review of the literature and .... measure. thornson, c.a., ross, k.g., and joanna cooper. (2008)

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A

MEASURE OF CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCE

Prepared by Carol A. Thornson, M. S.

Karol G. Ross, Ph.D. Joanna Cooper, Ph.D.

15 June 2008

Cognitive Performance Group 14151 Weymouth Run

Orlando FL 32828 407-737-8998

Submitted in completion of Task 3 under the Human Resources Technologies, Inc. (HRT) Statement of

Work entitled ―Cultural Readiness: Using the DEOMI Equal Opportunity Climate Survey (DEOCS) to Preliminarily Define and Measure Cultural Competency‖

Cognitive Performance Group Measurement of Cross-Cultural Competence

i

Table of Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1

Purpose ............................................................................................................ 1

Project Overview ............................................................................................... 1

The Multidimensional Nature of CCC ................................................................... 3

Preliminary Model of CCC ....................................................................................... 3

Predictor Variables—―Gateway‖ Attributes ........................................................... 3

Mental Model Variable—Domain Specific Expertise ............................................... 5

Outcome Variables—Skills .................................................................................. 6

Mediating Variables—Factors Influencing Successful Skill Application .................... 8

Prototype Development: The Measurement of CCC .................................................. 9

Next Steps in Prototype Development ................................................................... 11

References .......................................................................................................... 12

Appendix – Cross-Cultural Competence Scale ........................................................ 16


1

Introduction

Purpose

The task documented here is part of a project to support the understanding and development

of Cultural Readiness for the Department of Defense. The purpose of this project is to derive a

preliminary operational definition of cross-cultural competence (CCC) and to test and validate

related measures in the military population. This report documents Task 3 of the project and

includes the development of a preliminary theoretical CCC model and a prototype self-report

assessment instrument. These findings are derived from literature review conducted in Tasks 1

and 2 and from the results of interviews conducted in Task 2. To integrate our findings and

produce the model and the measurement instrument, we reviewed additional literature during

Task 3. The additional review served to validate our preliminary conclusions and to expand our

initial pool of items for the measurement instrument. Based on that pool of items, we designed

the prototype self-report instrument for pilot administration to assess variables that best

describe the individual differences related to CCC.

Project Overview

The project includes five tasks:

1) Identify Measures Related to Culture

2) Establish Key Operational Definition

a) Operational Definition of CCC from the Literature

b) Operational Definition of CCC from Critical Incident Interviews

3) Review of the Literature and Construction of a Prototype Instrument

4) Collection of Baseline Measures

5) Preliminary Report of Results

Task 1 addressed the conceptualization phase of instrument development, whereby a broad

range of instruments designed to measure some form of cultural competence was identified. A

detailed overview of each of the instrument’s psychometric properties (e.g., reliability, validity)

was provided in order to judge the possible inclusion of such items into an instrument

developed for use in the military (Thornson & Ross, 2008).


2

Task 2a (Ross & Thornson, 2008) continued by examining the relevant literatures, in order to

further explicate and operationalize1 CCC, while the second half of this task (Task 2b) refined

the operational definition of CCC and the factors that comprise this construct by incorporating

interview data (Ross, 2008). Specifically, nine critical incident interviews were conducted to

examine the role of CCC within the context of mission success.2 Such a two-tiered approach to

Task 2 allowed us to develop theoretically-based hypotheses of important constructs that might

make up a measure of CCC, as well as detailed explications of what performance success looks

like, which can be tied to all of the important and relevant outcomes of mission effectiveness.

The ordering of these first two steps (i.e., development of conceptual criteria and exploration of

field performance effectiveness) was critical in order to prevent the all-too-common practice of

using outcome criterion measures simply because they are available or easily developed.

Beginning with a hasty ―front-end analysis‖ can lead to erroneous and misleading training

objectives and policies, as well as a shaky foundation for future research.

Task 3 represents the integration of research findings from the literature with our interview

data, resulting in a preliminary theoretical model of CCC. We also offer an initial prototype

measurement tool to assess those attributes that are determinants of CCC and that are

amenable to self-report measurement. This pilot version of the tool will also provide direction

for future performance-based assessment.

Task 4 will involve the pilot administration of the prototype instrument and statistical analyses

of the resulting data. The analysis will allow us to derive a more robust and valid measurement

tool by eliminating less informative items and consolidating factors to validate the preliminary

model presented here as well as the basis for authoring the final form of the instrument. A

second administration of the final form of the assessment tool to a new sample of respondents

is recommended, as this would provide an actual baseline in the current populations and data

for future development. The overall project concludes with Task 5, our final report on this

project. The report will include an integration of the findings from each task, together with the

results from the administration of the initial measures, as well as conclusions and

recommendations for a finalized model of CCC and its measurement and an initial baseline.

