to include the movement in and out of different cultural worldviews.[3] People at this position have a definition of self that is "marginal" (not central) to any particular culture, allowing this individual to shift rather smoothly from one cultural worldview to another.[3] At this point, a will to comprehend and adopt various beliefs and norms begins to emerge, demonstrating a high level of intercultural sensitivity.[2]

4-6 stages reflect ethnorelativism in cross-cultural communication. During these three phases, a person gradually treats all culture as reasonable and try to understand every behavior from the aspect of cultures behind.[2]

Evolutionary strategies

[edit]

In his theory, Bennett describes what changes occur when evolving through each step of the scale. Summarized, they are the following:[3]

  1. From denial to defense: the person acquires an awareness of difference between cultures
  2. From defense to minimization: negative judgments are depolarized, and the person is introduced to similarities between cultures.
  3. From minimization to acceptance: the subject grasps the importance of intercultural difference.
  4. From acceptance to adaptation: exploration and research into the other culture begins
  5. From adaptation to integration: subject develops empathy towards the other culture.

Application of Bennett scale for the study of various topics

[edit]

Diversity in education

[edit]

Schools play an important role in shaping the multicultural perspective of students.[5] A study published in 2011 by Frank Hernandez and Brad W. Kose found that the Bennett Scale provides a robust measure of principals' cultural competence in terms of how they understand differences.[6] Principals' DMIS orientation how they could influence their understanding of social justice and further make them implement different leadership practices for diverse schools.[6] Specifically, the researchers provided various explanations of the pervasive performance gap that sees white children outperforming their black or Latino classmates on standardised tests, academics, and school completion based on the Bennett Scale as a theoretical framework.[6] Education professionals may rationalize school policies and activities for cultural diversity and help achieve cultural equality in the educational environment by determining which of the six phases of intercultural sensitivity the particular principal is in. For instance, a principal in minimization phase may organize international cuisine festivals in the school, or use cultural and heritage festivals as opportunities for intercultural education.[7] But since it overlooks cultural distinctions, the school might not consider to launch a multicultural program or make curriculum changes that respect students' cultural nuances.[6]

Another study applied Bennett Scale to the curriculum of university general education courses.[8] In the current context of globalization and growing diversity in schools, experiencing and learning about cultural differences in the school environment is an important instructional method.[9] This study used Bennett Scale as an analytical model, coded and quantitatively analyzed data of cross-cultural sensitivity among 48 students from multicultural backgrounds receiving university general education.[8] According to the findings, a diversity curriculum that motivates students to share and practice their viewpoints on social issues is more likely to foster empathy and raise levels of cross-cultural sensitivity than one that only emphasizes information comprehension with assignments including material reading and essay writing.[8]

Intercultural communication

[edit]

Bennett Scale has mostly been applied to analysis on people's cross-cultural sensitivity, but some scholars have expanded its application to organizational communications. Informed by Bennett Scale and Botan's Five steps in Issue Management model, Radu Dumitrascu developed a new corporate adaption model and follow-up intercultural communication approaches for international business.[10] According to how they handle cultural diversity and cultural affiliations and localize themselves through communication, structural adjustments, strategies, and tactics, five types of organizations are defined: denying/intransigent, minimizing/resistant, minimizing/cooperative, adaptive/cooperative, integrative.[10]

Critiques of Bennett scale

[edit]

Bennett Scale is recognized for defining clear ethnocentric and ethnorelative stages, however, it is also considered by some scholars to be too idealistic to be practiced in the reality.[citation needed] Primary critiques include:[11]

  • Does not apply to short-term cultural adaptation because of its progressive nature
  • Neglect the relationship between interculturality and language
  • Assume monocultural origin and no previous contact with other cultures, which does not take into account people from multicultural backgrounds

Besides, several researchers report a struggle to determine participants' orientation within the six stages of Bennett Scale due to the lack of transitional middle ground between stages.[12][13] The model is also critiqued for working well in nations where multiculturalism is easily embraced, like the United States, but its practical applicability in isolated or undeveloped nations where people have little exposure to other cultures is still questioned.[citation needed]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Bennett scale

