



































Assessment of the Socio-perceptive Component of Students' Intercultural Competence in the Global Understanding Class: a Pilot Study of Russian Students' View of Americans


Global Partners in Education Journal  April 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-48 
www.gpejournal.org    ISSN 2163-758X 
 

36 

 

 

Assessment of the Socio-perceptive Component of Intercultural 
Competence: A Pilot Study of Russian Students' View of Americans 

 
Svetlana A. Minyurova 

 
Svetlana G. Krylova 

 
Nadezhda S. Rudenko 

 
Ural State Pedagogical University, Russia 

 
Abstract 

 
This article describes a pilot study of changes in Russian students’ stereotyped 
views of Americans resulting from their involvement in intercultural interaction. 
Exactness of perception of an intercultural communication partner is considered to 
be an index of the socio-perceptive component of intercultural competence 
(Kupavskaya, 2008; Sadokhin, 2009). This index indicates the effectiveness of 
students’ participation in the Global Understanding course (Chia, Poe, & Yang, 
2011). Seven students of Ural State Pedagogical University aged 18-20 years old 
participated in the study. The Global Understanding course, which lasted for four 
weeks, consisted of intercultural communication between Russian and American 
students. The students discussed culturally-relevant topics such as college life, 
cultural traditions, and family, the meaning of life, and stereotypes and prejudices. 
Each class session included live discussion in small video groups, one-to-one 
keyboard chat and e-mailing. To assess the shifts in Russian students’ views of 
Americans, the authors employed a projective technique of constructing “Collages” 
(Minyurova, 2002). This technique enables the researcher to reconstruct a person’s 
subjective attitude to objects and events of the surrounding world in a symbolic form. 
Russian students made two collages during local classes, one prior to 
videoconferencing with American students and one a week after. Collages made 
before the links reflected the following image of American students: attention to 
physical shape; significance of studies, work, and rest; individualism; comfortable life 
conditions. The authors used two major characteristics to assess the changes in 
perception: completeness and personification of images. The paper discusses 
reasons why the hypothesized changes were not statistically significant.  
 

Introduction 
 
The Global Understanding course provides opportunities for global intercultural 
interaction among students with the help of virtual teaching environment (Chia et al., 
2011). According to the World Conference on Higher Education (1998), intercultural 
communication is a key requirement for the quality of higher education in the XXI 
century. Since the Global Understanding course is a regular course that is taught in a 
number of disciplines, there is a practical goal to assess the effectiveness of the 
course with respect to its relevance to the higher education objectives. Recently the 
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation recommended a 
competence-based approach to evaluate the quality of educational programs at 
universities (Khutorskoi, 2002). Russian researchers of the competence-based 



Global Partners in Education Journal  April 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-48 
www.gpejournal.org    ISSN 2163-758X 
 

37 

 

approach state that the idea of competence-based education appeared in 1970s in 
the USA (Zimnyaya, 2006). The forerunner was Chomsky (1965), who introduced the 
term “competence” within language theory.  Further Hymes (1972) introduced the 
term “communicative competence” having included the component of social 
conditions in linguistic competence. Later on the term “competence” was used to 
describe social skills and habits that are vital for existence in modern society 
(Hutmacher, 1996; Raven, 1984). Researchers singled out various types of 
competence for various types of activities: professional-pedagogical competence 
(Kuzmina, 1990), professional competence (Markova, 1996), and pedagogical 
competence (Mitina, 1998).  

 
Currently Russian researchers define competence as an integral characteristic which 
reflects a person’s readiness and ability to effectively carry out activity in a certain 
subject area. Each academic discipline leads to achievement of a certain level of 
competence which is considered as an index of the quality of education. The basic 
type of students’ activity in the Global Understanding course is intercultural 
interaction. That is why the authors suggest measuring the level of intercultural 
competence as a means of assessing the effectiveness of the course. The authors’ 
approach to interpretation of intercultural competence accounts for the choice of 
measuring procedure. Currently there are many definitions of intercultural 
competence, and intercultural communication is a multidisciplinary phenomenon 
which is investigated in philosophy, sociology, psychology, philology, and culturology.  
There are a number of terms which are close in meaning to the term “intercultural 
competence” in Russian studies, namely: “ethno-social competence” (Krysko, 2002), 
“ethno-cultural competence” (Kupavskaya, 2008), “foreign language communicative 
competence” (Krasilnikova, 2009), “polycultural competence” (Khazova & 
Khupsarokova, 2009), and “intercultural communicative competence” (Sheina, 
2010). Despite the variety in terminology these terms are not independent as they 
include informatively close components. Since intercultural competence is revealed 
in the process of intercultural interaction, the authors consider as most relevant 
those models of intercultural competence that take into consideration psychological 
regularities of communication processes. The concept of communication by 
Andreeva (2003) may serve as theoretical basis of such a model. Andreeva singles 
out three aspects within communication structure: informative, interactive, and 
perceptive. The informative aspect, or communication as such, consists of 
information exchange between interlocutors. The interactive aspect amounts to 
exchanging knowledge and ideas as well as actions. The perceptive aspect implies 
perception and mutual understanding between partners (Andreeva, 2003). In 
American and European social psychology, the corresponding term for social 
perception is “social cognition” (Andreeva, 1999; Bruner, 1974).  

