international journal of cross cultural · pdf fileinternational journal of cross cultural...

http://ccm.sagepub.com

Cultural Management International Journal of Cross

DOI: 10.1177/1470595808091787 2008; 8; 123 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management

Kevin Au and Mila B. Lazarova Cerdin, Steven Poelmans, Richard Brislin, Andre Pekerti, Zeynep Aycan, Martha Maznevski, David C. Thomas, Efrat Elron, Günter Stahl, Bjørn Z. Ekelund, Elizabeth C. Ravlin, Jean-Luc

Cultural Intelligence: Domain and Assessment

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/2/123 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:International Journal of Cross Cultural Management Additional services and information for

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/8/2/123SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 55 articles hosted on the Citations

© 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at Koc University on August 29, 2008 http://ccm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/8/2/123


Articles

Cultural IntelligenceDomain and Assessment

ABSTRACT The construct of cultural intelligence, recently introduced to the managementliterature, has enormous potential in helping to explain effectiveness in cross culturalinteractions. However, at present, no generally accepted definition or operationalization ofthis nascent construct exists. In this article, we develop a conceptualization of cultural

© 2008 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) DOI: 10.1177/1470595808091787

CCM International Journal of

Cross CulturalManagement2008 Vol 8(2): 123–143

David C. ThomasSimon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

Günter StahlINSEAD, Fontainebleau, France

Elizabeth C. RavlinUniversity of South Carolina, Columbia, USA

Steven PoelmansIESE Business School, Barcelona, Spain

Andre PekertiUniversity of Queensland, Ipswich, Australia

Martha MaznevskiInternational Institute for Management

Development, Lausanne, Switzerland

Mila B. LazarovaSimon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada

Efrat ElronTel Hai Academic College, Upper Galilee, Israel

Bjørn Z. EkelundHuman Factors AS, Larvik, Norway

Jean-Luc CerdinESSEC Business School, Cergy-Pontoise, France

Richard BrislinUniversity of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Honolulu, USA

Zeynep AycanKoc University, Istanbul, Turkey

Kevin AuThe Chinese University of Hong Kong,

Hong Kong



Over the years, many studies have alluded tothe idea that there are certain attributes thatsome individuals have that allow them to beeffective in cross cultural communication(Ting-Toomey, 1999), in overseas assign-ments (Caligiuri, 2000; Church, 1982) ormore generally in cross cultural interactions(Cushner and Brislin, 1996). However, it isonly recently that efforts to describe this indi-vidual difference in terms of a type of intelli-gence have emerged. Cultural intelligence hasrecently been introduced as a quantitativecontinuum of individual difference alongwhich people may be arrayed according tohow much of this attribute they possess(Earley, 2002; Earley and Ang, 2003;Thomas and Inkson, 2003). However, thesedefinitions fall short of specifying the con-struct as more than a loosely aggregated set offacets conceptually similar to interculturalcompetency, global mindset or a host of othersimilar terms, or as an extension of constructssuch as social intelligence to a new domain.

In this article, we define cultural intelli-gence based on a review of literature in thedomains of cross cultural interactions, socialcognition, and intelligence. We address funda-mental conceptual issues in construct validity(Schwab, 1980), including what is, and is not,to be included in the construct and its rela-tionship to effective cross cultural interactions.In addition, we discuss the dimensionality,stability, and level of analysis of cultural intel-ligence, which are of central importance toboth measurement and the further develop-ment of a nomological net, or theory of inter-connections between related constructs. Eachof these issues is addressed ahead.

A Type of Intelligence

Defining this new construct as a type of intel-ligence, as opposed to intercultural compe-tency, global mindset or any number of othersimilar terms, has two advantages. First, itsubstitutes well-studied ideas in cognitivepsychology for the more popular conceptsthat have made their way into the interna-tional management literature. For examplethe term ‘global mindset’ is widely used in themanagement literature, but there continuesto be a good deal of confusion surroundingthe definition and constituent elements of thisconstruct (see Levy et al., 2007 for a discus-sion). Second, it segregates this individual difference construct from institutional andenvironmental influences on effective crosscultural behavior (see Johnson et al., 2006).However, categorizing it as such requiresthat we first provide our perspective on themeaning of intelligence. Intelligence, a funda-mentally scientific construct that is not physi-cally verifiable, has been notoriously difficultto define. In general, we adopt Sternberg’s(1997a) definition that identifies intelligenceas the abilities necessary for adaptation to, aswell as selection and shaping of, an environ-mental context. This definition is consistentwith those of the doyennes of intelligencetesting such as Binet and Simon (1916), andWechsler (1944), in that it captures the fun-damental idea of being able to adapt to theenvironment. But, as we discuss in moredetail ahead, it also accepts Sternberg’s (1997a)notion that intelligence involves selecting and shaping the environmental context. Our perspective is also guided by a number of theories of intelligence that describe it as amultifaceted construct (e.g. Gardner, 1983;

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(2)124

intelligence that addresses a number of important limitations of previous definitions. Wepresent a concise definition of cultural intelligence as a system of interacting abilities,describe how these elements interact to produce culturally intelligent behavior, and thenidentify measurement implications.

KEY WORDS • cross cultural management • cross cultural skills • cultural competence • cultural intelligence • cultural metacognition



Sternberg et al., 2003). Here, we embracethe view that intelligence is a system of inter-acting abilities (Sternberg, 1997a). These factors combine to define the ability of adapt-ing to, and enacting, a specific type of envi-ronment: one that is characterized by cul-tural diversity and cross cultural interactions.That is, and in contrast to previous defini-tions, we describe cultural intelligence as aunique construct that emerges as a result ofthe interaction of its facets (see Table 1 for asummary of definitions of cultural intelligence).

Related constructs that depart from apurely cognitive view of intelligence should bedistinguished from our current focus. Thefirst is the ability to understand oneself andothers in a social situation and thus effectivelyinteract with others – so-called social intelli-gence (Kihlstrom and Cantor, 2000). Theconstruct that has received the most attentionin recent years, however, is that of emotionalintelligence, the ability to perceive the emo-tional states of others and to regulate one’sown emotional state in the service of im-proved interactions (Goleman, 1995). Whilework on emotional intelligence has beenrightly criticized on a number of frontsbecause of its very loose specification andwildly extravagant claims (see Matthews etal., 2002), some research, primarily by Mayer,Salovey and colleagues (e.g. Mayer et al.,1999, 2000; Mayer and Salovey, 1993, 1995,1997; Salovey and Mayer, 1990), has provideda stricter scientific treatment of this construct.

Social and emotional intelligence sharesome attributes with cultural intelligence asdefined ahead, such as the idea that intelli-gence is inherently multidimensional. How-ever, both of these constructs are specific tothe culture in which they were developed anddo not necessarily relate to cross culturalinteractions. For example, social skills learnedand honed in one country may be ineffectiveor even offensive in another culture with dif-ferent rules for social interaction (e.g. Ruzgisand Grigorenko, 1994). We know that cul-ture can influence rules of emotional display

(Ekman, 1982), and we have some evidencethat culture-specific norms exist for experi-encing emotions (Eid and Diener, 2001).Cultural intelligence builds on these ideas,but is not merely an application of existingintelligence constructs to a new domain assuggested in other definitions (Earley, 2002;Earley and Ang, 2003). It is a unique con-struction of interacting abilities that existsoutside the cultural boundaries in whichthese abilities were developed.

Indicators of Cultural Intelligence

By definition, the outcome of culturally intel-ligent behavior is more effective interculturalinteraction. This statement, of course, begsthe question of what indications suggest cul-tural intelligence in action. A good generaldescription of such effectiveness might bedrawn from the literature on successful ad-justment to a foreign culture (Brislin, 1981;Cushner and Brislin, 1996; Ruben and Kealey,1979) and the expatriate adjustment litera-ture (e.g. Aycan, 1997). These literatureshave summarized the following characteris-tics of an effective intercultural interaction as:

• Good personal adjustment, indicated by feelings of contentment and well being.Individuals who are well adjusted wouldsay that they feel comfortable interactingwith this culturally different person, or inthis culturally different situation; andexperience no greater stress than theywould experience in a similar interactionwith a member of their own culture andin their own cultural context.

• Development and maintenance of goodinterpersonal relationships with culturally

different others. It is especially important toassess this aspect of effectiveness fromthe perspective of the culturally differentother, as relationships are inherentlydyadic in nature and should beperceived as positive at the dyadic, asopposed to the individual, level.