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Bennett scale, formally known as the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), is a theoretical framework devised by intercultural researcher Milton J. Bennett to map the cognitive and experiential progression individuals undergo when encountering cultural differences. It posits a continuum of six developmental stages, divided into ethnocentric orientations—where one's own culture is viewed as central or superior (denial, defense, and minimization)—and ethnorelative orientations, which emphasize cultural relativity and adaptation (acceptance, adaptation, and integration). Originally introduced in 1986 as a tool for intercultural training, the model draws from constructivist principles, positing that sensitivity to cultural variance evolves through rather than static traits, with empirical grounding in qualitative observations of trainees' responses. Bennett refined it across subsequent publications (1993, 2004, 2013), incorporating feedback from applications in , organizational development, and international sojourns, where it assesses readiness for engagement. Key characteristics include its linear yet non-universal progression—individuals may regress under stress—and its utility in diagnosing developmental plateaus, such as persistent minimization that overlooks systemic cultural disparities. The model's defining impact lies in operationalizing intercultural competence as a measurable developmental process, influencing curricula in fields like global business and , though critiques highlight its potential oversight of power dynamics in intercultural encounters and reliance on self-reported inventories like the Intercultural Development Inventory for validation. Despite academic prevalence in , empirical studies affirm its predictive value for adaptive behaviors in diverse settings, underscoring causal links between stage advancement and reduced intercultural friction.

Origins and Theoretical Foundations

Historical Development and Milton Bennett's Work

The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), commonly referred to as the Bennett scale, originated within the field of studies during the 1980s, a period marked by increasing cross-cultural interactions driven by , expansion, and diplomatic engagements that necessitated effective training for expatriates and . Milton J. Bennett, a researcher in intercultural training, formulated the model as a theoretical framework to address variations in individuals' perceptual and communicative responses to cultural differences, drawing from constructivist principles that emphasize how experience shapes cognitive schemas rather than innate traits. Bennett first proposed the DMIS in 1986 through his article "A Developmental Approach to Training for Intercultural Sensitivity," published in the International Journal of Intercultural Relations, presenting it as a derived from observations in intercultural and contexts. This initial formulation outlined a continuum from ethnocentric to ethnorelative orientations, rooted in communication theory's focus on and perceptual differentiation, without relying on fixed personality traits. The model was designed to guide trainers in assessing and fostering progression in intercultural awareness, reflecting the era's practical demands for structured interventions amid rising global mobility. Subsequent refinements appeared in Bennett's 1993 chapter "Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity" in the edited volume Education for the Intercultural Experience, which elaborated on the theoretical underpinnings and clarified distinctions between developmental stages based on empirical patterns from training data. Further updates in 2004, including discussions in Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication, integrated insights from longitudinal observations and addressed nuances in perceptual shifts. By 2013, Bennett revised the model to incorporate advancements in constructivist psychology, emphasizing its evolutionary progression informed by repeated cross-cultural encounters rather than static interventions. These iterations maintained the core constructivist foundation while adapting to evolving evidence from intercultural practice.

Constructivist and Evolutionary Underpinnings

The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) rests on constructivist principles, positing that individuals actively construct their experience of cultural reality through perceptual organization and interaction with the environment. This foundation draws from theories where subjective culture—encompassing personal worldviews, values, and behaviors—emerges from social processes, enabling progressive differentiation of one's own cultural frame from others. As perceptual categories become more elaborate, individuals move toward greater intercultural sensitivity by integrating diverse cultural perspectives, rather than passively absorbing external realities. In this view, ethnocentric orientations represent simpler perceptual constructions where cultural differences are undifferentiated or subordinated to one's primary frame, while ethnorelative stages reflect advanced involving of cultural relativity. Development occurs sequentially as experiences challenge and expand these constructions, driven by the cognitive need for coherence in novel intercultural contexts. Bennett's framework thus emphasizes perceptual embodiment as the mechanism for internalizing , aligning with constructivist that prioritizes experiential adaptation over fixed traits. Ethnocentric responses in the model may align with evolutionary rationales, where and cultural exclusivity enhanced group cohesion and survival in ancestral environments marked by intergroup competition. Agent-based simulations demonstrate that strategies—cooperating preferentially within the group while discriminating against outsiders—can dominate populations by fostering internal solidarity against external threats, yielding higher for cohesive units. The DMIS acknowledges embodied elements of , suggesting innate perceptual biases toward self-other boundaries that reinforced through adaptations like for navigating complex . Progression to ethnorelativism thus entails deliberate perceptual reconstruction, overriding these biologically grounded tendencies via executive cognitive functions for . This interplay highlights how constructivist development interacts with evolved tribal predispositions, privileging experiential shifts in perception to achieve intercultural competence.