 
Similar to Andreeva’s (1999, 2003) approach to the structure of communication, the 
authors single out three aspects in intercultural competence, namely, informative, 
interactive, and socio-perceptive. Informative competence is defined as the skills to 
use verbal and non-verbal means for rendering information, and includes knowledge 
of vocabulary and grammar (which corresponds to Chomsky’s (1965)  “linguistic 
competence”); knowledge of culturally-conditioned meaning of non-verbal means; 
and use of verbal and non-verbal means to formulate utterances corresponding to 
the communicative goal. Socio-perceptive competence includes skills of adequate 
assessment of the interlocutor’s psychological characteristics, awareness of 



Global Partners in Education Journal  April 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-48 
www.gpejournal.org    ISSN 2163-758X 
 

38 

 

influence of ethnic stereotypes on the assessment of the interlocutor; interpretation 
and anticipation of the reasons for their behavior; and awareness of how the 
interlocutor assesses you as a partner. Interactive competence is connected with 
coordination of actions in the process of communication, namely social norms 
existing in this culture, skills to manage communicative interaction (to initiate 
conversation, stress respect for the interlocutor) (Sheina, 2010); and skills to 
regulate one’s emotional state for overcoming the language barrier. 
 
Elements of informative and interactive aspects of intercultural competence are 
constituent parts of intercultural competence models offered by linguists (Hymes, 
1972).  However, exact perception, assessment and understanding of a partner are 
crucial for successful communication as well (Kupavskaya, 2008; Sadokhin, 2009). 
That is why it is essential to include the socio-perceptive aspect in communicative 
competence structure. Sadokhin (2009) singles out socio-cultural, communicative 
and linguistic aspects of intercultural competence. One of the components of the 
socio-cultural aspect is knowledge and understanding of peculiarities of a partners’ 
lifestyle, their national-psychological characteristics. Kupavskaya (2008) includes 
components dealing with social perception and social cognition in cognitive aspect of 
ethno-cultural competence. They are the ability to adequately categorize and 
interpret peculiarities of both one’s own culture and a partner’s culture.  

 
At the first stages of intercultural communication participants base their perception 
and assessment of their partners on ethnic stereotypes, which are simplified 
schematic images of ethnic groups.  Ethnic stereotypes include general typical 
characteristics of representatives of an ethnic group which make them different from 
another group.  Such stereotypes form expectations regarding interaction with 
representatives of the ethnic group. Since particular representatives of an ethnic 
group demonstrate various degrees of stereotype characteristics, the expectations 
may collapse. This may result in misunderstanding or even disappointment 
(Stephanenko, 1999). Presumably, misunderstanding is more probable if stereotypes 
have been formed not as a result of immediate intercultural interaction but based on 
information received from secondary sources.  The authors suggest that immediate 
intercultural interaction should lead to specification of ethnic stereotypes: some 
characteristics may be excluded and new characteristics may be included in a 
stereotype.  Enhancing exactness of ethnic stereotypes promotes better 
understanding of a partner’s behavior and consequently contributes to intercultural 
competence development. Besides, the authors suppose that immediate intercultural 
interaction may change the direction of a stereotype, making it more favorable. 
Direction of an ethnic stereotype is mainly defined by immediate contact with 
particular representatives of a given ethnic group rather than by relationships 
between the two ethnic groups.  

