Study 

Report 

2008-01 

 Cross-Cultural Competence in 

 Army Leaders: A Conceptual and 

 Empirical Foundation 

 

 Allison Abbe 

 U.S. Army Research Institute 

 Lisa M. V. Gulick and Jeffrey L. Herman 

 George Mason University 

 Consortium Research Fellows Program 

 

 United States Army Research Institute 

 for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

 October 2007

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

A Directorate of the Department of the Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 

Authorized and approved for distribution: 

 MICHELLE SAMS, PhD. 

 Director 

Technical review by 

Richard R. Hoffman, U. S. Army Research Institute 

Jon Fallesen, Center for Army Leadership 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Study Report has been made by ARI. 

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPE-ARI-MS, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926. 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Study Report may be destroyed when it is no longer 

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

NOTE: The findings in this Study Report are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 2. REPORT TYPE

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

October 2007 November 2006 – October 2007 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

Cross-Cultural Competence in Army Leaders: 

A Conceptual and Empirical Foundation 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

665803 

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

D730 

6. AUTHOR(S): 

5d. TASK NUMBER 

354 

Allison Abbe (U.S. Army Research Institute); 

Lisa M. V. Gulick and Jeffrey L. Herman (George Mason 

University) 

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences 

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-RK 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

ARI 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences 11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway Study Report 2008-01 Arlington, VA 22202-3926

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Subject Matter POC: Allison Abbe 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

Military operations increasingly require Army leaders to anticipate the actions of, interact with, and influence 

individuals and groups whose cultural context differs widely from their own. The Army and other Services have 

responded by increasing the availability of language and regional training. These efforts develop the knowledge 

and skills needed to understand and interact with a particular population in a particular location. However, fullspectrum operations demand a broader cultural capability, whereby Army leaders are able to adapt successfully 

to any cultural setting. Meeting this capability will require the development of culture-general knowledge and skills 

as a necessary complement to language skills and regional knowledge. This report presents a framework for 

cross-cultural competence in Army leaders, reviews empirical research on predictors of intercultural 

effectiveness, and describes existing measures of cross-cultural competence and related constructs.

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

Cross-Cultural Competence, Cultural Understanding, Culture, Intercultural Communication

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES Ellen Kinzer 

16. REPORT 17. ABSTRACT 18. THIS PAGE Technical Publication 

Specialist Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited 59 

703-602-8047 

i
ii
Study Report 2008-01 

Cross-Cultural Competence in Army Leaders: 

A Conceptual and Empirical Foundation 

Allison Abbe 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Lisa M. V. Gulick and Jeffrey L. Herman 

George Mason University 

Consortium Research Fellows Program 

Leader Development Research Unit 

Stanley M. Halpin, Chief 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

October 2007 

Army Project Number Personnel and Training 

665803D730 Analysis Activities 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

iii
iv
FOREWORD 

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) is the Army’s 

lead laboratory conducting research, development, and analysis on training, leader development, and 

Soldier issues. ARI’s focus is the human element in the Army. Within its mission, ARI conducts 

studies and aAnalyses to address short-term issues and respond to emerging topics as requested by 

Army leaders or organizations. 

The Cultural Understanding and Language Proficiency (CULP) study was conducted in 

response to a request from the U. S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), carried out 

under a memorandum for record between the Director of Center for Army Leadership, Combined 

Arms Center, and the Chief of the Leader Development Research Unit (LDRU), ARI. The goal of this 

study was to provide a scientific research perspective on increasing linguistic and cultural capability in 

the Army. 

The CULP study had three objectives: 1) to identify the knowledge related to culture and 

identity needed by Army leaders, 2) to identify measures and predictors of effective performance in 

cross-cultural settings, and 3) to identify the extent to which proficiency in a foreign language 

provides transferable skills. This report addresses the second objective. The first and third objectives 

are addressed in two companion reports. 

v
 vi 
CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCE IN ARMY LEADERS: A CONCEPTUAL AND 

EMPIRICAL FOUNDATION 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

Military operations increasingly require Soldiers to interact with individuals and groups whose 

cultural context differs from their own. The Army and other Services have responded by increasing the 

availability of language and regional training. These efforts develop the knowledge and verbal 

communication skills needed to understand and interact with a particular population in a particular 

location. However, full-spectrum operations demand a broader cultural capability, whereby Army 

leaders are able to adapt successfully to any cultural setting. Meeting this capability will require the 

development of culture-general knowledge and skills as a necessary complement to language skills 

and regional knowledge. Whereas language and regional expertise provide the depth to operate in a 

specific culture, cross-cultural competence provides leaders the breadth to operate in any culture. 

Procedure: 

 This report presents a framework for cross-cultural competence in Army leaders, reviews 

empirical research on predictors of intercultural effectiveness, and describes existing measures of 

cross-cultural competence and related constructs. This report draws on literature from psychology, 

management, international business, and intercultural communication, identifying the characteristics 

of successful expatriate managers, study-abroad students, Peace Corps volunteers, and bicultural 

individuals that are relevant to Army leaders and Soldiers. 

Findings: 

 This review provides support for cross-cultural competence as a culture-general construct that 

contributes to intercultural effectiveness across a range of different cultures and contexts. Crosscultural competence is conceptualized as a set of knowledge, affect, and skill components that develop 

in response to experience, training, and education. Evidence shows that culture-general competencies 

contribute more to intercultural effectiveness than do more specific skills and knowledge, including 

language proficiency, culture/region-specific knowledge, and prior international experience. Traits 

such as extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and self-monitoring are also associated 

with adjustment and performance in intercultural settings. 

 Existing measures tend to conceptualize cross-cultural competence and related constructs in 

terms of one of three categories: multi-dimensional, developmental, or trait-based. Measures with 

validity evidence in the scientific literature were selected for review, and strengths and weaknesses of 

the measures are discussed. 

 vii
Utilization and Dissemination of Findings: 

Cross-cultural competence should be developed in a program that includes both culture-general 

and culture-specific components. Training, education, and self-development should target the 

competencies identified, and additional research should further specify competencies and determine 

the appropriate sequence of development. Although existing measures are available to measure some 

aspects of cross-cultural competence, the validity of these measures has not been established for a 

military population. Context and population differences warrant the development of measures 

specifically for the population of interest, with an emphasis on constructs and methods for use in 

training and development. 

 viii
CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCE IN ARMY LEADERS: A CONCEPTUAL AND 

EMPIRICAL FOUNDATION 

CONTENTS 

A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCE ................. 1 

PREDICTORS OF INTERCULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS .......................................................... 4 

Antecedent Variables ........................................................................................................................ 4 

 Dispositions ............................................................................................................................... 4 

 Biographical Variables .............................................................................................................. 9 

 Self and Identity ........................................................................................................................11 

Cross-Cultural Competence ..............................................................................................................12 

 Knowledge and Cognition ........................................................................................................14 

 Affect and Motivation................................................................................................................16 

 Skills ..........................................................................................................................................18 

Culture-Specific Variables: Language and Cultural Knowledge .....................................................21 

Situational and Organizational Variables .........................................................................................23 

MEASURES OF CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCE ...............................................................24 

Cross-Cultural Competence as a Multi-Dimensional Construct .......................................................25 

Cross-Cultural Competence as a Developmental Construct .............................................................26 

Cross-Cultural Competence as Trait-Based ......................................................................................29 

Cross-Cultural Competence as Behavior ..........................................................................................32 

Other Measurement Approaches ......................................................................................................32 

CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................................34 

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 1. PREDICTORS OF INTERCULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS.........................................5-6 

TABLE 2. COMPONENTS OF CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCE .......................................13 

TABLE 3. MEASURES OF CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCE AND RELATED 

CONSTRUCTS ................................................................................................................................27 

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE 1. A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCE IN ARMY 

LEADERS ........................................................................................................................................2 

ix 
x 
Cross-Cultural Competence in Army Leaders: A Conceptual and Empirical Foundation 

Military operations increasingly require Army leaders to anticipate the actions of, interact with, 

and influence individuals and groups whose cultural context differs widely from their own. The Army 

and other services have responded by increasing the availability of language and regional training. 

These efforts develop the knowledge and verbal communication skills needed to understand and 

interact with a particular population in a particular location. However, full-spectrum operations 

demand a broader cultural capability, whereby Army leaders are able to adapt successfully to any 

cultural setting. Meeting this capability will require the development of culture-general knowledge and 

skills as a necessary complement to language skills and regional knowledge. Whereas language and 

regional expertise provide the depth to operate in a specific culture, cross-cultural competence 

provides leaders the breadth to operate in any culture. Cross-cultural competence provides capability 

for a range of settings, including but not limited to interactions between two nations. This culturegeneral capability is particularly relevant when knowing one particular foreign culture or region is 

insufficient, such as in multinational operations, and when cultural differences are not just national or 

ethnic, but also organizational in nature. 

U. S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has prompted a recent surge of interest in culture 

within the military. Although very little research has addressed the leader and Soldier characteristics 

that contribute to success in such settings, a large body of literature on cross-cultural competence and 

related constructs has accumulated within other contexts. Research has examined the variables 

associated with intercultural effectiveness among other populations who live and work outside their 

country of origin for extended periods of time: expatriate managers, study-abroad students, and Peace 

Corps volunteers. This literature provides the basis for the current report, which reviews empirical 

research on variables associated with an individual’s ability to adapt successfully to other cultures. In 

addition, previous attempts to identify and measure the characteristics that comprise cross-cultural 

competence are reviewed and applied to the military context. 

A Framework for Understanding Cross-Cultural Competence 

Working effectively in intercultural settings relates to outcomes in three domains: personal, 

work, and interpersonal. The personal domain consists of psychological and physical adjustment, 

including health and well-being, and general adjustment to the day-to-day aspects of living in a foreign 

culture. The work domain includes job performance and adjustment to work (Harrison, Chadwick, & 

Scales, 1996), as well as early termination vs. completion of the assignment (e.g., in Peace Corps 

volunteers – Detweiler, 1980; Mischel, 1965). The interpersonal domain refers to one’s ability to 

communicate effectively and build relationships with individuals from other cultures. For the military 

context, a critical, additional interpersonal outcome is the ability to exert influence across cultural 

boundaries. 

Because early termination is not a voluntary option for military personnel as it is for Peace 

Corps volunteers or for expatriate managers, cross-cultural competence is likely even more important 

for the Army than for other contexts. Expatriate managers, Peace Corps volunteers, or students can opt 

to terminate and return home; military personnel do not have comparable options for early return. The 

implications of this difference are not trivial; deploying Soldiers and leaders without the requisite 

1 
knowledge and skills to succeed may have consequences that extend far beyond the individual. The 

potential for individual Soldier actions to have far-reaching, sometimes strategic, consequences 

highlights the need for clear conceptualization and training of cross-cultural competence. In addition, 

these potential consequences highlight the need to consider outcomes in addition to job performance. 

Building interpersonal relationships across cultural boundaries has implications for overall mission 

success, even after the particular individual has left the area of operations, and personal adjustment 

outcomes may have implications for the organization’s ability to retain and further develop individual 

leaders. 

Cross-cultural competence refers to the knowledge, skills, and affect/motivation that enable 

individuals to adapt effectively in cross-cultural environments. Cross-cultural competence is defined 

here as an individual capability that contributes to intercultural effectiveness regardless of the 

particular intersection of cultures. Although some aspects of cognition, behavior, or affect may be 

particularly relevant in a specific country or region, evidence suggests that a core set of competencies 

enables adaptation to any culture (Hammer, 1987). This paper reviews previous research on the 

variables that contribute to those outcomes. Figure 1 depicts a model of cross-cultural competence and 

intercultural effectiveness, which reflects our synthesis of the literature and a preliminary attempt to 

organize it in a way that is relevant to Army leaders. 

Dispositional 

Biographical 

Knowledge 

Affect/ 

Motivation 

Skills 

Job performance 

and work adjustment 

Personal 

adjustment 

Interpersonal 

relationships 

Situational and 

Organizational 

Variables 

Cross-Cultural 

Competence 

Intercultural 

Antecedent Effectiveness 

Variables Regional 

Competence Language 

Self and Identity 

Figure 1. A general framework for cross-cultural competence in Army leaders 

2 
This model is intended to be comprehensive, including both antecedents to and consequences 

of cross-cultural competence. Cross-cultural competence is not an end in itself, but is a set of variables 

that contribute to intercultural effectiveness. Whereas previous models have tended to emphasize 

subjective outcomes, by focusing primarily on adjustment, outcomes of interest here include both 

subjective and objective outcomes. Objective outcomes, such as job performance, have been addressed 

in previous research, but to a lesser degree than the subjective outcomes. Research indicates that the 

outcomes are linked, with personal and interpersonal adjustment linked to work adjustment, which has 

in turn been linked with job performance (Shay & Baack, 2006). However, these relationships are 

small, and some research has demonstrated that subjective outcomes can diverge from objective 

outcomes (Kealey, 1989), with expatriates sometimes showing relatively poor adjustment but high 

effectiveness in their organizational role. 

This paper focuses primarily on cross-cultural competence, which appears at the mid-level of 

this model with other characteristics of an individual that contribute most directly to intercultural 

effectiveness: cross-cultural competence provides culture-general capability, and regional/cultural 

expertise and language proficiency provide culture-specific capability. The research reviewed here 

focuses primarily on the characteristics and outcomes of individuals who face cultural differences at a 

national or societal level. However, the particular cultural expertise required in some circumstances 

may be of an organizational nature, rather than national or societal. Army leaders working with the 

other services, other government agencies, or non-governmental organizations may benefit from 

culture-specific knowledge of the particular organizations involved. 

Some findings even suggest that differences at the organizational level, between military 

services and civilian organizations, may be more influential than differences at the national/societal 

level, between the militaries of different nations (Soeters, Poponete, & Page, 2006). Though 

‘intercultural’ is generally assumed to mean ‘international,’ it also includes inter-service, interagency 

settings, to the extent that differences can be attributed to the culture of those organizations1

. Because 

the research foundation for this model focuses almost exclusively on individuals working in foreign 

countries, we conceptualize the culture-specific portion of the model primarily as reflecting the culture 

of a host country or region. 

The other predictors of effectiveness proposed in this model include distal, or antecedent, 

variables as well as more proximal, situational variables. Antecedent variables contribute to the 

development of cross-cultural competence and will therefore be discussed in detail. Other predictors 

are either omitted or will be mentioned only briefly in this report. For example, effective work 

performance in a cross-cultural setting is influenced by many of the same factors as work in a 

domestic or monocultural setting (e.g., technical competence), but because these factors are not unique 

to the cross-cultural setting, they are not addressed here. Other variables are directly related to the 

cross-cultural setting, but are a function of the situation rather than the person. Because these 

situational variables have particularly salient implications for military personnel, they are included but 

not addressed in great detail. 

 

1

 Defining culture is not among the goals of this report, but the working definition for current purposes is that culture is a 

pattern of values, beliefs, and behavior shared among individual members of a group, organization, or other collective, and 

acquired through learning. 

3 
4 

The components of cross-cultural competence and the antecedent variables likely predict 

outcomes differentially; some components may be better predictors than others for certain outcomes. 

We differentiate these outcomes in subsequent sections where indicated by the literature. The 

framework used here is intentionally broad, and the relevance of the various predictors is expected to 

differ for different roles and functions of military personnel working in a cross-cultural setting. The 

current framework may serve as a starting point for further specification of relationships by outcome 

or job function. 

The remainder of this report is comprised of three parts. The first discusses empirical research 

on predictors of cross-cultural effectiveness and outlines a framework of cross-cultural competence. 

The second reviews existing measures of cross-cultural competence and related constructs. In the 

third, some recommendations for education, training, and further research are discussed. 

Predictors of Intercultural Effectiveness 

A list of antecedent variables and components of cross-cultural competence is included in 

Table 1. Evidence supporting the role of these variables is discussed in detail below. 

Antecedent Variables: Dispositions 

Previous work in the field of cross-cultural research has examined the influence of personality 

on the cross-cultural effectiveness of individuals working overseas. Some researchers argue that there 

is a direct relationship between personality and performance (see Hogan & Roberts, 2000). For 

example, both Mischel (1977) and Hogan and Roberts (2000) discussed the notion that initial crosscultural experiences may be classified as weak or ambiguous situations, respectively. That is, when 

individuals first arrive in a host country they are confronted with many unknowns, such as uncertainty 

regarding the norms of behavior, social roles, and expectations. When individuals are operating in 

these ambiguous situations, personality may be the dominant factor that guides individual behavior 

(Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi, 2006). If so, then it is likely that some individuals 

may be more adept than others when placed in foreign environments. Prior research has suggested 

that personality, over technical competence, is important for effective overseas performance (Harris, 

1973). Some researchers go so far to imply that there is an “overseas type” that adapts well in any 

cross-cultural situation (Kealey & Protheroe, 1996). 

