[advances in global leadership] advances in global leadership volume 7 || development of the...

DEVELOPMENT OF THE

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE

ASSESSMENT

David C. Thomas, Gunter Stahl, Elizabeth C. Ravlin,

Steven Poelmans, Andre Pekerti, Martha Maznevski,

Mila B. Lazarova, Efrat Elron, Bjørn Z. Ekelund,

Jean-Luc Cerdin, Richard Brislin, Zeynep Aycan

and Kevin Au

ABSTRACT

The construct of cultural intelligence has recently been introduced to themanagement literature as an individual difference that may predicteffectiveness and a variety of interpersonal behavior in the global businessenvironment. This construct has enormous potential in helping to explaineffectiveness in cross-cultural interactions. However, progress has beenlimited by the adequacy of existing measures. In this chapter, we describethe development and preliminary validation of a web-based assessmentof cultural intelligence based on our conceptualization of culturalintelligence.

Advances in Global Leadership, Volume 7, 155–178

Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1535-1203/doi:10.1108/S1535-1203(2012)0000007011

155

DAVID C. THOMAS ET AL.156

Today’s global business environment puts the need to effectively managecross-cultural interactions into the organizational performance equation asnever before. The idea that some individuals have certain attributes thatallow them to be effective in cross-cultural interactions is not new (e.g.,Church, 1982; Cushner & Brislin, 1996; Ting-Toomey, 1999). Recently,however, efforts to describe this individual difference in terms of a type ofintelligence have emerged. Cultural intelligence has been introduced to themanagement literature as a quantitative continuum of individual differencealong which people may be arrayed according to how much of this attributethey possess (Earley, 2002; Earley & Ang, 2003; Thomas, 2006; Thomas &Inkson, 2004). However, the utility of this construct along with conceptuallysimilar others such as intercultural competency and global mindset has beensomewhat limited (see Thomas, 2010).

In this chapter, we describe the development and initial validation steps ofa web-based assessment tool based on our conceptualization of culturalintelligence (Thomas et al., 2008) intended to provide an improved oper-ationalization of the concept. We first provide a brief review of fundamentalconceptual issues in development of the construct, including its relation-ship to effective cross-cultural interactions. In addition, we briefly discussits dimensionality, which is of central importance to our approach tomeasurement.

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE DEFINED

We define cultural intelligence as a system composed of knowledge andskills, linked by cultural metacognition that allows people to adapt to,select, and shape the cultural aspects of their environment (Thomas et al.,2008). As a multifaceted conceptualization of intelligence (see Sternberg,1997), it includes multiple types of knowledge (understanding of a body ofinformation) and skills (mastery of an application of knowledge), andinvolves both cognitive and metacognitive (knowledge of and control overone’s thinking and learning) dimensions. In this conceptualization, wedifferentiate between intelligence and intelligent behavior. That is, whatconstitutes intelligent behavior (demonstrating appropriate knowledge andskills) may differ from one cultural environment to another (e.g., Cole, Gay,Glick, & Sharp, 1971; Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006). Further, thesame mental processes may give rise to different behaviors in differentcultural contexts. Therefore, it is essential that cultural intelligence capture

Cultural Intelligence Assessment 157

that aspect of intelligence that is common across cultures, as opposed towhat varies between them.

Cultural intelligence involves knowledge and skills that are developedwithin a specific cultural (cross-cultural) context. However, effectiveness inproducing culturally intelligent behavior depends on a culture-generalprocess element called cultural metacognition. As in other domains ofresearch that address complex outcomes (e.g., Hanisch, Hulin, & Roznowski,1998), cultural intelligence is multidimensional and has compensatoryqualities in its effects on the outcome of culturally intelligent behavior. Thecomponent elements of cultural intelligence outlined here are somewhatsimilar to those presented in other conceptualizations (e.g., Earley, 2002;Earley & Ang, 2003). However, the definition of cultural intelligence as asystem of interacting abilities is unique, as is the linking function of culturalmetacognition. Other important differences include both theoretical andmethodological characteristics.

First, Earley and colleagues (e.g., Earley & Ang, 2003) include in theirconceptualization a motivational component that is absent in the con-ceptualization presented here. As articulated by others (Gelfand, Imai, &Fehr, 2008), we believe that such inclusion casts an inappropriately positive(pro-social) halo over the construct. That is, in addition to the conceptualissues introduced by a motivational aspect to intelligence (Sternberg, 1997),our view is that a motivation to have positive interactions with culturallydifferent others is not a requirement for cultural intelligence. Second, Earleyand colleagues’ conceptualization, particularly as operationalized by Angand Van Dyne (2008), suggests that the (four) facets of cultural intelligenceexist at the same level as the overall construct, which they call an aggregatemultidimensional construct. However, they do not specify the manner inwhich the constructs combine to form cultural intelligence. Furthermore,empirical tests based on this measure evaluate the relationship of each of thefour facets to outcomes, but not the relationship of the overall construct tooutcomes. Finally, the measurement of this conceptualization (Ang, VanDyne, Koh, & Ng, 2004) relies entirely on self-reports of past behavior andcognitive processes, which we believe may limit its validity (see Nisbett &Wilson, 1977).

In our view, cultural intelligence consists of the three underlying facets ofcultural knowledge, cultural skills, and culturalmetacognition, which combineto result in a higher order construct called cultural intelligence (Thomaset al., 2008). This approach is focused primarily on cognitive structures andprocesses that interactively and recursively provide the capability for effectiveintercultural behavior. In the following, we describe each of the underlying


constructs and its relationship to the latent construct; we then discussthe implications for measurement of this conceptualization and go on todescribe the construction and test of a measurement instrument.

