The International Journal of Human Resource

Management

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Experiential cultural intelligence development:

context and individual attributes

Brent MacNab , Richard Brislin & Reginald Worthley

To cite this article: Brent MacNab , Richard Brislin & Reginald Worthley (2012) Experiential
cultural intelligence development: context and individual attributes, The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 23:7, 1320-1341, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2011.581636

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.581636

Published online: 26 Aug 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1106

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20

Download by: [University of Sussex Library] Date: 09 December 2015, At: 17:27
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 23, No. 7, April 2012, 1320–1341

Experiential cultural intelligence development:

context and individual attributes
Brent MacNaba*, Richard Brislinb and Reginald Worthleyb
a
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; bUniversity of Hawaii, Honolulu, USA
Cultural intelligence (CQ) represents advancement in the area of international human
resources management and cross-cultural training. An experiential approach to CQ
training is developed and analyzed. A diverse, multicultural group of over 370
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

participated. General self-efficacy and contextual aspects related to Contact Theory were
found to be significant to training outcomes in CQ development. In crafting the most
effective CQ training and education, organizations and international human resources
staff can benefit from understanding individual and contextual influences. Our
experiential approach to CQ education appears to hold promise and adds to the literature
by producing a specific approach.
Keywords: Contact Theory; cross-cultural training; cultural intelligence;
experiential approach; general self-efficacy

Introduction
Increasingly, managers, students, sojourners, and immigrants are required to operate within
culturally complex environments (Black and Gregersen 1999). With greater frequency
businesses are establishing operations in foreign cultures and employees are required to both
sojourn and effectively operate with visiting sojourners (Adler 2002; Ng, Van Dyne and Ang
2009). Managers, university personnel, and students are frequently required to understand
the nuances of many cultural groups. International human resources managers and
university administrators, responsible for training, teaching, and learning, must prepare
employees, students, and faculty to service and interact effectively with a wide variety of
cultural groups. In short, organizations of varied types are required to navigate more
culturally complex realities.
Some methods of cross-cultural training tend to focus on cognitive and culture-specific
approaches where general nuances of the intended target group (i.e., one specific culture)
are identified and efforts are made for greater understanding prior to contact. However,
there is a call to advance such approaches (Bhawuk and Brislin 2000). In the current global
environment it is often difficult to identify the target culture group as there are sometimes
many represented. Purely knowledge-based cross-cultural training approaches can be
deficient because of the increased difficulty in identifying a single contact culture
(Thomas and Inkson 2003; Florida 2005) coupled with growing evidence that culture can
be quite dynamic (Matsumoto, Kudoh and Takeuchi 1996; Ralston, Holt, Terpstra and Kai-
Cheng 1997; Jenner, MacNab, Brislin and Worthley 2006; Kelley, MacNab and Worthley
2006). Even within the same nation, multicultural realities must be navigated (McSweeney
2002; MacNab, Brislin, Galperin, Lituchy and Worthley 2007).

*Corresponding author. Email: brent.macnab@sydney.edu.au

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

q 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.581636
http://www.tandfonline.com
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1321

There is an increasing need to improve cross-cultural training to better prepare people

for the nuances of a modern, multicultural century (Bandura 2002; Brislin, MacNab and
Nayani 2008). Cultural intelligence (CQ) refers to a set of skills and traits that allow one to
more effectively interact with novel cultural settings. CQ education involves efforts
designed to increase one’s capacity in this area and requires dynamic blends of cultural
knowledge, self-awareness, and behavioral aspects.
While there are excellent overviews and explanations on the general topic of CQ
(Earley and Ang 2003; Thomas and Inkson 2003; Brislin, Worthley and MacNab 2006;
Ng and Earley 2006), there are few specific models for teaching people to understand and
develop the capacities related to CQ. Researchers have suggested that experiential process
approaches to CQ education, training, and development are effective (Ng, Van Dyne and
Ang 2009). Social Learning Theory (Bandura 1977b), as applied to cross-cultural education
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

endeavors, further supports the method of experiential CQ development outlined later in

this work.
The remainder of this review (1) provides an overview of supporting theory and the
concept of CQ; (2) explores self-efficacy and Contact Theory as potentially relevant
within the CQ training process and presents theoretical links among these components;
(3) summarizes an experiential approach for CQ training and; (4) quantitatively examines
the relation of self-efficacy and Contact Theory to CQ training outcome indicators.
Because our study is one of the first of its kind in CQ, we mainly aim to produce
preliminary findings, stimulate new thinking, and research while contributing to current
and future training and education development.