Big Five Traits 

The personality traits known as the Big Five have received general research support as 

contributors to various outcomes, such as adjustment, performance, and termination. The Big Five 

include openness/intellect, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability 

(neuroticism). These traits were empirically derived using a variety of methods and represent a 

comprehensive approach to personality structure (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997). In addition, these 

dimensions show high stability over the lifespan (Conley, 1985; Costa, McRae, & Arenberg, 1980; 

Johnson, McGue, & Krueger, 2005), particularly in adulthood (Hampson & Goldberg, 2006). 
5 

Table 1. Predictors of Intercultural Effectiveness 

Construct Dimension Outcome Citations 

Agreeableness Antecedent: Disposition Interaction adjustment; job 

performance; desire to terminate assignment*

Caligiuri, 2000; Dalton & Wilson, 2Willemsen, & van der Molen, 2005Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi, 2006 

Bicultural identity Antecedent: 

Self and Identity 

Flexibility in attributions; culture-specific affect; cognitive complexity 

Benet-Martinez, Lee, & Leu, 2006; Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002; Chao & 

Cognitive complexity / category breadth 

CCC: Knowledge Termination of assignment (time 

completed) 

Black et al., 1991; Detweiler, 1975, 

Conscientiousness Antecedent: Disposition General adjustment; job 

performance 

Caligiuri, 2000; Dalton & Wilson, 22005; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1999; S

Coping, stress management 

CCC: Skill General adjustment Feldman & Thomas, 1992; Hamme

Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Selm

Cultural distance Situational General and interaction 

adjustment*; culture-general and 

specific understanding*

Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Stah

Cultural knowledge, cross-cultural schema 

CCC: Knowledge General and interaction 

adjustment; culture-general and specific understanding 

Bhawuk, 1998; Gannon & Poon, 191989; Takeuchi, Yun, & Russell, 20

Emotional stability, emotional regulation 

Antecedent: Disposition 

and 

CCC: Skill 

General, interaction, and work adjustment 

Ali, Van der Zee, & Sanders, 2003; Shaffer et al., 2006; Matsumoto et aMatsumoto, & LeRoux, 2006; Van Oudenhoven, 2000; van OudenhoveZee, 2003 

Empathy CCC: Affect/Motivation Interaction and personal 

adjustment; non-ethnocentrism; physical and mental health 

Leong, 2007; Ruben, 1976; Stephan Van der Zee, Zaal, & Piekstra, 2003& Van der Zee, 2002 

Extraversion Antecedent: Disposition General and work adjustment; job 

performance 

Caligiuri, 2000; Mol et al., 2005; SeShaffer et al., 2006 

Flexibility CCC: Skill General adjustment; intercultural 

stress management; job performance 

Lievens et al., 2003; Mol et al., 2001981; Shaffer et al., 2006; Redmond van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 20

Frame shifting / code switching CCC: Skill (See bicultural identity above.) Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; 

al., 2006; Hong et al., 2000; Peruno

Gender Antecedent: Biographical General adjustment; interaction Caligiuri & Cascio, 1998; Caligiuri 
6 

and work adjustment Hechanova et al., 2003; Varma, Toh

Initiative CCC: Affect/Motivation Interaction adjustment Takeuchi et al., 2002 Interpersonal skills CCC: Skill General, interaction, and work 

adjustment; job performance 

Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Cui & Van Den Berg, 1991; Hammer, 11978; Hawes & Kealey, 1981; HechSmith, 1966 

Language ability Culture-Specific Generalg, interaction, and work 

adjustment; job performance 

Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; HamHechanova et al., 2003; Mol et al., 21985; Redmond & Bunyi, 1993; Tavan Oudenhoven et al., 2003 

Need for cognitive closure CCC: Affect/Motivation Interaction adjustment*; 

avoidance coping, avoidance of host nationals; stereotyping 

Chiu et al., 2000; Kashima & Loh, 2Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; NichoBourne, 2002 

Non-ethnocentrism CCC: Affect/Motivation Interaction adjustment; 

job performance; culture-general and -specific understanding 

Hechanova et al., 2003; Shaffer et aet al., 1989 

Nonverbal decoding Culture-Specific General adjustment; intercultural 

communication competence 

Molinsky, Krabbenhoft, Ambady, & Matsumoto, & LeRoux, 2006 

Openness/Intellect Antecedent: Disposition Work adjustment; job 

performance; training performance 

Ali et al., 2003; Lievens, Harris, VaBisqueret, 2003; Shaffer et al., 2006 

Perspective taking CCC: Skills Non-ethnocentrism Epley et al., 2004; Galinsky & Mos

Stephan & Finlay, 1999; Wu & Key

Prior experience Antecedent: Biographical General, interaction, and work 

adjustment 

Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Blac1971; Hechanova et al., 2003; Keal1987; Mol et al., 2005; Parker & Evet al., 2005; Yavas & Bodur, 1999 

Self-efficacy Antecedent: 

Self and Identity 

General, interaction, and work adjustment 

Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; HecMischel, 1965; Palthe, 2004; Saks, 

Self-monitoring Antecedent: Disposition General and interaction 

adjustment; job performanceg

Caligiuri & Day, 2000; Harrison et Mannetti, & Sam, 2006 

Tolerance for ambiguity Antecedent: Disposition Culture shock* Nishida, 1985 Note: Relationships are positive in direction except where indicated by a *, indicating a negative relationship, or a g, indicating findings are m
Research has shown that these broad traits are useful in predicting work-related outcomes. In a 

meta-analysis that included self-, co-worker, and supervisor ratings of job performance, four traits – 

extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness – were positively related to job 

performance, with only openness showing no relationship (Mol et al., 2005). In addition, although 

emotional stability and conscientiousness showed comparable correlations with performance for 

expatriate and domestic samples, extraversion and agreeableness showed larger correlations in the 

expatriate samples (Mol et al.). Providing further support for these two traits, extraversion and 

agreeableness also predicted decreased desire to terminate an overseas assignment (Caligiuri, 2000). 

Closer examination of supervisor ratings shows somewhat different patterns. Conscientiousness 

emerged as the strongest predictor of supervisor-rated performance for American expatriates working 

overseas (Caligiuri, 2000). In addition, when managers rated hypothetical job applicants in a scenariobased exercise, conscientiousness emerged as the most important personality dimension for all 

outcomes considered: completion of assignment, job performance, and adjustment (Ones & 

Viswesvaran, 1999). In a sample of Middle Eastern expatriates, employees higher in conscientiousness 

and agreeableness received more positive performance ratings from their home country supervisor 

(Dalton & Wilson, 2000). However, other Big Five traits in this study were not related to homecountry ratings, and none of the five showed significant correlations with rating from host-country 

supervisors. Thus, conscientiousness shows high consistency in its importance for performance 

outcomes. 

Research on performance has shown mixed support for openness. Despite showing no 

predictive utility in a meta-analysis (Mol et al., 2005), openness more recently predicted both task and 

contextual performance outcomes, as rated by the expatriate and a coworker (Shaffer et al., 2006). 

Openness also predicted lower desire to terminate the assignment. Another study showed that 

openness to experience was positively related to cross-cultural training performance (Lievens, Harris, 

Van Keer, & Bisqueret, 2003). 

In addition to predicting performance, the Big Five contribute to subjective outcomes of 

adjustment. Emotional stability positively related to psychological adjustment (Ali, Van der Zee, 

Sanders, 2003), interaction adjustment, and work adjustment (Shaffer et al., 2006). Openness predicted 

work adjustment (Shaffer et al., 2006) and, for expatriate spouses, related to psychological and 

sociocultural adjustment, as well as to intercultural interactions (Ali et al., 2003). Extraversion, 

agreeableness, and conscientiousness also positively relate to adjustment (Searle & Ward, 1990; 

Shaffer et al.), although do not always contribute to the same domains of adjustment. For example, 

agreeableness predicted interaction adjustment, whereas extraversion and conscientiousness were 

more relevant to general adjustment (Shaffer et al.). 

The somewhat inconsistent findings across studies, as well as the relatively small effect sizes, 

provide rationale for seeking other predictors of intercultural effectiveness. Some researchers have 

argued that broad, dispositional traits like the Big Five may not be appropriate for the narrow domain 

of adjustment and performance in cross-cultural settings (Van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000). 

7 
Tolerance for Ambiguity 

As conceptualized by Frenkel-Brunswik (1949), tolerance for ambiguity is a general 

disposition that broadly influences cognition, attitudes, and behavior. Low tolerance for ambiguity is 

characterized by rigidity, dichotomous thinking, authoritarianism, and ethnocentrism. Research at 

organizational or national levels of analysis has examined a similar, but not identical, construct of 

uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980; House et al., 2004), showing cultural differences in this 

variable. 

Tolerance for ambiguity has also been linked with intercultural outcomes. In a study of 

Japanese students studying in the U.S. (Nishida, 1985), participants and the researcher rated each 

student on seven interpersonal communication skills (cf. Ruben & Kealey, 1979). Several weeks later, 

students were also rated on their level of cross-cultural adaptation, measured by the level of culture 

shock (i.e., self-ratings of positive, negative, or neutral feelings about their international experience), 

psychological adjustment (i.e., three self-reported measures assessing participant’s feelings toward life 

in America), and interaction effectiveness (i.e., self-reported feeling about interacting with Americans; 

researcher-reported assessment of effective interaction). Results indicated that behavioral ratings of 

tolerance for ambiguity were substantially related to culture shock. That is, individuals who were able 

to react to new and uncertain situations with minimal discomfort reported more positive feelings 

toward their experiences, and thus experienced less culture shock than those who were reacted to 

ambiguous situations with greater discomfort (Nishida, 1985). Despite these findings, there are 

problems with the conceptualization and measurement of tolerance for ambiguity (Furnham & 

Ribchester, 1995). The lack of consensus on a definition and the construct’s component dimensions 

may limit its utility. 

Self-Monitoring 

Self-monitoring refers to an individual’s motivation and ability to observe and adjust his/her 

behavior in a socially appropriate way depending on situational cues (Snyder, 1974). Self-monitoring 

is, in part, related to dispositional extraversion (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000) and has been 

demonstrated to have a biological basis, with research supporting the role of genetic influences 

(Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). Self-monitoring enables individuals to determine when and how to 

adjust their behavior, an ability that facilitates social interaction across divergent situations. A study of 

U.S. American expatriates working in Europe showed that individuals higher on self-monitoring 

reported feeling more adjusted to general life abroad and more comfortable interacting with host 

nationals (Harrison et al., 1996). 

Although self-monitoring was unrelated to work adjustment in this sample (Harrison et al., 

1996), other research has linked self-monitoring to job performance. Supervisors of U.S. expatriates 

working in a variety of countries provided ratings on subordinates’ contextual performance (i.e., 

helping behaviors that benefit the organization) and expatriate specific performance (i.e., information 

transfer and language/culture proficiency) (Caligiuri & Day, 2000). Results indicated that low selfmonitors were rated more positively by their supervisors on contextual performance, whereas high 

self-monitors received higher supervisor ratings on expatriate-specific performance. Additionally, high 

self-monitors were rated less positively on contextual performance than low self-monitors when rated 

by supervisors from a different nationality than the subordinate. Overall, findings suggest that self8 
monitoring does affect performance, but direction of the relationship depends on the type of 

performance being evaluated. 

Research on immigrant samples has also found support for self-monitoring. Polish immigrants 

to Italy who were higher in self-monitoring tended to show better social and personal adjustment than 

those lower in self-monitoring (Kosic, Mannetti, & Sam, 2006). High self-monitors also tended to 

associate more with host nationals than did low self-monitors, a pattern predictive of improved 

adaptation. Although immigrant and expatriate populations face somewhat different challenges, these 

findings converge with those from expatriate samples. That is, self-monitoring appears to be beneficial 

for general and social aspects of adjustment, and may be beneficial for work-related outcomes to the 

extent that job functions include cross-cultural interactions. 

Antecedent Variables: Biographical 

Prior Experience 

Researchers have frequently discussed the importance of prior international experience in 

preparing individuals to work overseas. Prior experience may facilitate an individual’s ability to adjust 

to and cope in different situations (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991; Church, 1982; Louis, 1980). 

Empirical research has supported this rationale. One study showed that students who had previously 

spent between three and twelve months abroad felt they were better able to facilitate communication 

and were more aware of themselves and the culture (Martin, 1987). Others have linked prior 

experience with work adjustment (Black, 1988; Yavas & Bodur, 1999), interaction adjustment (Yavas 

& Bodur) and general adjustment (Parker & McEvoy, 1993). In addition, prior international 

experience may also improve training outcomes (Hays, 1971). 

A variety of mechanisms for this relationship have been proposed. Kealey (1989) argued that 

previous experience may positively affect the expectations an individual holds about going abroad. A 

study of Canadian technical assistance advisors working in developing countries showed that people 

with prior international experience reported less difficulty in adjusting to overseas conditions, were 

more satisfied and less stressed, and felt that they were better able to transfer skills and knowledge to 

others than those lacking past experience (Kealey). Consistent with those findings, Black (1988) 

suggested that prior experience may mitigate feelings of uncertainty that arise in cross-cultural 

situations, which may in turn improve adjustment. Another explanation is motivational in nature; 

previous cross-cultural experience may strengthen an individual’s interest and desire to learn about a 

new culture (Triandis, 1995; Hays, 1971). Prior international experience may also have more enduring 

effects, with such experiences shaping one’s values, cognition, and ultimately personality (Ronen, 

1989). 

Despite these arguments for the benefits of prior experience, other research suggests that prior 

international experience can, but does not necessarily improve cross-cultural effectiveness. Metaanalysis has shown that prior international experience has small associations with adjustment 

(general/personal, interaction, and work – Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Hechanova et al., 2003). 

However, it appears unrelated to job performance overseas (Mol et al., 2005; Sinangil & Ones, 1997) 

and is a relatively weak predictor even of adjustment, with language, self-efficacy, and interpersonal 

9 
skills all showing larger effects (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al.). Some researchers have therefore concluded 

that prior international experience is “of little practical use as a predictive tool” (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et 

al., p. 268). 

An alternative perspective is that the role of prior experience may be more complex than 

previous research has acknowledged. Taking a micro-view of previous international experience, some 

researchers argue that this domain is actually multidimensional. That is, different types of 

international experience (i.e., current/tenure, prior, work, non-work, and culture-specific experience) 

may differentially affect outcomes (Takeuchi, Tesluk, Yun, and Lepack, 2005). In examining 

adjustment of Japanese expatriates working in the U.S., one study showed that current assignment 

tenure was positively related to both work and general adjustment, but that this relationship was 

moderated by the length of previous work experiences. For expatriates with shorter prior international 

assignments abroad, current tenure had a more positive effect on work adjustment than for those with 

longer previous international work assignments. For expatriates with shorter, culture-specific (i.e., in 

the same country they are currently working in) prior international assignments, current tenure had a 

more positive effect on general adjustment than it did for those with longer international work 

assignments. These findings provide evidence that closer examination of the nature and role of 

previous cross-cultural experiences is warranted. In particular, a consistent and conceptually 

meaningful measurement approach to international experience is needed. 

Gender 

According to the Global Relocation Trends Survey (2005), women now make up 23% of the 

expatriate population. Although the number of women expatriates is on the rise, women still remain in 

the minority for international assignees compared to their male counterparts. This difference persists 

despite research suggesting that women and men do not differ in their desires to engage in an 

international assignment (Adler, 1986, 1987). As more women enter the global market, interest has 

also grown in understanding whether gender makes a difference in the cross-cultural success of 

expatriates. Some scholars have suggested that expatriate gender may influence effectiveness abroad, 

but empirical evidence has been equivocal. 

Some research has shown that gender is not a distinguishing factor for cross-cultural success. 

For instance, Parker and McEvoy (1993) showed that gender was not correlated with any of the three 

types of adjustment. However, subsequent work has implied that gender may, in fact, be a relevant 

variable for international assignments. Research comparing female and male expatriates suggests that 

women and men may be equally successful on outcomes such as supervisor-rated performance and 

retention, but that women may be less successful at adjusting in certain cross-cultural settings 

(Caligiuri & Tung, 1999). Specifically, one study of expatriates suggested that women may have more 

difficulty adjusting in countries where fewer women are active in the workplace or where relatively 

few women hold management positions (Caligiuri & Tung, 1999). 

Although many predictors of cross-cultural success do not depend on gender, Caligiuri and 

Cascio (1998) suggest that one factor, namely host-country attitudes towards expatriates, may 

differentially affect female expatriates. One study found that women tended to be less adjusted in 

countries high on the cultural dimensions of masculinity and uncertainty avoidance (Caligiuri & Tung, 

10 
1999). However, there were no differences by gender for supervisor-rated performance or 

prematurely ending the assignment. Additionally, men and women did not differ on ratings of crossculture success (i.e., early termination, adjustment, performance) when considering a country’s 

standing on the cultural value dimensions of power distance or individualism/collectivism. 

Alternatively, some research has suggested that being female may have advantages. A metaanalysis by Hechanova et al. (2003) revealed that women expatriates reported higher levels of 

interaction adjustment (with host nationals) than men. Women from the U.S. were also less likely than 

U.S. men to be categorized as a member of the out-group by host national employees (both men and 

women) when presented with information about a prospective co-worker (Varma, Toh, & Budhwar, 

2006). Furthermore, women do not seem to perceive their gender as a disadvantage. In a survey of 

female expatriates working in various locations in Asia, 42 percent believed that being female was 

advantageous to their international success. This could be because they were more visible to their 

foreign counterparts, and thus received more attention, displayed quality interpersonal skills, or 

benefited from the assumption that they were highly skilled if sent to a country where women are less 

likely to hold positions of management (Adler, 1987). Another study showed that male and female 

expatriates felt they were equally able to achieve their organizational objectives abroad (Tung, 2004). 