Cultural Knowledge

Specific content knowledge of cultures is the foundation of culturalintelligence because it forms the basis for comprehending and decodingthe behavior of others and ourselves. Also, the ability to recognize theexistence of other cultures and define the nature of differences between themis indicative of the type of mental process that is at the core of systemsdefinitions of intelligence (see Sternberg, 1997). This knowledge allows abetter grasp of the internal logic and modal behavior of another culture. Itallows for mapping (Lane, DiStefano, & Maznevski, 2000) one’s self ontothe terrain of the new culture and can thus serve as a first best guess (Adler,1997) about the areas of similarity and difference that exist between two ormore cultures.

Cultural knowledge refers not only to a content component (e.g.,knowledge about cultures, social interactions, personal history), but alsoto processes stored in memory (i.e., culture-general processes directed to thesolution of specific problems). This process or procedural knowledgeincludes knowledge of the effect of culture on one’s own nature, or thenature of another, as a cognitive processor. It is knowledge about cross-cultural encounters or problem-solving, the demands of these encounters,and how those demands can be met under varying conditions. As opposedto content specific knowledge, culture-general knowledge is created bylearning from specific experience with culturally different others, but is theresult of reflective observation, analysis, and abstract conceptualization.This process creates new mental categories and re-categorizes people andevents in more sophisticated ways. That is, knowledge gained from specificexperience is recoded into broader principles (see e.g., Chi, 1978). Thisinvolves higher order cognitive processes, which we describe ahead undercultural metacognition, and results in a more complex cognitive system.

Cultural Skills

A review of the literature on individual difference constructs that arethought to explain or predict cross-cultural effectiveness, cultural adjustment,


or related outcomes reveals a wide variety of options. These options includeattitudes such as world-mindedness (Sampson & Smith, 1957), personalitycharacteristics (Costa & McCrae, 1992) such as openness (Caligiuri, 2000),and skills in a variety of domains, such as communication skills (Ting-Toomey, 1999). We expect that some stable characteristics of individuals maycontribute to the acquisition of cultural intelligence. For example, traits maypredispose individuals to learn information that fits their personalityprofile; and cultural intelligence is probably related to, yet distinct from,personality in much the same way as is emotional intelligence (Law,Wong, &Song, 2004). However, a complete discussion of the nature of any relationshipbetween personality and intelligence is beyond the scope of this chapter (seeSternberg &Ruzgis, 1994 for further discussion). Because of the dynamic anddevelopmental nature of cultural intelligence, our conceptualization centerson those individual differences that can be developed and used as levers forimprovement; hence, the use of the term skill. Limiting ourselves in this waydid not create any shortage of contenders for skill elements that mightcontribute to cultural intelligence.

The construct of cultural intelligence is so broad (in parallel with generalintelligence, see Gottfredson, 2002) that the skills components might becategorized and measured in any number of ways. The literature on this topiccontains dozens of inventories of individual differences thatmight be relevant.While the number of factors into which elements have been categorizedvaries, both empirical and conceptual approaches have tended to settle onbetween three and five factors. Some recent examples are the five aspectsof the intercultural sensitivity scale (Chen & Starosta, 2000), the threefactors of cognitive perceptual management, relationship management, andself-management of the Global Competencies Inventory (Bird, Stevens,Mendenhall, & Oddou, 2007), and an extension of the perceptual, others, andself-orientations of expatriate acculturation (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985).Regardless of the focus of these inventories, two factors appear consistently.These factors have to do with information gathering or perceptual skills andinterpersonal or relationship skills. Building on a basis of experiential learningtheory (e.g., Kolb, 1984), Yamazaki and Kayes (2004) identify four types oflearning skills that are required for expatriates to successfully adapt. These areinformation skills, interpersonal skills, action skills, and analytical skills.Consistentwith this categorization, andas describedahead in the discussionofinstrument development, we tried to capture a relatively broad list ofskills across the information, interpersonal, and action skills domains andthen reduced them statistically. The analytical skills component is concep-tually similar to cultural metacognition, discussed next.


Cultural Metacognition

Cultural metacognition, as in the more general idea of metacognition, isdefined as knowledge of and control over one’s thinking and learningactivities (Flavell, 1979; Swanson, 1990). In this case, it is control over theseactivities in the cultural domain. However, this particular aspect of culturalintelligence most clearly stands outside the specific cultural context in whichit was formed. That is, it is indicative of what Sternberg (1985) suggests arecore mental processes that transcend environmental context. For example,(a) recognizing the existence of a problem, (b) defining the nature of theproblem, (c) constructing a strategy to solve the problem, (d) mentallyrepresenting information about the problem, (e) allocating mental resourcesto solve the problem, (f) monitoring one’s solution to the problem, and(g) evaluating one’s solution to the problem are all processes that can beapplied across contexts. An empirical construct validation of metacognitionin problem-solving has found support for similar context independent com-ponents (Allen & Armour-Thomas, 1993). Consistent with this description,Flavell (1979) categorizes metacognitive thoughts as deliberate, planful,intentional, goal-directed, and future-oriented mental behaviors that can beused to accomplish cognitive tasks.

Not all researchers agree on all aspects of metacognition. However, theredoes seem to be a general consensus that metacognition involves the abilityto consciously and deliberately monitor one’s knowledge processes andcognitive and affective states (sometimes called metacognitive experiences),and also to regulate these processes and states in relation to an objective(also called metacognitive strategies). Flavell (1979) describes this processas ‘‘the active monitoring and consequent regulation (italics added) andorchestration of these (cognitive) processes in relation to the cognitiveobjects or data on which they bear, usually in service to some concrete goalor objective’’ (p. 232). We embrace the idea of active monitoring andregulation of mental processes in our definition of cultural metacognition.Cultural metacognition is thus metacognition in a specific domain, that ofcultural experiences and strategies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MEASUREMENT

We have defined cultural intelligence as a set of elements consisting ofknowledge, skills, and cultural metacognition that combine to form thelatent construct of cultural intelligence. This definition is unique both in


terms of the constituent elements and in the fact that the elements combineto form the higher level construct. In order for this construct to be useful itis important that, in addition to a clear definition, it is operationalized in areliable and valid manner. While based on somewhat different assumptionsregarding the domain of the construct, a number of assessment instrumentsthat might relate to one or more components of cultural intelligence havebeen suggested (Ang et al., 2004; Lee & Templer, 2003). These draw ourattention to the multiplicity of methods available for consideration. That is,conventional testing methods such as surveys, interviews, observations,computer simulations, critical incidents, and verbal protocols may all beused to measure one or more aspects of cultural intelligence.