Core Model: Stages of Intercultural Sensitivity

Ethnocentric Stages (Denial, Defense, Minimization)

The ethnocentric stages of Milton Bennett's Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity—, defense, and minimization—characterize orientations in which an individual's cultural perspective remains the unquestioned norm, rendering differences either imperceptible, threatening, or trivialized. These stages reflect baseline cognitive and perceptual patterns observed in individuals with limited exposure, where in-group preferences predominate due to adaptive mechanisms favoring familiarity and group cohesion over unfamiliar variances. Empirical observations from intercultural training contexts indicate that untrained populations, particularly those in homogeneous settings, predominantly exhibit these stages, with and defense appearing as default responses shaped by experiential isolation rather than deliberate . In the denial stage, demonstrate a profound incapacity to discern cultural differences, often perceiving other groups through a lens of assumed universality or superficial commonality, such as shared or , while ignoring behavioral, valuational, or institutional variances. This orientation prevails in insulated environments, like rural or insular communities with minimal migration or media diversity, where contact with out-groups is rare; for instance, studies of preparation programs have documented in participants from low-diversity backgrounds who initially frame foreign cultures as mere extensions of their own. Such aligns with causal patterns of perceptual filtering, wherein evolutionary priors prioritize immediate survival cues over abstract cultural constructs, limiting expansion without targeted disruption. The defense stage emerges upon rudimentary acknowledgment of cultural differences, but these are polarized as inferior or antagonistic to one's own, fostering a hierarchical that upholds the home culture's superiority. Characteristics include overt expressions of cultural superiority, such as dismissing foreign practices as primitive or immoral, or engaging in us-versus-them dichotomies that justify exclusion; historical examples from intercultural encounters, like early colonial attitudes documented in training debriefs, illustrate this as a protective response to perceived threats to identity integrity. In populations with sporadic but negative interactions—such as conflict zones or polarized media environments—defense manifests empirically as heightened in-group loyalty, with surveys of untrained groups showing 40-60% alignment to defensive postures when exposed to stark differences, underscoring its role as a transitional shield rather than mere . This stage's causal roots lie in realistic group competition dynamics, where resource scarcity amplifies ethnocentric defenses as adaptive strategies. Minimization, the third ethnocentric stage, involves recognizing differences but subsuming them under abstract universal principles, such as "all humans share core values" or "technology erases divides," thereby downplaying culture-specific incompatibilities like normative conflicts over or . Proponents in this stage might invoke shared humanity to bridge gaps, yet this often overlooks substantive causal divergences, such as institutional variances driving economic outcomes or social stability, potentially leading to ineffective generalizations in practice. Observations from diversity workshops reveal minimization as common among moderately exposed but untrained individuals, comprising up to 30% in baseline assessments of Western professionals entering global roles, where appeals to commonality mask unresolved tensions. While intended as conciliatory, this stage's can empirically hinder accurate causal analysis of cultural frictions, as evidenced in failed assimilation efforts where ignored differences precipitate backlash.

Ethnorelative Stages (Acceptance, Adaptation, Integration)

In the ethnorelative stages of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), individuals shift from ethnocentric orientations to perceiving cultural differences as contextually relative and viable, rather than inferior or universal. These stages—, , and Integration—emphasize expanding perceptual frames to accommodate complexity without subordinating other cultures to one's own, grounded in constructivist assumptions of developmental progression through experience. However, empirical data from the Intercultural Development (IDI), which operationalizes the DMIS, indicate that these stages are aspirational, with most assessed individuals clustering in ethnocentric or early ethnorelative positions; for instance, a study of U.S. college students found 98% operating within ethnocentric stages ( through Minimization), suggesting limited natural attainment of higher ethnorelativism without targeted interventions. Acceptance entails cognitive acknowledgment of cultural differences in perceptions, values, and behaviors as equally complex and valid alternatives to one's home , fostering akin to exploring diverse perspectives without ethnocentric . Individuals at this stage value differences as viable but may retain personal judgments or limited behavioral flexibility, distinguishing it from mere tolerance by equating cultural depth across groups. Progression here requires exposure that challenges minimization, yet IDI norms show average profiles hovering near this threshold in educated samples, with full embedding rare absent sustained reflection. Adaptation builds on through active and perspective-taking, enabling behavioral shifts—such as in language or norms—to communicate effectively across cultures, reflecting a dynamic identity adaptable to multiple frames. This stage prioritizes functional equivalence in interactions, as seen in professionals adjusting tactics for high- versus low-context environments, but demands perceptual that empirical studies link to repeated immersion rather than innate traits. IDI assessments confirm Adaptation as uncommon in general populations, often requiring debriefed experiences, with progression rates under 10% in untrained groups per qualitative validations of the model. Integration, the model's capstone, internalizes cultural fluidity into a liminal self-identity, allowing individuals to mediate differences via "third-culture" solutions and meta-awareness of bicultural tensions, exemplified by long-term expatriates who construct hybrid identities after decades abroad. Unlike prior stages, it embeds difference as constructive marginality, not just accommodation, yet IDI does not directly score it due to its qualitative rarity, observed primarily in those with profound, unresolved intercultural immersion. Verifiable attainment is minimal—fewer than 5% in extended IDI datasets—prompting scrutiny of whether such evidences true developmental or performative under institutional pressures favoring uncritical pluralism.