1 to define a concept or variable so that it can be measured or expressed quantitatively 2 Only a preliminary set of interviews were conducted as part of this project. These interviews

allowed us to understand the nature of the challenges and competencies, but do not provide extensive enough results to fully develop a complete performance-based assessment or a full model of performance-based cultural competency.


3

The Multidimensional Nature of CCC

For the purposes of this project, cross-cultural competence must be defined with an eye toward

(1) the unique performance challenges required within the context of mission performance and

(2) the individual difference variables that can be measured in self-report. Our preliminary

working definition of CCC is as follows:

Cross-cultural competence is the development of knowledge and skill through

experience and training that results in a complex schema (mental model) of

cultural differences, perspective-taking skills, and interpersonal skills, all of which

an individual can flexibly (or adaptively) apply through the willingness to engage

in new environments even in the face of considerable ambiguity, and through

self-monitoring and through self-regulation to support mission success in a

dynamic context.

Preliminary Model of CCC

Critical to understanding a construct as complex and multidimensional as CCC is the

development of a theoretical causal model (see Figure 1) to clarify the relationship among the

variables postulated to explain CCC. In developing a model of CCC, we are positing that

understanding causal relationships among factors will allow us to better: a) understand the

phenomena, b) predict relationships, and c) know how changes in one variable can produce a

change in other variables.

All of the factors in our model which contribute to the development of cross-cultural expertise

are measurable and trainable; however, for the purposes of this task and the constraints

imposed by self-report instruments, we will focus on the individual difference variables.

Certain factors, specifically perspective-taking and prediction skills and interpersonal skills in

context, require more extensive measurement tools (i.e., situational based and knowledge

tests) that are beyond the scope of this study.

Predictor Variables—―Gateway‖ Attributes

Beginning in the upper left side of our model (see Figure 1) we can see that both ethnocultural

empathy and self-efficacy allow for the emergence of openness to new knowledge and

experience and the willingness to engage. These variables also permit the development and

expression of domain knowledge that is stored in the form of a mental model. Although

individual difference predictors are difficult to elicit in interviews, the insights gained from the


4

interviews indicate that cross-cultural competence requires the ethnocultural empathy and self-

efficacy to allow individuals to be open to new experiences and willing to engage in such

experiences.

Self-Efficacy - The concept of self-efficacy is the focal point of Bandura's social cognitive

theory (Bandura, 1997). It is the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain

manner or attaining certain goals or, more specifically, the belief that one has the

capabilities to execute the courses of actions required to manage prospective situations.

There is an important distinction between self-esteem and self-efficacy. Self-esteem

relates to a person’s overall sense of self-worth, whereas self-efficacy relates to a person’s

perception of their ability to reach a particular goal.

Unlike efficacy, which is the power to produce an effect (in essence, competence), self-

efficacy is the belief (whether or not accurate) that one has the power to produce that

effect. For example, a person with high self-efficacy may engage in more cross-cultural

encounters and persist in encounters, whereas a person with low self-efficacy would

harbor feelings of self-doubt and withdraw.

Ethnocultural Empathy - Enthnocultural Empathy (Wang et al., 2003) refers to

emotional empathy, the ability to understand another’s emotions, as well as the cognitive

ability to take on the perspective of another person. For our purposes, we are focusing

our definition of ethnocultural empathy on the emotional component, as the cognitive

component is more aligned with perspective-taking, a cognitive skill in our model.

Examples of emotional empathy were documented 31 times in our interview data (Ross,

2008).

Based upon our literature review and interviews, it seems that empathy for those who are

different from oneself allows openness to new experiences and predicts the willingness to

engage, both of which support the development and application of cross-cultural mental

models.

Openness to New Experiences & Willingness to Engage – Obviously, open-

mindedness and the willingness to engage and stay engaged seem to be important to

expertise in any number of fields, and military service is no exception. As such, we found

these constructs were cited together 34 times in the interview data (Ross, 2008). We


5

grouped these variables together under one concept for purposes of analyzing interview

data.

Specifically, openness represents an individual’s extent of interest and drive to learn about

new cultures and to gain new experiences (Ang et al., 2004). The willingness to engage

represents an individual’s willingness or persistence to stay engaged in the process of

making sense of unfamiliar social events and situations in dissimilar cultures (Earley &

Ang, 2003). Thus, an individual who possesses both of these capabilities will tend to

actively search and explore new situations and to regard them as a challenge, as well as

engage in interaction with members of another culture, both of which can lead to the

development of a progressively more detailed and interconnected mental model.