Theoretical links
Lewin (1951) elucidated that both individual attributes and contextual components will be
meaningful in relation to social behavior. Bond (2003) suggested that personal and
situational aspects are important in appraisal of social interaction. Individual attributes
include a person’s experiences and personality traits. As an individual trait, self-efficacy is
potentially relevant to outcomes in cross-cultural encounters, training, and adjustment
(Hechanova, Beerh and Christiansen 2003; Earley and Mosakowski 2004; Earley and
Peterson 2004). The concept of self-efficacy has also been related to training, education,
and learning outcomes within other domains (Hasan and Ali 2006).
Contextual components include aspects that encompass a situation or social
interaction. These can include the physical setting and general conditions. One of the
more developed treatments of context in social interaction is Allport’s (1954) Contact
Theory. The theory is specifically relevant to our study as it is predicted to influence the
outcome of training related to diversity and social interaction (Levy-Paluck 2006).
Morton Deutsch (2007) recommended that the investigation of social interaction includes
both individual and contextual perspectives. As stated, ‘[Research on social behavior]
has been too focused on [only] what goes on in the isolated head of the subject with a
corresponding neglect of the social reality in which the subject is participating’ (Pippert 2007,
p. 11). The combined examination of self-efficacy and Contact Theory allows our
investigation to address both areas recommended by Deutsch (2007). Related to CQ,
Earley and Ang (2003, p. 212) establish that individual personality aspects, specifically
emphasizing self-efficacy, and contextual parameters will influence one’s capability to
internalize CQ. Berry (1997) suggested that individual and contextual aspects will influence
acculturation outcomes and we expect this influence will also exist in cultural training
outcomes. For further review of self-efficacy and Contact Theory, see following sections.
 1322 B. MacNab et al.

Experiential approaches to educational efforts are proposed as being effective

(Dewey 1938; Bhawuk and Brislin 2000) and this position is supported in Kolb’s (1984)
Experiential Learning Theory and Bandura’s (1977b) Social Learning Theory. Experiential
approaches are hypothesized as being ideal for CQ development (Thomas and Inkson 2003)
and show evidence of being effective in other types of cross-cultural training (Goldstein and
Smith 1999). Additionally, experiential approaches to CQ training hold the potential for
bridging the link between thought and action while addressing concerns that cross-cultural
training should generally move from a pure cognitive focus to stronger inclusion of
behavioral aspects (Foster 2000).

Cultural intelligence (CQ)

Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

CQ refers to individual capacities that enable one to interact effectively with others from
different cultural backgrounds and in different cultural contexts (Brislin, MacNab and
Worthley 2006). CQ represents the capability to be effective across and within cultures
(Ng and Earley 2006) and people can be taught these skills (Earley and Ang 2003;
Thomas and Inkson 2003). CQ education is the process of developing related awareness and
skills within people or groups. CQ is to be distinguished from a personality trait as it
represents adjustments a person can make to be effective across cultures while a personality
trait describes what a person will normally do across time and situations (Costa and McCrae
1992; Ang et al. 2007).
Culture is described as the shared cognitive or subjective patterns for a particular group
of people (e.g. values and attitudes) and can also manifest in more objective forms like
artifacts (e.g. clothing and food). From an early age, people are typically socialized within a
particular cultural group – a process referred to as enculturation. Once enculturation takes
place, it tends to influence one toward a pattern of values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors
that are often similar to other members of the same culture. Because of phenomena like
assumed similarity bias, disconfirmed expectancy, and cognitive dissonance1 it can be
challenging for people from different cultures to interact with the highest level of
effectiveness and comfort.
The complexity and challenge associated with cultural interaction tends to increase as the
level of cultural differences, called cultural distance, increases along with the intensity of the
contact. Intensity of contact is influenced by elements like duration of the interaction and what
is at stake with the interaction (Earley and Ang 2003; Brislin and MacNab 2004). CQ provides
an approach for assisting people in effectively navigating these types of interactions by
blending self-awareness, skills development, general knowledge, and specific knowledge.
Because this method represents a rich process requiring eventual alteration of cognitive,
motivational, and behavioral patterns, CQ training requires a process-oriented approach.
The process would typically start with basic cultural awareness which would be found in the
cognitive parameter of CQ and this would better help the individual to adapt appropriate
behavioral adjustments with mindfulness (Thomas and Inkson 2003).
Christopher Earley developed a three-part model with cognitive/metacognitive,
motivation, and behavior components (Earley and Peterson 2004). Earley and Ang (2003,
p. 261) state, ‘At the heart of the training framework on CQ, we adopt the position that all
three components that combine to define culturally intelligent individuals are amenable to
training and development’. One main goal of our research effort directly examines this
position by employing our experiential approach (see Methods section).
The cognitive component of the model refers to the ‘head’ – awareness, self-awareness,
and knowledge. It has been suggested that this aspect of CQ should be the first step in
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1323