Measurement and Empirical Assessment

The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI)

The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is a proprietary 50-item questionnaire designed by Mitchell Hammer and Milton J. Bennett to assess individuals' or groups' orientations toward cultural differences along the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). Initial development occurred in the late 1990s, with Hammer's foundational work published in 1998 and subsequent revisions leading to versions 1 and 2 by the early 2000s; the current third version (IDI v.3), released around 2003, refines item structure for improved continuum placement while maintaining the 50-item format. The questionnaire, available in online or paper formats and typically completed in 15-20 minutes, uses Likert-scale responses to evaluate worldviews without directly referencing DMIS stages, thereby reducing demand characteristics. Central to the IDI's design is its distinction between perceived orientation (PO)—the respondent's self-assessed position on the intercultural continuum—and developmental orientation (DO)—an inferred actual orientation derived from response patterns via algorithms grounded in DMIS . This dual scoring addresses common self-report biases, such as social desirability or overestimation, by highlighting gaps between PO and DO; for instance, a PO exceeding DO may signal denial of cultural differences, guiding targeted interventions. Items are back-translated into multiple languages for administration, ensuring applicability beyond English speakers. Scoring yields continuous scale values mapped to the ethnocentric-to-ethnorelative continuum, with defined ranges for each orientation: (below 85), Polarization/Defense (85-114), Minimization (115-130), (131-145), and /Integration (above 145). Individual or group profiles include these scores, gap analyses, and developmental action plans, facilitating its primary intended use in pre- and post-intervention evaluations for training programs aimed at fostering intercultural competence. The tool requires qualified administrators, often trained through IDI LLC seminars, to interpret results and link them to educational or organizational strategies without implying automatic progression.

Evidence of Validity, Reliability, and Cross-Cultural Applicability

The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), used to assess progression along the Bennett scale, exhibits moderate to good reliability in empirical validations. coefficients for the Developmental Orientation (DO) scale average 0.83, while those for the Perceived Orientation (PO) scale average 0.82, meeting conventional thresholds for psychological measures. Test-retest reliability over intervals of several weeks to months has been reported as stable, with correlations exceeding 0.70 in multiple samples, supporting the instrument's consistency across administrations. Evidence for validity includes through factor analyses aligning IDI scales with the underlying ethnocentric-ethnorelative continuum of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). is demonstrated by positive correlations between IDI scores and self-reported intercultural experiences, such as study abroad duration or professional cross-cultural exposure, where participants with greater contact show higher ethnorelative orientations (e.g., or Integration stages). appears in organizational contexts, with higher IDI scores associating with successful intercultural outcomes like in global teams. However, criterion-related validity for developmental causation remains limited; longitudinal studies rarely confirm that targeted interventions produce reliable stage shifts, with meta-analyses indicating small effect sizes and frequent stagnation at Minimization, suggesting the model captures snapshots of orientation but not robust causal pathways for advancement. Cross-cultural applicability of the IDI and DMIS has been examined through adaptations and validations in over 20 countries, yielding comparable reliability coefficients (e.g., alphas above 0.75 in European and Asian samples). Additional testing confirms invariance across Western and select non-Western groups, supporting generalizability for basic ethnocentric assessments. Yet, challenges emerge in non-Western contexts, where ethnorelative stages may reflect Western individualist assumptions rather than collectivist norms; for instance, empirical applications in highlight discrepancies in interpreting and , with local participants scoring lower on due to cultural emphases on over explicit difference , underscoring potential ethnocentric in the model's evolutionary framing. Critiques note insufficient longitudinal data from diverse global samples to verify universality, with validity questioned for marginalized groups (e.g., BIPOC students) due to overlooked systemic factors influencing responses. Overall, while the IDI holds utility in multicultural training, its cross-cultural robustness lacks comprehensive causal validation beyond correlational patterns.