For example, measuring the knowledge component clearly seemed acandidate for survey/test or interview assessment approaches. The centralquestion with regard to this component was the extent to which aninstrument could capture general aspects of knowledge that are applicableto the cultural domain, but not be so specific to one culture as to be uselessin another culture. As noted previously, the number of possible candidatesfor inclusion for important skills components of cultural intelligence wasmassive. The challenge with regard to operationalization in this case was notso much method, since most of the elements are reflected in existingpsychometric instruments, as in which skills to measure. Our strategy toachieve this end was to first create a relatively broad list of characteristicsfrom the extant literature and reduce them to those with the best predictivevalidity. Essentially, what we were aiming for is what one of the investi-gators called an ‘‘orthogonal greatest hits’’; a small collection of the mostimportant and mostly uncorrelated skills contributing to effective inter-cultural interactions.

The challenges associated with the operationalization of cultural meta-cognition were consistent with those of measuring metacognition generally.Much of the literature on metacognition relies on retrospective self-reportsas a vehicle for tapping into this construct (e.g., Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002;Schraw & Dennison, 1994). However, the ability of individuals to have anyreal introspection into their own cognitive processes has long been questioned(Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Therefore, building on the recommendations ofEricsson and Simon (1993), some researchers have investigated metacogni-tion using process tracing techniques, the most widely used of which is verbalprotocol analysis (e.g., Azevedo, Moos, Johnson, & Chauncey, 2010). Verbalprotocols assume that the way participants search for information, evaluatealternatives, choose courses of action, and so on can be registered throughtheir verbalizations. Our research suggests that no single method is likely to


assess cultural metacognition as defined in this chapter. Clearly, theretrospective self-reports of cognitive processes, proposed elsewhere (e.g.,Ang et al., 2004; Earley &Mosakowski, 2004), have limitations in their abilityto make accurate assessments.

Based on our conceptualization of cultural intelligence as a latentconstruct that emerges through the combination of its various facets, wechose to develop a matrix of assessment approaches, contained in a singledelivery vehicle. The cultural intelligence elements of knowledge (composedof two components – cultural knowledge and knowledge complexity), skills(composed of five skill dimensions), and cultural metacognition (includingboth self-report and process trace) were measured using a web-basedassessment tool. Participants were presented with questions and stimulusmaterials on a computer screen and through audio instructions. Dependingon the type of question, they responded by clicking on response setspresented on the computer screen, by verbalizing their responses, or both.Both numerical and verbal responses were recorded by the online system forsubsequent analysis.

INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT

In the following, we present three studies that provide an overview ofinstrument development and testing. Study 1 describes the development ofthe self-report items assessing knowledge and skills and the measure ofknowledge complexity. Study 2 describes the development of the self-reportand the process trace for the measure of metacognition. Study 3 describes atest of the predictive validity of the online instrument.

Study 1

The items for each of the measures of knowledge and skills were developedusing standard scale development techniques described ahead. They werepretested off line with a multinational sample (495 participants for skillsitems and 338 for knowledge items described ahead) representing 85different countries of origin. For some analyses, the sample was collapsedinto 4 cultural clusters (United States¼ 158, China and other Asian¼ 93,Canada and other Anglo¼ 130, Europe, Middle East and Africa¼ 114)based on country of birth. While this clustering was somewhat suboptimalbecause of small numbers from some countries, it did allow for theidentification and elimination of culture-specific items (items that failed to


load onunderlying constructs in all clusters as described ahead). Themean ageof participants was 30.32 years, and 50.2% were female. On average theyspoke 1.21 languages, had lived in 1.41 countries, and had visited 3.03countries. In order to establish the construct validity of the scales, weevaluated the relationship of the skills and knowledge scale items againstpersonality characteristics, social intelligence, and ethnocentrism. A descrip-tion of each of the measures and their psychometric properties follows.

Cultural KnowledgeThe knowledge component of cultural intelligence refers to content knowl-edge in a specific domain, here, the cultural domain, but also encompasses theprocess or procedural knowledge (measured as knowledge complexity)described previously. Items for this component of the assessment werederived from a review of literature on dimensions of cross-cultural variation(Hofstede, 1980; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004;Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Leung et al., 2002; Maznevski, DiStefano,Gomez, Noorderhaven, & Wu, 2002; Schwartz, 1992; Trompenaars, 1993).Twenty-one items were generated that represented the range of dimensions(both beliefs and behavioral assumptions) on which cultures are commonlyperceived to vary. A sample item was ‘‘when interacting in other cultures orwith members of other cultures, there could be differences in how much timepasses before someone is considered late.’’ Participants (N¼ 338) respondedwith regard to the level of knowledge they had (1¼no knowledge to 5¼ veryextensive knowledge) in the domain (self-reported knowledge), and also gave aspecific example of their knowledge in that domain (in an open endedstatement that was coded with regard to knowledge complexity as describedahead) in order to assess process or procedural knowledge.

Self-report items were examined for normality of distribution and itemswith a skewed distribution or leptokurtosis were discarded. The remainingitems were subjected to exploratory factor analysis. Any items with factorloadings less than .50 were discarded. The scale was then subjected tosimultaneous confirmatory factor analysis across the four cultural clustersdescribed previously. Items were reduced by reference to modificationindexes until acceptable fit statistics were achieved, w2 ¼ 117, po.01, GFI.932, AGFI .886, CMIN/df¼ 1.748, CFI¼ .767, RMSEA¼ .039. The final13-item scale showed an internal consistency reliability of .91.