Mental Model Variable—Domain Specific Expertise

The Development of a Cross-Cultural Mental Model – Mental models are knowledge

structures or cognitive representations that help people to describe, explain, and predict

events in their environment (Rouse & Morris 1986). Research has shown that the richer

and more robust a person’s mental model is, the more expertise this person possesses.

Thus, mental models are the basis for all expertise, including CCC. This set of knowledge

and cognitively encoded experiences are indicated in the CCC model in terms of how

mental models in general develop and are structured. This variable consists of the domain

knowledge regarding cultural difference in general and domain specific knowledge about

specific cultures. It also consists of the knowledge gained from experience regarding how

to do processes and recognize and enact optimal courses of action.

Our interview data confirmed that this construct is a key critical element of competence as

examples were provided by military personnel 100 times across the nine interviews (Ross,

2008).

Measurement: The measurement of mental models is not generally amenable to self-

report instruments. We will measure the factors that contribute to the development of a

cross-cultural mental model rather than domain knowledge specifically. This tactic has

been successful in other measurement instruments that we have reported on previously in

this project. In future development, aspects of mental models may be assessed using

knowledge tests (ideally based on a commonly accepted set of learning objectives and


6

expert interviews to validate the relevance of the knowledge) and items that require

situational judgment (situational judgment tests or SJTs). The situational judgment items

indirectly capture the expression of the mental model in terms of choices about preferred

performance in specific situations. Other methods of eliciting mental models are available

or can be created but consist of procedures such as concept maps and are not useful for

measuring expertise in large populations. Such measures may, however, be useful in

expert interviews in the future as a precursor to the design of knowledge tests and SJTs.

Outcome Variables—Skills

Being in possession of a robust and complex cross-cultural mental model is predicted to lead to

enhanced perspective-taking and prediction skills, interpersonal skills, and flexibility in applying

different strategies to solve problems. Our qualitative data confirmed that mental models are

the precursor to good perspective-taking that allows one to predict and reflect on what works

and does not work when dealing with members of another culture (Ross, 2008).

Perspective Taking and Prediction Skills - Having a mental model would be useless

to mission success without the ability to apply it by taking on the perspective of someone

from such a culture and using this insight into the perspective of another person to predict

likely behaviors and attitudes.

Measurement: As perspective-taking and prediction skills encompass specific behaviors in

context, measuring these abilities goes beyond the scope of the self-report instrument,

requiring instead situational or behavior-based assessments (e.g., SJTs or simulations).

Our focus in this task, then, will be on measuring the variables that enable or mediate

perspective taking and prediction skills.

Interpersonal Skills in Context - Interpersonal skills encompass a wide category of

behaviors, and include the ability to persuade and negotiate, as well as knowing how to

―size up‖ a group or person. High levels of interpersonal skills lead to rapport- or

relationship-building, resulting in a network of relationships with local people.

Interpersonal skills were the second most important factor we found in our interview data

when it comes to achieving mission success in another culture, as such skills were

mentioned in 45 different examples (Ross, 2008).


7

We previously separated relationship-building as a key interpersonal skill during the

analysis of Task 2b in which we counted relationship-building as its own category in

addition to a category for interpersonal skills. We found that relationship-building was

mentioned a total of 68 times by our interviewees (Ross, 2008). At this point we have

combined relationship-building with the interpersonal skills category for a total of 113

instances mentioned in the interviews.

Measurement: Because interpersonal skills encompass a wide variety of behaviors, there

are no specific validated measures that have been used in research. Most studies that

assess such skills tend to be qualitative in nature (e.g., interviews) and specific to the type

of communications required in a particular context. There are other variables in our model

that influence the level of interpersonal skills, and we will measure these. However,

because interpersonal skills encompass specific behaviors in context, behavior-based

assessment (e.g., simulations, assessment centers, etc.) should be developed in the

future.

Cognitive and Behavioral Flexibility – This is an important skill that involves not only

the cognitive component of having a rich repertoire of strategies and behaviors from

which to choose, depending upon the given situation (i.e., a rich, robust mental model),

but actually being able to switch easily from one strategy to another behaviorally during

assessment, decision-making, and problem-solving. Cognitive flexibility is associated with

the ability to learn from experiences and mistakes and to adjust of behavior as required

(behavioral flexibility), resulting in the ability to switch easily from one strategy to another

(Abbe et al., 2007). Our interviewees provided examples where flexibility was important in

17 different scenarios (Ross, 2008).