Thomas et al.: Cultural Intelligence 125




Table 1 Definitions and applications of cultural intelligence

Definition of Constituent Source cultural intelligence elements Outcomes/applications

Earley, 2002; ‘. . . a person’s capability to adapt Cognitive Global assignmentEarley & effectively to new cultural contexts.’ (Including success Ang, 2003 metacognitive) Diversity assignments

Motivational Training methodsBehavioral

Thomas & ‘. . . involves understanding the Knowledge Cross-cultural Inkson, 2003 fundamentals of intercultural Mindfulness decision making

interaction, developing a mindful Behavioral Cross cultural approach to intercultural Skills communicationinteractions, and finally building Cross cultural adaptive skills and a repertoire of leadership;behavior so that one is effective in Multicultural teamsdifferent intercultural situations.’ International careers

Earley & ‘. . . a seemingly natural ability to Cognitive Appropriate behaviorMosakowski, interpret someone’s unfamiliar and Physical in new cultures2004 ambiguous gestures in just the way Emotional/

that person’s compatriots and motivationalcolleagues would, even to mirror them.’

Earley & ‘. . . reflects a person’s capability to Metacognitive/ Intercultural trainingPeterson, gather, interpret, and act upon these Cognitive (e.g., Multinational teams2004 radically different cues to function learning strategies

effectively across cultural settings or and cultural sensein a multicultural situation.’ making)

Motivation (e.g., cultural empathy and self-efficacy)

Behavior (e.g., acceptable behavior in culture and mimicry)

Earley, Ang ‘. . . a person’s capability for Cultural strategic Diversity assignments& Tan, 2006 successful adaptation to new cultural thinking Global work

settings, that is for unfamiliar settings Motivation assignmentsattributable to cultural context.’ Behavior Global teams

Global leadership

Thomas, ‘. . . the ability to interact effectively Knowledge Development 2006 with people who are culturally Mindfulness Assessment

different.’ Behavior

Ang et al., ‘. . . an individual’s capability to Cognition Cultural judgment and2007 function and manage effectively in Metacognition decision making

culturally diverse settings.’ Motivation Cultural adaptationBehavior and performance

This article ‘. . . a system of interacting knowledge Cultural Knowledge Effective intercultural and skills, linked by cultural Cross-Cultural Skills interactions (personal metacognition, that allows people to Cultural adjustment, interpersonaladapt to, select, and shape the cultural Metacognition relationship development,aspects of their environment.’ task performance)



• The effective completion of task-related goals.While the goals may differ from personto person and situation to situation, goalaccomplishment is always a candidate asan indicator of an effective interaction,in this case, in a cross cultural setting.

Based on these dimensions of self, rela-tional, and task effectiveness outcomes, wewould thus expect cultural intelligence to bepositively related to expatriate adjustment,task completion by culturally diverse groups,effective decision making in a multiculturalcontext, leadership of culturally different others and a host of other cross culturalinteractions. However, these distal outcomesmight also be related to a variety of factorsthat have little to do with cultural intelli-gence. For example, although specifying amotivational facet of (cultural) intelligence(e.g. Ackerman, 1996; Ceci, 1990) is prob-lematic (i.e. motivation and intelligence mayhave a limited recursive relationship, but arenot components of each other), the motiva-tion to interact effectively with culturally dif-ferent others certainly contributes to thesepositive outcomes. However, while culturalintelligence is presented here in positiveterms that suggest respect for other cultures,the definition does not preclude highly culturally intelligent individuals from beingotherwise motivated, for example, for indi-vidual gain at a partner’s expense. As withimpression management (see Gardner andMartinko, 1988), some people with high cul-tural intelligence could use this capability forless than noble purposes. Our view thus con-trasts with Earley and colleagues’ (e.g. Earleyand Ang, 2003) definition that suggests thatthe motivation to act positively toward cul-turally different others is a central facet ofcultural intelligence.

Cultural Intelligence Defined

We define cultural intelligence as a system ofinteracting knowledge and skills, linked by

cultural metacognition, that allows people to adapt to, select, and shape the culturalaspects of their environment. This definitionputs the construct in the domain of multi-faceted conceptualizations of intelligence.Thus, not only does cultural intelligenceinclude multiple types of knowledge (under-standing of a body of information) and skills(mastery of an application of knowledge), itinvolves both cognitive and metacognitive(knowledge of and control over one’s think-ing and learning) dimensions. In our concep-tualization, it is important that we differenti-ate between intelligence and intelligentbehavior. That is, what constitutes intelligentbehavior (behavior demonstrating appropri-ate knowledge and skills) may differ from onecultural environment to another (e.g. Cole etal., 1971; Johnson et al., 2006). However,because the same mental processes may giverise to different behaviors in different culturalcontexts, it is essential that cultural intelli-gence captures that aspect of intelligence thatis common across cultures as opposed towhat varies between them.

Thus we conceive of cultural intelligenceas knowledge and skills that are developed ina specific cultural (cross cultural) context, butthe effectiveness of which in the productionof culturally intelligent behavior is dependenton a culture general process element calledcultural metacognition. Cultural intelligence, likeother domains of research that address acomplex outcome (e.g. Hanisch et al., 1998)is a multidimensional construct that has com-pensatory qualities in its effects on its out-come of culturally intelligent behavior. Whilethe component elements of cultural intelli-gence in our definition are somewhat similarto those presented in other conceptualiza-tions (see Table 1), the definition of culturalintelligence as a system of interacting abilitiesis unique, as is the linking function of culturalmetacognition. A graphic representation ofthe domain of cultural intelligence is pres-ented in Figure 1.

In the following, we develop the logic for




the inclusion of each of the elements ofknowledge, skills and cultural metacognitionin our model of cultural intelligence. We alsodescribe the nature of the interaction amongthese three elements that results in the emer-gence of cultural intelligence as a uniqueconstruct.

Cultural Knowledge

The cultural knowledge component of cul-tural intelligence includes what Chi (1978)calls ‘declarative knowledge’, but what werefer to as the content component of culturalknowledge, because it refers to contentknowledge in a specific domain – here thecultural domain. Specific content knowledgeof cultures is the foundation of cultural intel-ligence because it forms the basis for com-prehending and decoding the behavior ofothers and ourselves. Recognizing the exist-ence of other cultures and defining the natureof differences between them are indicative ofthe mental processes that are at the core of systems definitions of intelligence (seeSternberg, 1997a). This knowledge allows abetter grasp of the internal logic and modalbehavior of another culture, which can serveas a first best guess (Adler, 1997) about thatbehavior. This type of knowledge allows formapping (DiStefano and Maznevski, 2000)

oneself onto the terrain of the new culture.The implication here, of course, is thatknowledge of self and one’s own culture arealso important components of cultural intelli-gence. Knowledge of cultural identities,values, attitudes, and practices makes forgreater predictability in social interaction,more accurate attributions, and ultimatelymore effective intercultural behavior.

As culture specific content knowledge isacquired, it is categorized in order to copewith the complexity of the environment(Rosch, 1975). With the acquisition of moreand more knowledge, the number of cate-gories increases, and the organization of thecategories in memory improves (Taylor,1981). That is, these antecedent knowledgestructures become increasingly complex andaccessible. Studies in a number of differentperformance domains support the impor-tance of the level of development ofantecedent knowledge, although we believe,as discussed ahead, that conditions must bemet to fully realize the benefits of complexcontent knowledge. Knowledge about a par-ticular domain has clearly been shown tohave a substantive influence on performancein that domain (e.g. Anderson, 1982). Theliterature on novices versus experts is instruc-tive in this regard. For example, experts in


Cultural Intelligence

Cultural KnowledgeCultural Skills

CulturalMetacognition

Figure 1 Domain of cultural intelligence

CulturallyIntelligentBehavior



bridge (Charness, 1979), physics (Chi et al.,1981), and politics (Fiske, 1982) all have beenshown to have more complex cognitive struc-tures in a specific domain, which in turn posi-tively influences their performance. Morecomplex cognitive structures also result inless extreme, and hence more accurate,evaluations of others (Linville, 1982). Morespecific to cultural knowledge, Wade-Benzoniet al. (2002) provide evidence suggesting thatcultural knowledge is positively related tounderstanding the perspective of another cul-ture. Additionally, consistent with our con-ceptualization of cultural intelligence, Porterand Inks (2000) show that more elaborated,cognitively complex knowledge structuresare also related to adaptive behavior.