In addition to the self-report of cultural knowledge, participants wereasked to give a specific example for each item from their experience, reading,and so on. The specific examples given in response to each of the 13knowledge questions were coded as to their cognitive complexity by twoindependent coders according to a 3-point scale (0¼ no example, 1¼ low


complexity, 2¼high complexity). High complexity was indicated by manyspecific, nuanced examples indicating multidimensional thinking with regardto the knowledge item. Inter-rater reliability was calculated by Cohen’skappa. The average kappa across all items was .96. The final knowledgecomplexity scale was the average rating of the 2 raters on the 13 items. Theinternal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the 13 items in the final scale was.90. The average correlation between cultural knowledge items and knowl-edge complexity items was .44. All 13 items were significantly correlated, andthe mean score on the overall cultural knowledge and knowledge complexitymeasures correlated at .35.

Cultural SkillsAs noted previously, the literature presented us with a wide variety ofconstructs that might prove relevant in evaluating cultural skills.We reviewednumerous instruments that measured skills thought to be associated withcross-cultural effectiveness. We focused on those specific skills that have beenshown to have a relationship with cross-cultural effectiveness, as defined bygood personal adjustment, indicated by feelings of contentment andwell being;development and maintenance of good interpersonal relationships withculturally different others; and the effective completion of task-related goals(see Thomas & Fitzsimmons, 2008). Specifically, items were selected (basedon their fit with the skills domains defined previously) from the adaptiveselling behavior scale (Bush, Rose, Gilbert, & Ingram, 2001), interculturalsensitivity scale (Chen&Starosta, 2000), culture-specific self-monitoring scale(Fitzsimmons, Jackson, & Thomas, 2006), willingness to communicate scale(Kassing, 1997), cross-cultural adaptability inventory (Kelley & Meyers,1992), sensation seeking scale (Morgan & Arasaratnam, 2003), interculturalcommunication apprehension scale (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997) and themulticultural personality questionnaire (van der Zee & van Oudenhoven,2001). Items were reviewed by an international and multilingual panel fortheir equivalence across cultures. While the scale was administered only inEnglish, colloquial and idiomatic language was removed to make thelanguage as neutral as possible.

The resultant 84 items were subjected to exploratory factor analysis andyielded 6 factors based on a scree test. Items with factor loadings W.50 wereretained. Then, a simultaneous confirmatory factor analysis across the fourcultural clusters was conducted. Models were constrained to equal factorloadings across cultures. Items were reduced based on modification indexesuntil an acceptable fit was achieved. This resulted in the retention of 24 itemsin 5 skill subcategories (one subcategory did not survive the reduction


process). Subscale labels, sample items, internal consistency reliability(Cronbach’s alpha), and the simultaneous fit statistics across four culturalclusters are reported in the following:

Relational Skills

� Sample item: Ordinarily, I am very calm and relaxed in conversations witha person from a different culture.

Six item scale alpha¼ .76;w2¼ 56.27, p¼ .143, GFI .962, AGFI .930, CMIN/df¼ 1.223,CFI¼ .931, RMSEA¼ .021

Tolerance for Uncertainty

� Sample item: I become anxious when I cannot find out what is comingnext. (R)

Four item scale alpha¼ .65;w2¼ 26.80, p¼ .061, GFI .974, AGFI .939, CMIN/df¼ 1.577,CFI¼ .968, RMSEA¼ .034

Adaptability� Sample item: I tend to show different sides of myself to people fromdifferent cultures.

Five item scale alpha¼ .70;w2¼ 52.69, p¼ .012, GFI .957, AGFI .920, CMIN/df¼ 1.647,CFI¼ .855, RMSEA¼ .036

Empathy� Sample item: Before criticizing somebody from another culture, I try toimagine how I would feel if I were in their place.

Three-item scale alpha¼ .71;w2¼ 5.07, p¼ .535, GFI .993, AGFI .972, CMIN/df¼ .845,CFI¼ 1.00, RMSEA¼ .00

Perceptual Acuity

� Sample item: I am often able to read feelings from eyes or facialexpressions, even with people who are culturally different.

Six item scale alpha¼ .76;w2¼ 71.40, p¼ .031, GFI .952, AGFI .920, CMIN/df¼ 1.40,CFI¼ .857, RMSEA¼ .029


Nomological NetIn order to establish the construct validity of the scales, we evaluated therelationship of the skills (N¼ 495) and knowledge (N¼ 338) items againstpersonality characteristics, social intelligence, and ethnocentrism. Person-ality characteristics were measured with a 50-item version of the big five(Goldberg, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2006). The internal consistency reliabilities(Cronbach’s alpha) of the subscales were as follows: openness¼ .72,agreeableness¼ .79, extraversion¼ .86, conscientiousness¼ .82, and neu-roticism¼ .81. Social intelligence was measured with the 24-item inter-personal factor of the Bar-On scale (Bar-On, 2001). The internal consistencyas evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha was .84. Ethnocentrism was measuredwith the 22-item generalized ethnocentrism scale (Neuliep, 2002). The alphafor this scale was .86.

Correlations with the skills and knowledge elements with the above scales(Table 1) were as predicted. For example, the cultural knowledge measurewas positively and significantly related to social intelligence and openness,and negatively and significantly related to ethnocentrism. Likewise,relational skill was positively and significantly related to openness,extroversion and social intelligence, and negatively and significantly relatedto ethnocentrism.

Also of interest, because we assumed that cultural intelligence isexperientially developed, were the relationships of languages spoken,numbers of countries lived in, and number of countries visited with theskills and knowledge elements. Number of countries lived in had thebroadest set of relationships, being correlated with all items, while numberof languages spoken was related to all items except knowledge complexityand adaptability. Number of countries visited was positively related to allitems with the exception of perceptual acuity and empathy.