Flexibility, then, is conceived of as choosing the appropriate strategy and switching

strategies when one is recognized as ineffective. The ability to be flexible in one’s

approach, in turn, allows personnel to solve a range of problems in a complex and

dynamic situation, which is tantamount to mission success (Gompert et al., 2005).


8

Mediating Variables—Factors Influencing Successful Skill Application

Although mental models yield the performance outcomes essential for CCC, there are several

important intervening variables that we believe mediate the successful application of cross-

cultural skills.

Tolerance for Ambiguity - Tolerance for ambiguity is a general disposition that broadly

influences cognition, attitudes, and behavior. Low tolerance for ambiguity is characterized

by rigidity, dichotomous thinking, authoritarianism, and ethnocentrism (Frenkel-Brunswik

as cited in Abbe et al., 2007). Empirical evidence across four experiments by Van Hiel and

Mervielde (2002) suggests that high tolerance for ambiguity leads to more informed and

slower decision-making, and that high levels of need for closure impede the tendency to

consult more information in making such decisions.

Low Need for Closure - The Need for Cognitive Closure is defined as the extent to

which a person, faced with a decision or judgment, desires any answer, rather than exist

in a state of confusion and ambiguity (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). As such, a need for

closure may cause an engagement to be prematurely ended due to an immediate need for

answers or solutions, and reluctance to search for other or better ways of doing things

(flexibility).

In the Stage Model of Cognitive Development (Ross, Phillips, Klein, & Cohn, 2005), it was

found that less advanced performers display more rigidity and need for structure and

adherence to the plan, and this may be related to the need for cognitive closure. Certain

situational factors (e.g., time pressure) may trigger a need for premature closure across

individuals, but more so in those who are already predisposed to seeking closure.

Emotional Self-regulation – Self-regulation refers to the ability to control, or regulate,

oneself during performance and is a ―trainable‖ skill, as opposed to being a personality

trait. We found that self-regulation was cited in 19 instances across our interviews (Ross,

2008).

Self-monitoring - Self-monitoring refers to an individual’s motivation and ability to

observe and adjust his/her behavior in a socially appropriate way depending on situational


9

cues (Snyder, 1974). Self-monitoring enables individuals to determine when and how to

adjust their behavior, an ability that facilitates social interaction across divergent situations

Those with high self-monitoring abilities are chameleon-like and able to readily change

their behaviors depending upon the specific environment in which they are placed or in

response to a dynamic situation.

Self-monitoring (including metacognition) was found in five examples in our interview data

(Ross, 2008); however, this is likely an unconscious ability, and thus, interviewees may

not have been aware of their use of this skill. Thus, self-monitoring and metacognition are

likely even more important in cross-cultural competence than the interviews suggest,

indicating a rich area for assessment and training.

These mediating variables are important because possessing a rich mental model of other

cultures and methods for successful interaction would be useless without the ability to regulate

one’s emotions and monitor one’s behaviors in order to employ that expertise. A lack of self-

regulation and self-monitoring weakens interpersonal skills and flexibility. Historically, this type

of self-control has been conceived of as especially important for those in leadership roles in the

military. The assumption has been that lower-ranking individuals needed only to listen and

follow orders. However, being skilled at self-control, flexibility, and interpersonal skills is of keen

importance in today’s military across all ranks and job types, especially given the complexity of

contemporary cross-cultural missions.

Prototype Development: The Measurement of CCC

To develop a measurement tool that is psychometrically valid and reliable – that measures what

it purports to measure with a high degree of reliability and consistency – researchers must

adhere to the five steps of questionnaire design. These include conceptualization, prototype

construction, questionnaire tryout, statistical analysis, and revision (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2002).

The conceptualization phase often starts with a review of the literature of the existing

questionnaires that have been designed to measure the construct of interest, in this case, CCC

and its related manifestations. Task 1 (Thornson & Ross, 2008) addressed this first step of

metric design. Conducting a literature review for the purpose of designing assessment might

reveal that existing measures leave something to be desired in terms of psychometric

soundness, which serves as the stimulus for developing the new measure (p. 189, Cohen &


10

Swerdlik, 2002). In addition, we believe that the existing measures may leave something to be

desired in terms of the constructs assessed, as well as the relevance of existing measures for

the purposes of the current assessment requirements.

In addition to literature review, in order to conceptualize the overall construct of interest (i.e.,

CCC), some basic issues must be addressed. These include coming up with a precise definition

of what exactly is being measured, how it will be measured, the format of the questionnaire,

benefits to such measurement, and the meanings of the scores derived, among others. The

conceptual criteria have been carefully identified to include all of the important dimensions of

performance. This involved not only theoretically-based hypotheses of important constructs that

make up a construct of cross-cultural competence, but also detailed explications of what

performance success looks like, so that the results can be tied to the important and relevant

outcomes of mission effectiveness (Ross, 2008).