 
Thus, the authors suggest that exactness of assessing a partner in intercultural 
communication is an important component of the socio-perceptive aspect of 
intercultural competence. Since exactness of assessing a partner depends on 
content and direction of an ethnic stereotype, it is logical to use methods of 
investigation of ethnic stereotypes to study the socio-perceptive aspect of 
intercultural competence. Traditionally, to investigate stereotypes (ethnic, 
professional, sex, and age groups) two types of methods are used: 1) control list of 
adjectives, where participants of the research are offered a list of personal 



Global Partners in Education Journal  April 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-48 
www.gpejournal.org    ISSN 2163-758X 
 

39 

 

characteristics among which they should choose five most typical of the target group 
(Katz & Braly, 1933); and 2) psycho-semantic methods (participants of the research 
are offered a set of scales (from – 3 to + 3); the poles of the scales represent 
opposite characteristics, e.g. sociable-reserved. According to the scale participants 
evaluate most typical characteristics of the group (Petrenko, 1988). However, these 
methods have a number of limitations in their use. Firstly, they are aimed at 
assessing only personal characteristics. An image of a group may include other 
objects which are associated with the culture. Secondly, the procedure of direct 
assessment leads to distortions since it requires immediate expression of attitudes 
toward another group.  Thirdly, verbal techniques enable the researcher to assess 
only consciously realized aspects of experience with respect to another culture. To 
overcome these limitations qualitative methods are employed in social-psychological 
research.  

 
Qualitative methods are aimed at a more complete investigation of 
phenomenological images of the phenomenon under study. As distinct from 
quantitative methods, they are characterized as non-standardized ones (Melnikova, 
1994). The main aim of qualitative methods is to access values and attitudes that the 
respondent may not be aware of, and to investigate a broad spectrum of ideas, 
emotional reactions, and personal meanings regarding the object under study 
(Bogomolova, Nelnikova, & Folomeeva, 1994). The “Collage” technique belongs to 
qualitative methods. It was based on a technique taken from the arts. This technique 
consists of choosing materials and arranging them together into a new form. In 
psychology, the “Collage” technique is traditionally used as an art-therapy method to 
work with subjective ideas and experience. It is based on a psychodynamic 
approach (Kopytin, 1999). “Collage” has also been used to investigate a person’s 
image of the world (Minyurova, 2002). The methodological base for using “Collage” 
to investigate a person’s image of the world is interpretation of an image as a 
“perceptive utterance about the world” (Petrenko, 1975).  

 
The ”Collage” technique amounts to the following procedure. Respondents are 
asked to make an individual collage on the topic “I in the World”, using photos and 
pictures from magazines and newspapers. Such collages reflect subjective 
perception of the world in symbolic form. Visual images chosen for the collage reveal 
the actual subjective attitudes of respondents to the world and themselves 
(Minyurova, 2002). After making collages, respondents are asked to write a 
commentary answering the question “What does it mean for me?”  Commentaries 
make it possible to clarify the meaning of subjective attitudes. In social psychology 
research, the “Collage” technique has certain advantages over psychological 
drawing techniques.   While making a collage, respondents use ready-made material 
from mass media which reflects group ideas and allows respondents to investigate 
common tendencies with respect to the object under study (Minyurova, 2002). At the 
same time, the “Collage” technique has limitations which are typical for all projective 
techniques. Projective techniques are considered poor psychometric tools because 
of low reliability and inconsistency in data interpretation. Enhancing validity and 
reliability of projective techniques may be possible with the use of an empirical 
scheme for interpretation and qualitative-quantitative methods of data processing (for 
example, content-analysis).  

 
 



Global Partners in Education Journal  April 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-48 
www.gpejournal.org    ISSN 2163-758X 
 

40 

 

Stereotypes about other ethnic groups may be viewed as part of a subjective image 
of the world. That is why the “Collage” technique may be used to investigate 
stereotypes, but with modified instructions. The “Collage” technique gives an 
opportunity to investigate changes in stereotypes before and after interaction with 
particular representatives of another ethnic group (with the use of Internet-based 
technologies).  The authors hypothesized that the content of stereotypes should 
become more exact.  The authors expected the two changes: 1) increased 
complexity of the content of stereotypes on account of including new characteristics, 
2) greater “personification” of stereotypes on account of increase of human images 
and decrease of symbolic objects associated with the culture under study. More 
exact view of another ethnic group is considered by the authors as an index of 
development of socio-perceptive aspect of intercultural competence. A more exact 
image of another ethnic group forms more realistic expectations regarding the 
behavior of representatives of this group, thus, providing more favorable conditions 
for attaining understanding in intercultural communication.  
 

Method 
 
Participants 
 
A pilot study of Russian students’ views of American students involved 7 students 
who took the Global Understanding course. The students were 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year 
students in the Foreign Languages Department and Psychology Department at Ural 
State Pedagogical University. Their ages ranged from 18 to 20 years old. The 
students did not have prior experience in such intercultural projects. American 
students were from East Carolina University. The interaction lasted for four weeks 
(March-April 2012). Each class session included live discussion in small video 
groups, one-to-one keyboard chat and e-mailing within given topics. 
 