Study 2

In Study 2, the measures of cultural metacognition were developed (inconjunction with a pilot test of the web-based delivery system) in an onlineenvironment utilizing a sample of 36 undergraduate (UG) and 42 executivemanagement (Execs) students. The mean age was 22.9 UG and 33.7 Execs.Females accounted for 55.6% of the Exec group, and 72.2% of the UGgroup. The Execs spoke 1.15 different languages and the UGs 1.54 onaverage.

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Variables in Study 1.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1. Age 30.32

2. Sex .06

3. Education .39�� .16��

4. Languages spoken 1.21 .02 �.07 .09�

5. Countries lived 1.41 .25�� .02 .17�� .32��

6. Countries visited 3.03 .32�� .07 .31�� .30� .37��

7. Work experience .09 �.00 .00 .16�� .18�� .11�

8. Social intelligence 4.06 .40 .03 �.24�� .01 �.04 .00 �.08 .09�

9. Ethnocentrism 2.17 .44 �.13�� .18�� .12� �.14�� .18�� .15�� .20�� .42��

10. Neuroticism 2.20 .61 �.06 �.13�� .11� .03 �.01 �.06 �.06 �.27�� .15��

11. Conscientiousness 3.72 .62 .17�� .08 .18�� .05 .01 .01 .01 .35�� .19�� .3412. Extroversion 3.68 .66 �.03 �.06 .02 .00 �.01 .07 .02 .44�� .22�� .37 .28��

13. Openness 3.72 .66 .17�� .20�� .16�� .25�� .20�� .18�� .18�� .25�� .45�� .10� .11� .25��

14. Agreeableness 3.86 .52 .12�� .16�� .02 .02 .03 �.08 .07 .43�� .36�� .32�� .32�� .09 .12��

15. Knowledge 2.50 .63 .03 �.00 .13�� .34�� .32�� .25�� .15�� .10�� .13�� .07 �.01 .12�� .23�� .05

16. Knowledge

complexity

.93 .58 .03 �.02 .13� .04 .19�� .18�� .02 .03 �.16�� .02 .00 .06 .18�� .02 .35��

17. Perceptual acuity 3.53 .52 .00 �.08 �.06 .13�� .10� �.01 .09� .41�� .09 �.07 .10� .24�� .15�� .17�� .21�� .06

18. Empathy 3.71 .64 .10� �.12�� .08 .13�� .12� .08 .17�� .31�� .32�� .15�� .13� .13�� .30�� .27�� .20�� .07 .33��

19. Tolerance for

uncertainty

2.98 .74 .26þ .02 .16�� .17�� .18�� .23�� .13�� .16�� .28�� .36�� .08 .11� .23�� .25�� .06 .06 .13�� .14��

20. Relational skill 3.87 .57 .13�� .06 .07 .22�� .28�� .23�� .25�� .43�� .61�� .20�� .20�� .33�� .37�� .27�� .27�� .16�� .35�� ..35�� .36��

21. Adaptability 3.49 .59 �.03 .15�� .06 .11� .19�� .11� .00 .06 �.02 -.06 �.04 .03 04 �.03 .17�� .18�� .21�� .10� .03 .15��

�po.05; ��po.01


Cultural MetacognitionCultural metacognition is defined as knowledge of and control over one’sthinking and learning activities in a specific domain, that of culturalexperiences and strategies. In our assessment, cultural metacognition ismeasured through both a process tracing technique (analysis of verbalprotocols) and through retrospective reports of metacognitive activity.

In order to elicit a verbal protocol of metacognitive activity, participantswere presented with four videos of cross-cultural interactions. The fourvideos were scripted and filmed based on scenarios derived from a large-scale survey (Smith & Hecker, 2006) of the most frequent failures in cross-cultural interactions. For example, one video involved difference in timeorientation and relationship building in a business interaction and anotherinvolved indirect versus direct communication behavior and interpersonalspace differences. Prior to filming, the scripts were pretested in two multi-cultural focus groups. Based on these reactions and the reactions of themulticultural research team, scripts were modified to convey a sense ofmundane realism (Enzle & Schopflocher, 1978). The short videos (about2 minutes each) were made by a professional film company employingprofessional actors. Subsequent responses to the videos by focus groupsconfirmed the realism of the scenarios depicted.

After viewing each video, participants were cued (through audio andwritten means) to put themselves in the situation and to think aloud aboutwhat was happening in the situation, what they were thinking and feeling,and what they would do in a similar situation. These audio responses wererecorded by the system for later transcription and analysis. This computer-based segment was pretested for functionality (e.g., ability of participants torespond, adequacy of instructions, time to respond and so on). Verbalresponses were transcribed, and then coded by three expert coders on thelevel of cultural metacognition demonstrated in the response. A number ofdifferent coding protocols were evaluated before a final scheme, includingmarkers of specific levels of cultural metacognition, was agreed upon viaconsensus. In coding each response, coders were looking for indications thatthe respondent was (a) monitoring the cultural aspects of the situation,(b) analyzing the behavior in terms of cultural indicators and their ownknowledge, and finally (c) demonstrating how he or she would use thisinformation to regulate their own future behavior. Each coder gave theresponse an initial score and any differences in the score and the rationalefor the score were discussed until a consensus score was achieved.