In measuring a multidimensional construct such as CCC, an initial or pilot instrument must

include many more items than may ultimately be needed. This allows researchers, during pilot-

testing, to assess many possible manifestations of content areas potentially relevant to CCC. As

advocated by psychometricians (e.g., Cohen & Swerdlik, 2002; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), as

large an item pool of questions as possible must be used to ensure adequate content coverage

(as well as construct validity). This process ―may entail the creation, revision, and deletion‖ of

many items, leaving the most reliable and valid items for the final form. We realize that this

approach of creating a large pool of items must be tempered by the knowledge that there are

practical limits to the number of questionnaire items, from both development and

implementation perspectives.

In terms of the construction of our pilot instrument, we have adhered to the generally accepted

concepts of questionnaire construction. Scaling is an important part of construction involving

setting rules for assigning numbers in measurement. A six-point response scale is used

throughout the inventory, as this consistency makes it easier for respondents to complete the

instrument, makes it easier to score, and enhances validity. Additionally, items must be phrased

carefully, simply, and unambiguously, as recommended by psychometricians (Rust & Golombok,

1989). Our item pool is drawn largely from existing measures that are available in the open

literature and require no payment to the authors, have been conceptually linked to the

constructs we have presented here, and have been tested in previous research in terms of


11

validity and reliability. Additional items have been constructed based on our interview data to

reflect attitudes and behaviors consistent with those reported and found in the literature.

One caution to keep in mind is that an understanding of any key concepts should not be

assumed in participants; therefore, questions should not ask respondents directly about the

constructs of interest, ―cross-cultural competence,‖ as it may contain terms unfamiliar to them.

The impulse to answer in a socially acceptable way (called ―social desirability bias‖) is usually

managed by instructions to avoid spending too long on any one question and by emphasizing

that the first response is usually the best response. In addition, we will use a psychometrically

validated ―lie scale‖ (see Appendix) to ensure that social desirability biases do not come into

play.

Next Steps in Prototype Development

Questionnaire tryout is the third phase in developing a psychometrically sound questionnaire.

Having created a large pool of items, it is necessary to administer the questionnaire to as large

of a pool of representative participants as possible, certainly no fewer than five participants per

item (preferably ten per item) should be available. With any smaller sample size, we run the

risk of ―phantom factors,‖ nonexistent factors that emerge in factor analysis when a sample size

is too small.

Statistical analyses will follow the administration of the prototype in Task 4. Factor analysis will

be used, which is basically a data reduction technique that groups the factors (variables)

together, allowing us to refine the proposed operational definitions and structure of our model.

Analyzing the data with factor analysis can help to establish content and construct validity as

well. We will be able to examine the questionnaire items we are using to measure each factor

associated with cross-cultural competence (i.e., each of the ―subscales‖) this way. If we have

correctly constructed the items, then the items that are designed to go together under each

subscale will group together statistically as ―factors.‖ This will provide good support for the

validity of the scale as a whole and for our theoretical model.

Having conceptualized the measure of CCC, constructed the prototype, tried it out, and

analyzed the items, the next step will be to act upon all of the information obtained in the

analyses and to mold the questionnaire into its final form. Many of the items will have to be


12

eliminated and perhaps others rewritten based upon our analyses as to which items were the

weakest. This is another advantage of a large item pool – many poorer items can be eliminated

with enough ―good‖ items left to assess each construct, making the final form as robust as

possible.

Additionally, Task 4 requires the collection of ―baseline measures.‖ We understand baseline

measures to mean establishment of some preliminary normative data in the existing population.

To accomplish this task, we must conduct another administration using the final, revised form

of the instrument.

This project concludes with our final report on the results of this initial effort, the findings from

each task, and the overall results and conclusions with our recommendations for a framework

of cultural competence and its measurement. We will also include results generated from the

administration of the questionnaire’s final form, as well as recommendations for further

development on the future utilization and application of findings from this project.

References

Abbe, A., Gulick, L. M. V, & Herman, J. L. (2007). Cross-cultural competence in Army leaders: A

conceptual and empirical foundation. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences, Study Report 2008-1. Arlington, VA: ARI.

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

intelligence. Paper presented at the 2004 Academy of Management Meetings

Symposium on Cultural Intelligence in the 21st Century, New Orleans, LA.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. WH Freeman: New York.

Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2002). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to

tests and measurement (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

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

Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

Gompert, D. C., Lachow, I., & Perkins, J. (2005). Battle wise: Gaining advantage in networked

warfare. Washington, DC: National Defense University, Center for Technology and National

Security Policy. Available online from: http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/publications.html.


13

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw

Hill.

Ross, K. G. (2008, May). Toward an operational definition of cross-cultural competence from

interview data. Patrick AFB, FL: Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute

(DEOMI). (Available from the Cognitive Performance Group

([email protected]).

Ross, K. G., Phillips, J. K., Klein, G., & Cohn, J. (2005). Creating expertise: A framework to

guide technology-based training. Technical Report for Contract # M67854-04-C-8035 for

the Marine Corps Systems Command, Program Manager for Training Systems. Fairborn,

OH: Klein Associates, Inc.

Ross, K. G., & Thornson, C. A. (2008, March). Toward an operational definition of cross-cultural

competence from the literature. Patrick AFB, FL: Defense Equal Opportunity

Management Institute (DEOMI). (Available from the Cognitive Performance Group

([email protected]).

Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the

search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 3, 349-363.

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.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 30, 526-537.

Thornson, C. A., & Ross, K. G. (2008, January). Identification of measures related to cross cultural

competence. Patrick AFB, FL: Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI).

Available from the Cognitive Performance Group ([email protected].

Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Effects of ambiguity and need for closure on the acquisition

of information. Social Cognition, 20, 380-408.

Wang, Y. W., Davidson, M. F., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K. (2003).

The Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy: Development, validation, and reliability. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 50, 221–234.


14

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062


15

Figure 1. Theoretical Model of Cross-Cultural Competence

Declarative Knowledge

Knowledge of Processes in Context

Knowledge of Successful Action Sequences

MENTAL MODEL

Direct Instruction

Training and Operational Experiences

Coaching, Feedback and Reflection

MENTAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT

yields progressively detailed and interconnected

Enthnocultural

Empathy

allow

allow

Openness to New Knowledge and

Experience

Willingness to Engage

Self-Efficacy

support development

and application of

yields

MISSION SUCCESS

Emotional Self-

Regulation

Tolerance of

Ambiguity

Low Need

for Closure

Cognitive Self-

Monitoring

mediate successful application of

Cognitive and Behavioral

Flexibility

Interpersonal

Skills in Context

support

Perspective Taking and Prediction Skill

Perspective Taking and Prediction Skill


16

Appendix – Cross-Cultural Competence Scale


17

INSTRUCTIONS

Read each of the following statements and decide how much you agree with each according to

your beliefs and experiences. You should avoid spending too long on any one question as the

first response is usually the best response. Please respond according to the following scale:

1 strongly disagree

2 moderately disagree

3 slightly disagree

4 slightly agree

5 moderately agree

6 strongly agree

Ethnocultural Empathy (Myers & Myers, 1997; Wang et al., 2003)

1. When dealing with people of a different ethnicity or culture, understanding their

viewpoint is a top priority for me.

2. It is easy for me to understand what it would feel like to be a person from a different

culture.

3. I feel offended when I hear people make jokes about or use slang words to describe

people from other ethnic backgrounds or cultures.

4. I rarely think about the impact of an ethnic joke on people who are targeted. (R)

5. I feel sorry for people of other ethnicities or cultures if I think they are being taken

advantage of.

6. I share the anger of those who face injustice because of ethnic or cultural differences.

7. It is difficult for me to put myself in the shoes of someone from another culture. (R)

8. When making a group decision, I think that considering each person’s perspective is

more important than making a decision that’s completely fair and impartial.

9. I feel irritated when people of different ethnic or cultural backgrounds speak their native

language around me. (R)

10. I feel impatient when communicating with people of different ethnicities or cultures than

mine, regardless of how well they can communicate. (R)

11. I think the best decisions are made when we can remove any personal concerns, because

emotions lead to biased decisions. (R)


18

12. I try to act based on the truth of a situation, not what others might want to believe or wish

were true. (R)

13. Making sure that everyone gets along in my team is one of my priorities.

14. I try to look for a logical explanation or solution to almost every problem I encounter. (R)

15. I don’t understand why people of different ethnicities or cultures feel they have to cling

to their own values and traditions. (R)

Self-efficacy (Ang, Van Dyne, Koh, & Ng, 2004; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Schwarzer &

Jerusalem, 1995)

16. I am confident that I will be able to socialize with people from different cultures.

17. I am unsure of my abilities to deal with the local population if placed in a different

culture. (R)

18. I am sure I would be able to handle all of the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new

to me.