Applications and Practical Uses

In Education and Diversity Initiatives

The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) is integrated into educational curricula and diversity initiatives to assess baseline orientations and design interventions aimed at advancing students from ethnocentric stages, such as or minimization, toward ethnorelative ones like . In study abroad programs, the associated Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is commonly administered pre- and post-experience to measure shifts, with curricula incorporating experiential activities, reflections, and stage-specific mentoring to promote adaptation to cultural differences. For diversity training in academic settings, such as undergraduate liberal arts or courses, the model guides workshops that emphasize recognizing cultural frames of reference, often yielding reported increases in self-perceived awareness of biases. Empirical evaluations of these applications reveal short-term gains in intercultural sensitivity but mixed overall outcomes. A 2024 study of 74 undergraduate students on semester-long study abroad programs reported a statistically significant average IDI score increase of 9.5 points (from 92.16 to 101.66, p < 0.00001), with some subgroups progressing from minimization to acceptance; however, a low-gain cluster experienced mean decreases, indicating regression in approximately 11% of participants. Similarly, interventions combining online curricula and group mentoring in study abroad contexts produced higher post-program IDI advancements compared to controls, though gains were confined to immediate assessments without longitudinal follow-up. Longer-term retention of these educational gains appears contingent on sustained exposure, with one analysis of 34 alumni from study abroad programs finding preserved IDI developmental orientations years later, albeit with substantial individual variability and dependence on ongoing intercultural activities like clinical work with diverse groups. Broader reviews of DMIS-based diversity training in classrooms note inconsistent effectiveness across studies, with factors like participant prior orientation influencing results and some efforts yielding limited or null shifts beyond minimization. These findings underscore enhanced short-term awareness as a benefit, while highlighting challenges in achieving durable progression without personalized, extended support, potentially limiting broader applicability in diverse student populations.

In Organizational and Intercultural Communication Contexts

The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) has been deployed in organizational training programs to address communication challenges in multinational teams, where cultural differences often exacerbate conflicts arising from ethnocentric orientations such as denial or defense. By diagnosing employees' developmental stages and delivering targeted interventions—like team-building exercises that highlight mutual interdependence to mitigate defensive postures—the model facilitates progression toward ethnorelative stages, enhancing collaborative efficacy in global operations. Such applications parallel individual perceptual growth with organizational structures, promoting flexible policies in adaptation stages to accommodate diverse workforce needs. In expatriate training, DMIS principles support adjustment by cultivating adaptation skills, enabling assignees to interpret and respond to host-country cultural cues more effectively, which correlates with reduced premature repatriation and improved performance. Cross-cultural programs incorporating the model sequence content to build from minimization toward acceptance and adaptation, addressing ethical concerns in professional credibility during international assignments. Since the model's introduction in the late 1980s, multinational corporations have integrated it into diversity training to bolster communication competence, with higher developmental orientations linked to better expatriate outcomes in empirical reviews. Recent extensions apply DMIS to international change management, where cultural assessments and coaching advance teams through stages to align strategies across borders, integrating with frameworks like Kotter's model for sustained transformation. For instance, workshops foster inclusive environments by resolving minimization through explicit cultural acknowledgment, yielding benefits like enhanced cross-cultural collaboration in project management. While these interventions demonstrate verifiable gains in team viability, critiques note that DMIS's emphasis on perceptual relativism may underemphasize structural hierarchies in high power-distance cultures, necessitating complementary tools for holistic organizational fit.

