Abstract
Background: Organizations and educational institutions frequently use diversity training t o improve communication across cultural and social differences. Individual evaluations, however, v ary in design and often treat favorable reactions as evidence of lasting competence. Objective: This paper reconstructs and critically interprets Bezrukova et al.’s (2016) meta-analysis of more than fou r decades of adult diversity-training research through an intercultural-communication lens. Method s: The source review searched multidisciplinary databases, reference lists, conference programs, dis sertations, and professional networks through 2013. Its final sample contained 236 reports, 260 inde pendent studies, 29,407 participants, and 1,353 initially coded effect sizes. Outcomes were classifie d as reactions, cognitive learning, attitudinal/affective learning, or behavioral learning. Hedges’ g va lues were synthesized with random-effects models; context, design, duration, attendance, instruction al approach, participant composition, research rigor, time, and publication bias were examined. Res ults: The overall mean effect was g = 0.38, 95% CI [0.33, 0.42], with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 85.73%). Effects were largest for reactions (g = 0.61) and cognitive learning (g = 0.57), followed by behavioral learning (g = 0.48) and attitudinal/affective learning (g = 0.30). Integrated programs out performed standalone programs (g = 0.57 versus 0.36). Awareness-only training produced the small est overall effect (g = 0.31), and longer programs were more effective. Reactions and attitudes deca yed over time, whereas cognitive learning was maintained. Trim-and-fill reduced the pooled estimat e to g = 0.20 but did not eliminate it. Conclusions: Diversity training can support intercultural com munication, especially when it combines knowledge with practiced skills, lasts long enough for rehe arsal, and is embedded within broader institutional initiatives. Training satisfaction should not be co nfused with communication competence, and short awareness sessions should not be expected to cr eate durable behavioral change. Stronger evaluations require active comparison groups, behavioral observation, delayed assessment, contextual indicators, and attention to power and organizational ac countability.
References
No references available.