Cultural knowledge refers not only to adeclarative or content component (e.g. know-ledge about cultures, social interactions, personal history), but also to stored processes(i.e. culture general processes directed to thesolution of specific problems). Process or pro-cedural knowledge includes knowledge of the effect of culture on one’s own nature orthe nature of another as a cognitive proces-sor, knowledge that involves cross culturalencounter or problem-solving, its demands,and how those demands can be met undervarying conditions. The creation of this cul-ture general knowledge involves learningfrom specific experience with culturally dif-ferent others and is the result of reflectiveobservation, analysis, and abstract conceptu-alization, which can create new mental cate-gories and re-categorize others in a moresophisticated cognitive system. Ultimately,knowledge gained from specific experience isrecoded into broader principles (see forexample, Chi and VanLehn, 1991). Thisactivity requires the involvement of higherorder cognitive processes, which we describeahead under cultural metacognition.1

Thus, for example, one might know thatChinese people hold collectivist value orien-tations (content knowledge), and might alsoknow that cultural value orientations help

shape behavior by influencing preferencesfor specific modes of behavior and outcomes(process knowledge). One may also know theextent to which his/her own values andmotives are similar to or different fromChinese people (content). This knowledgehelps the individual interpret and more accu-rately attribute the behavior that he/sheobserves in Chinese people (process). How-ever, using this knowledge to exhibit cultur-ally intelligent behavior and ultimately shapecross cultural interactions requires other fac-tors, such as skills and metacognition dis-cussed ahead. Thus specific knowledge in thecultural domain is positively related to effec-tive intercultural interactions, but it is onlyone of a set of interacting elements that con-stitutes cultural intelligence.

Skills

The literature on cultural adjustment andrelated outcomes of interaction with cultural-ly different others or in foreign environmentsis replete with individual difference con-structs that purport to explain or predicteffectiveness. They range from attitudes suchas world-mindedness (Sampson and Smith,1957) and personality characteristics (Costaand McRae, 1992) such as openness (Caligiuri,2000), to skills in a variety of domains, suchas communication skills (Ting-Toomey,1999). Some stable characteristics of individ-uals may contribute to the acquisition of cultural intelligence; that is, traits may pre-dispose individuals to learn information thatfits their profile. However, the exact nature ofany relationship between personality andintelligence is far beyond the scope of thisarticle (see Sternberg and Ruzgis, 1994 forfurther discussion). Moreover, we suspectthat cultural intelligence is related to, yet dis-tinct from, personality in much the same wayas is emotional intelligence (Law et al., 2004).Here, because of the dynamic and develop-mental nature of cultural intelligence, wehave focused on those individual differencesthat can be developed and used as a lever for




improvement; hence, our use of the term‘skill’. Despite limiting ourselves to this term,there is still no shortage of contenders for skillelements that might contribute to culturalintelligence.

Just as with general intelligence (seeGottfredson, 2002), the construct of culturalintelligence is so broad that the skills compo-nents might be categorized and measured ina number of ways. Our review of the litera-ture revealed dozens of inventories of indi-vidual differences that might be relevant. Thenumber of factors into which elements werecategorized varied. However, both empiricaland conceptual methods have tended to settleon between three and five factors. Recentexamples include the five aspects of the inter-cultural sensitivity scale (Chen and Starosta,2000) and the three factors of cognitive per-ceptual management, relationship manage-ment, and self-management of the GlobalCompetencies Inventory (Bird et al., 2007),an extension of the perceptual, other and self orientations of expatriate acculturation(Mendenhall and Oddou, 1985). While thefocus of these inventories has varied some-what, two factors seem to appear consistently.These factors have to do with informationgathering or perceptual skills, and interper-sonal or relationship skills. Recent reviews(for example, Yamazaki and Kayes, 2004)have also focused on action skills and analyti-cal skills. Our categorization of the skills com-ponent of cultural intelligence builds on thisliterature to derive three skill sets (perceptual,relational, and adaptive), with the fourth(analytical skills) conceptually similar to cul-tural metacognition described ahead.

In order to specify the skills elements ofcultural intelligence, it is important to recog-nize the dynamic nature of cultural intelli-gence. That is, it is not static, but involvescontinuous learning from social interactions.Development of cultural intelligence by learn-ing from social experience means payingattention to and appreciating critical differ-ences in culture and background between

oneself and others. This implies the impor-tance of what we have labeled perceptual skills.

Candidates for inclusion here are constructssuch as open-mindedness, tolerance of uncer-tainty, and non-judgmentalness. Also, learn-ing from social interaction with culturally different others and/or in foreign culturalcontexts requires relational skills such as flexi-bility, sociability, empathy and so on. Whileboth of these skill dimensions are important,the skill that perhaps most clearly distin-guishes cultural intelligence from other relatedideas is the ability to generate appropriatebehavior in a new cultural setting.

This adaptive skill involves being able toexhibit behavior that is chosen from a well-developed repertoire or is quickly developedduring the course of an intercultural interac-tion. Candidates for subordinate dimensionsof this skill include self-monitoring, behav-ioral flexibility and self-regulation. Ratherthan being simply adaptive toward behaviorthat is typical of a target culture, this skillmanifests itself in generating new behaviorthat is appropriate to the cross cultural inter-action context. This is an important differ-ence in the conceptualization of culturalintelligence presented here versus other con-ceptualizations (e.g. Ang et al., 2007; Earley,2002; Earley and Ang, 2003), and includesthe possibility that in some situations the bestoption is not to adapt behavior at all.

A body of evidence suggests that theadoption of behavior more like that of theother culture participant (also called mimicryin Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley and Peter-son, 2004) in an intercultural interaction is adouble-edged sword (Francis, 1991; Gilesand Smith, 1979; Thomas and Ravlin, 1995).While unconscious mimicry might have posi-tive results in some situations (such as when aminimal perception of similarity leads to posi-tive attitudes, e.g. Byrne, 1971), this effectcan be illusory. High levels of mimicry arevery likely to be attributed to somethingother than the actor’s character and per-ceived as insincere or even devious (see




Thomas and Ravlin, 1995). Therefore, asopposed to chameleon-like mimicry (as inEarley and Ang, 2003; Earley and Peterson,2004), cultural intelligence requires skill inadapting one’s behavior. At its zenith, thisskill may be seen as fostering a positive learn-ing environment and projecting respect forother cultures in order to influence the crosscultural interaction context. That is, cultural-ly intelligent individuals can shape the con-text of the interaction to create a uniqueenvironment, as opposed to merely adjustingto it. They do this by facilitating positive atti-tudes and behavior of the culturally differentother(s) with whom they interact. High levelsof adaptive skills may be positively related toeffective cross cultural interactions. How-ever, for this adaptive skill to demonstratecultural intelligence, it must be based on theknowledge of culture and on cultural meta-cognition, which allows specific knowledge tobe translated into behavior appropriate to anew intercultural interaction.

Cultural Metacognition

The construct of cultural metacognition isbased on the more general idea of metacogni-tion, and is related to the analytic skills men-tioned previously. Metacognition is definedas knowledge of and control over one’s think-ing and learning activities (Flavel, 1979;Swanson, 1990). It is this aspect of culturalintelligence that most clearly stands outsidethe cultural context in which it was formed.For example, Sternberg (1985) suggestedseveral core mental processes that transcendenvironmental context. These are (1) recog-nizing the existence of a problem, (2) definingthe nature of the problem, (3) constructing astrategy to solve the problem, (4) mentallyrepresenting information about the problem,(5) allocating mental resources to solve theproblem, (6) monitoring one’s solution to theproblem, and (7) evaluating one’s solution tothe problem. Empirically, a construct valida-tion of metacognition in problem solvingsuggested similar context independent com-

ponents (Allen and Armour-Thomas, 1991).Thus metacognitive thoughts are deliber-

ate, planful, intentional, goal-directed, andfuture-oriented mental behaviors that can beused to accomplish cognitive tasks (Flavell,1979). While not all researchers agree on allaspects of metacognition, there does seem tobe a general consensus that metacognitioninvolves (1) the ability to consciously anddeliberately monitor one’s knowledge pro-cesses and cognitive and affective states(sometimes called metacognitive experiences),and (2) to regulate these processes and statesin relation to an objective (also called meta-cognitive strategies). Flavell (1979) describesthis process as ‘the active monitoring and conse-

quent regulation [italics added] and orchestra-tion of these [cognitive] processes in relationto the cognitive objects or data on which theybear, usually in service to some concrete goalor objective’ (p. 907). It is this notion of activemonitoring and regulation of mental process-es that guides our description of culturalmetacognition. Cultural metacognition isthus metcognition in a specific domain, thatof cultural experiences and strategies.