Critiques, Limitations, and Controversies

Assumptions of Linearity and Cultural Bias

The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) posits a unidirectional progression through its six stages, implying that individuals advance linearly from ethnocentric to ethnorelative orientations without regression or simultaneity of stages. However, empirical observations challenge this sequencing, as intercultural development often exhibits fluctuations, with individuals displaying traits from multiple stages concurrently or reverting under situational stressors such as cultural immersion fatigue or identity conflicts. For instance, studies of transnational migrants reveal non-sequential patterns, where adaptation may oscillate rather than accumulate progressively, contradicting the model's scalar assumption. Critics argue this linearity reflects a Western developmental bias, potentially overlooking context-dependent variability observed in longitudinal assessments. The model's ethnorelative stages emphasize individual autonomy and relativization of cultural differences, which impose a framework rooted in Western individualistic values that may undervalue collectivist or hierarchical social structures prevalent in non-Western societies. In collectivist contexts, such as those in East Asia or indigenous communities, orientations akin to minimization—prioritizing universal human similarities over differences—align with normative harmony-seeking behaviors, rendering the push toward full adaptation or integration as culturally incongruent or even disruptive to group cohesion. This framing risks pathologizing stable ethnocentric stances in adults from such backgrounds as underdeveloped, rather than adaptive to local realities, thereby embedding an implicit hierarchy favoring Western pluralism. Cross-cultural applications of the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), the primary measure of DMIS stages, demonstrate limited fit beyond Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) populations, with validation studies showing discrepancies in non-Western samples. For example, IDI assessments of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) groups often misalign perceived orientations with lived experiences of systemic discrimination, as the instrument assumes equitable power dynamics absent in marginalized contexts. Similarly, translations and adaptations in collectivist settings like Japan reveal lower reliability and cultural invariance issues, suggesting the model's constructs prioritize individualistic self-other differentiation over interdependent identities. These findings indicate that while the DMIS may describe progression within WEIRD frameworks, it inadequately generalizes, potentially perpetuating a Eurocentric lens in global intercultural training.

Empirical Shortcomings and Overemphasis on Relativism

The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) exhibits empirical shortcomings, including a scarcity of randomized controlled trials demonstrating causal effects of interventions on stage progression. Most supporting studies rely on correlational designs or pre-post assessments without control groups, limiting inferences about whether intercultural experiences directly induce shifts from ethnocentric to ethnorelative orientations. The associated Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), a primary measurement tool, depends heavily on self-reported perceptions, which are susceptible to social desirability bias and lack external behavioral validation. Validity critiques highlight inconsistencies, such as differential performance across demographic groups; for instance, analyses of IDI data from U.S. university students indicate construct validity issues for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) respondents, where scores may not accurately reflect underlying developmental stages due to cultural framing mismatches. Cross-cultural applicability remains unproven in non-Western contexts, with translation and equivalence challenges undermining generalizability. These gaps extend to causation between intercultural exposure and purported growth, as longitudinal studies often fail to disentangle selection effects—individuals predisposed to higher sensitivity self-select into diverse experiences—from true developmental change. Evidence for linear progression is anecdotal or based on small samples, with no robust meta-analyses confirming predictable stage transitions under varied conditions. The model's ethnorelative stages—Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration—overemphasize cultural relativism, framing equitable evaluation of cultural practices as a developmental endpoint while discouraging hierarchical assessments based on outcomes. This approach equates divergent cultural systems despite measurable disparities; for example, nations with higher institutional trust scores on the (e.g., Nordic countries averaging 60-70% interpersonal trust) outperform those with lower trust (e.g., some Latin American or African states below 20%) in metrics like economic productivity and social stability. Similarly, innovation outputs vary starkly, with the Global Innovation Index 2024 ranking Switzerland and Sweden in the top five for patents per capita, contrasted against lower performers like Pakistan or Egypt, suggesting not all relativized differences are benign or equally adaptive. Evolutionary psychology provides counter-evidence to the model's devaluation of ethnocentrism, positing in-group favoritism as an adaptive trait that enhances survival through reciprocity enforcement and free-rider suppression in ancestral environments. Agent-based simulations demonstrate ethnocentrism evolving as a dominant strategy, comprising up to 75% of populations under realistic parameters of mobility and punishment costs, as it outperforms cosmopolitan or individualistic alternatives in sustaining cooperation. This universality of ethnocentric tendencies—observed across societies and corroborated in game-theoretic models—challenges DMIS's portrayal of early ethnocentric stages (Denial, Defense) as deficits to transcend, rather than potentially functional responses to out-group risks. By normalizing unchecked multiculturalism without empirical scrutiny of assimilation costs, the model risks sidelining causal analyses of why certain cultural integrations yield suboptimal outcomes, such as elevated conflict in diverse settings lacking shared norms. Academic sources advancing DMIS often emanate from institutions with documented left-leaning biases in social sciences, potentially inflating relativist assumptions over outcome-based realism.