Age 

Although age of the expatriate is not related to some adjustment outcomes (Hechanova et al., 

2003), age has shown a small relationship with work outcomes. In expatriates on assignment in 

Singapore, age was positively correlated with work adjustment (Templer, Tay, and Chandrasekar, 

2006), a finding supported by meta-analysis (Hechanova et al., 2003). Meta-analysis has also revealed 

positive effects of age on expatriate job performance (Mol et al., 2005). 

Antecedent Variables: Self and Identity 

We identified a third set of antecedent variables that includes constructs related to the self. 

Mendenhall and Oddou (1985) argued for a self-oriented dimension as one of several dimensions 

related to the adjustment process overseas. This dimension includes an expatriate’s feelings of selfconfidence, the self-concept, and general well-being. Early research on Peace Corps volunteers 

showed that ego strength was predictive of volunteer success in teaching and interpersonal interaction 

(Mischel, 1965). Though the self-related constructs may overlap with or be influenced by dispositional 

traits, they may be domain-specific and are likely less stable, emerging from the interaction of an 

individual with his or her environment (Bandura, 1997). Research has focused on two aspects of the 

self in predicting cross-cultural effectiveness. 

Self-Efficacy 

Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute 

the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). Individuals high in self-efficacy 

may be more likely to persist in overcoming obstacles in an unfamiliar setting. Research has supported 

11 
the link between self-efficacy and domestic adjustment (Saks, 1995), as well as expatriate adjustment 

(Palthe, 2004; Hechanova, Beehr, & Christiansen, 2003). A study of U. S. expatriates indicated that 

greater self-efficacy was associated with both higher work and interaction adjustment (Palthe, 2004). 

This relationship is supported by meta-analytic findings that self-efficacy is related to both interaction 

and work adjustment (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Hechanova et al.), as well as general adjustment 

(Hechanova et al.). 

Cultural Identity 

Another aspect of the self that may be relevant for intercultural effectiveness is cultural 

identity. Published research linking cultural identification to cross-cultural performance has focused 

primarily on the effects of identification with specific national cultures or ethnic groups on 

acculturation, adaptation or performance within that particular context (e.g. Berry, 1987; Forehand, 

Deshpande, & Reed, 2002; Tajfel, 1982; Ward & Kennedy, 1994). A range of conceptual models 

suggest ways in which complex interrelations among identity components may be beneficial for 

cultural adaptation and interpersonal interaction (Benet-Martinez, Lee, & Leu, 2006; Chao & Moon, 

2005; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Researchers of global 

identity, defined generally as identification with a higher-level world culture, have argued for this 

identity facet as predictive of various processes. However, published empirical research is scarce, and 

has come from different perspectives on measurement of the construct (Arnett, 2002; Leslie, Dalton, 

Ernst, & Deal, 2002; Shokef & Erez, 2006). 

Thus, although cultural identity is implicated as an important organizing force for specific 

cross-cultural skills and processes (cf. Chao & Moon, 2005; Elron, Shamir, & Ben-Ari, 1999), basic 

research is needed. First, novel constructs such as global identity must be clearly defined in a way that 

transfers across research contexts. Second, empirical research needs to establish the criterion validity 

of these identity elements. Third, interrelationships and interactions among various identity facets 

must be empirically tested as well. As the research currently stands, empirical evidence does not 

support strong assertions about the role of cultural identity in predicting cross-cultural outcomes. 

Cross-Cultural Competence

Research has identified traits and other personal characteristics that predict intercultural 

effectiveness, but the relationships have tended to be small and sometimes inconsistent. Focusing 

more specifically on what individuals know, do, and feel with regard to cross-cultural experiences may 

be a more productive approach. As defined here, cross-cultural competence refers to the knowledge, 

affect/motivation, and skills that enable individuals to adapt effectively in cross-cultural environments 

(see Table 2). The definition and structure adopted here are patterned after previous conceptualizations 

of interpersonal competencies and intercultural communication (Chen & Starosta, 1996; Spitzberg, 

1990, 1991; Wiseman, Hammer, & Nishida, 1989), but are construed more broadly. The dimensions 

presented here not only directly support effective intercultural communication, but also contribute to 

personal adjustment and work outcomes. Some knowledge and skills, such as cognitive complexity 

and perspective taking, are relevant even when job functions may not necessarily include routine 

interaction with foreign nationals (intelligence analysis or operational planning). 

12 
In addition, we conceptualize cross-cultural competence as a developmental construct, for 

which the component dimensions may show substantial shifts over time. Thus, cross-cultural 

competence is defined here as dynamic in nature. Traits or competencies for which evidence suggests 

a high degree of stability appear only in the antecedent variables of the model presented in this report. 

This approach is consistent with some perspectives in the expatriate literature (Leiba-O’Sullivan, 

1999) and intercultural communication (Bennett, 1986, 1993). The emphasis here on dynamic 

competencies is intended to provide a model useful for training and education efforts. Whereas 

research on expatriate managers has frequently targeted traits for selection purposes, the Army does 

not have the luxury of deploying only personnel with the preferred personality profile. Such a profile 

may be useful for particular assignments, but full-spectrum operations require that every Soldier have 

some degree of cross-cultural competence. 

Despite similar distinctions in previous frameworks, research on cross-cultural skills provides 

little empirical basis for the stable vs. dynamic distinction. Theoretical work has emerged to address 

this issue in the context of cross-cultural training and education (Oddou, Mendenhall, & Ritchie, 2000; 

Leiba-O’Sullivan; Shaffer et al., 2006; Yamazaki & Kayes, 2004). However, empirical work still lags 

behind, and the existing empirical literature on cross-cultural training has been criticized for its lack of 

methodological rigor (Kealey & Protheroe, 1996). 

In addition, cross-cultural training does not explicitly target the competencies identified as 

contributing to intercultural effectiveness. Although empirical research has found some skill sets to be 

responsive to training, such as interpersonal skills (Deshpande & Viswesvaran, 1992), studies do not 

necessarily distinguish between the end result (intercultural effectiveness) and the changes in trainees 

that enabled that result (cross-cultural competence). For example, one meta-analysis found crosscultural training in general to have small positive effects (Morris & Robie, 2001), but did not 

distinguish between skill development and performance in the cross-cultural setting. Few studies 

designed to evaluate the effectiveness of training have linked the specific knowledge or skills targeted 

by the training to performance or adjustment outcomes. This pattern may reflect the atheoretical nature 

of much of cross-cultural training and limits the contribution of the training literature to the 

development of a model of cross-cultural competence2

. Thus, although the dynamic nature of many 

competencies described here has been established by previous research, the degree to which each is 

developmental or directly trainable may vary substantially. In addition, research regarding some of the 

competencies is suggestive rather than conclusive in linking to cross-cultural outcomes. 

Table 2. Three Components of Cross-Cultural Competence

Knowledge and Cognition Affect and Motivation Skills 

Cultural awareness Attitudes and initiative Interpersonal skills 

Cross-cultural schema Empathy Self-regulation 

Cognitive complexity Need for closure Flexibility 

 

2

 Although theories of cross-cultural adjustment, acculturation, and learning are relevant to training, the development of 

and research on cross-cultural training has infrequently drawn on those theories. See work by Selmer and colleagues (e.g., 

Selmer, Torbiörn, & de Leon, 1998) and on the culture assimilator (e.g., Fiedler, Mitchell, & Triandis, 1971) for 

exceptions. 

13 
Knowledge and Cognition 

Cultural Awareness and Cross-Cultural Schema 

The term cultural awareness is generally used to refer to awareness that culture shapes beliefs, 

values, and behavior and that one’s own beliefs, values, and behavior reflect a cultural context. 

Increasing this awareness is a common goal of cross-cultural training (Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000), 

including training funded by the military (Kraemer, 1973), with self-assessment exercises frequently 

recommended to support this approach (Brislin & Yoshida, 1994). However, exactly what this 

awareness contributes to intercultural effectiveness is unclear. It may be that such cultural selfawareness is a prerequisite for developing other cultural knowledge, but may not contribute directly to 

intercultural outcomes. 

Evidence points more directly to the role of awareness and understanding of other cultures. 

Relevant knowledge includes both a culture-specific component, an understanding of the particular 

culture in which one will operate, and a culture-general component, an understanding of cultural 

differences in general. To distinguish these two types of knowledge, we refer to culture-general 

knowledge as cross-cultural schema, as this knowledge may be abstracted from the specific cultures or 

experiences on which it is based. Culture-specific knowledge will be discussed separately in a 

subsequent section. 

Previous conceptualizations of intercultural communication competence have included crosscultural schema (Wiseman, Hammer, & Nishida, 1989), and this knowledge has more typically been 

treated as an outcome variable rather than a predictor. Despite the emphasis on knowledge in crosscultural training, evidence for the contribution of cross-cultural schema to intercultural effectiveness is 

limited. In one study, training on culture-general concepts, such as cultural metaphors, Hofstede’s 

dimensions, and Kluckhohn and Strodbeck’s dimensions, produced gains in perceived competence on 

posttest relative to pretest scores, but not cultural interest or cultural awareness (Gannon & Poon, 

1997). 

Another approach to cross-cultural schema is represented by the culture assimilator, a 

technique used in cross-cultural training. Brislin (1986) developed a culture-general assimilator that 

included themes of anxiety, disconfirmed expectations, ingroup-outgroup distinctions, prejudice, and 

attributions. One study showed that such training in culture-general themes and principles was helpful, 

but not for all criterion measures (Bhawuk, 1998). Culture-general training improved the use of 

culture-appropriate attributions, but did not impact category width or behavior in an intercultural 

interaction. 

 

These results are consistent with other research using a culture-general assimilator, which 

found no overall advantage relative to a control group in terms of culture shock, but did find 

improvement in attributions, interpersonal problem-solving, and ability to analyze cultural 

misunderstandings (Cushner, 1989). Thus, culture assimilators are quite effective for improving 

knowledge and attributional skills of cross-cultural competence, but the knowledge and skills resulting 

from assimilator training have not yet been clearly measured and directly linked to cross-cultural 

outcomes. Research suggests that the cross-cultural schema addressed by culture assimilators may be 

linked with other cross-cultural skills. For example, learning to make culturally-appropriate 

14 
attributions may help in managing negative emotions that arise in intercultural interaction (Landis, 

Brislin, & Hulgus, 1985) and contributes to perspective taking, a skill discussed below. 

Cognitive Complexity 

 Working outside one’s own culture entails unexpected situations and experiences that may not 

fit into existing categories and scripts. Increasing complexity in one’s understanding of culture or of a 

particular culture helps in interpreting these experiences and applying the new knowledge in future 

situations. This dimension is critical to the process of learning about culture (Triandis, 1972) and 

relates to perceptual components of other models (Kelley & Meyers, 1995; Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1999; 

Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985). Although empirical research on this aspect of cross-cultural competence 

is scarce, several sources point to its importance. 

Detweiler (1975, 1978) operationalized cognitive complexity in terms of category width and 

related it to the process of making attributions for the behavior of individuals from another culture. 

Category width refers to the amount of variability allowed in a single category of objects or events. 

Narrow categories show little within-category variability between exemplars, whereas wide categories 

reflect a more complex representation. This cognitive style is important in cross-cultural settings 

because narrow categories result in consideration of a restricted range of explanations, causing the 

individual to overlook culturally-based explanations. When participants evaluated the behavior of a 

target from a different culture (Haiti), American participants with narrow categories were more likely 

to perceive negative outcomes of that behavior as intentional than when the same behavior was 

performed by a culturally-similar target. Individuals with wide categories were more likely to withhold 

judgment, implying that they considered a range of explanations as potentially appropriate, at least at 

an implicit level. Category width also predicted early termination of service in Peace Corps volunteers 

(Detweiler, 1980), with narrow categorizers terminating much earlier than moderate and wide 

categorizers. Detweiler’s results (1978) support the view of category width as a cognitive style distinct 

from attitudes, as ethnocentrism did not account for the differing attributions. 

More recently, theorists have argued for the role of sensemaking processes in cross-cultural 

adjustment (Black et al., 1991; Osland & Bird, 2000). These processes enable individuals to cope 

when expectations are violated and to continue learning about a culture over time. An increasingly 

complex understanding of culture allows one to recognize and make sense of cultural paradoxes – 

apparent contradictions between cultural values or practices that emerge as one becomes more familiar 

with a foreign culture (Osland & Bird). In addition, one must be able to distinguish when cultural 

factors are a primary influence on behavior, and when other factors are more relevant, such as 

immediate situational variables or individual differences (cf. Matsumoto, Grissom, & Dinnel, 2001). 

Cognitive complexity requires continual learning and updating of one’s knowledge base as new 

situations are encountered. Persistent reliance on generalizations (e.g., stereotypes), even when 

expectations are inevitably violated, will cause one to miss out on subtle, but important cultural cues 

(Bird, Osland, Mendenhall, & Schneider, 1999). Although a superficial understanding of cultural 

difference may be sufficient for initial or brief contact with other cultures, such a view will be limiting 

where there is prolonged contact with a specific culture. 

15 
Affect and Motivation 

Attitudes and Initiative 

Although past research has shown that attitudes are not always a good predictor of behavior 

(LaPiere, 1934), attitudes appear to be a very useful predictor of intercultural outcomes. Previous 

research has addressed attitudes toward other cultures using several different, but overlapping 

constructs, such as non-ethnocentrism, tolerance, and sensitivity. One study of intercultural 

communication competence showed non-ethnocentrism to be the strongest predictor of understanding 

of foreign cultures and impressions of a specific foreign culture (Wiseman, Hammer, Nishida, 1989), 

relative to attitudes toward and knowledge of the specific culture. More recently, Shaffer et al. (2006) 

showed that non-ethnocentrism predicted variance in interaction and work adjustment beyond that 

predicted by the Big Five dispositions, demonstrating that attitudes toward other cultures are distinct 

from personality traits in contributing to intercultural outcomes. Meta-analytic findings also provide 

evidence for the importance of attitudes relative to context-specific predictors (Mol et al., 2003), with 

cultural sensitivity emerging as a more consistent predictor of job performance than language ability 

and prior international experience. It is unclear to what extent these attitudes may be related to 

dispositional openness, but the Shaffer et al. findings suggest that at least some portion of openmindedness toward other cultures is not explained by disposition. 

Research has also examined attitudes in terms of social initiative, or willingness to 

communicate when in cross-cultural settings (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Takeuchi, Yun, & Russell, 

2002). If an individual is uninterested or unwilling to verbally interact with the host nationals of a 

foreign culture, it may be difficult for him or her to adjust to and function effectively in the new 

environment. These attitudes may also serve as an obstacle to learning about the culture. In a study of 

Japanese expatriates on assignment in the United States and their spouses (Takeuchi et al.), 

willingness to communicate positively and significantly related to interaction adjustment. Overall, 

these findings show that attitudes toward other cultures and motivation to engage in intercultural 

interactions are important both to adjustment and to job performance in cross-cultural situations. 

Empathy 

Although certain variables are frequently mentioned in the literature as being important for 

intercultural effectiveness, not all of these relationships have been empirically linked to outcomes. 

Empathy is an example of a variable that is often discussed, but rarely tested. Kim (1986, as cited in 

Cui & Awa, 1992) suggested that empathy is particularly important for intercultural communication, 

and others have included it as either a central (Cui & Van der Berg, 1991) or a secondary (Hays, 1971) 

aspect of intercultural communication competence. Empathy has been defined as the ability to “‘put 

oneself in another’s shoes’ or to behave as if one could,” where “some people are able to project as 

interest in others clearly and seem able to obtain and reflect a reasonably complete and accurate sense 

of another’s thought, feelings, and/or experiences” (Ruben, 1976, p. 340). For the present purposes, 

we distinguish between emotional empathy, the ability to feel as another person feels, and cognitive 

empathy, the ability to think as another person thinks. To distinguish them, cognitive empathy is 

termed perspective-taking here and is discussed as a skill below. The two may be cognitive and 

16 
affective components of the same process, but may or may not develop in tandem, and thus are 

distinguished here as in some previous research (e.g., Stephan & Finlay, 1999). 

Recent empirical research has begun to provide support for the role of empathy. In exchangestudent samples, empathy predicted interaction and personal adjustment (Leong, 2007), as well as 

more specific adjustment outcomes of physical health, mental health, subjective well-being, and peer 

support (van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002). Empathy has also been linked to behavioral 

competency in a non-student sample (Van der Zee, Zaal, & Piekstra, 2003). Researchers found that job 

applicants’ self-reported levels of empathy were positively related to behaviors observed by 

assessment-center personnel, who rated applicants on leadership, decisiveness, initiative, problemsolving, stress tolerance, and other characteristics demonstrated in interviews and exercises. An earlier 

study found no correlation between empathy and adjustment, effectiveness, or culture shock (Nishida, 

1985); however, the sample size in this study was very small (17 students) and relied on only a 

behavioral measure of empathy. 