Procedure 
 
The authors suggested that communication with particular representatives of another 
culture would lead to changes in the stereotypes about that culture. Since the USA 
was a partner-country, the study was aimed at investigation of Russian students’ 
views on Americans. To study the characteristics of a partner’s image, the technique 
“Collage” was used (Minyurova, 2002). The students were given the following 
instructions: “Now each of you will have a chance to do an interesting, creative 
activity. In front of you there is a sheet of Whatman paper, magazines, pencils, 
scissors, glue. You have 40-60 minutes to make a collage on the following topic ’An 
American Student: How do I View Them’. Relate to your life experience, knowledge, 
feelings. Each of you is allowed to work at your own pace, putting on the sheet of 
paper everything you find necessary and anywhere you like. While working, try not to 
discuss what you are going to do”.  
 
The first collage was made prior to intercultural interaction. The second collage was 
made a week after the last link day. After the collage was finished, students were 
instructed to number every element of their collages. Further, they evaluated the 
elements of their collages which introduced human images using five scales. Scale 
names corresponded to the five basic human factors, the so-called “Big Five” 
personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992): 1) neuroticism, N, 2) extraversion, E, 3) 



Global Partners in Education Journal  April 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-48 
www.gpejournal.org    ISSN 2163-758X 
 

41 

 

openness to experience, O, 4) agreeableness, A, and 5) conscientiousness, C. 
Instead of “neuroticism” the authors used the polar term “emotional stability”, which 
seems to be more comprehensible for students not majoring in psychology. The 
students used a five-point scale (from 1 - characteristic is not expressed to 5 – 
characteristic is clearly expressed). A scaling procedure was used to investigate the 
subjective meaning of separate elements of the collages. 
 
Assessment 
 
To evaluate the results, the authors used a content analysis procedure. Content 
analysis is a method designed to transfer qualitative information into the language of 
figures. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate changes in perception of 
partners during intercultural communication. Categories for the content analysis were 
identified by the authors from the visual images displayed on the collages. The 
authors realize that this approach decreases the degree of generalization of the 
results.  The authors calculated frequency of occurrence for each category, counting 
all instances across the collages.  
 
Having studied the contents of collages made before and after intercultural 
interaction, the authors identified three types of object classes (А—people, В—
objects, С—words, phrases) and their subclasses. A list of subclasses is provided in 
Table 1 in the results section. Then the authors calculated frequency of occurrence 
for each class and subclass in the collages made before and after intercultural 
interaction. The authors used two additional criteria: general number of images in a 
collage and proportion of people in the images. The first criterion reflects 
completeness of respondents’ perception of the group under study.  Interpretation of 
the second criterion is debatable. In the authors’ opinion, increase in the proportion 
of people in comparison with the proportion of inanimate objects confirms changes in 
the perception of another group. Symbolic objects are an abstract characteristic of 
other cultures in general. Human images reflect more concrete images of people 
constituting a cultural group.  That is why the authors think that an increase in the 
proportion of people in the images may be considered as transfer from a more 
abstract to a more concrete perception of another culture group. Such a result is 
viewed as a logical consequence of immediate personal interaction with 
representatives of a certain culture group.  
 

Results 
 

Table 1 lists the frequency of occurrence for all the coded categories in the collages. 
The general number of objects and images ranged from 3 to 22 (М = 11.3, SD = 6.3) 
before intercultural interaction and from 5 to 17 (М = 9.4, SD = 3.8) after intercultural 
interaction. A Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test for two related groups showed that the 
average number of objects and images before and after the course were not 
significantly different (р = 0.2). The authors suggested that the number of objects in 
collages might be interpreted as completeness of perception (in the present study – 
perception of American students). The authors expected an increase in this index as 
a result of the enriching experience of immediate personal intercultural 
communication. Perhaps this indicator requires another approach to its 
interpretation.  If collages are considered as utterances in a symbolic language, then 
the general number of images in the collages may be interpreted as an indicator of 



Global Partners in Education Journal  April 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-48 
www.gpejournal.org    ISSN 2163-758X 
 

42 

 

individual “speech” productivity, which is probably a stable personality characteristic 
independent from situational influences.   
 
Proportion of people in the images in the collages ranged from 0.4 to 1 (М = 0.53, 
SD = 0.22) before intercultural interaction and from 0.22 to 0.88 (М = 0.64, SD = 
0.23) after intercultural interaction. This difference was not statistically significant (р = 
0.4). 