In addition to eliciting a verbal protocol in response to video stimuli, aself-report measure of cultural metacognition was constructed from scales


designed to measure metacognition more generally (e.g., Howard, McGee,Hong, & Shia, 2000; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Swanson, 1990) andadapted for the cultural context. The Execs and UG samples describedpreviously were given a 12-item self-report scale of cultural metacognitiveactivity, and their responses were subjected to an exploratory factoranalysis. A single factor was extracted based on the eigenvalue greaterthan 1 heuristic and a scree test. This factor accounted for 54.27% of thevariance. All items loaded on this factor at greater than .63. Cronbach’salpha for the 12-item scale was .92. A sample item from the scale was, ‘‘I amaware of the cultural knowledge that I use.’’ The UG sample hadsignificantly higher self-report of cultural metacognition than the Execs(t¼ 12.40, po.01); and Execs significantly improved their self-reportcultural metacognition score after a two-day workshop on cross-culturalinteraction skills (paired sample t¼ 4.00, po.01). Additional results for thetrace measure of cultural metacognition are presented in Study 3.

Study 3

The purpose of Study 3 was to test the instrument in its final form andestablish its ability to predict effective intercultural interactions. In thisstudy, 65 participants from a variety of cultures (19 different countries ofbirth) completed the online assessment in small groups in a laboratorysetting. Participants completed the assessment independently by interactingwith the computer-based program. An experimenter was present to resolveany technical problems and answer questions. They also completed a penciland paper survey (linked to the online assessment via a code number) thatcaptured additional demographic information and a self-report of inter-cultural effectiveness described ahead. The average age of participants was23.2 years and most had significant work experience. Ninety-two percentreported having some post secondary education and 22% held universitydegrees.All were fluent inEnglishwith 29.3%reporting that they spoke twoormore languages.

Measures

Cultural IntelligenceCultural Intelligence was measured with the online instrument, thedevelopment of which was described previously. As cultural intelligence is


theorized to emerge from the combination of its constituent elements, thelatent cultural intelligence construct was computed as a weighted linearcombination of the observed variables. The optimal regression weights werecalculated based on a principal components analysis of the facets. The facetsmeasured by the online instrument and their internal consistency reliabilityin this sample are summarized as follows:

Cultural knowledge (a¼ .95)Knowledge complexity (a¼ .90)Self-report of cultural metacognition (a¼ .82)Trace measure of cultural metacognition (a¼ .79)Relational skills (a¼ .73)Perceptual acuity (a¼ .69)Empathy (a¼ .66)Adaptability (a¼ .70)Tolerance of uncertainty (a¼ .56)

Intercultural EffectivenessCultural intelligence should be positively related to effectiveness in inter-cultural interactions. However, a review of the literature suggests that there isoften construct overlap betweenmeasures of intercultural effectiveness and itsantecedents (Thomas & Lazarova, 2006). Here, we suggest that a generaldescription of intercultural effectiveness that is relevant to validation ofcultural intelligence can be drawn from the research on successful adjustmentto a foreign culture (Brislin, 1981; Cushner & Brislin, 1996; Ruben & Kealey,1979) and expatriate adjustment and performance (e.g., Aycan, 1997; Tung &Varma, 2008). This literature has summarized the following characteristics ofeffective intercultural interaction in an organizational context as:

� Good personal adjustment indicated by feelings of contentment and wellbeing when interacting with culturally different others.� Development and maintenance of good interpersonal relationships withculturally different others.� The effective completion of task-related goals in an interculturalcontext.

Based on this definition of intercultural effectiveness, we constructed athree-item scale to tap each of the three elements. The scale items were ‘‘Ifeel more stress when dealing with people from a different culturalbackground’’ (reverse scored); ‘‘people from different cultural backgrounds


enjoy being around me’’; and ‘‘I have more trouble getting things done withpeople from a different cultural background’’ (reverse scored). Responseswere provided on a 5-point scale (1¼ disagree strongly; 5¼ agree strongly).The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the three-itemscale was .79. Given the breadth (high bandwidth) of the construct, we werevery pleased with this level of internal consistency. Bandwidth is the amountof information obtained, while fidelity is the consistency of information. Theidea of balancing bandwidth and fidelity in measures of this type has beenwidely discussed and has generally had broad acceptance (see e.g., Chen,Meindl, & Hunt, 1997).

Common Method ControlBecause some of the facets of cultural intelligence were measured with self-reports as was the measure of intercultural effectiveness (albeit with adifferent instrument), we controlled for the possibility of common methodbias. This control variable was composed of the first unrotated factor scorefrom an exploratory factor analysis of all self-report measures in the study.This factor score is thought to be the best indicator of the varianceaccounted for by common method (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &Podsakoff, 2003). This first factor accounted for only 20% of the variancein the sample and was one of 19 factors extracted by the eigenvalue greaterthan one method, which is indicative of a minimal effect.

Results

The means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables in thestudy are presented in Table 2. Correlations in general reflect the expectedrelationships between the components of cultural intelligence and othermeasures in the study (e.g., all measures were significantly related tointercultural effectiveness with the exception of the adaptability dimensionof skill).

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the cultural intelligence measure,we developed here, in predicting intercultural effectiveness, we regressedeffectiveness on the common method control and cultural intelligencehierarchically. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3.

As shown in Table 3, cultural intelligence accounted for a statisticallysignificant addition to explained variance after controlling for commonmethod bias, b¼ .72, t¼ 2.39, po.05. We also evaluated cultural intelligence

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations ofVariables in Study 3.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Intercultural effectiveness 3.74 .85

2. Cultural metacognition (SR) 3.88 .45 .24�

3. Cultural metacognition (Trace) 1.01 .79 .36�� .29�

4. Knowledge (SR) 2.66 1.05 .31�� .45�� .42��

5. Knowledge complexity .63 .55 .27� .21 .47�� .33��

6. Relational skills 3.91 .56 .62�� .48�� .43�� .43�� .28�

7. Perceptual acuity 3.81 .46 .22� .51�� .12 .36�� .02 .36��

8. Empathy 3.82 .62 .29�� .47�� .27� .21� .18 .38�� .40��

9. Adaptability 3.73 .54 .11 .39�� .05 .19 .16 .17 .43�� .39��

10. Tolerance for uncertainty 2.84 .66 .49�� .02 .08 .06 .15 .39�� .15 .13 �.08

11. Cultural intelligence 0.00 1.00 .52�� .72�� .58�� .67�� .48�� .81�� .63�� .63�� .42�� .44��

�po.05; ��po.01

Table 3. Hierarchical Regression, Intercultural Effectiveness onCommon Method Control and Cultural Intelligence (Study 3).