19. Having to live in a culture that is drastically different from my own would be a problem

for me. (R)

20. I am confident that I can get used to the unusual conditions of living in another culture.

21. I am uncertain how much I would be able to influence the local population of another

culture. (R)

22. I expect I would get along very well with people from other cultures.

23. I am confident of my ability to communicate well with all kinds of people from all kinds

of ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

24. I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.

25. It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.

26. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.

27. I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort.

28. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.

29. When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions.

30. If I am in trouble, I find it difficult to think of something to do.(R)

31. No matter what comes my way, I'm usually able to handle it.


19

Willingness to Engage (McCroskey & Richmond, 1985; Ross, 2008)

32. I would enjoy visiting other cultures that are unfamiliar to me.

33. I would enjoy interacting with people from different cultures.

34. Traveling to other countries is something I would enjoy.

35. I seek opportunities to speak with individuals from other cultural or ethnic backgrounds

about their experiences.

36. If I have a job to do with other people, I like to get to know them well.

37. A job is often successful because you understand the people you are working with well.

38. I spend just enough time with other people as I need to in order to get the job done. (R)

39. I tend to get to know my neighbors well.

40. I can be more successful at my job if I understand what is important to other people.

41. Knowing others well is not important to my job. (R)

42. I tend to start conversations with strangers like people in the check-out line at the store or

beside me on an airplane.

43. If I see someone I know, I usually stop and talk to them.

44. If I see someone I know, I sometimes avoid speaking to them. (R)

45. When I go to the doctor, I feel comfortable telling him/her everything s/he needs to

known in order to accurately diagnose me.

46. I do not like giving presentations to a group of strangers. (R)

47. If I have to wait in line, I often strike up a conversation with someone nearby.

48. I enjoy talking in a large meeting of friends and acquaintances.

49. I try to say as little as possible if confronted by a police officer. (R)

50. In small groups of strangers, I tend to keep my own counsel. (R)

51. I enjoy presenting to a group of friends.

52. In a large meeting of strangers, I usually remain pretty quiet. (R)

Openness to New Knowledge & Experience (Myers & Myers, 1997; Webster &

Kruglanski, 1994)

53. Once I find the right way to do something, I stick to it. (R)

54. I enjoy coming up with new plans and new ideas.

55. I believe variety is the spice of life.


20

56. Our society’s ideas of right and wrong may not be right for all people in the world.

57. I believe that it’s better to stick to your ethics and principles than to be open-minded. (R)

58. People should honor traditional family values and not question them. (R)

59. I enjoy reflecting on why things are the way they are.

60. I am not interested in abstract ideas. (R)

61. I do not enjoy spending time imagining possibilities. (R)

62. Even after I've made up my mind about something, I am always eager to consider a

different opinion.

63. I dislike questions which could be answered in many different ways. (R)

64. I feel irritated when one person disagrees with what everyone else in a group believes.

(R)

65. When considering most conflict situations, I can usually see how both sides could be

right.

66. When thinking about a problem, I consider as many different opinions on the issue as

possible.

67. I prefer interacting with people whose opinions are very different from my own.

68. I always see many possible solutions to problems I face.

69. I do not usually consult many different options before forming my own view. (R)

Emotional Self-Regulation (Gross & John, 2003; Schwarzer, Diehl, & Schmitz, 1999)

70. When I want to feel less negative emotions (anger, frustration, or sadness), I change the

way I’m thinking about the situation.

71. When I want to feel more positive emotions (happiness or amusement), I change the way

I’m thinking about the situation.

72. It is difficult for me to suppress thoughts that interfere with what I need to do. (R)

73. I can control my thoughts from distracting me from the task at hand.

74. When I worry about something, I cannot concentrate on an activity. (R)

75. After an interruption, I don't have any problem resuming my concentrated style of

working.

76. I have a whole bunch of thoughts and feelings that interfere with my ability to work in a

focused way. (R)


21

77. When I want to feel more positive emotion (happiness or amusement), I change what I’m

thinking about.

78. When I want to feel less negative emotion (sadness, frustration, or anger), I change what

I’m thinking about.

79. When I’m faced with a stressful situation, I make myself think about it in a way that

helps me stay calm.

80. I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in.

81. When feeling stressed, I’m able to calm myself by thinking of other things.

Self-monitoring (Ang, Van Dyne, Koh, & Ng, 2004; Snyder, 1974)

82. I find it difficult to imitate the behavior of other people. (R)

83. My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner feelings, attitudes, and beliefs. (R)

84. In meetings or discussions, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like. (R)

85. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe. (R)

86. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have almost no

information.

87. When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look to the behavior of others for

cues.