 
Table 1 
Frequency of Representation of Categories and Subclasses in the Collages Before 
and After Intercultural Interaction in the Global Understanding Course 

 Frequency of Occurrence 

Category Before the course After the course 

А — people 49 (47.1%) 60 (62.5%) 

А1 — spheres of activity 17 (34.7%) 22 (36.7%) 

     А11 — intellectual activity (studies, 
work) 

4 (23.5%) 6 (27.3%) 

     А12 — sport, fitness 6 (35.3%) 3 (13.6%) 

     А13 — party, gathering 4 (23.5%) 8 (36.4%) 

     А14 — walk 1 (5.9%) 3 (13.6%) 

     А15 — food 2 (11.8%) 2 (9.1%) 

А2 — character of interaction 32 (65.3%) 38 (63.3%) 

     А21 — group 7 (21.9%) 13 (34.2%) 

     А22 — pair 4 (12.5%) 2 (5.3%) 

     А23 — single 21 (65.6%) 23 (60.5%) 

В — objects 40 (38.5%) 22 (22.9%) 

В1 — computer (and accessories) 3 (7.5%) 1 (4.55%) 

В2 — audio- and video equipment 4 (10%) 2 (9.1%) 

В3 — luxuries 3 (7.5%) 1 (4.55%) 

В4 — sport equipment 0 2 (9.1%) 

В5 — books 0 1 (4.55%) 

В6 — toys 1 (2.5%) 1 (4.55%) 

В7 — food 7 (17.5%) 0 

В8 — interior objects 13 (32.5%) 1 (4.55%) 

В9 — cosmetics, perfumery 2 (5%) 3 (13.6%) 

В10 — animals 2 (5%) 0 

В11 — architectural buildings 2 (5%) 2 (9.1%) 



Global Partners in Education Journal  April 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-48 
www.gpejournal.org    ISSN 2163-758X 
 

43 

 

В12 — symbolic objects 33 (7.5%) 8 (36.4%) 

С — words, phrases 15 (14.4%) 14 (14.6%) 

С1 — in the Russian language 15 (14.4%) 5 (35.7%) 

     С11 — personality’s characteristics 8 (53.3%) 4 (80%) 

     С12 — spheres of activity 5 (33.3%) 1 (20%) 

     С13 — preferences 2 (13.3%) 0 

С2 — in the English language 0 9 (64.3%) 

     С21 — personality’s characteristics 0 2 (22.2%) 

     С22 — spheres of activity 0 5 (55.6%) 

     С23 — preferences 0 2 (22.2%) 

 
When the work on collages was over, students were asked to number elements of 
their collages in category A (people) and to scale them according to the “Big Five” 
factors. The students used a five-point scale (from 1 - characteristic is not expressed 
to 5 – characteristic is clearly expressed). Table 2 contains average values for each 
factor before and after intercultural interaction. Emotional stability and openness to 
experience were rated highest and agreeableness was rated lowest before 
intercultural communication. After the intercultural interactions, the agreeableness 
ratings increased substantially. 
 
Table 2 
Average values of evaluation of class A – people elements of collages 

 Average  Ratings for “Big 5” 

Scale Before the course After the course 

Emotional stability 4.3 4.7 

Extraversion 3.9 4.4 

Openness to 
experience 

4.3 4.2 

Agreeableness 2.8 3.7 

Conscientiousness 3.9 3,.4 

 
Discussion 

 
The goal of the authors’ pilot study was investigation of changes in Russian students’ 
stereotyped views of Americans resulting from their involvement in intercultural 
interaction. The authors viewed this objective as part of a more general perspective 
which was to evaluate changes in intercultural competence. Level of competence is 
considered an integral index of student learning in a course or program (Khutorskoi, 
2002; Zimnyaya, 2006). Since the Global Understanding course is based on 
intercultural interaction, the criterion of effective participation in the course is level of 
intercultural competence. In the authors’ opinion, there are two reasons to expect an 



Global Partners in Education Journal  April 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-48 
www.gpejournal.org    ISSN 2163-758X 
 

44 

 

increase in intercultural competence for students taking the Global Understanding 
course (Chia et al., 2011). Firstly, it is enrichment of personal experience through 
immediate interaction with representatives of other cultural groups. Secondly, the 
discussion focused on questions common and significant for every culture (college 
life, cultural traditions, family, the meaning of life, and stereotypes and prejudices). 