Need for Closure

The need for cognitive closure is a motivational factor related to, but distinct from 

dispositional tolerance for ambiguity. It refers to the motivation to find immediate answers and 

solutions and to resist any new information that conflicts with those answers (Kruglanski & Webster, 

1996). Need for closure includes the need for structure and predictability, a tendency toward 

decisiveness and closed-mindedness, and low tolerance for ambiguity (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). 

Individuals high in need for closure are more likely to rely on stereotypes and to be resistant to 

revising stereotypes in light of new information (Kruglanski & Webster). This tendency has been 

shown to shift in response to situational constraints; for example, time pressure increases the 

motivation to achieve closure (Chiu, Morris, Hong, & Menon, 2000; Kruglanski & Webster). 

Research on the need for closure in intercultural contexts is limited, but provides evidence that 

this construct deserves further attention. In one study, immigrants with higher need for closure 

reported using avoidance coping strategies in adjusting to the new culture, which was also linked to 

reduced contact with host nationals (Kosic, 2004). Other studies suggest that need for closure is 

particularly important for personal and interaction adjustment. In expatriates, higher levels of need for 

closure were associated with lower social adjustment and lower cultural sensitivity, but not with workrelated outcomes of work adjustment and job satisfaction (Nicholls, Rothstein, & Bourne, 2002). In 

another study, study-abroad students high in need for closure experienced more distress than did 

students low in need for closure (Kashima & Loh, 2006). 

Experimental research has shown that individuals higher in need for closure tend to rely more 

heavily on implicit cultural theories (Chiu et al., 2000), causing them to make ethnocentric attributions 

for behavior. This tendency provides one explanation for the intercultural adjustment difficulties 

experienced by these individuals. Knowledge and assumptions from one’s own culture may be a 

mismatch for the new environment, and high need for closure would interfere with adopting more 

appropriate alternatives. 

17 
Skills 

Interpersonal Skills

Interpersonal skills have long been recognized as critical to the success of individuals working 

overseas. Intercultural communication competence has been conceptualized by some researchers as 

consisting primarily of interpersonal skills, such as the ability to initiate conversation and the ability to 

establish and maintain relationships (Cui & Van Der Berg, 1991). Although other researchers 

distinguish communication skills from relationship skills (e.g., Hammer, 1987), there is general 

agreement on the importance of the two. These skills are related to holding non-ethnocentric attitudes, 

but also depend on one’s ability to convey those attitudes through behavior. Individuals who interact 

successfully across cultures are able to display respect and maintain a nonjudgmental stance in 

interaction (Ruben & Kealey, 1979). 

Interpersonal skills have consistently shown predictive utility. In a study of Peace Corps 

teachers working in Ghana, a performance factor emerged that included both items directly related to 

teaching and items on interpersonal relationships (Smith, 1966). Conveying warmth toward students, 

showing consideration toward the local adults, and displaying tact were important to effective 

performance. In fact, research has shown interpersonal skills to be the strongest overall predictor of 

outcomes rated both by the self and by host nationals (Cui & Awa, 1992; Hawes & Kealey, 1981). In 

addition, recent meta-analyses found that interpersonal skills were predictive of general adjustment 

(Hechanova et al., 2003) and interaction and work adjustment (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005). 

It is not the case that interpersonally-skilled individuals are naturally at ease in cross-cultural 

settings. In a study of technical advisors working in international development, higher interpersonal 

skills were associated with greater initial adjustment difficulty (Kealey, 1989). However, these 

findings also showed that interpersonal skills were associated with better transfer of skills to the local 

counterpart, confirming the importance of these skills for job performance. Such findings have led 

some researchers to conclude that relational skills are more important than context-specific predictors, 

such as prior international experience and language skills. 

Interpersonal skills represent a potentially very broad category of skills that need further 

specification, as noted in previous research (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005). For example, in Hawes 

and Kealey’s research (1981), interpersonal skills were comprised of items related to flexibility, 

respect, listening skill, relationship building, self-control under stress, sensitivity to host country 

issues, some of which have emerged as separate constructs in other research. In addition, some 

interpersonal skills are likely to have important roles in job performance and goal achievement, such 

as conflict resolution and negotiation skills, whereas others are more directly relevant for 

relationships, like rapport-building and nonverbal communication. Further research is needed to 

identify how specific interpersonal skills contribute to intercultural outcomes. 

Self-Regulation 

Whereas interpersonal skills have been linked primarily to positive work and interpersonal 

outcomes, self-regulation is important to personal adjustment. Self-regulation refers to emotion 

18 
regulation, stress management, and coping, constructs that are consistently represented in empiricallyderived definitions of cross-cultural competence. Stress management has been identified as a critical 

component of intercultural communication competence (Hammer, 1987; Hammer, Gudykunst, & 

Wiseman, 1978), and emotional regulation has emerged as an independent factor in intercultural 

measures (Matsumoto et al., 2001; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000). This facet has a clear 

basis in disposition, with trait measures of emotional stability successfully predicting intercultural 

outcomes in the interpersonal and work domain (e.g., Caligiuri, 2000; Shaffer et al., 2006), but 

research also suggests that self-regulation is a skill set that can be developed for cross-cultural 

assignments. Self-regulation is generally included in definitions of emotional intelligence (Matthews, 

Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002), which increasingly appears not to be a stable mental ability, but rather a set 

of knowledge and skills that are, at least in part, context-dependent (Matthews et al., Ch. 13). Thus, 

self-regulation can potentially be trained (Bar-On, Maree, & Elias, 2007; Ciarrochi & Mayer, 2007). 

In the cross-cultural domain, emotion regulation appears to be especially important for 

personal and interpersonal outcomes. Emotion regulation has been shown to predict subjective 

adjustment, satisfaction with life, and culture shock in immigrant and expatriate samples (Matsumoto 

et al., 2003). In addition, emotional stability has been linked with flexibility to form a single factor, 

referred to as adaptation (Van der Zee, van Oudenhoven, & de Grijs, 2004). Participants high in 

adaptation appraised a stressful intercultural situation as less threatening than did participants lower in 

adaptation (Van der Zee et al., 2004). Recent research has shown emotional regulation to be the most 

consistent predictor of adjustment (van Oudenhoven, Mol, & Van der Zee, 2003). 

Self-regulation in a cross-cultural setting may be reflected in one’s choice of coping strategies. 

Coping has been defined as “constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific 

external and/or internal demands” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984: 141, as cited in Aycan, 1997, p. 448). 

Coping strategies may be either problem-focused, which involve active attempts to manage the 

environment or source of stress, or symptom-focused, which tend to focus more on the negative 

emotion itself rather than the source of the emotion (Selmer, 1999; Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005; Folkman, 

& Lazarus, 1980). 

Research has shown that these coping strategies differentially affect expatriate effectiveness 

abroad. For example, one study (Feldman and Thomas, 1992) found that the symptom-focused 

strategy of palliative coping (e.g., engaging in drinking or sleeping to minimize intense feelings) was 

negatively related to intent to remain on the assignment. Another study of expatriates working in 

China investigated the role of problem-focused strategies (i.e., tolerance, problem-solving, 

involvement) and symptom-focused strategies (i.e., dreaming of being home, spending time with other 

expatriates) as they related to adjustment (Selmer, 1999). Results showed that problem-focused coping 

strategies were positively related to work and nonwork adjustment, whereas symptom-focused 

strategies were negatively related to nonwork, interaction, and psychological adjustment. Although the 

choice of coping strategies may depend on other variables (e.g., the expatriate’s culture of origin, 

Selmer, 2002; cultural distance, Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005), research suggests that problem-focused 

strategies are preferable to symptom-focused strategies in regulating the emotions that arise when 

living and working in a foreign culture. Future research on proactive coping (Aspinwall & Taylor, 

1997) would be valuable, particularly as a component of cross-cultural training aimed at anticipating 

and minimizing potential stressors. 

 

19 
 

Flexibility 

Flexibility refers to the ability to adjust one’s behavior or cognitive frames of reference in 

response to situational cues – in particular, in response to cultural cues. The same concept has also 

been referred to as adaptability (Lievens, Harris, Van Keer, & Bisqueret, 2003; Redmond & Bunyi, 

1993) and has been identified by expatriates as an important contributor to successful completion of 

international assignments (Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003; Graf, 2004). 

Research has linked flexibility to various intercultural outcomes. Black (1990) found that flexibility 

correlated with general, interaction, and work adjustment in a sample of Japanese expatriates working 

in the U.S. Another study found that flexibility predicted both general and work adjustment in 

expatriate managers working in a variety of countries (Shaffer et al., 2006). Flexibility also has 

benefits in cross-cultural training for European managers preparing to work in Japan (Lievens et al., 

2003). Results showed that manager trainees who were “willing and able to adjust to changing 

demands and objectives” (pg. 478) performed better in training and scored higher on tests of language 

acquisition. 

Although one meta-analysis did not find flexibility to be a significant predictor (Mol et al., 

2005), the analysis included few studies that measured it, and those studies may have operationally 

defined it quite differently. For example, Mendenhall and Oddou (1985) have discussed the 

importance of flexibility with regard to reinforcement, or finding substitutes for the rewarding 

activities that an expatriate would normally enjoy at home, a definition adopted by some researchers 

(Shaffer et al., 2006). Others have described flexibility in terms of interpersonal behavior (Hawes & 

Kealey, 1981; Redmond & Bunyi, 1993) or of roles (Ruben & Kealey, 1979). 

The contribution of this characteristic is unclear due to the lack of consensus on its definition 

and a corresponding measure; thus, it may be worthwhile to discard the term in favor of terminology 

more reflective of the intended meaning. As conceptualized here, flexibility may encompass several 

more specific skills, including perspective taking, frame shifting, and code switching. 

Perspective taking refers simply to the ability to see events as another person sees them. 

Related constructs include empathy and social decentering. Each includes the suspension of 

egocentrism in order to experience an alternate affective or cognitive state. Although empirical 

research has not addressed perspective taking as a specific aspect of cross-cultural competence, 

perspective taking is a particularly important skill to develop, as the United States’ individualistic 

national culture seems to foster egocentrism. One recent study showed that American participants 

failed to consider the perceptual perspective of a communication partner, a pattern vastly different 

than that of Chinese participants (Wu & Keysar, 2007). Thus, Americans may generally lack this skill, 

which could put U.S. military leaders at a disadvantage when attempting to work against a more 

collectivist adversary or within a foreign population that engages this skill far more readily. In 

addition, the conditions under which military personnel must operate may further inhibit perspective 

taking. One study showed that perspective taking occurred more slowly when the task included time 

pressure, which caused participants to stop the attribution process before the adjustment from an 

egocentric interpretation could occur (Epley, Keysar, Van Boven, & Gilovich, 2004). 

20 
Further research is needed to link perspective taking directly to intercultural outcomes, but 

indirect links have already been demonstrated. Low levels of perspective taking are associated with 

greater stereotyping (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000) and prejudice (Galinsky & Moskowitz; Stephan & 

Finlay, 1999), which are themselves predictive of intercultural adjustment and communication 

competence, as discussed above (Shaffer et al., 2006; Wiseman et al., 1989). 

Frame shifting and code shifting are cognitive and behavioral tendencies, respectively, to apply 

different schemas depending on the current situational context. Frame shifting requires an individual 

to detect situational cues that indicate a particular cultural schema or behavioral script is relevant. For 

example, a culturally flexible individual may be able to express emotions either directly or indirectly 

and will situationally adapt expression in response to shifts in cultural frames. This skill is a likely 

mechanism for the role of identity in influencing behavior across cultures (Benet-Martínez, Lee, & 

Leu, 2006); a bicultural individual, by definition, is one who already identifies with two sets of 

cultural norms, beliefs, and values, and thus may be more experienced at attending to such cues. 

Bicultural individuals have more complex representations of culture than do monocultural individuals, 

particularly if the two cultures are experienced as incompatible (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; 

Benet-Martínez et al.). 

Research has shown that bicultural individuals apply different interpretations of behavior 

depending on exposure to cultural symbols. For example, Chinese students in Hong Kong were more 

likely to provide situational, externally-driven explanations after exposure to Chinese symbols, such as 

the Great Wall or a Chinese dragon, than after exposure to American symbols, such as the American 

flag or Superman (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000). Language can also serve as a cue. In 

one study, when Asian Canadians had recently spoken English or another non-Asian language, their 

emotional states reflected a pattern more typical of Westerners than when they had recently spoken an 

Asian language (Perunovic, Heller, & Rafaeli, 2007). One remaining issue is that we don’t know 

whether these individuals generalize this skill; that is, do they acquire or adapt to a third culture more 

easily than individuals socialized into a single dominant culture? 

Culture-Specific Variables: Language and Cultural Knowledge 

Several studies have assessed both culture-specific variables, such as language proficiency and 

regional knowledge and culture-general predictors of intercultural effectiveness, allowing for a 

comparison of their contributions. Language ability has emerged as a significant, but not dominant, 

predictor: expatriates who are more proficient in the language of their host country tend to adjust and 

perform better (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Mol et al., 2005). However, the perceived importance 

of culture-specific knowledge and skills is sometimes higher than their actual importance. Among 

U.S. and German MBA students, language skills were the most frequently mentioned capability when 

asked what factors facilitated their working in an intercultural setting (Graf, 2004). Culture-specific 

knowledge was the second most frequently mentioned, with culture-general factors appearing next 

(e.g., openness, tolerance, patience). A similar discrepancy emerged in a study of Peace Corps 

volunteers (Guthrie & Zektick, 1967). Americans’ ratings of volunteers’ performance was influenced 

by the level of proficiency in the local dialect; however, Filipinos from the local community rated the 

personality of the volunteer as much more important than verbal proficiency. 

21 
The perceived importance of language skills may decline with international experience. Arthur 

and Bennett (1995) asked expatriate personnel to rate the importance of a variety of factors in the 

success of an international assignee. Whereas participants in the Graf (2004) study were merely 

required to have worked in culturally diverse teams, these individuals had an average of more than 

four years on the international assignment. Participants’ responses showed that language skills 

clustered with items related to interest in and openness to foreign cultures, and that this factor was the 

least important of five factors. All other factors received higher overall ratings: family situation, 

flexibility/adaptability, job knowledge and motivation, and relational skills. Thus, language skills fall 

from being perceived as the most important factor (Graf) to among the least important (Arthur & 

Bennett). 

Despite inconsistencies in the perceived importance of language, research on the actual role of 

language confirms the contribution of culture-specific factors. Meta-analyses have shown language 

ability to be a significant predictor of general and interaction adjustment (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 

2005; Hechanova et al., 2003) and job performance (Mol et al., 2005). However, these meta-analyses 

also reveal that culture-general traits and skills are stronger predictors than language. For example, 

cultural sensitivity (Mol et al., 2005) and relational/interpersonal skills (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; 

Hechanova et al.) contributed more to the prediction of cross-cultural outcomes than did language 

proficiency. In addition, one meta-analysis showed that language proficiency did not predict work 

adjustment (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005). 

An examination of the results from individual studies helps to clarify the role of language 

skills. Evidence shows that language proficiency contributes to positive outcomes in the work domain, 

but not to personal or interpersonal outcomes. In Japanese expatriates assigned to the U. S., self-rated 

English skills were related to work adjustment but not to general or interaction adjustment (Takeuchi, 

Yun, & Russell, 2002). More specifically, one study showed that language fluency, as rated by coworkers, was predictive of trust and shared vision between subsidiaries of a multi-national corporation 

(Barner-Rasmussen & Björkman, 2007). Researchers who obtained both self- and observer ratings in 

students, as well as test scores, found that language skills were strongly related to effectiveness, but 

not to adjustment (Nishida, 1985). In another study, higher language ability was actually correlated 

with lower personal adjustment (van Oudenhoven et al., 2003). Other research showed that language 

was not a significant predictor of expatriates’ perceptions of or responses to stress (Redmond & Bunyi, 

1993), nor protective against the experience of culture shock (Nishida, 1985). 

Parallel findings have emerged with regard to regional or culture-specific knowledge as a 

predictor of intercultural effectiveness. Studies have shown that knowledge of the host culture is 

beneficial for general adjustment to a foreign culture, but not for work adjustment (Black, 1988; 

Takeuchi et al., 2002) nor for handling stress (Redmond & Bunyi, 1993). As with language, one study 

showed this knowledge to be a negative predictor, indicating that American expatriates with more 

knowledge of Japan showed poorer adjustment to working there (Black, 1988). 

Caution should be used in drawing conclusions on culture-specific knowledge due to 

methodological limitations of this variable. In the studies cited here, knowledge of the host country 

was measured by self-report on a small set of general dimensions. Participants were asked to rate their 

degree of knowledge about the country’s political system, culture, and customs, and no objective 

source of data was included. In addition, findings do not speak directly to the role of pre-departure 

22 
knowledge of the culture. Although participants in two studies were asked to rate their pre-departure

level of knowledge, predictor and outcome data were collected at a single time point, and it is unclear 

how accurately participants remembered their state of knowledge prior to their current assignment 

(Black, 1988; Takeuchi et al., 2002). 