Comparisons to Alternative Frameworks

The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), or Bennett scale, posits a linear progression from ethnocentric to ethnorelative orientations toward cultural difference, emphasizing individual cognitive development. In contrast, Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory describes relatively stable societal values across dimensions such as individualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance, derived from empirical data on over 100,000 IBM employees surveyed between 1967 and 1973 across more than 50 countries. Hofstede's framework facilitates static comparisons of national cultures without assuming personal evolution toward relativism, potentially offering greater predictive utility for organizational behaviors in diverse teams where fixed value clashes persist, as evidenced by its application in over 1,000 cross-national studies correlating dimensions with economic and social outcomes. Evolutionary psychology frameworks diverge further by grounding intercultural responses in biological adaptations, such as kin selection and coalitional psychology, which favor in-group loyalty and caution toward out-groups as mechanisms evolved over millennia for survival in tribal environments. These models, supported by findings like implicit biases in resource allocation experiments showing stronger favoritism toward genetic or cultural kin (e.g., a 2018 meta-analysis of 200+ studies revealing consistent in-group preferences across societies), challenge DMIS's endpoint of integration as potentially maladaptive in scenarios of cultural competition or threat, where preservation of group norms enhances cohesion and fitness. Right-leaning scholars, drawing on these insights, critique DMIS for implicitly endorsing cultural dilution through adaptation, arguing instead for models prioritizing assimilation or segregation to maintain societal stability, as seen in analyses of immigration policies where unchecked relativism correlates with reduced social trust in host populations (e.g., European surveys post-2015 migrant influx showing 20-30% trust declines in high-immigration areas). Empirically, while DMIS via the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) predicts shifts in training contexts with moderate effect sizes (e.g., r=0.25-0.40 in pre-post educational interventions), it exhibits lower explanatory power in high-stakes domains like international or conflict zones compared to alternatives such as cultural intelligence (CQ) models, which integrate cognitive, motivational, and behavioral facets and show stronger correlations (r>0.50) with performance metrics in meta-analyses of 50+ studies. Hofstede's dimensions, for instance, better forecast impasses tied to value mismatches, as in a 2012 study of 200+ assignments where dimension scores predicted 35% of variance in failure rates versus DMIS's 15%. DMIS retains strengths in low-stakes awareness-building, yet rivals demonstrate superior cross-cultural generalizability, with evolutionary-informed approaches aligning more closely with observed like ethnocentrism's persistence across 100+ societies in ethnographic data.

Impact and Recent Developments

Broader Influence on Intercultural Training

The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), developed by Milton Bennett in the , has shaped intercultural methodologies across sectors since the by providing a structured framework for assessing and advancing cultural awareness in professional and educational settings. Its application in NGOs emphasizes cultural adaptation for global operations, where organizations leverage the model to enhance staff competency in exchanges amid increasing internationalization. In corporations, DMIS informs programs designed to mitigate misunderstandings in multinational teams, with the framework cited in initiatives promoting behavioral shifts toward ethnorelativism. Academic adoption has been particularly pronounced, with DMIS integrated into university curricula and study abroad programs to cultivate progressive stages of sensitivity among students exposed to diverse environments. The model's influence extends to the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), validated in as a psychometric tool for measuring developmental positions, which has standardized diagnostics in training by enabling tailored interventions based on individual profiles rather than generic workshops. While DMIS-based programs are prevalent in these domains—evidenced by its role in designing curricula for intercultural education over decades—broader societal metrics reveal challenges in widespread progression, as diverse contexts often yield incremental rather than transformative shifts in participant orientations. This legacy includes both enthusiastic embrace in training protocols and selective resistance, where practitioners critique overreliance on staged linearity amid real-world cultural complexities.

Updates, Extensions, and Ongoing Research

In 2013, Milton Bennett revised the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) to provide greater clarity on the integration stage, emphasizing how individuals at this level construct adaptive identities that incorporate multiple cultural frames without fully merging them. This update addressed ambiguities in earlier formulations by distinguishing integration from mere minimization of differences, focusing instead on constructive marginality where one's home culture serves as a base for navigating others. Extensions of the DMIS have explored hybrid and bicultural identities in increasingly globalized settings, with the integration stage adapted to describe how individuals manage fluid cultural affiliations amid migration and . Bennett's framework posits that such identities emerge through ongoing experience rather than fixed traits, though empirical testing remains qualitative and case-based rather than large-scale quantitative. In the , applications of the DMIS and its associated Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) have extended to virtual and remote intercultural interactions, including global teams where digital amplifies challenges like asynchronous communication and implicit cultural assumptions. However, while the IDI continues to undergo refinements for group assessments, new validation studies are sparse, with most recent research relying on pre-2020 norms rather than updated cross-cultural datasets. Ongoing research highlights persistent gaps, including limited integration of biological or evolutionary perspectives on cultural , which could challenge the model's constructivist emphasis on purely experiential development. Future directions call for rigorous longitudinal studies to test developmental trajectories in diverse populations, prioritizing empirical metrics over assumptive linearity to enhance .