 
Since intercultural competence reflects a person’s ability to effectively realize 
intercultural communication, the authors employed Andreeva’s (2003) model of 
communication as a basis for distinguishing aspects of intercultural competence. 
They are informative, socio-perceptive and interactive aspects (Andreeva, 2003). 
The authors emphasized the socio-perceptive component because exact perception, 
evaluation and understanding of a partner is a necessary condition for successful 
communication (Kupavskaya, 2008; Sadokhin, 2009). In the beginning of 
intercultural interaction, perception and evaluation of a partner is based on 
stereotypes. Stereotypes are simplified and generalized ideas about other ethnic 
groups. The authors singled out two points of scientific interest: 1) investigation of 
Russian students' views of American students; 2) changes in these views as a result 
of intercultural interaction. To answer the two questions, the authors used a “Collage” 
technique (Minyurova, 2002). A collage reflects a person’s subjective attitudes 
toward various objects and events in a symbolic form. Russian students made 
collages on the topic “An American Student: How do I View Them”. Use of the 
“Collage” technique enabled the authors to analyze visual images which reflect 
Russian students' views of American students. To assess changes in perception, the 
students produced collages twice, before intercultural interaction with American 
partners and a week after the last link.   The information retrieved from the collages 
was analyzed with the help of content-analysis. 

 
In order to investigate Russian students' view of American students, the authors 
analyzed the frequency of occurrence of different classes and subclasses found 
within the images (Table 1). In collages produced before intercultural interaction, the 
frequency of occurrence of objects in class “A-people” and class “B-objects” did not 
differ (47.1% and 38.5% respectively). In collages produced after intercultural 
interaction, the frequency of occurrence of objects in class “A-people” was greater 
than for class “B-objects” (62.5% and 22.9% respectively). The authors consider 
these images of people and objects as an index which reflects perception of other 
cultural groups. Inanimate objects reflect abstract ideas about another culture in 
general, whereas images of people reflect more particular ideas about people 
constituting the cultural group. In the present research, changes before and after 
intercultural interaction were not statistically significant. Perhaps it might be due to 
the limited sampling. However, the authors consider that there are some positive 
changes in perception of another cultural group regarding specificity and 
personification.  
 
Frequency of occurrence of class “C-words, phrases” remained the same. The fact 
that the number of words and phrases in English in collages after intercultural 
communication increased does not immediately relate to characteristics of a partner. 
However, that may confirm the development of language skills as a result of 
intercultural interaction.   
 



Global Partners in Education Journal  April 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-48 
www.gpejournal.org    ISSN 2163-758X 
 

45 

 

In collages before intercultural communication, the most frequently occurring objects 
were the following: А12—sport, fitness (35.3%), А11—intellectual activity (studies, 
work) (23.5%), А13—party, gathering (23.5%), А23—single (images of separate 
people) (65.6%), В8—interior objects (32.5%), С11—personality’s characteristics 
(53.3%). These results  demonstrate that stereotyped views Russian students have 
of Americans includes such characteristics as importance of keeping fit, significance 
of studies, work and rest; individualism; and comfortable living conditions. Verbal 
means of expressing characteristics of personality were noted only in two collages. 
That is why the authors consider them as an indicator of individual peculiarities of 
respondents. 
 
In collages after intercultural communication, the most frequently occurring objects 
were the following: А13—party, gathering (36.4%), А11—intellectual activity (studies, 
work) (27.3%), А23—single (images of separate people) (60.5%), В12—symbolic 
objects (36.4%), С11—personality’s characteristics (80%), С22—spheres of activity 
(55.6%). The most significant changes were increases for subclasses В12 and С22. 
Symbolic objects (В12),  including ones connected with MacDonald's brand, reflect 
stereotyped images of American preferences regarding fast food. Presence of 
objects of subclass С22 in the collages confirms activity in various spheres of life.  

 
Thus, could the authors conclude that Russian students' views of Americans became 
less stereotyped as a result of their experience of intercultural communication? In 
order to answer this question it is necessary to carry out additional research to 
investigate stereotyped views of a greater number of participants. As a reference 
standard the authors used description of stereotyped views of Americans provided in 
psychological research (Krysko, 2002). Stereotypes of Americans include such ideas 
as enterprise and initiative, energetic assertion, self-reliance, value of life success, 
honesty, kind-heartedness, directness in showing positive emotions, being law-
abiding, and love for sport (Krysko, 2002). Among the enumerated characteristics, 
the “Collage” technique allowed the researchers to single out only love for sport 
(subclass А12—sport, fitness) in collages before intercultural communication. 
Perhaps one of the reasons is that the majority of characteristics within a stereotype 
are abstract.  It might have been difficult for respondents to find corresponding visual 
images. That is why the authors cannot provide a definitive conclusion regarding the 
degree of stereotyped views that Russian students have of American students, nor 
for the changes resulting from intercultural interaction.   

 
In order to investigate subjective meaning, the students were asked to evaluate 
elements of their collages which introduced human images using the “Big Five” 
personality scales (Costa & McCrae, 1992). As Table 2 indicates, before intercultural 
communication the most significant were “emotional stability” (4.3) and “openness to 
experience” (4.3), and the least significant was “agreeableness” (2.8). After 
intercultural communication, the most significant were “emotional stability” (4.7) and 
“extraversion” (4.4), and the least significant was “conscientiousness” (3.4). The 
most noticeable increase was for “agreeableness” (from 2.8 to 3.7). It is possible to 
suppose that emotional stability (calmness, self-confidence, insensitivity) is a stable 
characteristic of American students as viewed by Russian students.  The increase for 
“agreeableness” is a result of a particular intercultural communicative situation. 