Due to these limitations and the inconsistency of findings, the role of regional/cultural 

knowledge remains unclear. Findings regarding language skills are more reliable, with some studies 

using self-report and others using objective test scores, such as scores on the Test of English as a 

Foreign Language in a sample of Japanese students (TOEFL; Nishida, 1985). Overall, findings suggest 

that language proficiency contributes to work and interpersonal outcomes, but has little effect on 

personal adjustment. Although low verbal proficiency may be perceived by the expatriate as an 

obstacle to communication (Hulinger, 1982, as cited in Hechanova et al., 2003), higher proficiency 

does not necessarily lead to effective communication. Some researchers have argued that verbal 

language skills are helpful only to the extent that they are accompanied by a willingness to 

communicate and motivation to use language to build relationships (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985). 

Thus, language is beneficial for certain outcomes, but is not the most important skill set overall, nor 

perhaps even a relevant skill set for personal adjustment. 

Situational and Organizational Variables 

Other, external variables may influence the degree to which a cross-culturally competent 

person is successful. Intercultural outcomes are not determined solely by the capabilities of the 

individual, but are shaped by the larger context that can both influence outcomes directly and act 

indirectly through influencing an individual’s behavior. One such variable is cultural distance, the 

actual or perceived discrepancy between one’s own cultural practices and values and those of another 

culture. In general, the greater the discrepancy between one’s own culture and the cross-cultural 

setting, the more difficulty an individual will have in adapting. Related variables have been included 

in other models, appearing as cultural toughness (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985) or as cultural novelty 

(Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005). Cultural distance is frequently operationalized as the discrepancy 

between an expatriate’s home and host cultures (Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005), in terms of Hofstede’s 

(1980) or the GLOBE dimensions (House et al., 2004). Another approach is to measure perceived 

cultural distance using self-report (Galchenko & van de Vijver, 2007). 

Findings regarding this variable have been mixed. Studies of adjustment show that greater 

cultural distance is associated with poorer adjustment across personal, interpersonal, and work 

domains (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005; Galchenko & van de Vijver, 2007). In another study, greater 

perceived cultural distance was predictive of poorer physical well-being in Japanese students studying 

in the UK (Greenland & Brown, 2005). However, cultural distance has been shown to be unrelated to 

job performance (Mol et al., 2005). Evidence suggests that cultural distance has a negative effect on 

general and interpersonal adjustment, but may not impact work outcomes (Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005). 

Other situational variables with clear relevance to the Army are conditions of stress, 

uncertainty, or threat. Research from terror and uncertainty management perspectives has shown that 

threat and uncertainty activate and exaggerate dominant modes of responding and bolster one’s 

primary cultural values and norms (cf. Stephan, Stephan, & Gudykunst, 1999; van den Bos, Poorvliet, 

23 
Maas, Miedema, & van den Ham, 2005). Under some conditions, uncertainty also leads individuals to 

identify more strongly with their ingroup (Jetten, Hogg, & Mullin, 2000), which can harden intergroup 

boundaries (Hammer, Wiseman, Rasmussen, & Bruschke, 1998; Hogg, Sherman, Dierselhuis, 

Maitner, & Moffitt, 2007). Because the effects of some cross-cultural competencies and traits may 

emerge only under conditions of stress (van der Zee et al., 2004), it is important to take these variables 

into account. The conditions under which military personnel must frequently operate during 

deployment may inhibit the application of knowledge and skills that may be helpful in those 

conditions. 

Family and spousal adjustment is another variable shown to influence intercultural outcomes 

(Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005). These studies typically involve participants whose Families 

accompany them on the expatriate assignment; however, research has also examined the effects of the 

absence of one’s spouse, showing that a spouse’s absence increased workplace strain experienced by 

the expatriate (Takeuchi, Wang, & Marinova, 2005). This finding represents another potential source 

of stress acting against the adjustment and effectiveness of military personnel. 

Research on expatriate managers has also given much attention to the role of organizational 

variables. Guzzo, Noonan, and Elron (1994) assessed factors that could influence expatriate managers’ 

levels of commitment to the organization and their intentions to leave their employers. Results showed 

that perceived organizational support for work was positively related to organizational commitment 

and negatively related to expatriate intentions to leave their employer. Organizational support has also 

been linked with adjustment. Specifically, in a meta-analysis of 64 studies on expatriate adjustment, 

logistical support (i.e., organization provides resources that help employees meet daily needs, such as 

finding housing) positively related to work adjustment (Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005). Expatriate 

commitment to the organization is also important. Expatriates working in 45 countries responded to a 

survey assessing various work and non-work related variables (Shaffer & Harrison, 1998). Findings 

revealed that normative organizational commitment was negatively related to expatriate intentions to 

leave an assignment early. In other words, expatriates who had internalized the values of their 

organization felt more obliged to persist in the assignment and showed less desire to terminate their 

expatriate assignments early. Thus, the relationship of an individual with the organization likely 

contributes to outcomes independent of the individual’s cross-cultural competence.

Measures of Cross-Cultural Competence 

Previous conceptualizations of cross-cultural competence have resulted in varied approaches to 

measurement. The measures of cross-cultural competence and related constructs reviewed here are 

organized by their conceptual definitions and assumptions about what makes individuals 

interculturally effective. These measures were selected for inclusion based on the availability of 

reliability and validity evidence in the research literature. Additional measures have been developed 

for specific contexts. For example, many consulting companies have developed scales for use with 

their training or coaching services. Other scales have been developed for specific populations, such as 

to assess the cross-cultural skills of counseling psychologists (e.g., the Cross-Cultural Counseling 

Inventory; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Hernandez, 1991). Such measures are not included here, either 

because evidence of their validity is not available in the published literature, as in the case of measures 

used by consultants, or because the domains of interest do not generalize to other populations. In 

24 
addition, scales intended to assess an individual’s level of culturally-based values or beliefs were also 

excluded as falling outside the scope of this report. Table 3 provides a list of the measures reviewed 

here and includes the component dimensions of each. 

Cross-Cultural Competence as a Multi-Dimensional Construct 

One model proposes that cultural intelligence (CQ) is a multi-dimensional, specific intelligence 

that predicts an individual’s capacity to perform effectively in cross-cultural situations. The CQ scale 

assesses four dimensions: cognitive, behavioral, motivation, and strategic (meta-cognitive) (Earley, 

2002; Earley & Ang, 2003). 

The CQ has only recently been developed, yet validation efforts have moved rapidly in the 

context of international management. As a self-report tool, the CQ correlates with criteria such as 

performance in international contexts and cross-cultural adjustment, with predictive power above 

emotional intelligence (Ang, Van Dyne, Koh, & Ng, 2004; Kim, Kirkman, & Chen, in press; Templer 

et al., 2006). CQ also is related to, but distinct from personality constructs. All dimensions of CQ 

have been shown to correlate with openness to experience. Specific positive relationships have been 

found as well between conscientiousness and cognitive CQ, extraversion with cognitive, motivational 

and behavioral CQ, and agreeableness with behavioral CQ. However, emotional stability has been 

found to have an unexpected negative relation with behavioral CQ (Ang, van Dyne, & Koh, 2006). 

Criterion validity related to performance in multinational teams appears imminent and has been called 

for in recent publication (Janssens & Brett, 2006). 

Although developed as a self-report measure, the CQ lends itself to easy implementation in a 

multi-rater approach due to the brevity of the tool, which consists of only 20 items. Some CQ 

dimensions may be more appropriately measured using sources other than self-report (Lee & Templer, 

2003). In particular, cognitive and behavioral dimensions may be subject to bias in self report 

(Herman, Buffardi, & Tetrick, 2006). Implementation of the CQ in multi-rater approaches (e.g., 

supervisor and peer ratings, behavioral observation) is likely to increase stability and accuracy, though 

results of these approaches have yet to reach publication. Multitrait-multimethod analysis of the CQ 

has been limited, but overall self- and other-reported CQ correlated significantly at .43. This 

correlation was higher than that between self-reported CQ and self-reported EI (.21) but lower than 

other-reported CQ and other-reported EI (.57) (Kim et al., in press). No research has yet reported 

multitrait-multimethod analysis among individual dimensions of CQ. Overall, the CQ measure offers 

a nascent but existing validation base that many other cross-cultural competence measures appear to 

lack. 

Recent studies on the predictive validity of the CQ have shown that the measure predicts both 

general outcomes and more specific outcomes. A survey of expatriate employees working in 

Singapore from a variety of industries showed that motivational CQ correlated positively with the 

general outcomes of general adjustment, interaction adjustment, and work adjustment (Templer et al., 

2006). In addition, motivational CQ contributed to both work and general adjustment over and above 

the influence of gender, age, time in host country, previous international experience and the presence 

of a realistic job preview. Another study showed that motivational CQ predicted both supervisor 

ratings and self-report of adjustment (Ang et al., 2007). 

25 
26 

Studies examining correlations of the CQ with more specific criteria have found that cognitive 

CQ and metacognitive CQ related to the development of host culture attribution styles and decision 

making processes (Ang et al., 2004). These results received further support in subsequent studies 

showing that metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ predicted cultural judgment and decision making 

and task performance (Ang et al., 2007). In addition to predicting cognitive variables, CQ has proven 

useful in predicting complex interpersonal behavior. Imai and Gelfand (in press) recently found that 

CQ, particularly the motivational and behavioral subscales, was predictive of integrative, cooperative 

behavior in intercultural negotiation – i.e., behavior linked to better joint outcomes in negotiation. 

A different instrument using a set of dimensions similar to the CQ is the Munroe Multicultural 

Attitude Scale Questionnaire (MASQUE), which was developed for a multicultural education setting 

(Munroe & Pearson, 2006). The MASQUE is based in a transformative approach to multicultural 

education that seeks to engage students not just through cognitive means, but also through affective 

and psychomotor channels. Thus, like the CQ’s cognitive, motivational, and behavioral domains, the 

MASQUE assesses a student’s orientation to culture through subscales of knowing, caring, and acting. 

However, the item content in the MASQUE covers a broader range of topics than that of the CQ, 

including differences in culture, gender, race, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. In 

addition, although the scale reflects the three domains in its factor structure and has adequate 

reliability overall (Munroe & Pearson), the subscales have low internal consistency, particularly with 

the Act subscale. 

Cross-Cultural Competence as a Developmental Construct 

The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is not a multi-dimensional measure of crosscultural competence, but instead measures one’s subjective experience of cultural difference. The IDI 

is based on the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett, 1986; 1993; 2004), which 

characterizes individuals as having either an ethnocentric or an ethnorelative orientation to cultural 

difference. These two general orientations are further broken down into six stages, with three in each 

orientation, which individuals experience in sequence as they resolve the challenges associated with 

each preceding stage. 

In an ethnocentric orientation, one’s own primary culture strongly influences perceptions of 

and is central to reality. In extreme ethnocentrism, an individual may lack awareness of cultural 

difference altogether and awareness that his or her own culture is an influence, a state referred to as 

denial in the model. For example, an individual in this first stage of development may think of 

“foreigners” as an undifferentiated category of people and will avoid being confronted with situations 

involving cultural differences. 

Defense follows the denial stage and reflects the ability to make simple cultural distinctions, 

but with the view that one’s own culture is superior. Individuals at this stage have some cultural 

awareness, but stereotyping and prejudice are common. A corresponding, but opposite, level of 

development is reversal, in which an individual identifies in opposition to the primary culture and 

views a different culture as superior to one’s own (e.g., the experience of “going native” in a foreign 

culture). Both defense and reversal are characterized by a recognition of cultural difference
27 

Table 3 

Measures of Cross-Cultural Competence and Related Constructs 

Measure Constructs or Dimensions Author/Source Format Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQ) 

Cognitive, meta-cognitive (strategic), behavioral, motivational 

Ang, van Dyne, Koh, & Ng, 2004 

Self-rep

Intercultural Development Inventory 

Orientation toward cultural difference Hammer, Bennett, & 

Wiseman, 2003 

Self-rep

Multicultural Personality Questionnaire 

Cultural empathy, emotional stability, social initiative, flexibility, open-mindedness 

Van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000 

Self-rep

Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale 

Emotion regulation, openness, flexibility, critical thinking (creativity/autonomy) 

Matsumoto, LeRoux, et al., 2001 

Self-rep

Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory 

Individualism/collectivism; flexibility and openmindedness Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992 Combin

test/self

Munroe Multicultural Attitude Scale 

Know, care, act Munroe & Pearson, 2006 Self-rep

Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory 

Flexibility/openness, emotional resilience, perceptual acuity, personal autonomy 

Kelley & Myers, 1995 Self-rep

Cross-Cultural Adaptability Scale 

Openness, attention to interpersonal relations, sense of identity, person-organization goal alignment, problemsolving, cross-cultural experience 

Schmitdtchen, 1997 (as cited in Vanderpool, 2002) 

Self-rep

Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Communication Effectiveness 

Display of respect, interaction posture, orientation to knowledge, empathy, task related roles, relational roles, interaction management, tolerance for ambiguity 

Koester & Olebe, 1988 Peer or 

observereport 

Prospector Sensitivity to cultural differences, business knowledge, 

courage, brings out the best in people, integrity, insightful, committed, takes risks, seeks feedback, uses feedback, is cultural adventurous, seeks learning opportunities, open to criticism, flexibility 

Spreitzer et al., 1997 Self or o

report 

Cross-Cultural Social Intelligence 

Empathy, ethnocentrism Ascalon, 2006 SJT 
accompanied by judgments about the relative value of a culture. The resolution of this judgment leads 

to the third stage within an ethnocentric orientation - minimization. Cultural tolerance is characteristic 

of this stage. Individuals are aware of cultural differences but tend to assume that their own values 

apply to other cultures. They fail to recognize that their own values are culturally based and therefore 

would not necessarily be shared or appreciated by individuals from other cultures. They tend to view 

cultural difference as less important than universal values or characteristics, which represents an 

important step toward the transition to an ethnorelative orientation. The drawback of this view is that 

universalism masks cultural difference and does not equip individuals with the ability to deal 

effectively with difference. 

The entry into an ethnorelative orientation is acceptance. In this stage, individuals experience a 

cognitive shift that enables them to see a culture from the perspective of its members, without 

compromising their own cultural values or beliefs. Acceptance then allows for the development of 

adaptation, which is the ultimate goal for individuals working in a foreign culture. Adaptation consists 

of the ability to adjust one’s behavior for a different cultural setting. At this stage, the individual is 

able to shift in and out of different cultural frames and behavioral codes. A sixth stage in this model is 

integration, which provides no incremental advantage in effectiveness over adaptation, but is instead a 

change in identity experienced by some individuals who routinely shift between two cultures. For 

some individuals, integration is a positive aspect of their identity, whereas for others it may be 

negative, if experienced as a hindrance to coherence or stability in identity. According to the 

developmental model of intercultural sensitivity, integration is independent from the other stages. 

In the IDI, the defense and denial stages are indistinguishable in terms of measurement and 

comprise a single subscale (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). The acceptance and adaptation 

stages also comprise a single subscale. Thus, the IDI consists of five subscales with adequate 

reliability (Paige, Cohen, & Shively, 2003). Notably, the IDI does not correlate with a commonly 

accepted measure of social desirability (Hammer et al.; Paige et al.); thus, evidence suggests that 

responses to the IDI generally do not reflect attempts to endorse a politically correct view. Validation 

research has shown that the IDI successfully distinguishes individuals with prior intercultural 

experience, prior experience studying cultures or languages, and a tendency to socialize with people 

from other cultures (Paige et al.). The overall IDI shows no gender differences (Altshuler, Sussman, & 

Kachur, 2003; Hammer et al.; Paige et al.), with the exception of the Defense/Denial subscale, on 

which higher scores emerge in males than females (Altshuler et al.; Hammer et al.). Use of the IDI in a 

training intervention among physicians suggests that gender differences may influence response to 

training (Altshuler et al.), with female physicians benefiting more than males. 

 

Research has shown that higher intercultural sensitivity, as measured by the IDI, is associated 

with foreign language proficiency. In one study of university faculty and staff, self-rated foreign 

language proficiency was associated with higher scores on the IDI (Olson & Kroeger, 2001). Another 

study using a student sample showed results suggestive of such an association, but did not test that 

relationship directly (Engle & Engle, 2003). In addition, IDI scores are associated with intercultural 

experience. Faculty and staff who reported greater experience abroad, either living or frequently 

traveling abroad, had higher IDI scores than those with less experience abroad (Olson & Kroeger). A 

longitudinal study of study abroad students revealed a similar finding, with students showing higher 

IDI scores after study abroad than before (Paige et al., 2004). More specifically, these students showed 

a decrease in reversal and an increase in acceptance/adaptation. The generalizability of this measure 

28 
across languages and cultures has been called into question (Greenholtz, 2005), but when used with a 

U.S. sample, the IDI has accumulated criterion validity from a variety of sources. 

 

Cross-Cultural Competence as Trait-Based 

Conceptualizing cross-cultural competence as a set of personality traits represents an attempt to 

identify culture-general predictors of intercultural effectiveness (Matsumoto et al., 2001), by using a 

narrower set of traits than found in universal dimensions of personality (Van der Zee & van 

Oudenhoven, 2000). Two such measures are the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; van 

der Zee & van Oudenhoven) and the Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS; Matsumoto et 

al., 2001). The items on both of these scales generally are not worded explicitly to address attitudes 

toward or knowledge of different cultures, which may be an advantage over measures like the CQ and 

MASQUE in terms of reducing the potential influence of socially desirable response sets. 