88. I sometimes appear to others to be experiencing deeper emotions than I actually am.

89. In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons.

90. I am not particularly good at making other people like me. (R)

91. Even if I am not enjoying myself, I often pretend to be having a good time.

92. I'm not always the person I appear to be.

93. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to please someone else

or win their favor. (R)

94. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations. (R)

95. If necessary, I am able to look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face.

96. I am able to fool people by being friendly when I really dislike them.

97. When I interact with people from other cultures or ethnic backgrounds, I show my

appreciation of their cultural norms.

98. I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent, tone) if a cross-cultural interaction requires it.


22

99. I would be able to change my non-verbal behaviors if dealing with those of other cultures

or backgrounds.

Tolerance for Ambiguity (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994)

100. I don't like situations that are uncertain. (R)

101. I feel uncomfortable when I don't understand the reason why an event occurred in my

life. (R)

102. When I am confused about an important issue, I feel very upset. (R)

103. In most social conflicts, I can easily see which side is right and which is wrong. (R)

104. I like to know what people are thinking all the time. (R)

105. I dislike it when a person's statement could mean many different things. (R)

106. It's annoying to listen to someone who cannot seem to make up his or her mind. (R)

107. I feel uncomfortable when someone's meaning or intention is unclear to me. (R)

108. I'd rather know bad news than stay in a state of uncertainty. (R)

Low Need for Cognitive Closure (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994)

109. I think that having clear rules and order at work is essential for success. (R)

110. I find that a well-ordered life with regular hours suits my temperament. (R)

111. I hate to change my plans at the last minute. (R)

112. My personal space is usually messy and disorganized.

113. I believe orderliness and organization are among the most important characteristics of a

good student. (R)

114. I think that I would learn best in a class that lacks clearly stated objectives and

requirements.

115. I find that establishing a consistent routine enables me to enjoy life more. (R)

116. I enjoy having a clear and structured mode of life. (R)

117. I like to have a plan for everything and a place for everything. (R)

118. I dislike the routine aspects of my work.

119. I like to have friends who are unpredictable.

120. I enjoy the uncertainty of going into a new situation without knowing what might happen.


23

121. When dining out, I like to go to places where I have been before so that I know what to

expect. (R)

122. I think it is fun to change my plans at the last moment.

123. I don't like to be with people who are capable of unexpected actions. (R)

124. I prefer to socialize with familiar friends because I know what to expect from them. (R)

125. I don't like to go into a situation without knowing what I can expect from it. (R)

126. I dislike unpredictable situations. (R)

Cognitive Flexibility (Ross, 2008; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994)

127. I would never describe myself as indecisive. (R)

128. When I go shopping, I have no trouble deciding exactly what it is I want. (R)

129. When faced with a problem I usually see the one best solution very quickly. (R)

130. I usually make important decisions quickly and confidently. (R)

131. It takes me time to make important decisions as I see all sides of a situation.

132. When trying to solve a problem I often can foresee several long-term consequences of my

actions.

133. If my approach to a problem isn’t working with someone, I can easily change my tactics.

134. I prefer to stick to doing something the way it’s always worked in the past. (R)

135. I know how to gain insight from another person to get a job done.

136. I believe that there is a right way and a wrong way to do most things. (R)

137. I am able to work well with others to help them find better ways to accomplish their

tasks.

138. If there is already a good way of addressing a problem, it’s a waste of time to consider

alternatives. (R)

139. I don’t bother discussing alternative solutions with others if I’ve already made up my

mind. (R)

140. If there is already a process in my organization that works well, then it should work well

in other organizations. (R)

141. When working with someone from another culture, it’s important to change my behavior

if we aren’t successful.

142. I have different ways of working with different people.


24

143. People have different methods that can be equally successful in solving a problem.

144. Sometimes you have to bend the rules to do the right thing.

Lie Scale (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994)

145. I have never been late for an appointment.

146. I have never known someone I did not like.

147. I believe that one should never engage in leisure activities.

148. I feel that there is no such thing as an honest mistake.

149. I have never hurt another person's feelings.

Scoring the Need for Closure Scale

1. Reverse code items that are reverse-scored, so that higher sums indicate that

respondent possesses a greater amount of the attribute.

2. Sum each participant’s responses except for the lie scale items.

3. Sum the lie scale items.

4. Remove the participant’s answers if the lie score is greater than 15 (using 1 to 6 rating

scale)

review of the literature and .... measure. thornson, c.a., ross, k.g., and joanna cooper. (2008)

Documents

measurement of ccc

preliminary model of

measurement instrument

prototype development

project overview

competence scale

report documents task

literature review