A European Perspective on Intercultural Competence and Prejudice: A Cross-Cultural Analysis

Petia Genkova^1*Henrik Schreiber¹Pavlina Bogdanova¹Katharina Lefringhausen²Liudmyla Smokova³Martina Rašticová⁴Jozsef Poor⁵Klara Veresné Valentinyi⁵Csilla Judit Suhajda⁵Visztenvelt Andrea⁵Jovana Bjekic⁶

• ¹Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany
• ²Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
• ³Odessa I.I.Mechnikov National University, Odesa, Ukraine
• ⁴Mendel University in Brno, Brno, South Moravia, Czechia
• ⁵Hungarian University of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Gödöllő, Hungary
• ⁶University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

This study examines the relationship between intercultural competence and subtle and blatant prejudice toward refugees in Germany, the UK, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, and Serbia. Using the Cultural Intelligence Scale and the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire, we analyze whether measures of intercultural competence are associated with lower levels of prejudice, with a particular focus on Eastern European contexts compared to established findings from Central Europe, North America, and East Asia. Results highlight cross-cultural differences in both the overall scales and their subdimensions in their associations with prejudice. These findings challenge the universal applicability of measures such as the Cultural Intelligence Scale and the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire, revealing that their effectiveness varies across cultural settings. The study underscores the necessity of culturally adapted interventions to address prejudice and foster social cohesion in regions experiencing increasing migration. By advancing a culturally nuanced perspective, this research contributes to refining intercultural competence methodologies and informing targeted integration policies that address region-specific challenges. Author ContributionsAuthor 1 was responsible for initiating and coordinating the survey, the study design and reviewing and supervising all subsequent steps. Author 2 was responsible for writing and reviewing the draft.Author 3 was responsible for data curation and conducting statistical analyses. Author 4-11 were responsible for data collection and review of the draft.No funding was received.