Multicultural Personality Questionnaire 

The MPQ was developed on Dutch student samples and includes subscales for cultural 

empathy, emotional stability, social initiative, open-mindedness, and flexibility (Van der Zee & van 

Oudenhoven, 2000; Van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2001). Versions of this instrument are available 

in English and in Dutch. Evidence indicates that the MPQ subscales correlate with more general 

personality constructs. Correlations between the MPQ and the Big Five, as measured by the NEO-PIR, showed strong relationships between social initiative and extraversion and between emotional 

stability and neuroticism (negative relation) (Van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000). Moderate 

relationships emerged between open-mindedness on the MPQ and openness on the NEO-PI-R, 

between MPQ flexibility and NEO openness, and between flexibility and extraversion. Self-efficacy 

also shows small to moderate correlations with all of the MPQ subscales (van Oudenhoven & Van der 

Zee, 2002). 

Although correlated with these constructs, the MPQ contributes predictive power over and 

above the more general measures of personality. The MPQ predicted additional variability in both 

international orientation and interest in an international career beyond that predicted by the Big Five 

personality traits (Van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000; Leone, Van der Zee, van Oudenhoven, 

Perugini, & Ercolani, 2005) and in behavioral competence beyond that predicted by the Big Five (Van 

der Zee et al., 2003).The MPQ also predicts adjustment beyond that predicted by self-efficacy (van 

Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002). 

The MPQ also correlates with more specific traits. One study showed that need for cognitive 

closure was negatively related to both open-mindedness and flexibility on the MPQ (Leone et al., 

2005). Higher levels of open-mindedness were also associated with greater need for cognition, which 

reflects motivation to seek complex and challenging situations. It should be noted that need for 

cognition predicted international orientation beyond both the MPQ and Big Five traits, suggesting one 

potentially important motivational factor not sufficiently represented in the MPQ. 

29 
Additional evidence of the scale’s validity emerged from self and other ratings, with moderate 

correlations emerging for open-mindedness, emotional stability, social initiative, and flexibility 

between students’ self-ratings and ratings by a close friend or family member (Van der Zee & van 

Oudenhoven, 2001). The cultural empathy subscale is the least consistent of the subscales, as it failed 

to form an independent factor in initial research (Van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000) and was the 

only subscale to show no significant self-other correlation (Van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2001). It 

should be noted that although this factor is labeled ‘cultural empathy,’ the items that comprise this 

factor refer to interpersonal sensitivity very broadly, and do not mention differing cultural groups. 

In another student sample, differences emerged on the MPQ between students preparing to 

study abroad and first-year psychology students (Van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2001). Psychology 

students scored higher on cultural empathy and emotional stability, but study-abroad students scored 

higher on open-mindedness, social initiative, and flexibility. This finding was confirmed in a 

subsequent study of participants in an intercultural consulting program, in which previous experience 

living abroad was correlated with open-mindedness, social initiative, and flexibility, but not with 

cultural empathy or emotional stability (Van der Zee & Brinkmann, 2004). In students attending an 

international business school, the MPQ was related to adjustment, particularly for foreign students 

(van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002). Subjective well-being, perceived peer support, and self-rated 

mental health all showed stronger relationships to MPQ subscales in foreign-born students than in 

native-born students, with mental health correlations emerging at two time points six months apart. 

Thus, evidence indicates that the MPQ assesses traits important for the intercultural experience itself, 

not just for effective adjustment and performance more generally. 

 

Evidence also suggests that the MPQ subscales may differentially predict intercultural 

outcomes. In an expatriate employee sample, emotional stability was the best predictor of personal 

adjustment, both physical and psychological, and social adjustment, whereas flexibility best predicted 

job satisfaction and perceived social support (van Oudenhoven et al., 2003). In a student sample, predeparture scores on social initiative proved to be the best predictor of adjustment two to three months 

into an exchange program (Leong, 2007), demonstrating that different facets may be more relevant for 

particular populations or outcomes. 

Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale 

As the MPQ, the ICAPS measures culture-general traits that contribute to intercultural 

effectiveness, but focuses primarily on adjustment outcomes and was initially developed for use with 

Japanese expatriates in the U.S. (Matsumoto et al., 2001). The ICAPS includes subscales for emotion 

regulation, openness, flexibility, and creativity. This fourth factor of creativity has been alternatively 

labeled critical thinking (Matsumoto et al., 2003; 2004); however, some items may be more accurately 

described as reflecting autonomy. The ICAPS correlates with a variety of adjustment measures, even 

after controlling for years in the U.S. and self-rated language proficiency (Matsumoto et al., 2001). 

Individuals with higher ICAPS scores report lower levels of depression (Matsumoto et al., 2001), 

anxiety (Matsumoto et al., 2003), and homesickness (Yoo et al., 2006). As the MPQ, the ICAPS has 

predictive utility over and above the Big Five traits of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, 

neuroticism, and openness (Matsumoto et al., 2004). 

30 
Although language proficiency does not account for the relationship between the ICAPS and 

adjustment, self-rated language proficiency is related (Matsumoto et al., 2003). English reading and 

speaking skills correlated significantly with ICAPS scores. Evidence suggests that the ICAPS is useful 

not only with Japanese expatriates, but also with other, non-Japanese sojourner and immigrant groups 

living in the U.S., with emotion regulation emerging as the most important factor in predicting 

adjustment (Matsumoto et al., 2003, Studies 5 and 6). 

Other Trait Measures 

Other measures include a trait-based component but also encompass other approaches, and 

validity for these measures is less well-established. The Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (ICSI; 

Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992) combines a trait-based approach with a culture-specific component. The 

ICSI measures openness and flexibility, as well as the extent to which respondents endorse 

individualism or collectivism when asked how they would behave if working in Japan vs. the United 

States. In a study of graduate-level students, scores on the ICSI were related with interest in working 

with people from different cultures and experience living abroad, but not with knowing other 

languages or having friends from other cultures (Bhawuk & Brislin). The ICSI showed some ability to 

discriminate between students rated by academic program staff as highly effective in intercultural 

interactions and those rated as less effective. In contrast, the scale did not discriminate between 

individuals living in an intercultural dormitory and those living elsewhere (Bhawuk & Brislin). In a 

training intervention, participants who participated in cross-cultural training exercises did show 

increases from their pre-test ICSI scores to the post-test scores (Sizoo & Serrie, 2004). Additional 

research using the ICSI is needed to determine its utility for culture-general purposes and for 

predicting effectiveness. 

The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) includes a mix of traits 

(flexibility/openness, emotional resilience, personal autonomy) and skill in detecting and decoding 

verbal and nonverbal cues (perceptual acuity) (Kelley & Meyers, 1995). This measure has been used 

as an outcome in training programs (e.g., Goldstein & Smith, 1999); however, little evidence of this 

measure’s validity is available. One study showed that the four dimensions of the CCAI did not 

emerge from factor analyses (Davis & Finney, 2006), and another revealed that higher CCAI scores 

were associated with a tendency to endorse items indicating self-deception (Montagliani & Giacalone, 

1998). Thus, despite frequent use in training programs, the CCAI lacks sufficient evidence to warrant 

further use. 

Despite some variation in sample nationalities for these measures, additional research is 

needed for these trait-based approaches to determine whether similar factor structure and similar 

predictive patterns emerge for a U.S. military population. The application of these measures also 

warrants further exploration. For example, one study showed that scores on the ICAPS increased 

immediately after a one-day seminar on intercultural communication (Matsumoto et al., 2001), 

suggesting that intercultural traits are responsive to training. However, this study included no control 

group and no follow up to measure actual adjustment, so it remains unclear whether the training itself 

produced the increase, whether these increases were sustained, and whether the increases related to 

actual adjustment during the sojourners’ stay in the U. S. Because traits are generally assumed to be 

31 
stable, traits are an unlikely target for training. Instead, a trait-based approach may prove most useful 

in selection or in predicting which individuals would be most responsive to training. 

Cross-Cultural Competence as Behavior 

Behavioral approaches to assessing cross-cultural competence argue that personality traits are 

incomplete as predictors of intercultural effectiveness. Because traits describe general patterns, they do 

not specify what behaviors enable successful intercultural interactions (Hammer, 1987). This approach 

also views knowledge as insufficient, as knowledge does not necessarily enable an individual to enact 

the appropriate behaviors (Ruben & Kealey, 1979). Behavioral approaches focus instead on 

identifying the behaviors associated with effective communication (Martin & Hammer, 1989). 

Measurement approaches drawing on the behavioral perspective depend on observational 

methods rather than self-report. Behavior can be assessed either by a third-party observer (Ruben, 

1976) or by individuals who have personally interacted with a target (Koester & Olebe, 1988). One 

such measure is the Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Communication Effectiveness 

(BASIC) (Koester & Olebe). This scale uses behavioral dimensions based on work by Ruben (1976): 

display of respect, interaction posture, empathy, task roles, relational roles, interaction management, 

orientation to knowledge, and tolerance for ambiguity (Koester & Olebe). Ratings provided by 

roommates showed that these dimensions were relevant to communication effectiveness regardless of 

whether the target is from the U. S. or from another country (Olebe & Koester, 1989), although 

different dimensions were predictive of communication effectiveness for the two groups. 

These behavioral measures have not been widely adopted. One disadvantage is that raters must 

either be trained to observe the dimensions or have extensive personal experience with the target to 

ensure sufficient opportunity to observe the relevant behaviors. The BASIC may be impractical to 

implement, as appropriate raters may not be readily available outside a research setting. 

Other Measurement Approaches 

A variety of other measurement approaches have been applied to cross-cultural competence. 

Developing measures of cross-cultural competence has been a popular subject of dissertations (e.g., 

Elmer, 1986; Myeni, 1983; Towers, 1990), with most of the resulting measures receiving little further 

testing. One promising approach is the development of a situational judgment test (SJT) for crosscultural social intelligence (CCSI) (Ascalon, 2005). The CCSI SJT assesses responses to scenarios 

involving cross-cultural interactions along the dimensions of empathy and ethnocentrism. Thus, an 

individual with a high level of CCSI will show a pattern of empathic, non-ethnocentric responses. 

Because a scenario-based measure cannot be completely culture-general, the CCSI SJT includes a 

variety of cultures (American, Chinese, Dutch, German, and Spanish) (Ascalon, Schleicher, & Born, 

2006). The CCSI SJT includes 14 scenarios with 4 options each, with each option corresponding to a 

quadrant of the Empathy-Ethnocentrism circumflex. Further development and testing of this measure 

is needed, as its criterion validity has not yet been demonstrated and its construct validity is 

questionable. Specifically, it is problematic that the CCSI SJT correlates more strongly with a measure 

of cognitive ability than with other measures of empathy and ethnocentrism (Ascalon et al., 2006). In 

32 
addition, the CCSI SJT may be incomplete as a measure of cross-cultural competence, representing 

only its affective aspects. 

Another measure needing further testing is the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Scale (CCAS). The 

CCAS is the only measure obtained for the current report that was developed for use with military 

personnel (Vanderpool, 2002). This scale was developed as a self-report tool intended for use in 

selecting and training personnel for peacekeeping operations. Five factors emerged from this scale in 

an Australian sample: interpersonal relations/sense of identity, openness to experience, organizational 

goals/cross-cultural experience, personal goals, and problem solving. A similar factor structure was 

found in a Canadian sample. Evidence for criterion validity has not yet been published. 

 

Other measures have been developed in research on global leadership, which is a rapidly 

growing field focused on competencies related to this review. However, global leadership research 

typically emphasizes middle and upper-level managers in private industry (Kets de Vries, Kets de 

Vries, & Florent-Treacy, 2004; Lane, 2004; McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; Mendenhall, 2006; 

Morrison, 2000). Although this research draws from similar sources as this review (e.g., international 

assignments), the contextualized nature of the global leadership construct limits its relevance to crosscultural competence as conceptualized here. In addition, item content of these measures reflects 

business and management concepts throughout. For example, the Global Leadership Life Inventory 

includes relevant dimensions, such as resilience to stress, but includes others specific to management 

roles, such as rewarding and giving feedback (Kets de Vries et al., 2004). The Prospector measure has 

similar limitations, although it includes learning dimensions that may be particularly relevant 

(Spreitzer, McCall, & Mahoney, 1997). 

Other emerging measurement approaches use testing methodologies that minimize the role of 

self-report. For example, testing for proficiency in nonverbal communication is one promising 

approach. Individuals are generally better able to decode emotion and other nonverbal cues in their 

own culture and ethnic group (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002), but understanding these cues is critical in 

cross-cultural settings where language may be a barrier. Research using the Gesture Recognition Task 

has shown that the ability to decode gestures in a foreign culture relates to one’s communication 

competence and comfort in that culture (Molinsky, Krabbenhoft, Ambady, & Choi, 2005). Other 

research suggests that the ability to decode expressions of emotion is also predictive of intercultural 

adjustment (Yoo et al., 2006). Testing for knowledge of the display rules of a particular culture, the 

rules and norms for emotional expression, may be useful (Matsumoto, Yoo, Hirayama, & Petrova, 

2005). 

In addition to testing for knowledge, methods are available to assess attitudes without using 

self-report (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). The Implicit Association Test (IAT) uses 

reaction times in a categorization task to measure attitudes toward social groups. Participants are asked 

to categorize two types of images or text using words with positive or negative connotations. For 

example, participants in a race-based IAT may be presented with White faces and Black faces. 

Responding faster when categorizing the White faces with positive words than when categorizing 

Black faces with positive words reflects an implicit attitude that favors Whites over Blacks. This 

procedure has been used with a variety of stimuli, including names, faces, text, and symbols, 

representing both social groups and non-social objects. 

33 
Evidence of prejudice sometimes emerges in IAT responses that are not apparent from 

traditional self-report measures. One study presented male first names typical of Whites and of Arabs 

and asked participants to make the alternating categorizations described above (Park, Felix, & Lee, 

2007). Responses on the IAT showed relatively negative attitudes toward Arabs, even when explicit 

measures did not. In another study, individuals who reported authoritarian and Christian 

fundamentalist beliefs showed strong preference for Christians over Muslims in explicit, self-report, 

However, these beliefs did not correlate with implicit attitudes toward Muslims relative to Christians 

(Rowatt, Franklin, & Cotton, 2005), suggesting additional variation in attitudes that is not explained 

by self-report. 

Such findings are important, as IAT responses have been shown to predict behavior. Although 

research has not tested the IAT in the context of behavioral interactions with Arabs, studies have 

shown correlations in the context of interracial interactions. Whites who showed racial bias on an IAT 

also showed bias in their behavior toward Blacks in an interaction (McConnell & Leibold, 2001). 

Implicit attitudes are particularly predictive of nonverbal behavior toward members of other races 

(Heider & Skowronski, 2007). 

One limitation is that the predictive utility of the IAT may depend on other variables, such as 

the accessibility of the attitude and the perceived homogeneity of a social group (Lambert, Payne, 

Ramsey & Shaffer, 2005). Another potential limitation of such methods is that, to this point, they have 

been developed only as culture-specific or group-specific measures. However, these indirect measures 

are promising, especially when used as part of a multi-method approach. 

Conclusions 

In this report, we have attempted to identify the cross-cultural knowledge, skills, and affect that 

Army leaders need to better understand the adversary, interact effectively with a local population, and 

work collaboratively with coalition partners. To this end, we presented a synthesis of the literature on 

predictors of intercultural effectiveness in order to sketch out a broad concept of cross-cultural 

competence for Army leaders. The resulting definition is intended to be general enough to allow 

modification for specific job functions and specific contexts. Because Army leaders may experience 

multiple deployments to different countries over their career, we have argued for the role of culturegeneral competence. Evidence suggests that these general dimensions are at least as important as, and 

may be more important than, culture-specific variables like language and regional knowledge. The 

literature reviewed here demonstrates that cross-cultural competence can be measured and is 

responsive to training, education, and developmental experiences. Recommendations for 

measurement, training and education, and further research are discussed below. 

Measurement 

Cross-cultural competence is multi-dimensional and develops over time, and measures are 

needed that reflect that conceptualization. Existing measures have focused either on development, as 

in the case of the IDI, or on component dimensions, as in the case of the CQ, and although these 

measures have accumulated evidence for their validity, their validity has not been established with a 

34 
military population. The Army and other services will likely need a measure developed for military 

purposes. The context of military operations differs from that of the expatriate and international 

student samples in the majority of studies reviewed here. Though the predictors in previous research 

are relevant to full-spectrum military operations, the relative importance of different knowledge, skills, 

and affect may be quite different, and the overall structure of cross-cultural competence in Army 

leaders may differ from that of expatriate managers or students. 

Of particular importance to the Army is the development of assessment tools for training and 

education, to determine whether cultural training initiatives yield the anticipated benefits. Recent 

conflicts have highlighted the potential problems that emerge when operations require a high level of 

contact with the local population. All Soldiers and leaders need some amount of cross-cultural 

competence, and the Army may not be able to rely on a selection approach. The appropriate measures 

can help insure that limited time and resources for cultural training are being used in the most effective 

manner. 