Consistent with Flavell (1979), we definecultural metacognitive monitoring as attention toconscious cognitive experience, as well as toaffective and personal-motivational stateswith regard to the cultural milieu that deter-mines the course of a strategy in interculturalinteraction. This involves maintaining height-ened awareness of, and enhanced attentionto, the current cultural experience or presentreality, including awareness of the assump-tions, emotions, motivations, intentions,behaviors, and skills of oneself and culturallydifferent others.

Cultural metacognitive regulation involves pro-cesses that are used to self-regulate and con-trol cognitive activities and to ensure that acognitive goal (e.g. effective handling of across cultural situation) has been met. Self-questioning is a common metacognitive strategy to ensure that the goal is achieved.This control of cognitive processing involves




bringing to mind knowledge relevant to thefocus of attention (cultural interaction),inhibiting the tendency to act automatically,evaluating possible responses with referenceto motives and goals (including not respond-ing), and withholding judgment of others.

There continues to be substantial debatein the literature regarding the extent to whichmetacognitive processes operate at a purelyconscious level (e.g. Glaser and Kihlstrom,2005; Marks, 1999). Some researchers sug-gest that thinking about one’s thinking,through repeated use or overlearning, maybecome automatized and consequently non-conscious. Others note that conscious moni-toring of means, goals, and variables mayactually diminish as effective storage andretrieval behaviors become progressivelyautomatized and quasi-reflective throughrepeated use and overlearning. Thus the needfor metacognition to be clearly conscious maywell diminish as the behaviors it once medi-ated become more self-starting.

Whether the term metacognitive shouldbe used to describe thoughts that were oncemetacognitive but have since become non-conscious and automatic, remains a debat-able issue. Certainly, the nonconscious andautomatic nature of these thoughts contrastssharply with other, more prominent, featuresof metacognition; namely, the extent towhich metacognitive processes involve anawareness of oneself as ‘an actor in his/herenvironment’ and a ‘deliberate storer andretriever of information’. It seems reason-able, therefore, to adopt the convention thatthe term metacognitive be reserved for ‘con-scious’ and ‘deliberate’ thoughts that have astheir object other thoughts. As they are con-scious and deliberate, culturally metacogni-tive thoughts are not only potentially control-lable by the person experiencing them, butthey are potentially reportable and thereforeaccessible to the researcher. Nonconsciousreflection on one’s thinking may actuallyrepresent the implementation of an adaptiveskill, as opposed to the actual metacognitive

process. Examples differentiating these vari-ous components of cultural intelligence arepresented in Table 2.

Linking Function of CulturalMetacognition2

Cultural metacognition occupies a centralposition in our conceptualization of culturalintelligence. The term metacognition (alsocalled metacognitive knowledge in Earleyand Ang, 2003) has been used in other con-ceptualizations, but its role as a linking mech-anism here is substantially different. It is theelement that allows the emergence of culturalintelligence from the interaction of its con-stituent elements. It is much like the broth inthe chicken soup that many of our parentsmade. That is, it is distinctive from the bits ofchicken, onion, carrot, celery (or whatevergoes into chicken soup in your culture) and soon, but it wouldn’t be chicken soup withoutit. Also, like the stock in chicken soup, cul-tural metacognition is what makes culturalintelligence dynamic. The flavor of the soupbecomes richer and more complex over time,just as we anticipate that cultural intelligenceis further enhanced through the processes ofcultural metacognition, including cognitiveself-regulation, abstraction of specific know-ledge, focus of cognitive resources, and com-pensatory effects as described ahead.

Cognitive Self-Regulation

Cultural metacognition regulates cognitionin that it refers to an understanding of one’sown cognitive behavior in the planning andmonitoring of performance and in the use ofcognitive strategies in a particular domain(see Perfect and Schwartz, 2002). Culturalmetacogniton focuses attention on the know-ledge of culture, skills for intercultural inter-action, and the processes of cultural influ-ence, as well as on an individual’s motives,goals, emotions, and external stimuli relevantto the situation. By so doing it controls cog-nitive processing and response by (1) bringing




to mind knowledge relevant to the focus ofattention, (2) choosing not to respond auto-matically, (3) inhibiting undesirable responses,and (4) editing responses to be consistent withmotives and goals (see Logan, 1989). Theoriesof self-regulation suggest that the kind of meta-cognitive monitoring and control describedhere is valuable in facilitating the choice ofbehaviors that are consistent with one’s needsand values (Deci and Ryan, 1980; Ryan etal., 1997). In contrast, automatic cognitiveprocessing precludes the active considerationof these options. Thus one way in which cul-tural metacognition operates is by establish-ing the opportunity to consider a range ofbehavioral options based on knowledge ofhow cultures vary and how culture affectsbehavior and the skills of the individual.

Abstraction of SpecificKnowledge

Cultural metacognition also involves the abil-ity to transfer knowledge gained from a spe-cific experience to broader principles thatcan be used in future interactions in othersettings (abstraction). Transfer of learning

requires the application of previously acquiredknowledge (see Gick and Holyoak, 1987). Itis affected by the initial appropriateness ofthe encoding and structuring of knowledge.The metacognitive component of culturalintelligence focuses attention on appropriateinformation and influences the categoriza-tion of knowledge and the structure of mem-ory. Transfer also requires that prior know-ledge be retrieved. As discussed previously,cultural metacognition acts to facilitate con-scious retrieval and application of appropri-ate knowledge as opposed to incidental orautomatic retrieval.

Automatic retrieval is problematic in thiscontext because of the complexity of inter-action processes in cross cultural interactions.As regards specific expertise in narrowdomains (e.g. our bridge players mentionedpreviously), greater knowledge is unquestion-ably effective. However, as situations becomemore complex and require flexibility or thecreation of new response patterns, greaterknowledge may actually be constraining(Mednick, 1962; Simonton, 1983; Sternbergand Lubart, 1991). Prior research has shown


Table 2 Cultural intelligence manifested in cultural knowledge, skills, and cultural metacognition

Dimension Example

Cultural knowledgeContent I know that in general, Americans enjoy and Chinese dislike adversarial

debateProcess I know that my attitudes and those of others toward specific behaviors are

influenced by cultural norms and values

Cultural skills I can adapt my behavior (suppress my tendency, as an American, toPerceptual debate when in a culture that considers it to be negative)RelationalAdaptive

Cultural metacognition I actively reflect on available knowledge and skills regarding debate, howMonitoring these relate to desired outcomes, in a cross-cultural setting to formulate Regulation alternative courses of action



that depending on their level of development,cognitive schemas may initially help indi-viduals learn related social material (earlydevelopment helps individuals focus on theappropriate information and strategies forlearning). As schemas become further devel-oped, they interfere with related learning(they are being used automatically; Fiske andDyer, 1985). Furthermore, automatic retrievalrequires the transfer situation to be verysimilar to the situation in which knowledgewas learned (a narrow domain), if it is to beused successfully. In contrast, cultural meta-cognition facilitates the abstraction or retrievalof more general principles because of theactive creation of new categories and consid-eration of new perspectives associated withthis categorization of knowledge. Said other-wise, knowledge encoded in memory in thisway is more generalizable, and less bound tothe specific experience that created it.

Focus of Cognitive Resources

Cultural metacognition also functions toovercome the effects of the normal distrac-tions presented by multiple tasks or compet-ing concerns such as the need for closure(Chiu et al., 2000). For example, the litera-ture on cognitive busyness suggests that cog-nitively busy individuals have fewer resourcesto apply to mental tasks. Thus they are lessaccurate in their perceptions and more likelyto rely on well-learned routines or simplecognitive representations, such as culturalstereotypes (Gilbert and Hixson, 1991;Pendry and MacRae, 1999). Also, cognitivebusyness interferes with the ability of individ-uals to adjust (correct automatic behavior;Foster et al., 1998) and to engage in chal-lenging (non-congruent) self-presentations(Pontari and Schlenker, 1999). That is, cog-nitive loads steal needed resources from thetask at hand, such as adapting behavior, andthus force a reliance on automatic cognitiveprocessing, which is relatively fast and effort-less. Cultural metacognition controls theselower order cognitive processes and focuses

cognitive resources, allowing the opportunityfor the knowledge of culture, knowledge ofself, and an individual’s skills to be applied tocross cultural interactions. In conjunctionwith these processes, the focus of resourcesvia metacognition allows for increased goalpersistence and directedness in the face ofthese many competing claims to attention(Gollwitzer and Schaal, 1998).