Model R2 14 23

Model F 8.37�� 7.42��

Variable b t b t

Common method control .37 2.89�� .29 �.95

Cultural intelligence .72 2.39�

DR2 .14 .09

F change 8.37 5.71

Sig. F change .006 .021

�po.05; ��po.01


as an indicator of whether or not participants had a close friend or theirbest friend from another culture. This is thought to be a more objectiveindicator of the ability to develop long-term relationships across cultures(Canary & Dainton, 2003). As shown in Table 4, tests of mean differencesindicated that mean levels of cultural intelligence differed between thoseparticipants who had a close friend or not from another culture and alsobetween those whose best friend was from another culture or not.These results were statistically significant; however, this finding was at arelaxed level of significance o.10, which was probably reflective of thesample size.

Table 4. Test of Mean Differences on Cultural Intelligence (Study 3).

Means (close friend)

Yes No t

.114 �.371 �1.86�

Means (best friend)

Yes No t

.212 �.200 �1.67�

Note: �po.10.


CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The construct of cultural intelligence has important implications for leader-ship in an increasingly globalized world. The ability to explain and predictindividual differences in the ability to interact effectively with people who are culturally different or in unique culturalcontexts has enormous potential for the practice of leadership. However, inorder to realize this potential, cultural intelligence must be clearly andunambiguously operationalized and its predictive validity established. In thischapter, we have described the development and preliminary test of aninstrument designed to measure cultural intelligence based on our con-ceptualization, that is, as a latent construct consisting of the three underlyingfacets of cultural knowledge, cross-cultural skills, and cultural metacognition.Our measurement development efforts have shown positive indications of thereliability and validity of the components of our multidimensional constructof cultural intelligence. Relationships to constructs such as social intelligence,which should indicate differentiation between the concepts, bear out ourconceptualization of cultural intelligence as a related but unique domain ofintelligence. Findings regarding indicators of experiential development suchas prior travel and countries lived in also are consistent with theoretically-based expectations. The test of the complete online instrument indicated thatthe latent construct of cultural intelligence, measured as a linear combinationof its facets, was significantly related to intercultural effectiveness.

While this conceptualization of cultural intelligence resolves manyconceptual and measurement problems with the construct, the resultspresented here must be considered with a number of limitations in mind.First, the development of the instrument described in Study 1 and 2 wasconducted entirely in English. While care was taken to make the language as


neutral as possible and culture-specific items were deleted through a numberof measures, native and non-native speakers of English may respondsomewhat differently to elements of the instrument. Second, the measure ofintercultural effectiveness (Study 3), while apparently robust, is a self-reportmeasure with the limitations inherent in this approach. While we controlledfor bias regarding cognitive consistency in responses and do not feel that thisaffected our results, future studies should evaluate the instrument againstmore objective measures of intercultural effectiveness. Third, the size of thesample in Study 3 is minimally acceptable, but was drawn from a veryculturally diverse part of North America. This was an advantage in thatmany different cultures were represented. However, it also meant that theseparticipants had many opportunities to interact with individuals who wereculturally different. Therefore, it may have restricted the range observablefor the construct of cultural intelligence. Future studies should seek largersamples in more diverse (both homogeneous and heterogeneous) locations.

Defining and measuring cultural intelligence has presented numerouschallenges. The first set of issues revolved around its construct validity,including what is and is not to be included in the construct and thecombination of the various facets. The conceptualization presented here isof a latent construct resulting from the combination of cultural knowledge(both content and process), cross-cultural skills in five sub-domains, andcultural metacognition. The rigor of this definition suggested the need for anequally rigorous measurement process. The complexity required to effectivelymeasure cultural intelligence was resolved here by the development of amatrix of assessment approaches contained in a single delivery vehicle. Thisassessment is significantly more sophisticated than measures of culturalintelligence presented to date. We have outlined the development of thisvehicle in this chapter in the hope that by providing a valid assessmentinstrument, we can assist in moving the study of cultural intelligence forward.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by a grant from the Social Science andHumanities Research Council of Canada. A previous version of this chapterwas presented at the 2008 Academy of International Business AnnualMeeting in Milan. Authors are members of the Cultural Intelligence Projectand are listed in reverse alphabetical order. The authors are grateful toStacey Fitzsimmons and Yuan Liao for research assistance and to MaryYoko Brannen and Dominie Garcia for access to the sample for Study 3.


REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. (1997). International dimensions of organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Cincinnati,

OH: South-Western.

Allen, B. A., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1993). Construct validation of metacognition. The Journal

of Psychology, 127(2), 203–211.

Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctive-

ness and nomological network. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural

intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3–15). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2004, August ). The measurement of cultural

intelligence. Paper presented in a symposium on cultural intelligence at the annual

meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, WA.

Aycan, Z. (1997). Expatriate adjustment as a multifaceted phenomenon: Individual and

organizational level predictors. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

8(4), 435–456.

Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive

and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and

challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45, 210–223.

Bar-On, R. (2001). Emotional intelligence and self-actualization. In J. Ciarrochi, J. Forgas &

J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life: A scientific inquiry.

New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Bird, A., Stevens, M. J., Mendenhall, M. E., & Oddou, G. (2007). The Global Competencies

Inventory, version 3.0. St. Louis, MO: The Kozai Group.

Brislin, R. (1981). Cross-cultural encounters: Face-to-face interaction. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

Bush, V. D., Rose, G. M., Gilbert, F., & Ingram, T. N. (2001). Managing culturally diverse

buyer-seller relationships: The role of intercultural disposition and adaptive selling in

developing intercultural communication competence. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 29, 391–404.