 



Global Partners in Education Journal  April 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-48 
www.gpejournal.org    ISSN 2163-758X 
 

46 

 

In the course of the research the authors faced a number of limitations regarding the 
use of the “Collage” technique as an instrument of assessment of a socio-perceptive 
component of intercultural competence. The first limitation is alternative 
interpretations of the results. The second limitation is less completeness of the 
results in comparison with verbal methods. Most of the characteristics are abstract 
ones and difficult for visualization. A technical limitation is processing of superfluous 
visual information 

 
The authors are planning to design a more compact procedure for evaluating level of 
the socio-perceptive component of intercultural competence as an indicator of 
effective participation in the Global Understanding project. The authors consider 
ability to exactly evaluate a partner taking into consideration not generalized 
stereotyped ideas but individual manifestations of the partner as a main aspect of the 
socio-perceptive component. The authors single out a number of reasons why 
Russian students' views of Americans did not change. The first reason is connected 
with the limitations regarding the use of the “Collage” technique mentioned above. 
The second reason is a limited number of participants. The third reason is stability 
and rigidity of ethnic stereotypes to new information (Stephanenko, 1999), that is 
why it is hardly possible to anticipate drastic changes within a relatively short period 
of time. On this basis the authors are planning to move from evaluating changes in 
characteristics of a particular group to evaluating a more universal indicator 
connected with ability to exactly assess a partner from other culture. For example, 
one of the possible indicators is a decrease in ethnocentric attitudes. In that case it 
might be advisable to prolong the interval between initial and final measurement and 
carry them out in the beginning and in the very end of the course.   
 

Conclusion 
 

Before intercultural communication Russian students' views of Americans included 
such characteristics as importance of keeping fit; significance of studies, work and 
rest; individualism; and comfortable living conditions. A stable characteristic which 
was evaluated as an overt one before and after intercultural interaction was 
emotional stability which means calmness, self-confidence, insensitivity. No changes 
regarding decreases in stereotyped views that Russian students have of Americans 
was discovered. The supposition about increase in completeness of ideas resulting 
from experience of intercultural interaction was not supported. The tendency 
regarding increases in personification and exactness of Russian students' view of 
Americans was revealed. 
 
To summarize, the “Collage” technique does not allow the researcher to receive 
complete and exact data regarding respondents’ ability to exactly assess a partner in 
intercultural communication. The authors are planning to investigate a more 
generalized index connected with ability to exactly assess a partner regardless their 
cultural identity. Moreover, a more compact method of evaluating such an indicator 
should be designed. However, the authors believe that assessment of the socio-
perceptive component as well as students' intercultural competence in general may 
be included in evaluation of activities in the Global Understanding class. 



Global Partners in Education Journal  April 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-48 
www.gpejournal.org    ISSN 2163-758X 
 

47 

 

References 
 

Andreeva, G. M. (2003). Social psychology. Moscow: Aspekt Press.  
Andreeva, G. M. (1999). To the problem of social perception. World of psychology, 3, 

15-23.  
Bogomolova, N. N., Melnikova, O. T., & Folomeeva, T. V. (1994). Focus-groups as a 

qualitative method in applied socio-psychological research (pp. 193-196). 
Introduction to practical social psychology. A study guide for higher 
educational establishments. Moscow: Nauka. 

Bruner, J. (1974). Beyond the information given: studies in the psychology of 
knowing. London: Allen & Unwin Pty., Limited. 

Chia, R., Poe, E., & Yang, B. (2011). History of Global Partners in Education. Global 
Partners in Education Journal, 1, 3-7. Retrieved from 

  http://www.gpejournal.org/index.php/GPEJ/article/view/11/7  
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: 

MIT Press. 
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-

PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. 
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. 

Hutmacher, W. (1996). Key competencies for Europe — a secondary education for 
Europe. Report of the Symposium Berne, Switzerland, 27-30 March, 1996. 
Strasbourg, France: Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC).  

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), 
Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings (pp. 269-293). New York: 
Harmondsworth. 

Katz, В., & Braly, K. W. (1933). Racial stereotypes of 100 college students. Journal 
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 280-290. 

Khazova, S.A., & Khupsarokova, A.M. (2009) Educator’s polycultural competence. 
Maikop: Globus.  