Compensatory Effects

Finally, cultural metacognition also functionsto compensate for individual disadvantagesin cultural knowledge or skills. This process isconsistent with the view of metacognition asdistinct from general aptitude in its effect onperformance (Swanson, 1990). It is also dis-tinct from a view that the effect of meta-cognition is simply one of several separablefacets of cultural intelligence as suggested inAng et al. (2007) and in Johnson et al. (2006).For example, much of the literature regard-ing the performance of experts versus noviceshas assumed that experts have access to moreknowledge or more complex knowledge rou-tines (e.g. Chi et al., 1988). However Swan-son (1990) has shown that high metacogni-tive/low aptitude individuals performed sig-nificantly better than low metacognitive/high aptitude individuals, thus demonstratingthe distinctiveness of metacognition fromgeneral aptitude and its compensatory effect.Subsequent research has been largely sup-portive of this compensatory effect (Howardet al., 2000, 2001). Here we extend this ideato the cultural domain by suggesting that cultural metacognition will have a compen-satory relationship with cultural knowledgeand skills in overall cultural intelligence. Forexample, someone visiting a country for thefirst time might have very limited specific cul-tural knowledge, but high cultural metacog-nition would make them sensitive to this andcause them to attend more acutely to the cultural context and not to behave in a reac-tive or scripted manner. That is, we antici-pate that cultural metacognition plays a cen-




tral role, in that without attention to process,behavior in complex settings is unlikely to beconsistently successful. Said otherwise, cultur-al knowledge and skills are unlikely to gener-alize to new cultural settings on a consistentbasis in the absence of cultural metacogni-tion.

As noted previously, relative effects ofmore specific knowledge and skills may vary based on the extent of complexity of thecross cultural interaction, or the degree towhich creativity is required in formulating aresponse (Simonton, 1983). This may help toexplain the distinctive effects of metacogni-tion found by Swanson and others (Howardet al., 2000, 2001; Swanson, 1990). That is,cultural metacognition should play a muchmore important role in effective cross culturalinteractions when the situation calls for thegeneration of a new response, or for changingthe interaction environment. In situationsthat can be appropriately addressed with pre-viously learned responses, well-developed

knowledge structures should adequately, andpossibly more efficiently, provide an appro-priate response. However, in complex ornovel situations high levels of knowledge orskills may be inadequate without the activat-ing effect of cultural metacognition.

Figure 2 presents an episodic view of therelationship between cultural metacognitionand the dimensions of cultural knowledgeand skills. For expository purposes, we depicta linear progression, with arbitrary beginningand ending points. In actuality, we anticipatethat these processes occur simultaneouslyand sequentially, and in virtually any order.In this example, we depict an individualexperiencing a cross cultural encounterinvolving debate; the result might be with-drawal on the part of the other-culture par-ticipant (1). This event causes reflection onextant domain knowledge and cultural skillson the part of the individual (2), resulting ingains in domain knowledge and skills as thisnew experience is incorporated in memory


Figure adapted from Govindarajan & Gupta (2001); Thomas & Inkson (2003).

Figure 2 Episodic view of the interactive dimensions of cultural intelligence

CulturalMetacognition

(e.g., reflection on new knowledge/

skills)

Cross-CulturalInteraction (e.g.,

opportunity fordebate)

Cultural Metacognition(e.g., reflection on available

knowledge/skills aboutdebate)

Cross-CulturalInteraction (e.g.,

debate) and Results

DomainKnowledge/Skills(e.g., what happenswhen we debate)

Effective Cross-Cultural

Interaction(e.g., choice to avoid debate)



(3). Based on these experiences, the next crosscultural interaction (4) generates a reflectionon the actor’s new knowledge and skills (5),resulting in effective behavior (6), in ourexample, avoidance of debate to improve therelationship with the other-culture partici-pant.

Implications for Measurement

In this article we have defined cultural intel-ligence as a set of interacting elements con-sisting of knowledge, skills and culturalmetacognition. This definition differs fromthose previously presented in the literature,both in terms of the constituent elements (seeTable 1) and in the manner in which thesefacets interact. For this nascent construct tobe useful, it is important that in addition tothe clear definition that we hope we havedeveloped in the preceding, we must opera-tionalize it in a reliable and valid manner.The complete development of a measure of cultural intelligence remains a work inprogress. However, based on the domaindescribed here, it is possible to identify somecritical issues in its assessment.

A number of assessment instruments thatmight relate to one or more components ofcultural intelligence have been suggested(Ang et al., 2007; Lee and Templer, 2003).While these suggestions are based on somedifferent assumptions regarding the domainof the construct, they still draw our attentionto the multiplicity of methods available to us.That is, conventional testing methods such assurveys, interviews, observations, computersimulations, critical incidents, and verbalprotocols may all be profitably employed tomeasure one or more aspects of culturalintelligence. We suggest that any singleapproach to measurement of this complexconstruct is likely to be inadequate. Brieflywe discuss methodological issues with regardto the domain of cultural intelligence as wedefine it.

Given that cultural intelligence is definedas resulting in an individual’s ability to adapt

to, to select, and to shape the cultural aspectsof their environment, then behavioral assess-ments are certainly called for at some level ofmeasurement. A number of self-reportinstruments that assess individuals’ percep-tions about their ability to behave effectivelyin cross cultural interactions (see e.g. Ang etal., 2007) have been presented. However, theepitome of the evaluation of behavioral indi-cators must certainly be the assessment cen-ter. Assessment center approaches usuallyrevolve around situational exercises and crit-ical incidents so that an individual’s actualbehavior becomes observable. Also, behav-ioral indicators for many of the elements ofcultural intelligence, as specified here, can beidentified (see Stahl, 2001). However, just asin broader outcome indicators such as effec-tive cultural adjustment, it is always possiblethat appropriate behavior is serendipitousand/or attributable to other than the indi-vidual difference construct of cultural intelli-gence. Therefore, while actual behavioralindicators are highly desirable, it seems clearthat multiple methods will be required todevelop an accurate picture of cultural intel-ligence, including measures more proximalto the construct.

Measuring the knowledge component clear-ly seems a candidate for survey/test or inter-view assessment approaches. The criticalquestion with regard to this component may be the extent to which an instrumentcaptures general aspects of knowledge thatare applicable to the cultural domain, but notso specific to one culture as to be useless inanother culture. For example, I may know (1) that Japanese businessmen typically ex-change business cards, or (2) that Japanesebusinessmen exchange business cards to estab-lish status relationships, or (3) that Japaneseculture is high power distance and theexchange of business cards is an indication ofthis as it helps to establish status relation-ships. Clearly, type 1 and type 2 knowledgeindicate a more sophisticated categorizationscheme and possibly superior transferability




to another cultural context. However, whenviewed in combination with appropriate skilldimensions and a metacognitive strategy,type 1 knowledge may be sufficient. In fact itis possible to argue that high (perceptual,relational, and adaptive) skills coupled with ahigh ability in cultural metacognition makedomain specific knowledge less important tothe production of culturally appropriatebehavior (see Swanson, 1990), although thismay vary with the complexity or novelty ofthe situation. Thus the level of importance ofdomain specific knowledge to cultural intelli-gence is a question awaiting empirical verifi-cation.

As indicated previously, the number ofpossible candidates for inclusion as importantskills components of cultural intelligence ismassive. The challenge with regard to opera-tionalization in this case is not so muchmethod, since most of the elements arereflected in existing psychometric instruments,as in which skills to measure. Essentially thegoal is to construct what one of our col-leagues called an ‘orthogonal greatest hits’;that is, a small collection of the most impor-tant and mostly uncorrelated skills contribut-ing to cultural intelligence.