A measure of cross-cultural competence should incorporate a multimethod approach. Selfreport measures have been shown to have predictive utility, but may be insufficient for some 

dimensions of cross-cultural competence. Using a 360-assessment approach would be helpful, but may 

not be practical. Thus, a testing approach may be an appropriate complement. Previous research has 

revealed some promising methods, such as Implicit Association Tests for assessing attitudes. Other 

testing methods are have also been used to a limited extent, including situational judgment testing and 

culture-specific nonverbal tests like the Gesture Recognition Test, but will require further 

development to determine whether these methods can be used effectively in a culture-general tool. 

Knowledge aspects of cross-cultural competence have been particularly poorly addressed by 

existing measures. In research on culture-specific predictors, culture-specific knowledge has proven to 

be a rather weak predictor of effectiveness (Takeuchi et al., 2002); it is possible that one reason for the 

weak relationships is that the measures are insufficient. Rather than testing participants’ knowledge, 

measures typically ask participants simply to give an assessment of their own knowledge, asking them, 

for example, to rate how much they know about customs and traditions around the world. It is unclear 

that differences between individuals’ responses on these measures represent real differences in 

knowledge, or that the items reflect the most relevant knowledge domains. Identifying relevant 

culture-general knowledge and developing a test of that knowledge is an important aspect of a training 

program addressing knowledge. Given the common emphasis on knowledge in cross-cultural training 

(Littrell, Salas, Hess, Paley, & Riedel, 2006), it is somewhat surprising that such a measure has not 

been developed. 

Implications for Training and Education 

Current cultural training in the Army targets primarily the knowledge component of crosscultural competence, with emphasis on culture-specific features of the contemporary operational 

environment. However, evidence for the contribution of knowledge to outcomes, independent of other 

dimensions of cross-cultural competence, is weak relative to that of other components. Thus, training 

should continue to address cultural knowledge, but should also target the other dimensions identified. 

Addressing the range of dimensions does not necessarily imply a linear increase in hours of training; 

35 
changes can be made in training approach and practical exercises to address multiple dimensions 

simultaneously. A long-term solution will require an integrated approach, in which the dimensions of 

cross-cultural competence are incorporated throughout training, education, and self-development. 

Training and education should also consider timing and the cross-cultural developmental level 

of participants. Knowledge, skills, and affect that is broadly relevant for general-purpose forces, 

regardless of job function, should be addressed in a program that is progressive and sequential. Such a 

program will provide the scaffolding needed to structure knowledge and skill acquisition in a way that 

facilitates learning. For example, Soldiers who are highly ethnocentric or have very little experience 

interacting with other cultures may be resistant to retaining in-depth information about a foreign 

culture, either due to low motivation or to the lack of a framework for organizing the knowledge. One 

approach would be a relative emphasis early in institutional training and education (initial military 

training and professional military education) on culture-general capability, with operational training 

placing greater emphasis on the specific culture of the contemporary operational environment. In 

general, both culture-general and culture-specific training is recommended (Graf, 2004; Wiseman et 

al., 1989), and there are likely to be some aspects of the two acquired in parallel and some acquired in 

sequence. However, little research directly addresses how cross-cultural competence is acquired 

(Yamazaki & Kayes, 2004). 

Research Gaps 

In addition to determining how cross-cultural competence is acquired, research is needed to 

address the extent to which the dimensions and their components are responsive to education and 

training. With limited time and resources, training must prioritize the components that are likely to 

show the greatest progress. Researchers have tended to make assumptions about the degree of stability 

in the constructs of interest; however, the availability of a “trait” measure of a construct is insufficient 

to establish that a particular attribute is stable. The constructs measured by the MPQ, for example, are 

presented as personality traits, when, in fact, some of them may in fact be highly trainable and have 

only a small dispositional component. Research must address the basis for identifying constructs as 

either dispositional or learned, rather than simply labeling them as such. These are critical distinctions 

with potential implications for selection, as well as for training and education. 

Research has shown consensus on conceptualizing broad traits like the Big Five and linking 

them to intercultural outcomes. More dynamic dimensions of cross-cultural competence show less 

conceptual convergence. This lack of consensus is one obstacle to measuring and training crosscultural competence. For example, interpersonal skills and flexibility have been defined quite 

differently by different researchers. Better specification of the relevant constructs is needed so that 

appropriate training methods can be developed. 

In particular, the knowledge dimension of cross-cultural competence has received very little 

attention and warrants closer examination. In the current conceptualization of cross-cultural 

competence, we have argued that the development of cross-cultural schema supports learning about 

and navigating through an unfamiliar culture. A schema is a knowledge structure containing abstract 

representations of concepts, situations, or events, which organizes pieces of information and specifies 

the relationships between them. Although schemas can produce biased cognition (see Fiske & Taylor, 

36 
1991), schemas provide direction to cognitive processing and can facilitate learning (Halford & 

Busby, 2007). Individuals with experience in multiple cultures may implicitly develop a cross-cultural 

schema that represents concepts related to culture, which may be beneficial if explicitly taught to 

individuals with less intercultural experience. Past research has asked individuals what they know or 

believe about communicating effectively across cultures (Graf, 2004; Martin & Hammer, 1989), but 

the questions only addressed the context of interpersonal interactions rather than the broader domain 

of cross-cultural knowledge. 

Several frameworks have been developed that identify a small set of dimensions on which 

cultures differ, such as Hofstede (1980), Trompenaars-Hampden-Turner (1993), and the Global 

Leadership and Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness (GLOBE) project (House et al., 2004). The 

focus of this research has been primarily to determine how cultures differ, rather than to determine 

what knowledge enables effective adaptation in a foreign culture. Although these frameworks show 

promise when used as an education or training tool (Gannon & Poon, 1997), they do not directly 

identify what culture-general knowledge contributes to intercultural outcomes. In addition, researchers 

suggest that the complexity in one’s understanding of culture is important (Osland & Bird, 2000); 

thus, a cross-cultural schema should be dynamic, updated as new information is encountered. Existing 

dimensional frameworks of cultural difference may lead to a static view of culture and could have the 

unintended side effect of promoting stereotyping of individuals within a culture. 

In the military context, teaching cross-cultural knowledge is one goal of the Marine Corps 

Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning, for which they have adopted the term ‘operational 

culture.’ However, to date, the content has not yet been empirically tied to outcomes, and no measures 

have been developed to assess this knowledge. ARI has initiated some research to address this issue, 

seeking to identify the content and structure of a cross-cultural schema. This research will contribute 

to the development of methods to assess cross-cultural schema. 

 Research from an intercultural communications perspective has emphasized the culture-general 

nature of cross-cultural competence (e.g., Hammer, 1987). However, the acquisition of cross-cultural 

competence likely builds, at least in part, from personal experiences involving the intersection of two 

or more cultures. Thus, culture-specific learning likely contributes to culture-general competence. 

Research has not yet addressed how regional/cultural knowledge or experiences contribute to crosscultural (i.e, transferable) competence. In addition, research suggests that certain dimensions may be 

perceived as more relevant than others for particular cultures (Graf, 2004). Future research must 

address the relationship among the three cultural capability sets: regional expertise, language, and 

cross-cultural competence, as these are likely to interact in development. Ideally, a training and 

development program would identify opportunities to build on each, creating a scaffolding to support 

overall cultural readiness.

37 
38 
References 

Adler, N. J. (1987). Pacific Basin managers: A gaijin, not a woman. Human Resource Management, 

26, 169-191. 

Adler, N. J. (1986). Do MBAs want international careers? International Journal of Intercultural 

Relations, 10, 277-300. 

Ali, A., Van der Zee, K., & Sanders, G. (2003). Determinants of intercultural adjustment among 

expatriate spouses. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 563-580. 

Altshuler, L., Sussman, N. M., & Kachur, E. (2003). Assessing changes in intercultural sensitivity 

among physician trainees using the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal 

of Intercultural Relations, 27, 387-401. 

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural 

intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31, 100-123. 

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., et al. (in press). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on 

cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation, and task performance. 

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., & Ng, K.-Y. (2004, August). The measurement of cultural 

intelligence. Paper presented at the 2004 Academy of Management Meeting Symposium on 

Cultural Intelligence in the 21st Century, New Orleans, LA. 

Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57, 774-783. 

Arthur, W., & Bennett, W. (1995). The international assignee: The relative importance of factors 

perceived to contribute to success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 99-114. 

Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: 

A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 234-

245. 

Ascalon, M. E. (2005). Improving expatriate selection: Development of a situational judgment test to 

measure cross-cultural social intelligence. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tulsa, 2005). 

Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 9-B. 

Ascalon, M. E., Schleicher, D. J., & Born, M. P. (2006). Cross-cultural social intelligence: An 

assessment for employees working in cross-national contexts. Manuscript submitted for 

publication. 

Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1997). A stitch in time: Self-regulation and proactive coping. 

Psychological Bulletin, 121, 417-436. 

Aycan, Z. (1997). Expatriate adjustment as a multifaceted phenomenon: Individual and organizational 

39 
 level predictors. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 434-456. 

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control: WH Freeman: New York. 

Bar-On, R., Maree, J. G., & Elias, M. J. (2007). Educating people to be emotionally intelligent. 

Westport, CT, US: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. 

Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Björkman, I. (2007). Language fluency, socialization, and inter-unit 

relationships in Chinese and Finnish subsidiaries. Management and Organization Review, 3, 

105-128. 

Benet-Martinez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and 

psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015-1049. 

Benet-Martinez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. X. (2006). Biculturalism and cognitive complexity - Expertise 

in cultural representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 386-407. 

Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International 

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 179-195. 

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. 

Education for the Intercultural Experience, 2, 21-71. 

Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward 

multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2 ed., pp. 62-77). Newton, MA: 

Intercultural Resource Corporation. 

nd

Berry, J. W. (1987). Psychological acculturation of immigrants. In Y. K. Young & W. B. Gudykunst 

(Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation: Current theory and research (pp. 312-326). Newbury Park, 

CA: Sage. 

Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk, D. M. (2005). Input-based and timebased models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions. 

Academy of Management Journal, 48, 257-281. 

Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1998). The role of culture theory in cross-cultural training. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 29, 630-655. 

Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the 

concepts of individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 

16, 413-436. 

Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. W. (2000). Cross-cultural training: A review. Applied Psychology: An 

International Review, 49, 162-191. 

40 
Bird, A., Osland, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Schneider, S. C. (1999). Adapting and adjusting to other 

cultures: What we know but don’t always tell. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8, 152-165. 

Black, J. S. (1988). Work role transitions: A study of American expatriate managers in Japan. Journal 

of International Business Studies, 19, 277-294. 

Black, J. S. (1990). The relationship of personal characteristics with the adjustment of Japanese 

expatriate managers. Management International Review, 30, 119-134. 

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment for expatriates in 

Pacific Rim assignments. Human Relations, 44, 497-515. 

Brislin, R. W. (1986). A culture general assimilator: Preparation for various types of sojourns. 

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 215-234. 

Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. (1994). Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for cross-cultural 

training programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The big five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate's desire to 

terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53, 67-88. 

Caligiuri, P. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1998). Can we send her there? Maximizing the success of Western 

women on global assignments. Journal of World Business, 33, 394-416. 

Caligiuri, P. M., & Day, D. V. (2000). Effects of self-monitoring on technical, contextual, and 

assignment-specific performance. Group & Organization Management, 25, 154-174. 

Caligiuri, P. M., & Tung, R. L. (1999). Comparing the success of male and female expatriates from a 

US-based multinational company. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, 

763-782. 

Chao, G. T., & Moon, H. (2005). The cultural mosaic: A metatheory for understanding the complexity 

of culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1128-1140. 

Chen, G., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis. 

Communication Yearbook, 19, 353-383. 

Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 540-572. 

Chiu, C., Morris, M. W., Hong, Y., & Menon, T. (2000). Motivated cultural cognition: The impact of 

implicit cultural theories on dispositional attribution varies as a function of need for closure. 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 247-259. 

Ciarrochi, J., & Mayer, J. D. (2007). Applying emotional intelligence: A practitioner’s guide. New 

York, NY: Psychology Press. 

41 
Conley, J. J. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multitrait-multimethodmultioccasion analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1266-1282. 

Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Arenberg, D. (1980). Enduring dispositions in adult males. Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 793-800. 

Cui, G., & Awa, N. E. (1992). Measuring intercultural effectiveness: An integrative approach. 

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 311-328. 

Cui, G., & Van Den Berg, S. (1991). Testing the construct validity of intercultural effectiveness. 

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 227-241. 

Cushner, K. (1989). Assessing the impact of a culture-general assimilator. International Journal of 

Intercultural Relations, 13, 125-146. 

Dalton, M., & Wilson, M. (2000). The relationship of the Five-Factor Model of personality to job 

performance for a group of Middle Eastern expatriate managers. Journal of Cross-Cultural 

Psychology, 31, 250-258. 

Davis, S. L., & Finney, S. J. (2006). A factor analytic study of the Cross-Cultural Adaptability 

Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 318-330. 

Detweiler, R. A. (1975). On inferring the intentions of a person from another culture. Journal of 

Personality, 43, 591-611. 

Detweiler, R. A. (1978). Culture, category width, and attributions: A model-building approach to the 

reasons for cultural effects. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9, 259. 

Detweiler, R. A. (1980). Intercultural interaction and the categorization process: A conceptual analysis 

and behavioral outcome. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 4, 275-293. 

Earley, P. C. (2002). Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations: Moving forward with 

cultural intelligence. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational 

behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews. (pp. 271-299): Elsevier 

Science/JAI Press. 

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. 

Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. 

Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). Is there an in-group advantage in emotion recognition? 

Psychological Bulletin, 128, 243-249. 

Elmer, M. I. (1987). Intercultural effectiveness: Development of an intercultural competency scale. 

(Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 

47, 7-A, 2487. (UMI No. 8625019)

42 
Elron, E., Shamir, B., & Ben-Ari, E. (1999). Why don't they fight each other? Cultural diversity and 

operational unity in multinational forces. Armed Forces & Society, 26, 73-97. 

Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2003). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity development 

in relation to study abroad program design. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study 

Abroad, 10, 219-236. 

Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric 

anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327-339. 

Feldman, D. C., & Thomas, D. C. (1992). Career management issues facing expatriates. Journal of 

 International Business Studies, 23, 271-293. 

Fiedler, F. E., Mitchell, T., & Triandis, H. C. (1971). The culture assimilator: An approach to crosscultural training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 95-102. 

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. 

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239. 

Forehand, M. R., Deshpande, R., & Reed, A., II. (2002). Identity salience and the influence of 

differential activation of the social self-schema on advertising response. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 87, 1086-1099. 

Frenkel-Brunswick, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as emotional and perceptual personality 

variable. Journal of Personality, 18, 108-143. 

Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its 

measurement and applications. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, 

Social, 14, 179-199. 

Galchenko, I., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). The role of perceived cultural distance in the 

acculturation of exchange students in Russia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 

31, 181-197. 

Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, 

stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 78, 708-724. 

Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological 

Bulletin, 126, 530-555. 

GMAC. (2006). Global relocation trends 2005 survey report ([www document] 

http://www.gmacglobalrelocation.com/insight_support/grts/2005_GRTS.pdf).

43 
Goldstein, D. L., & Smith, D. H. (1999). The analysis of the effects of experiential training on 

sojourners’ cross-cultural adaptability. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 

157-173. 

Graf, A. (2004). Screening and training inter-cultural competencies: Evaluating the impact of national 

culture on inter-cultural competencies. International Journal of Human Resource 

Management, 15, 1124-1148. 

Greenland, K., & Brown, R. (2005). Acculturation and contact in Japanese students studying in the 

United Kingdom. Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 373-389. 

Greenwald, A. G.. McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in 

implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 74, 1464-1480. 

Guthrie, G. M., & Zektick, I. N. (1967). Predicting performance in the Peace Corps. Journal of Social 

Psychology, 71, 11-21. 

Halford, G. S., & Busby, J. (2007). Acquisition of structured knowledge without instruction: The 

relational schema induction paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, 

Memory, and Cognition, 33, 586-603. 

Hammer, M. R. (1987). Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: A replication and 

extension. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 65-88. 

Harris, J. G. (1973). A science of the South Pacific: Analysis of the character structure of the Peace 

Corps volunteer. American Psychologist, 28, 232-247. 

Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M., J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The 

Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421-

443. 

Hammer, M. R., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural 

effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 381-

392. 

Hammer, M. R., Wiseman, R. L., Rasmussen, J. L., & Bruschke, J. C. (1998). A test of 

anxiety/uncertainty management theory: The intercultural adaptation context. Communication 

Quarterly, 46, 309-326. 

Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2006). A first large cohort study of personality trait stability over 

the 40 years between elementary school and midlife. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 91, 763-779. 

44 
Harrison, J. K., Chadwick, M., & Scales, M. (1996). The relationship between cross-cultural 

adjustment and the personality variables of self-efficacy and self-monitoring. International 

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 167-188. 

Hays, R. D. (1971). Ascribed behavioral determinants of success-failure among US expatriate 

managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 2, 40-46. 

Hawes, F., & Kealey, D. J. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian technical assistance. International 

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 5, 239-258. 

Hechanova, R., Beehr, T. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of 

employees' adjustment to overseas assignment: A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology: 

An International Review, 52, 213-236. 