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.

Canary, D., & Dainton, M. (2003). Maintaining relationships through communication:

Relational, contextual, and cultural variations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chen, C. C., Meindl, J. R., & Hunt, R. G. (1997). Testing the effects of vertical and horizontal

collectivism: A study of reward allocation preferences in China. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 28, 44–70.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural

sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3, 1–15.

Chi, M. T. H. (1978). Knowledge structures and memory development. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.),

Children’s thinking: What develops? (pp. 73–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 540–572.

Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J., & Sharp, D. W. (1971). The cultural context of learning and thinking.

New York, NY: Basic Books.

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

NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.


Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. W. (1996). Intercultural interactions: A practical guide. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Earley, P. C. (2002). Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations: Moving forward

with cultural intelligence. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 271–299.

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Cultural intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 82(10),

139–146.

Enzle, M. E., & Schopflocher, D. (1978). Instigation of attribution processes by attributional

questions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(4), 595–599.

Ericsson, A. K., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. London: MIT

Press.

Fitzsimmons, S. R., Jackson, D. J. R., & Thomas, D. C. (2006, June). Development of a cross-

cultural self-monitoring scale. Paper presented to the Administrative Sciences Associa-

tion of Canada Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-

developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

Gelfand, M., Imai, L., & Fehr, R. (2008). Thinking critically about cultural intelligence: The

road ahead. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory,

measurement, and applications (pp. 375–387). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring

the lower-level facets of several five-factormodels. In I.Mervielde, I. Deary, F.DeFruyt&

F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg,

The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., &

Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-

domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.

Gottfredson, L. (2002). g: Highly general and highly practical. In R. J. Sternberg &

E. L.Grigorenko (Eds.),The general factor of intelligence:How general is it? (pp. 331–380).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1998). The importance of individuals’

repertoire of behaviors: The scientific appropriateness of studying multiple behaviors

and general attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 463–480.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,

leadership, and organizations: TheGLOBE study of 62 societies. ThousandOaks,CA: Sage.

Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Hong, N. S., & Shia (2000, April). The influence of metacognitive

self-regulation on problem-solving in computer-based science inquiry. Paper presented to

the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Johnson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-cultural competence in international

business: Toward a definition and a model. Journal of International Business Studies, 37,

525–543.

Kassing, J. W. (1997). Development of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication

Research Reports, 14, 399–407.

Kelley, C., & Meyers, J. (1992). The cross-cultural adaptability inventory (CCAI). Minneapolis,

MN: National Computer Systems.


Kluckhohn, C., & Strodtbeck, K. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lane, H. W., DiStefano, J. J., & Maznevski, M. L. (2000). International management behavior:

Text, readings and cases. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Law, K. S., Wong, C-S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional

intelligence and its potential for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,

483–496.

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.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Leung, K., Bond, M. H., Reimel de Carrasquel, S., Munoz, C., Hernadez, M., Murakami, F.,y

Singelis, T. M. (2002). Social axioms: The search for universal dimensions of general

beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(3),

286–302.

Maznevski, M. L., DiStefano, J. J., Gomez, C. B., Noorderhaven, N. G., & Wu, P-C. (2002).

Cultural dimensions at the individual level of analysis: The cultural orientations

framework. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2(3), 275–295.

Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A review.

Academy of Management Review, 10, 39–47.

Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of

reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 249–259.

Morgan, S. E., & Arasaratnam, L. A. (2003). Intercultural friendships as social excitation:

Sensation seeking as predictor of intercultural friendship seeking behavior. Journal of

Intercultural Communication Research, 32, 175–186.

Neuliep, J. W. (2002). Assessing the reliability and validity of the generalized ethnocentrism

scale. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31(4), 201–215.

Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The development of a US and generalized

ethnocentrism scale. Communication Research Reports, 14(4), 384–398.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports of

mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

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.

Sampson, D. L., & Smith, A. R. (1957). A scale to measure world-minded attitudes. Journal of

Social Psychology, 45, 99–106.

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances

and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology (pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Smith, P. B., & Hecker, J. (2006, July). Cross-national working. Presentation to the

International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology Congress, Spetzes, Greece.


Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning. American

Psychologist, 52, 1030–1037.

Sternberg, R. J., & Ruzgis, P. (Eds.). (1994). Personality and intelligence. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 306–314.

Thomas, D. C. (2006). Domain and development of cultural intelligence: The importance of

mindfulness. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 78–99.

Thomas, D. C. (2010). Cultural intelligence and all that jazz. Advances in International

Management, 23, 169–187.

Thomas, D. C., & Fitzsimmons, S. R. (2008). Cross-cultural skills and abilities: From

communication competence to cultural intelligence. In P. B. Smith, M. F. Peterson &

D. C. Thomas (Eds.), The handbook of cross-cultural management research (pp. 201–215).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2004). Cultural intelligence: People skills for global business.

San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Thomas, D. C., & Lazarova, M. B. (2006). Expatriate adjustment and performance: A critical

review. In G. H. Stahl & I. Bjorkman (Eds.), Handbook of research in international

human resource management (pp. 247–264). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Thomas, D. C., Stahl, G., Ravlin, E. C., Poelmans, S., Pekerti, A., Maznevski, M., y Au, K.

(2008). Cultural intelligence: Domain and assessment. International Journal of Cross-

Cultural Management, 8, 123–143.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

Tung, R. L., & Varma, A. (2008). Expatriate selection and evaluation. In P. B. Smith,

M. F. Peterson & D. C. Thomas (Eds.), The Handbook of Cross-cultural Management

Research (pp. 367–378). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D. C. (2004). An experiential learning approach to cross-cultural

learning: A review and integration of competencies for successful expatriate adaptation.

Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(4), 362–379.

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.

[advances in global leadership] advances in global leadership volume 7 || development of the...

Documents