The challenges associated with the opera-tionalization of cultural metacognition are consis-tent with those of measuring metacognitiongenerally. The ability of individuals to pro-vide any true introspection into their owncognitive processes has long been questioned(Nisbett and Wilson, 1977). However, muchof the literature on metacognition relies on retrospective self-reports as a vehicle fortapping into this construct (e.g. Mokhtari andReichard, 2002; Schraw and Dennison,1994). Recently, some attempts at measuringcultural aspects of metacognition (Ang et al.,2007) have adopted this approach. On theother hand, building on the recommenda-tions of Ericsson and Simon (1993), someresearchers have investigated metacognitionusing process tracing techniques. Verbal pro-tocol analysis is probably the most widely of

these techniques. Verbal protocols assumethat the way participants search for informa-tion, evaluate alternatives, choose courses ofaction and so on can be registered throughtheir verbalization. The procedure used toelicit verbal protocols varies. A central dis-tinction is whether the verbalization is col-lected during (concurrent with) the cognitiveprocessing or afterward (retrospective). While,in general, concurrent protocols outperformretrospective ones, the latter may have someadvantages in providing information aboutthe final choice of a course of action (Kuuselaand Paul, 2000). In addition to direct assess-ments of cultural metacognition, the domainof the construct also suggests indirect indica-tors. That is, both the speed of cognitive pro-cessing and the ability to convert specificinformation into general guidelines for crosscultural interaction would be indicators ofmetacognitive activity as defined here.

In previous sections we raised issues withregard to the assessment of the behavioraloutcomes of cultural intelligence and its threeinteracting components. However, the defini-tion of cultural intelligence as a system ofinteracting knowledge, skills and metacogni-tion presents another challenge. That is, thedevelopmental nature or instability of cul-tural intelligence suggests the possible applic-ability of dynamic types of tests (Sternberg,1997b). Dynamic tests of intelligence assessthe participant’s ability to profit from feed-back, which gives an indication of the differ-ence between his/her latent capacity andobserved ability; also called the zone ofproximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). TheSwanson Cognitive Processing Test (Swan-son, 1996) is an example of such a dynamicmeasure in which examinees receive a prob-lem, then, if they answer correctly, they moveon; however, if not, they are given guidedfeedback in a succession of steps to help themsolve the problem. This approach may beparticularly appropriate for assessing culturalintelligence in that it taps into participants’ability to use cultural metacognition to draw




on knowledge and skills to learn to make better choices about appropriate behavior ina new cultural setting.

This discussion suggests that no singlemethod will assess cultural intelligence asdefined in this article. Clearly, the retrospec-tive self-reports of cognitive processes pro-posed elsewhere (e.g. Ang et al., 2007; Earleyand Mosakowski, 2004) seem inadequate tomake accurate assessments. Rather, a matrixof assessment approaches, perhaps containedin a single delivery vehicle, will be required totap this new construct. Regardless of themethods, the psychometric context thatdefines the operationalization(s) and mea-surement of cultural intelligence must beestablished. It is important to define theassessment of the construct in such a way thatcultural bias is not introduced. Lack of crosscultural equivalence is a common problem inmost western intelligence tests (e.g. Sternberg,1985, 2000), and cultural intelligence is aninherently multicultural construct.

Conclusion

Defining intelligence of any sort has beenchallenging, and cultural intelligence pre-sents at least as many issues. However, pre-dicting and explaining the effectiveness ofindividuals in intercultural interactions con-tinues to be a significant challenge for a num-ber of different fields of study. The concept ofcultural intelligence, as a continuum of capa-bility explaining why some individuals aremore effective in this regard than others, hasthe potential to be a significant developmentwith regard to understanding cross culturalinteractions. In this article we have presenteda conceptualization that defines culturalintelligence as a system of interacting abili-ties. In so doing we build on the systems viewof intelligence and provide a clear descriptionof the interactive effect of cultural metacog-nition that allows for the emergence of cul-tural intelligence. Additionally, we avoid theunnecessary complication of a motivational

facet of cultural intelligence and define theadaptive skills component in a manner thatdoes not suggest mimicry, but is consistentwith the existing literature on effective crosscultural interactions, and allows for the generation of unique responses and influenceon the immediate interaction context. Webelieve we have presented a parsimoniousdefinition of cultural intelligence that cap-tures the construct in such a way that it willexplain variance in effective cross culturalinteractions not accounted for by existingconstructs such as intercultural competenceor global mindset or by other definitions. Its utility awaits the development of a validmeasure.

NotesThis research was supported by a grant from theSocial Science and Humanities Research Councilof Canada. Authors are members of the CulturalIntelligence Project and are listed in reversealphabetical order. We thank our colleagueDuncan Jackson for his contribution at earlierstages of this project, and we are grateful toStacey Fitzsimmons for research assistance in thepreparation of this manuscript.

1 While we have presented it here forconceptual clarity, in practice it maysometimes be difficult to differentiateprocedural knowledge from themetacognitive component of culturalintelligence.

2 This discussion draws heavily on the linkingfunction of the construct of mindfulness, asubordinate element of culturalmetacognition as described in Thomas (2006)and Ting-Toomey (1999).

ReferencesAckerman, P.L. (1996) ‘A Theory of Adult

Intellectual Development: Process,Personality, Interests, and Knowledge’,Intelligence 22: 227–57.

Adler, N.J. (1997) International Dimensions ofOrganizational Behavior, 3rd edn. Cincinnati,OH: South-Western.

Allen, B.A. and Armour-Thomas, E. (1991)‘Construct Validation of Metacognition’, The




Journal of Psychology 127(1): 203–11.Anderson, J.R. (1982) ‘Acquisition of Cognitive

Skill’, Psychological Review 89: 369–406.Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K.Y.,

Templar, K.J., Tay, C. et al. (2007) ‘CulturalIntelligence: Its Measurement and Effects onCultural Judgement and Decision Making,Cultural Adaptation and Task Performance’,Management and Organization Review 3(03):335–71.

Aycan, Z. (1997) ‘Acculturation of ExpatriateManagers: A Process Model of Adjustmentand Performance’, in Z. Aycan (ed.) NewApproaches to Employee Management, Vol. 4:Expatriate Management: Theory and Research, pp. 1–40. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Binet, A. and Simon, T. (1916) ‘TheDevelopment of Intelligence in the Child’(L’Année Psych., 1908, pp. 1–90), in E.S. Kite(trans.) The Development of Intelligence in Children(The Binet-Simon Scale), pp. 182–273.Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.

Bird, A., Stevens, M.J., Mendenhall, M.E. andOddou, G. (2007) The Global CompetenciesInventory, version 3.0. St Louis, MO: TheKozai Group.

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

Byrne, D. (1971) The Attraction Paradigm. NewYork: Academic Press.

Caligiuri, P.M. (2000) ‘The Big Five PersonalityCharacteristics as Predictors of Expatriates’Desire to Terminate the Assignment andSupervisor-rated Performance’, PersonnelPsychology 53: 67–88.

Ceci, S.J. (1990) On Intelligence . . . More or Less: ABiological Treatise on Intellectual Development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Charness, N. (1979) ‘Components of Skill inBridge’, Canadian Journal of Psychology 33: 1–16.

Chen, G.-M. and Starosta, W.J. (2000) ‘TheDevelopment and Validation of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale’, paperpresented at the annual meeting of theNational Communication Association,Seattle, November 2000.

Chi, M.T.H. (1978) ‘Knowledge Structures andMemory Development’, in R.S. Siegler (ed.)Children’s Thinking: What Develops?, pp. 73–96.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chi, M.T H., Feltovich, P.J. and Glaser, R.(1981) ‘Categorization and Representation ofPhysics Problems by Experts and Novices’,Cognitive Science 5: 121–52.

Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R. and Farr, M. (1988) The

Nature of Expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Chi, M.T.H. and VanLehn, K.A. (1991) ‘TheContent of Physics Self-explanations’, TheJournal of the Learning Sciences 1(1): 69–105.

Chiu, C., Morris, M.W., Menon, T. and Hong,Y. (2000) ‘Motivated Cultural Cognition: TheImpact of Implicit Cultural Theories onDispositional Attribution Varies as a Functionof Need for Closure’, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 78: 247–59.

Church, A.T. (1982) ‘Sojourner Adjustment’,Psychological Bulletin 91(3): 540–72.

Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J. and Sharp, D. (1971)The Cultural Context of Learning and Thinking.New York: Basic Books.