Heider, J. D., & Skowronski, J. J. (2007). Improving the predictive validity of the Implicit Association 

Test. North American Journal of Psychology, 9, 53-76. 

Herman, J. L., Buffardi, L., & Tetrick, L. E. (2006). Cross-cultural self report: Why we should and 

when we shouldn't. Paper presented in Symposium, Self-report measurement issues in microorganizational research, Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA. 

Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Hogan, R., & Roberts, B. W. (2000). A socioanalytic perspective on person-environment interaction. 

In W. B. Walsh, K. H. Craik, & R. H. Price (Eds.), Person-environment psychology: New 

directions and perspectives (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Hogg, M. A., Sherman, D. K., Dierselhuis, J., Maitner, A. T., & Moffitt, G. (2007). Uncertainty, 

entitativity, and group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 135-142. 

Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic 

constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709-720. 

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.) (2004). Culture, 

leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Janssens, M., & Brett, J. M. (2006). Cultural intelligence in global teams: A fusion model of 

collaboration. Group & Organization Management, 31, 124-153. 

Jetten, J., Hogg, M. A., & Mullin, B. (2000). In-group variability and motivation to reduce subjective 

uncertainty. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 184-198. 

Johnson, W., McGue, M., & Krueger, R. F. (2005). Personality stability in late adulthood: A 

behavioral genetic analysis. Journal of Personality, 73, 523-551. 

45 
Kashima, E. S., & Loh, E. (2006). International students’ acculturation: Effects of international, 

conational, and local ties and need for closure. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 

30, 471-485. 

Kealey, D. J. (1989). A study of cross-cultural effectiveness: theoretical issues, practical applications. 

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 387-428. 

Kealey, D. J., & Protheroe, D. R. (1996). Effectiveness of cross-cultural training for expatriates: An 

assessment of the literature on the issue. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 

141-165. 

Kelley, C., & Meyers, J. (1995). The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: 

National Computer Systems. 

Kets de Vries, M. F. R., Kets de Vries, P. V., & Florent-Treacy, E. (2004). The Global Leadership Life 

Inventory: development and psychometric properties of a 360-degree feedback instrument. 

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 475-493. 

Kim, K., Kirkman, B. L., & Chen, G. (in press). Cultural intelligence and international assignment 

effectiveness: A conceptual model and preliminary findings. In S. Ang & L. V. Dyne (Eds.), 

Cultural intelligence: Managing diversity within and across cultures. 

Koester, J., & Olebe, M. (1988). The behavioral assessment scale for intercultural communication 

effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 233-246. 

Kosic, A., (2004). Acculturation strategies, coping process, and acculturative stress. Scandinavian 

Journal of Psychology, 45, 269-278. 

Kosic, A., Mannetti, L., & Sam, D. L. (2006). Self-monitoring: A moderating role between 

acculturation strategies and adaptation of immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural 

Relations, 30, 141-157. 

Kraemer, A. J. (1973). Development of a cultural self-awareness approach to instruction in 

intercultural communication. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization. 

(NTIS No. AD795486). 

Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and 

“freezing.” Psychological Review, 103, 263-283. 

LaFromboise, R., Coleman, H. L. K., & Hernandez, A. (1991). Development and factor structure of 

the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised. Professional Psychology: Research and 

Practice, 22, 380-388. 

LaFromboise, R., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: 

Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395-412.

46 
Lambert, A. J., Payne, B. K., Ramsey, S., & Shaffer, L. M. (2005). On the predictive validity of 

implicit attitude measures: The moderating effect of perceived group variability. Journal of 

Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 114-128. 

Landis, D., Brislin, R. W., & Hulgus, J. F. (1985). Attributional training versus contact in acculturative 

learning: A laboratory study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 466-482. 

Lane, H. W., Maznevski, M. L., Mendenhall, M., & McNett, J. (2004). The Blackwell handbook of 

global management: A guide to managing complexity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 

LaPiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13, 230-237. 

Lee, C. H., & Templer, K. J. (2003). Cultural intelligence assessment and measurement. In P. C. 

Earley & S. Ang (Eds.), Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures (pp. 

185–208). Stanford CA: Stanford Business Books. 

Leiba-O'Sullivan, S. (1999). The distinction between stable and dynamic cross-cultural competencies: 

Implications for expatriate trainability. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 709-725. 

Leone, L., Van der Zee, K. I., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Perugini, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (2005). The 

cross-cultural generalizability and validity of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. 

Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1449-1462. 

Leong, C. (2007). Predictive validity of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A longitudinal 

study on the socio-psychological adaptation of Asian undergraduates who took part in a study 

abroad program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.01.004. 

Leslie, J. B., Dalton, M., Ernst, C., & Deal, J. (2002). Managerial effectiveness in a global context. 

Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership Press. 

Lievens, F., Harris, M. M., Van Keer, E., & Bisqueret, C. (2003). Predicting cross-cultural training 

performance: The validity of personality, cognitive ability, and dimensions measured by an 

assessment center and a behavior description interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 

476-489. 

Littrell, L. N., Salas, E., Hess, K. P., Paley, N., & Riedel, S. (2006). Expatriate preparation: A critical 

analysis of 25 years of cross-cultural training research. Human Resource Development Review, 

5, 355-388. 

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense-making: What newcomers experience and how they cope in 

unfamiliar organisational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251. 

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and 

motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

47 
Martin, J. N. (1987). The relationship between student sojourner perceptions of intercultural 

competencies and previous sojourn experience. International Journal of Intercultural 

Relations, 11, 337, 355. 

Martin, J. N., & Hammer, M. R. (1989). Behavioral categories of intercultural communication 

competence: Everyday communicators’ perceptions. International Journal of Intercultural 

Relations, 13, 303-332. 

Matsumoto, D., Grissom, R. J., & Dinnel, D. L. (2001). Do between-culture differences really mean 

that people are different? A look at some measures of cultural effect size. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 32, 478-490. 

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J. A., Bernhard, R., & Gray, H. (2004). Unraveling the psychological 

correlates of intercultural adjustment potential. International Journal of Intercultural 

Relations, 28, 281-309. 

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J. A., Iwamoto, M. Choi, J. W., Rogers, D., Tatani, H., & Uchida, H. (2003). 

The robustness of the Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS): The search for a 

universal engine of adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 543-562. 

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., Ratzlaff, C., Tatani, H., Uchida, H., Kim, C., & Araki, S. (2001). 

Development and validation of a measure of intercultural adjustment potential in Japanese 

sojourners: the Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS). International Journal of 

Intercultural Relations, 25, 483-510. 

Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Hirayama, S., & Petrova, G. (2005). Development and validation of a 

measure of display rule knowledge: The Display Rule Assessment Inventory. Emotion, 5, 23-

40. 

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. 

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

McCall, M. W., Jr., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons of 

international experience. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the Implicit Association Test, 

discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental 

Social Psychology, 37, 435-442. 

Mendenhall, M. (2006). The elusive, yet critical challenge of developing global leaders. European 

Management Journal, 24, 422-429. 

Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A review. 

Academy of Management Review, 10, 39-47.

48 
Mischel, W. (1965). Predicting the success of Peace Corps volunteers in Nigeria. Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 510-517. 

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), 

Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). 

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Mitchell, T. R., Dossett, D. L., Fiedler, F. E., & Triandis, H. C. (1972). Culture training: Validation 

evidence for the culture assimilator. International Journal of Psychology, 7, 97-104. 

Mol, S. T., Born, M. P., Willemsen, M. E., & Van Der Molen, H. T. (2005). Predicting expatriate job 

performance for selection purposes: A quantitative review. Journal of Cross-Cultural 

Psychology, 36, 590-620. 

Molinsky, A. L., Krabbenhoft, M. A., Ambady, N., & Choi, Y. S. (2005). Cracking the nonverbal cod: 

Intercultural competence and gesture recognition across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural 

Psychology, 36, 380-395. 

Montagliani, A., & Giacalone, R. A. (1998). Impression management and cross-cultural adaptation. 

Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 598-608. 

Morrison, A. J. (2000). Developing a global leadership model. Human Resource Management, 39, 

117. 

Munroe, A., & Pearson, C. (2006). The Munroe Multicultural Attitude Scale Questionnaire: A new 

instrument for multicultural studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 819-

834. 

Myeni, A. D. (1984). Intercultural sensitivity: Theory development, instrument construction and 

preliminary validation. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1983). Dissertation 

Abstracts International, 44, 10-A. (UMI No. 8401031) 

Nicholls, C. E., Rothstein, M. G., & Bourne, A. (2002). Predicting expatriate work attitudes: The 

impact of cognitive closure and adjustment competencies. International Journal of CrossCultural Management, 2, 297-320. 

Nishida, H. (1985). Japanese intercultural communication competence and cross-cultural adjustment. 

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 247-269. 

Oddou, G., Mendenhall, M. E., & Ritchie, J. B. (2000). Leveraging travel as a tool for global 

leadership development. Human Resource Management, 39, 159-172.

49 
Olebe, M., & Koester, J. (1989). Exploring the cross-cultural equivalence of the behavioral assessment 

scale for intercultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 

333-347. 

Olson, C. L., & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global competency and intercultural sensitivity. Journal of 

Studies in International Education, 5, 116-137. 

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1999). Relative importance of personality dimensions for expatriate 

selection: A policy capturing study. Human Performance, 12, 275-294. 

Osland, J. S., & Bird, A. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural sensemaking in context. 

Academy of Management Executive, 14, 65-77. 

Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2004). Assessing the impact of strategies-based 

curriculum on language and culture learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal 

of Study Abroad, 10, 253-276. 

Palthe, J. (2004). The relative importance of antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment: Implications for 

managing a global workforce. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 37-59. 

Park, J., Felix, K., & Lee, G. (2007). Implicit attitudes toward Arab-Muslims and the moderating 

effects of social information. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 35-45. 

Parker, B., & McEvoy, G. M. (1993). Initial examination of a model of intercultural adjustment. 

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 355-379. 

Perunovic, W. Q. E., Heller, D., & Rafaeli, E. (2007). Within-person changes in the structure of 

emotion: The role of cultural identification and language. Psychological Science, 18, 607-613. 

Redmond, M. V., & Bunyi, J. M. (1993). The relationship of intercultural communication competence 

with stress and the handling of stress as reported by international students. International 

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 235-254. 

Ronen, S. (1989). Training the international assignee. In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.), Training and 

development in organizations (pp. 417-453). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 

Rowatt, W. C., Franklin, L. M., & Cotton, M. (2005). Patterns and personality correlates of implicit 

and explicit attitudes toward Christians and Muslims. Journal for the Scientific Study of 

Religion, 44, 29-43. 

Ruben, B. D. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group & 

Organization Management, 1, 334-354. 

Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the 

prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-

47.

50 
Saks, A. M. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of selfefficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 80, 211-225. 

Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during 

cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 449-464. 

Selmer, J. (1999). Western business expatriates' coping strategies in Hong Kong vs. the Chinese 

mainland. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 37, 92-105. 

Selmer, J. (2002). Coping strategies applied by Western vs. overseas Chinese business expatriates in 

China. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 19-34. 

Selmer, J., Torbiörn, I., & de Leon, C. T. (1998). Sequential cross-cultural training for expatriate 

business managers: Pre-departure and post-arrival. International Journal of Human Resource 

Management, 9, 831-840. 

Shaffer, M. A., & Harrison, D. A. (1998). Expatriates’ psychological withdrawal from international 

assignments: Work, nonwork, and family influences. Personnel Psychology, 51, 87-118. 

Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gregersen, H., Black, J. S., & Ferzandi, L. A. (2006). You can take it 

with you: Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 

91, 109-125. 

Shay, J. P., & Baack, S. (2006). An empirical investigation of the relationships between modes and 

degree of expatriate adjustment and multiple measures of performance. International Journal 

of Cross-Cultural Management, 6, 275-294. 

Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2006). Global work culture and global identity as a platform for shared 

understanding in multicultural teams. In Y.-R. Chen (Ed.), National culture and groups (Vol. 

9, pp. 325-352). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. 

Sinangil, H. K., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Empirical investigation of the host country perspective in 

expatriate management. New Approaches to Employee Management, 4, 173-205. 

Sizoo, S., & Serrie, H. (2004). Developing cross-cultural skills of international business students: An 

experiment. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 160-166. 

Smith, M. B. (1966). Explorations in competence: A study of Peace Corps teachers in Ghana. 

American Psychologist, 21, 555-566. 

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 30, 526-537.

51 
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters 

of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125-139. 

Soeters, J. L., Poponete, C., & Page, J. T., Jr. (2006). Culture’s consequences in the military. In T. W. 

Britt, A. B. Adler, & C. A. Castro (Eds.), Military life: The psychology of serving in peace and 

combat, Vol. 4 (pp. 13-34). Westport, CT: Praeger Security International. 

Spitzberg, B. H. (1990). The construct validity of trait-based measures of interpersonal competence. 

Communication Research Reports, 7, 107-115. 

Spitzberg, B. H. (1991). An examination of trait measures of interpersonal competence. 

Communication Reports, 4, 22-29. 

Stahl, G. K., & Caligiuri, P. (2005). The effectiveness of expatriates coping strategies: The moderating 

role of cultural distance, position level, and time on the international assignment. Journal of 

Applied Psychology, 90, 603-615. 

Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal 

of Social Issues, 55, 729-743. 

Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1999). Anxiety in intergroup relations: A 

comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory. 

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 613-628. 

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39. 

Takeuchi, R. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of the perceived adjustment of Japanese 

expatriates in the USA. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 1224-

1244. 

Takeuchi, R., Tesluk, P. E., Yun, S., & Lepak, D. P. (2005). An integrative view of international 

experience. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 85-100. 

Takeuchi, R., Wang, M., & Marinova, S. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of psychological 

workplace strain during expatriation: A cross-sectional and longitudinal investigation. 

Personnel Psychology, 58, 925-948. 

Takeuchi, R., Yun, S., & Russell, J. E. A. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of the perceived 

adjustment of Japanese expatriates in the USA. International Journal of Human Resource 

Management, 13, 1224-1244. 

Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job 

preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural adjustment. Group and 

Organization Management, 31, 154-173.

52 
Towers, K. L. (1991). Intercultural sensitivity survey: Construction and initial validation. Doctoral 

dissertation, University of Iowa, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 5-A, 1645. 

Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley. 

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture (2nd ed.). London: 

Nicholas Brealey Publishing. 

Tung, R. L. (2004). The model global manager? Organizational Dynamics, 33, 243-253. 

Van den Bos, K., Poortvliet, P. M., Maas, M., Miedema, J., & van den Ham, E. (2005). An enquiry 

concerning the principles of cultural norms and values: The impact of uncertainty and 

mortality salience on violations and bolstering of cultural worldviews. Journal of Experimental 

Social Psychology, 41, 91-113. 

Van der Zee, K. I., & Brinkmann, U. (2004). Construct validity evidence for the Intercultural 

Readiness Check against the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. International Journal of 

Selection and Assessment, 12, 285-290. 

Van der Zee, K. I., & van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A 

multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 

14, 291-309. 

Van der Zee, K. I., & van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2001). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: 

Reliability and validity of self and other ratings of multicultural effectiveness. Journal of 

Research in Personality, 35, 278-288. 

Van der Zee, K., van Oudenhoven, J. P., & De Grijs, E. (2004). Personality, threat, and cognitive and 

emotional reactions to stressful intercultural situations. Journal of Personality, 72, 1069-1096. 

Van der Zee, K. I., Zaal, J. N., & Piekstra, J. (2003). Validation of the Multicultural Personality 

Questionnaire in the context of personnel selection. European Journal of Personality, 17, S77- 

S100. 

van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2002). Predicting multicultural effectiveness of 

international students: The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. International Journal of 

Intercultural Relations, 26, 679-694. 

van Oudenhoven, J. P., Mol, S., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2003). Study of the adjustment of Western 

expatriates in Taiwan ROC with the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. Asian Journal of 

Social Psychology, 6, 159-170.

53 
Vanderpool, M. (2002). The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Scale: A comparison of the psychometric 

properties observed in a Canadian and an Australian administration. Sponsor Research Report 

2002-07. Ottawa, Ontario: Human Resources Research and Evaluation. 

Varma, A., Toh, S. M., & Budhwar, P. S. (2006). A new perspective on the female expatriate 

experience: The role of host country national categorization. Journal of World Business, 41, 

112–120. 

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and 

sociocultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of 

Intercultural Relations, 18, 329-343. 

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for closure. Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062. 

Wiseman, R. L., Hammer, M. R., & Nishida, H. (1989). Predictors of intercultural communication 

competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 349-370. 

Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the Big Five. In 

R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 737-765). 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D. C. (2004). An experiential approach to cross-cultural learning: A review 

and integration of competencies for successful expatriate adaptation. Academy of Management 

Learning and Education, 3, 362-379. 

Yavas, U., & Bodur, M. (1999). Correlates of adjustment: A study of expatriate managers in an 

emerging country. Management Decision, 37, 267-278. 

Yoo, S. H., Matsumoto, D., & LeRoux, J. A. (2006). The influence of emotion recognition and 

emotion regulation on intercultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural 

Relations, 30, 345-363. 

54