Khutorskoi, A. V. (2002). Key competences and educational standards. Internet-
journal “Eidos”. Retrieved from  http://eidos.ru/journal/2002/0423.htm 

Kopytin, A. I. (1999). Basics of art therapy. St. Petersburg: Lan. 
Krasilnikova, V. E. (2009). Foreign language communicative competence in research 

of Russian and foreign scientists. Yaroslavskyi Pedagogicheskyi Vestnik, 1, 
179-184. 

Krysko, V. G. (2002). Ethnic psychology. A study guide for higher educational 
establishments. Moscow: Akademia. 

Kupavskaya, A. S. (2008). Development of teenager’s ethno-cultural competence 
through socio-psychological training. Dissertatsiya Doktora Psihologicheskikh 
Nauk. 

Kuzmina, N. V. (1990). Professionalism of a teacher and industrial training master. 
Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola. 

Markova, A. K. (1996). Professionalism psychology. Moscow: Znanie. 
Melnikova, O. T. (1994). Qualitative methods in social psychology. Introduction to 

practical social psychology (pp. 182-192). A study guide for higher educational 
establishments. Moscow: Nauka. 

Minyurova, S. A. (2002). Technique “collage”: Research of psychological 
peculiarities of a person’s image of the world. Prakticheskaya psihologiya. 
Annual. Volume V: Abstracts of the regional scientific-practical conference,  
28 – 30 March, 2002. Yekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University. 

http://www.gpejournal.org/index.php/GPEJ/article/view/11/7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
http://books.google.com/books?id=u0ksbFqagU8C
http://eidos.ru/journal/2002/0423.htm


Global Partners in Education Journal  April 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-48 
www.gpejournal.org    ISSN 2163-758X 
 

48 

 

Mitina, L. M. (1998). Psychology of professional development. Moscow: Flinta.   
Petrenko, V. F. (1988). Psychosemantics of perception. Dissertatsiya Doktora 

Psihologicheskikh Nauk, 19.00.01. Moscow: Moscow State University.  
Petrenko, V. F. (1975). Semantic analysis of sensuous image (pp. 268-293). 

Perception and Reality. Moscow: Moscow State University.  
Raven, J. (1984). Competence in modern society: Its identification, development and 

release. Unionville, New York: Royal Fireworks Press.  
Sadokhin, A. P. (2009). Intercultural competence: Essence and mechanisms of 

development. Dissertatsiya Doktora Kulturologicheskikh Nauk,  24.00.01. 
Moscow.  

Sheina, I. M. (2010). Intercultural communication as a dispaly of linguistic and 
cultural experience. Avtoreferat doktora philologicheskih nauk. Moscow. 

Stephanenko, T. G. (1999). Ethnopsychology. Moscow: Institute of Psychology RAS, 
“Akademichesky Projekt”. 

World Conference on Higher Education. (1998). World declaration of higher 
education for the twenty-first century: Vision and action.  Retrieved from 
http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm  

Zimnyaya, I. A. (2006). Key competences – a new paradigm of the result of 
education. Pedagogika, 3, 34-42. 

 
 
 
 

About the Authors 
 
Svetlana A. Minyurova is a Professor of Chair of General Psychology, a Director of 
the Institute of Psychology at Ural State Pedagogical University (Yekaterinburg, 
Russia). She holds a post-doctoral degree in Psychology. Her primary research 
focus is psychology of self-development, psychology of self-awareness, psychology 
of personal-professional development. She can be reached at minyurova@uspu.ru.   
 
Svetlana G. Krylova is an Assistant Professor of Chair of Social Psychology, 
Conflictology and Management, Institute of Psychology at Ural State Pedagogical 
University (Yekaterinburg, Russia). She holds a doctoral degree in Psychology. Her 
primary research focus is social psychology, psychology of advertising, interpersonal 
understanding, psychological aspects of communication. She can be reached at 
s_g_krylova@mail.ru. 
 
Nadezhda S. Rudenko is an Assistant Lecturer of Chair of the English Language, 
Institute of Foreign Languages at Ural State Pedagogical University (Yekaterinburg, 
Russia). She holds a doctoral degree in English Language Teaching. Her primary 
research focus is self-access in EFL, intercultural communication. She can be 
reached at nadya_rogotneva@list.ru. 
 

http://www.ffl.msu.ru/img/pages/File/avtoreferaty/sheina_avtoreferat_10_1.doc
http://www.ffl.msu.ru/img/pages/File/avtoreferaty/sheina_avtoreferat_10_1.doc
http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm
mailto:minyurova@uspu.ru
mailto:s_g_krylova@mail.ru
mailto:nadya_rogotneva@list.ru