Costa, P.T., Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992) RevisedNEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PR-R and NEOFive Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): ProfessionalManual. Odessa, FL: Psychological AssessmentResources.

Cushner, K. and Brislin, R.W. (1996) InterculturalInteractions: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1980) ‘Self-determination Theory: When Mind MediatesBehavior’, The Journal of Mind and Behavior 1:33–43.

DiStefano, J.J. and Maznevski, M.L. (2000)‘Creating Value with Diverse Teams inGlobal Management’, Organizational Dynamics29: 45–63.

Earley, P.C. (2002) ‘Redefining Interactionsacross Cultures and Organizations: MovingForward with Cultural Intelligence’, Researchin Organizational Behavior 24: 271–99.

Earley, P.C. and Ang, S. (2003) CulturalIntelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Earley, P.C., Ang, S. and Tan, J.S. (2006)Developing Cultural Intelligence at Work. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Earley, P.C. and Mosakowski, E. (2004) ‘CulturalIntelligence’, Harvard Business Review 82(10):139–46.

Earley, P.C. and Peterson, R.S. (2004) ‘TheElusive Cultural Chameleon: CulturalIntelligence as a New Approach toIntercultural Training for the GlobalManager’, Academy of Management Learning andEducation 3(1): 100–15.

Eid, M. and Diener, E. (2001) ‘Norms forExperiencing Emotions in Different Cultures:Inter- and Intranational Differences’, Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81: 869–85.

Ekman, P.W. (1982) Emotion in the Human Face,




2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Ericsson, A.K. and Simon, H.A. (1993) ProtocolAnalysis: Verbal Reports as Data. London: MITPress.

Fiske, S.T. (1982) ‘Schema Triggered Affect:Applications to Social Perception’, in M.S.Clarke and S.T. Fiske (eds) Affect and Cognition:The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition,pp. 55–78. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Fiske, S.T. and Dyer, L.M. (1985) ‘Structure andDevelopment of Social Schemata: Evidencefrom Positive and Negative Transfer Effects’,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48:839–52.

Flavell, J.H. (1979) ‘Metacognition and CognitiveMonitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-developmental Inquiry’, American Psychologist34: 906–11.

Foster, C.A., Witcher, B.S., Campbell, W.K. andGreen, J.D. (1998) ‘Arousal and Attraction:Evidence for Automatic and ControlledProcessing’, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 74: 86–101.

Francis, J.N.P. (1991) ‘When in Rome? TheEffects of Cultural Adaptation onIntercultural Business Negotiations’, Journal ofInternational Business Studies 22(3): 403–28.

Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory ofMultiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, W.L. and Martinko, M.J. (1988)‘Impression Management in Organizations’,Journal of Management 14: 321–38.

Gick, M.L. and Holyoak, K.J. (1987) ‘TheCognitive Basis of Knowledge Transfer’, inS.M. Cormier and J.D. Hagman (eds) Transferof Learning: Contemporary Research and Applications.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Gilbert, D.T. and Hixson, J.G. (1991) ‘TheTrouble of Thinking: Activation andApplication of Stereotypic Beliefs’, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 60: 509–17.

Giles, H. and Smith, P. (1979) ‘AccommodationTheory: Optimal Levels of Convergence’, inH. Giles and R.N. St. Clair (eds) Language andSocial Psychology, pp. 45–63. Baltimore, MD:University Park Press.

Glaser, J. and Kihlstrom, J.F. (2005)‘Compensatory Automaticity Is Not anOxymoron’, in R. Hassum, J.S. Uleman andJ.J. Bargh (eds) The New Unconscious. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional Intelligence. NewYork: Bantam Books.

Gollwitzer, P.M. and Schaal, B. (1998)

‘Metacognition in Action: The Importance ofImplementation Intentions’, Personality andSocial Psychology Review 2(2): 124–36.

Gottfredson, L. (2002) ‘g: Highly General andHighly Practical’, in R.J. Sternberg and E.L.Grigorenko (eds) The General Factor ofIntelligence: How General Is It?, pp. 331–80.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Govindarajan, V. and Gupta, A.K. (2001) TheQuest for Global Dominance. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Hanisch, K.A., Hulin, C.L. and Roznowski, M.(1998) ‘The Importance of Individuals’Repertoire of Behaviors: The ScientificAppropriateness of Studying MultipleBehaviors and General Attitudes’, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior 19: 463–80.

Howard, B.C., McGee, S., Hong, N.S. and Shia,R. (2000) ‘The Influence of MetacognitiveSelf-regulation on Problem-solving inComputer-based Science Inquiry’, paperpresented to the American EducationalResearch Association, New Orleans.

Howard, B.C., McGee, S., Shia, R. and Hong,N.S. (2001) ‘The Influence of MetacognitiveSelf-regulation and Ability Levels onProblem-solving’, paper presented to theAmerican Educational Research Association,Seattle.

Johnson, J.P., Lenartowicz, T. and Apud, S.(2006) ‘Cross-cultural Competence inInternational Business: Toward a Definitionand a Model’, Journal of International BusinessStudies 37: 525–43.

Kihlstrom, J.F. and Cantor, N. (2000) SocialIntelligence. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Kuusela, H. and Paul, P. (2000) ‘A Comparisonof Concurrent and Retrospective VerbalProtocol Analysis’, The American Journal ofPsychology 113: 387–404.

Law, K.S., Wong, C.-S. and Song, L.J. (2004)‘The Construct and Criterion Validity ofEmotional Intelligence and Its Potential forManagement Studies’, Journal of AppliedPsychology 89: 483–96.

Lee, C.H. and Templer, K.J. (2003) ‘CulturalIntelligence Assessment and Measurement’, inP.C. Earley and S. Ang (eds) CulturalIntelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S. andBoyacigiller, N.A. (2007) ‘What We TalkAbout When We Talk About “GlobalMindset”: Managerial Cognition inMultinational Corporations’, Journal of




International Business Studies 38: 231–58.Linville, P.W. (1982) ‘The Complexity–

Extremity Effect and Age-basedStereotyping’, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42(2): 193–211.

Logan, G.D. (1989) ‘Automaticity and CognitiveControl’, in J.S. Uleman and J.A. Bargh (eds)Unintended Thought, pp. 52–74. New York:Guilford Press.

Marks, D.F. (1999) ‘Conscious Mental Imageryand Action’, British Journal of Psychology 9(4):567–85.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. and Roberts, R.D.(2002) Emotional Intelligence: Science and Myth.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D. and Salovey, P. (1999)‘Emotional Intelligence Meets TraditionalStandards for Intelligence’, Intelligence 27:267–98.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D. and Salovey, P. (2000)‘Electing a Measure of EmotionalIntelligence: The Case of Ability Scales’, in R.Bar-On and J.D.A. Parker (eds) The Handbookof Emotional Intelligence, pp. 320–42. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1993) ‘TheIntelligence of Emotional Intelligence’,Intelligence 17: 433–42.

Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1995) ‘EmotionalIntelligence and the Construction andRegulation of Feelings’, Applied and PreventivePsychology 4: 197–208.

Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997) ‘What IsEmotional Intelligence?’, in P. Salovey andD.J. Sluyter (eds) Emotional Development andEmotional Intelligence: Educational Implications.New York: Basic Books.

Mednick, S.A. (1962) ‘The Associative Basis ofthe Creative Process’, Psychological Review 69:220–32.

Mendenhall, M. and Oddou, G. (1985) ‘TheDimensions of Expatriate Acculturation’,Academy of Management Review 10: 39–47.

Mokhtari, K. and Reichard, C.A. (2002)‘Assessing Students’ Metacognitive Awarenessof Reading Strategies’, Journal of EducationalPsychology 94: 249–59.

Nisbett, R.E. and Wilson, T.D. (1977) ‘TellingMore Than We Can Know: Verbal ReportsMental Processes’, Psychological Review 84(3):231–59.

Pendry, L.F. and MacRae, C.N. (1999)‘Cognitive Load and Person Memory: TheRole of Perceived Group Variability’,European Journal of Social Psychology 29: 925–42.

Perfect, T.J. and Schwartz, B.L. (2002) Applied

Metacognition. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Pontari, B.A. and Schlenker, B.R. (2000) ‘TheInfluence of Cognitive Load on Self-Presentation: Can Cognitive Busyness Help asWell as Harm Social Performance?’, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 78: 1092–108.