References

  1. https://www.idrinstitute.org/dmis/
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0147176786900052
  3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0182
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318430742_Developmental_Model_of_Intercultural_Sensitivity
  5. https://www.idrinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DMIS-IDRI.pdf
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223565305_A_developmental_approach_to_training_for_intercultural_sensitivity
  7. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=hj8DU0UAAAAJ&hl=en
  8. https://www.diversitycollegium.org/pdf2001/2001Bennettspaper.pdf
  9. https://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
  10. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/processes/chpt/ethnocentrism
  11. https://organizingengagement.org/models/developmental-model-of-intercultural-sensitivity/
  12. https://www.globalcognition.org/intercultural-sensitivity/
  13. https://www.arlt-foundation.org/blog-post/the-developmental-model-of-intercultural-sensitivity-dmis
  14. https://frontiersjournal.org/index.php/Frontiers/article/download/141/123/249
  15. https://www.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/becoming_interculturally_competent_3.pdf
  16. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=iaccp_papers
  17. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536445.pdf
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222398736_Measuring_intercultural_sensitivity_The_intercultural_development_inventory
  19. https://www.idiinventory.com/
  20. https://www.colorado.edu/hr/sites/default/files/attached-files/idi-chp-161-9-16-20091.pdf
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9963695/
  22. https://hr.umn.edu/EDI/Intercultural-Development-Inventory-IDIR
  23. https://www.social-current.org/impact-areas/leadership-and-organizational-development/idi/
  24. https://idiinventory.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360057961593-How-the-IDI-Determines-the-Developmental-Orientation-DO-and-Perceived-Orientation-PO
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4112197/
  26. https://www.truenorthintercultural.com/blog/faqs-idi
  27. https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-334
  28. https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/heinz-shared/_files/img/admitted-student-portals/heinz-college-idi-inventory.pdf
  29. https://idiinventory.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360041768793-What-is-the-Score-Range-for-Each-Orientation-in-the-Intercultural-Development-Continuum-IDC
  30. https://www.idiinventory.com/assessment-and-reports
  31. https://www.wabash.edu/news/displaystory.cfm?news_ID=2646
  32. https://idiinventory.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360056213594-IDI-Reliability-Data
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147176703000348
  34. https://hubicl.org/app/site/collections/1925/Hammer-2012-IDI-STUDY-ABROAD-ARTICLE.pdf
  35. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1343&context=jger
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229402046_Additional_cross-cultural_validity_testing_of_the_Intercultural_Development_Inventory
  37. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/12/3/176
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390999133_Critical_Considerations_for_Intercultural_Sensitivity_Development_Transnational_Perspectives
  39. https://stemeducationjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40594-024-00483-6
  40. https://frontiersjournal.org/index.php/Frontiers/article/view/811
  41. https://www.wabash.edu/news/story/1809
  42. https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2021_PERSP-21-00128
  43. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1290245.pdf
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147176723001554
  45. https://inria.hal.science/hal-01551373v1/document
  46. https://www.adaptconsultingcompany.com/2024/07/29/enhancing-international-change-management-through-the-developmental-model-of-intercultural-sensitivity/
  47. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/15/4/515
  48. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJCCM.2019.097826
  49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.010
  50. https://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj21(4)13/12.pdf
  51. https://ibo.org/globalassets/new-structure/research/pdfs/2024-intercultural-understanding-report-eng.pdf
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147176705000349
  53. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=ohiou1163207645&disposition=inline
  54. https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/foundationsofinterculturalteaching/chapter/pathways-of-intercultural-development/
  55. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep17963
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233821323_The_Evolution_of_Ethnocentrism
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1517758018300894
  58. https://www.geektonight.com/hofstedes-dimensions-of-cultural-differences-and-benetts-stages-of-intercultural-sensitivity/
  59. https://grdspublishing.org/index.php/people/article/download/717/669/686
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3779804/
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147176724001044
  62. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=com_facpubs
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147176714000029
  64. https://www.idiinventory.com/research-and-publications
  65. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-developmental-approach-to-training-for-Bennett/ad5a111f973a4a10e3f68a8c3160b37819b5e5fe
  66. https://www.academia.edu/5812081/Cultural_Competency_Adaptation_and_Intelligence_Non_Governmental_Organizations_Role_in_this_Globalization_Era
  67. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/download/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-intercultural-competence/chpt/intercultural-sensitivity.pdf
  68. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1479908.pdf
  69. https://journals.charlotte.edu/jaepr/article/view/786/999
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.