developmental training (Thomas and Inkson 2003; Thomas 2006). This component also
includes a metacognitive aspect that relates to thinking about thinking (Earley and Peterson
2004) or cognitive control (Ang et al. 2007). Metacognitive is related to an individual’s
process of gaining and using cultural knowledge (Ang et al. 2007), and because this
component is highly related to experiential training, we focus on that aspect of the cognitive
category for this study. An example of metacognitive would include questioning cultural
assumptions when operating in new cultural environments or questioning stereotypes.
The motivation component refers to the ‘heart’ – perseverance and also appropriate
goal setting related to cultural interaction (Earley and Peterson 2004, p. 17). An example
within this component would be not giving up too soon in relation to the increased challenge
and stress related to intercultural activity. It is sometimes stressful and challenging to
interact with people from one’s own culture group. It is often significantly more stressful
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

and challenging to interact with people from different cultural groups. This interaction will
often require heightened levels of motivation and perseverance.
The behavior component refers to ‘action’ – the ability to consciously adjust or adapt
behaviors suitable to the cultural environment. This area includes aptitude to determine
where new behaviors are needed and how to execute these effectively. An example would be
adjusting one’s specific manner of communicating to more effectively interact with host
nationals.
Examining our experiential approach to CQ training will include outcome indicators
related to each of these three components as recommended by others (Earley and
Mosakowski 2004; Ang, Van Dyne and Koh 2006). Next we examine important individual
and contextual aspects, which might influence CQ training and development.

Individual traits and learning CQ

The link between individual traits and the learning process is not a new idea and some
well-established theories have successfully linked specific individual characteristics with
types of learning. Several approaches made this link well before the introduction of CQ.
For example, Gardner (1983) established multiple intelligences, proposing that individuals
possess certain propensities and traits which make them capable of more readily learning
within specific areas like mathematics, music, or to excel in physical activities or social
interaction. Related to the topic of our study, researchers have hypothesized that a variety
of individual traits may directly influence one’s propensity for developing CQ and
excelling in that endeavor (Ng and Earley 2006; Lee and Sukoco 2010).

General self-efficacy
General self-efficacy is related to the self concept and Social Learning Theory (Bandura
1977a,b) and is defined as ‘judgment of one’s capability to accomplish a certain level of
performance’ (Bandura 1986, p. 391), or ‘the conviction one can engage in behavior that will
produce the desired outcome’ (Bandura 1977a, p. 193). Individuals with high self-efficacy
do not permanently retreat from setbacks but will rather continue to endeavor with greater or
more strategic effort (Bandura 1997). Such individuals have greater propensity for delayed
gratification, demonstrate higher commitment, are more diligent and effective in developing
problem-solving and coping strategies (Locke and Latham 1990; Bandura 1997).
GSE is relevant to our study as it allows an individual to endure potentially stressful
and difficult situations that are often related to more rigorous CQ training. Bandura (2002)
has suggested the link of self-efficacy to intercultural endeavors while Ang et al. (2007)
recommended examination of self-efficacy as an individual trait related to CQ. There have
 1324 B. MacNab et al.

been direct and general links proposed between self-efficacy and propensities toward CQ
training, education, and development.
Because of GSE’s potential importance to CQ training we propose the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Participant’s general self-efficacy will be positively related to indicators
of CQ development outcomes.
Next we review Contact Theory as a link for examining the relation with context and
experiential CQ development.

Context and CQ training

Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

Theories have established that context is an important component not only to the general
learning process but also during intergroup interaction (Allport 1954). Context refers to the
obvious and subtle environmental elements and the specific interaction conditions that
envelop an experience. Several types of contextual considerations have been proposed as
important during cross-cultural interaction, training, and more specifically to CQ (Cushner and
Brislin 1996; Earley and Peterson 2004; Brislin et al. 2006). For example, Earley and Ang
(2003) proposed that increased duration and intensity of intercultural contact can create
stronger demands upon one’s CQ capabilities. Brislin (2000) suggested that the type of
cross-cultural training context also influences the learning and development process.
Allport (1954) established Contact Theory that proposes that specific contextual
elements will influence the general success and outcome of contact between people of
different backgrounds. Meta-analysis of Contact Theory has established that this approach
holds value in predicting positive results associated with group interaction (Pettigrew and
Tropp 2006). Contact Theory presents one useful platform from which to examine and
measure the relevance of specific contextual nuances as potentially related to an
experiential approach to CQ development.