Porter, S.S. and Inks, L.W. (2000) ‘CognitiveComplexity and Salesperson Adaptability: AnExploratory Investigation’, Journal of PersonalSelling and Sales Management 20: 15–21.

Rosch, E. (1975) ‘Universals and CulturalSpecifics in Human Categorization’, in R.Brislin, S. Bochner and W. Lonner (eds) Cross-cultural Perspectives in Learning, pp. 177–207.New York: Sage.

Ruben, B.D. and Kealey, D.J. (1979) ‘BehavioralAssessment of Communication Competencyand the Prediction of Cross-culturalAdaptation’, International Journal of InterculturalRelations 3: 15–47.

Ruzgis, P. and Grigorenko, E.L. (1994) ‘CulturalMeaning Systems, Intelligence, andPersonality’, in R.J. Sternberg and P. Ruzgis(eds) Personality and Intelligence. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, R.M., Kuhl, J. and Deci, E.L. (1997)‘Nature and Autonomy: An OrganizationalView of Social and Neurobiological Aspectsof Self-regulation in Behavior andDevelopment’, Development and Psychopathology9: 701–28.

Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990) ‘EmotionalIntelligence’, Imagination, Cognition, andPersonality 9: 185–211.

Sampson, D.L. and Smith, A.R. (1957) ‘A Scaleto Measure World-minded Attitudes’, Journalof Social Psychology 45: 99–106.

Schraw, G. and Dennison, R.S. (1994) ‘AssessingMetacognitive Awareness’, ContemporaryEducational Psychology 19: 460–75.

Schwab, D.P. (1980) ‘Construct Validity inOrganizational Behavior’, Research inOrganizational Behavior 2: 3–43.

Simonton, D.K. (1983) ‘Formal Education,Eminence and Dogmatism: The CurvilinearRelationship’, Journal of Creative Behavior 17:149–62.

Stahl, G.K. (2001) ‘Using Assessment Centers asTools for Global Leadership Development:An Exploratory Study’, in M.E. Mendenhall,T.M. Kuhlmann and G.K. Stahl (eds)Developing Global Business Leaders: Policies,Practices, and Innovations. Westport, CT:Quorum Books.

Sternberg, R.J. (1985) Beyond IQ: A Triarchic




Theory of Human Intelligence. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R.J. (1997a) ‘The Concept ofIntelligence and Its Role in LifelongLearning’, American Psychologist 52: 1030–7.

Sternberg, R.J. (1997b) ‘Intelligence and LifelongLearning: What’s New and How Can WeUse It?’, American Psychologist 52: 1134–9.

Sternberg, R.J. (2000) ‘The Concept ofIntelligence’, in R.J. Sternberg (ed.) Handbookof Intelligence, pp. 3–15. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sternberg, R.J., Lautry, J. and Lubart, T.I.(2003) ‘Where Are We in the Field ofIntelligence, How Did We Get Here, andWhere Are We Going?’, in R.J. Sternberg, J.Lautrey and T.I. Lubart (eds) Models ofIntelligence, pp. 3–26. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Sternberg, R.J. and Lubart, T.I. (1991) ‘AnInvestment Theory of Creativity and ItsDevelopment’, Human Development 34: 1–31.

Sternberg, R.J. and Ruzgis, P. (eds) (1994)Personality and Intelligence. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Swanson, H.L. (1990) ‘Influence ofMetacognitive Knowledge and Aptitude onProblem Solving’, Journal of EducationalPsychology 82(2): 306–14.

Swanson, H.L. (1996) Swanson Cognitive ProcessingTest: Examiner’s Manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.

Taylor, S. (1981) ‘A Categorization Approach toStereotyping’, in D. Hamilton (ed.) CognitiveProcesses in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior, pp. 83–114. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Thomas, D.C. (2006) ‘Domain and Developmentof Cultural Intelligence: The Importance ofMindfulness’, Group and OrganizationManagement 31(1): 78–99.

Thomas, D.C. and Inkson, K. (2003) CulturalIntelligence: People Skills for Global Business. SanFrancisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Thomas, D.C. and Ravlin, E.C. (1995)‘Responses of Employees to CulturalAdaptation By a Foreign Manager’, Journal ofApplied Psychology 80: 133–46.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999) Communicating AcrossCultures. New York: Guilford Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978) ‘Interaction betweenLearning and Development’, in M. Cole, V.John-Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman(eds and trans) Mind in Society: The Developmentof Higher Psychological Processes, pp. 79–91.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wade-Benzoni, K.A., Okumura, T., Brett, J.M.,Moore, D.A., Tenbrunsel, A.E. andBazerman, M.H. (2002) ‘Cognitions andBehavior in Asymmetric Social Dilemmas: AComparison of Two Cultures’, Journal ofApplied Psychology 87: 87–95.

Wechsler, D. (1944) The Measurement of AdultIntelligence, 3rd edn. Oxford: Williams andWilkin.

Yamazaki, Y. and Kayes, D.C. (2004) ‘AnExperiential Learning Approach to Cross-cultural Learning: A Review and Integrationof Competencies for Successful ExpatriateAdaptation’, Academy of Management Learningand Education 3: 362–79.

DAVID C. THOMAS is Professor of Inter-national Management, Segal Graduate School ofBusiness, Simon Fraser University, 500 GranvilleStreet, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 1W6.[email: [email protected]]

GÜNTER STAHL is based at INSEAD,Boulevard de Constance, 11305, Fontainebleau,France. [email: [email protected]]

ELIZABETH C. RAVLIN is at the MooreSchool of Business, University of South Carolina,Columbia, South Carolina 29208, USA.[email: [email protected]]

STEVEN A.Y. POELMANS is at the IESEBusiness School, University of Navarra, AvenidaPearson 21, Barcelona, 08034, Spain.[email: [email protected]]

ANDRE PEKERTI is at the University ofQueensland, Ipswich, Queensland 4305,Australia.[email: [email protected]]

MARTHA MAZNEVSKI is at the InternationalInstitute for Management Development (IMD),Chemin de Bellerive 23, P.O. Box 915,Lausanne, CH-1001, Switzerland.[email: [email protected]]

MILA B. LAZAROVA is at Simon FraserUniversity, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby,British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6.[email: [email protected]]

EFRAT ELRON is at the Tel Hai AcademicCollege, Upper Galilee, Israel.[email: [email protected]]




BJØRN Z. EKELUND is based at HumanFactors AS, Skrenten 3, 3258 Larvik, Norway.[email: [email protected]]

JEAN-LUC CERDIN is at ESSEC BusinessSchool, Avenue Bernard Hirsch, BP 50105,Cergy-Pontoise Cedex, F-95021, France.[email: [email protected]]

RICHARD BRISLIN is at the University ofHawai’i at Manoa, 2444 Dole Street, Honolulu,Hawai’i, 96822, USA.[email: [email protected]]

ZEYNEP AYCAN is in the Department ofPsychology, Koc University, Rumelifeneri Yolu,34450 Sariyer, Istanbul, Turkey.[email: [email protected]]

KEVIN AU is at the Department ofManagement, LG17 KKL Building, ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong, Shatin, NewTerritories Hong Kong.[email: [email protected]]

Please address correspondence to David C.Thomas.


Résumé

Intelligence culturelle : domaine et évaluation (David C Thomas, GünterStahl, Elizabeth C. Ravlin, Steven Poelmans, Andre Pekerti, MarthaMaznevski, Mila B. Lazarova, Efrat Elron, Bjørn Z. Ekelund, Jean-Luc Cerdin,Richard Brislin, Zeynep Aycan and Kevin Au)Le concept d’intelligence culturelle, récemment introduit dans la littérature de gestion, a lepotentiel d’expliquer l’efficacité des interactions interculturelles. Il n’y a à ce jour aucunedéfinition ou opérationnalisation acceptées de ce concept naissant. Nous développons danscet article une conceptualisation de l’intelligence culturelle qui répond à un certain nombrede limitations importantes des définitions antérieures. Nous présentons une définition concisede l’intelligence culturelle comme système d’aptitudes en interaction ; nous décrivonscomment ces éléments interagissent pour produire des comportements culturellementintelligents et identifions enfin quelles sont les implications en termes de mesure.

David C Thomas, Günter 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



international journal of cross cultural · pdf fileinternational journal of cross cultural...

Documents