Cross-Cultural Differences in Female University Students' Attitudes toward Homosexuals: A Preliminary Study

62 Caucasian, 61 Hispanic, and 44 Asian female undergraduates completed the Index of Homophobia by Hudson and Ricketts, seven items from the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale by Herek, and three questions on Affectional Orientation toward homosexuals from D'Augelli and Rose. Overall, familiarity with homosexuals as measured by self-reported number of homosexual friends correlated negatively with scores on the homophobia measures, but there were no significant differences among the groups' reported number of homosexual friends. Asian students scored signiftcantly higher on the homophobia measures than Caucasian students. Both Asian and Hispanic students endorsed the statement significantly more often than Caucasian students that the university would be better if only heterosexuals attended. No significant differences in scores were found regarding attitudes toward lesbians versus gay men.

Download Full-text

Coping strategies: Evidence for cross-cultural differences? A preliminary study with the Italian version of coping orientations to problems experienced (COPE)

Personality and Individual Differences ◽

10.1016/s0191-8869(97)00112-8 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 23 (6) ◽

pp. 1025-1029 ◽

Cited By ~ 48

Author(s):

Claudio Sica ◽

Caterina Novara ◽

Stella Dorz ◽

Ezio Sanavio

Keyword(s):

Coping Strategies ◽

Cultural Differences ◽

Cross Cultural ◽

Italian Version ◽

Cross Cultural Differences ◽

Preliminary Study

Download Full-text

Emerging destination mobility

International Journal of Educational Management ◽

10.1108/ijem-02-2019-0041 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 34 (1) ◽

pp. 18-34 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Charles Gbollie ◽

Shaoying Gong

Keyword(s):

International Students ◽

Cultural Differences ◽

Cross Cultural ◽

Education Quality ◽

Asian Students ◽

Pull Factors ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Content Type ◽

Cross Cultural Differences ◽

Quantitative Design

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the push-pull factors and motivations of African and Asian international students in Chinese universities. Design/methodology/approach Concurrent mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) design was used. The quantitative component included 537 Africans and Asians from five notable universities, while the qualitative aspect consisted of 30 participants in Wuhan and few other cities in China. Findings Findings revealed availability of scholarship opportunities, China’s flexibility (visa and program entry) and perception of better education quality as important push-pull factors. It also discovered several new pull factors, including citizens’ attitude and good report, development potential and hospitality and receptiveness, while career development and entertainment were found to be the most and least significant motivational factors, respectively. The study also found a significant relationship between push-pull factors and study abroad motivation (SAM) as well as cross-cultural differences between African and Asian students. Research limitations/implications Most of the participants were drawn from Wuhan city. Hence, the findings cannot be outrightly generalized to other contexts. Practical implications This research provides valuable knowledge for policy makers, higher education institutions, international students and other stakeholders in China to inform better student experience. Originality/value There was no study found that combines push-pull factors and SAM or comparatively investigates African and international students in China. Knowledge about sojourners push-pull factors and motivations, their relationship and cross-cultural differences is essential for evidence-based interventions.

Download Full-text

Cognitive gadgets: A provocative but flawed manifesto

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x19001134 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 42 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Marco Del Giudice

Keyword(s):

Theory Of Mind ◽

Cultural Differences ◽

Twin Studies ◽

Cross Cultural ◽

Evolutionary Approach ◽

Genetic Inheritance ◽

Double Standards ◽

Cross Cultural Differences ◽

Cherry Picking ◽

Dichotomous Thinking

Abstract The argument against innatism at the heart of Cognitive Gadgets is provocative but premature, and is vitiated by dichotomous thinking, interpretive double standards, and evidence cherry-picking. I illustrate my criticism by addressing the heritability of imitation and mindreading, the relevance of twin studies, and the meaning of cross-cultural differences in theory of mind development. Reaching an integrative understanding of genetic inheritance, plasticity, and learning is a formidable task that demands a more nuanced evolutionary approach.

Download Full-text