Contact theory
Dating before Allport’s (1954) classic work on prejudice and prejudice reduction, social
psychologists have attempted to identify the conditions under which intergroup contact has
positive benefits on interpersonal feelings and behaviors among members of different
cultural, racial, and ethnic groups. Researchers (e.g. Williams 1947) examined the reduction
of intergroup tension which provided Allport a foundation for refining his eventual
approach. Allport (1954) established that increased contact between people of different
backgrounds will generally improve relations and understanding if certain contextual
conditions during the contact are generally met; never claiming that contact, by itself, will
necessarily have positive benefits. Other researchers have attempted to identify factors
within and surrounding contact that will lead to positive feelings and productive outcomes
(Amir 1969; Brislin 1981; Pettigrew 1998; Van Knippenberg and Schippers 2007).
The amount of research examining Contact Theory represents an impressive body of
literature (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006) with researchers identifying a plethora of different
potential contact conditions. One critique of Allport’s theory is that it left too much to
interpretation, which is why others have been able to suggest so many additional contact
conditions. However, general contextual requirements as established by Contact Theory
(Allport 1954) include the following parameters, which we will examine as an
independent construct for Contact Theory (Figure 1):
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1325

Four items each, total of 16 manifest items.

CT 1 CT 2 CT 3 CT 4

Contact theory

0.525 p<.001

0.333
General self-efficacy Learning CQ
p<0.001
Eight total manifest items
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

LCQ 1 LCQ 2 LCQ 3

Four items each, total of 12 manifest items.

Figure 1. Structural equation model relating general self-efficacy and contact theory to indicators
of learning cultural intelligence. Includes standardized regression weights and levels of significance
for structural path hypotheses.
Notes: CQ, cultural intelligence; LCQ1, learning cultural intelligence, metacognitive; LCQ2,
learning cultural intelligence, motivation; LCQ3, learning cultural intelligence, behavioral; CT1,
Contact Theory, equal status; CT2, Contact Theory, common ground; CT3, Contact Theory,
individual contact; CT4, Contact Theory, support of authority.

(1) Nondominance between the contact parties or reasonable status equity. If one or
more parties establish and use dominant positioning and influence then benefits of
contact are less likely. For example, resentment or acquiescence could result.
(This area is referred to as CT1 in our model.)
(2) Establishment of some mutual goals, common ground (and cooperativeness)
between the contact parties. The absence of any meaningful shared needs or wants,
whether explicit or implicit, real or imagined will reduce the probability for
benefits related to the contact. Parties should work together toward these goals.
(This area is referred to as CT2 in our model.)
(3) Meaningful degree of personal contact. If people in groups do not actually have
the opportunity to meet the chance for meaningful contact is reduced. (This area is
referred to as CT3 in our model.)
(4) Endorsement/support of the contact from recognized administration, leaders, or
people of influence associated with the involved parties. If related leaders or
influential people are not supportive or are resistant to the interaction, there is lower
probability for contact benefits. (This area is referred to as CT4 in our model.)
There is precedence for examining Contact Theory in relation to training programs for
cross-cultural effectiveness (Hansell 2000). The main parameters of Allport’s (1954)
Contact Theory are useful in developing a general hypothesis, which can help examine
how this theory might be related to CQ development outcome indicators:
Hypothesis 2: Contact Theory will be positively related to indicators of CQ
development outcomes.
We have reviewed CQ and have associated theories with key individual (GSE) and
contextual elements (Contact Theory), which could influence CQ development. Next a
 1326 B. MacNab et al.

Table 1. Listing of participant nationalities and ethnicities.

Nationalities Frequency
China 156
Australia 76
Hong Kong 13
United States 13
Germany 11
Taiwan 11
Other or missing (2) 93
Total 373
Ethnicities Frequency
Chinese/Chinese born/part-Chinese 186
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

Australian/white Australian/part-Australian 61
Other Asian except Chinese 33
Caucasian/white, non-Australian/non-European 32
European 25
Other or missing (4) 36
Total 373

summary of the basic structure for our experiential approach to CQ development is

provided along with other methodological details.

Methods
Between 2005 and 2007 university business students, engaged in management education,
participated in an experiential approach to CQ development. The development,
implementation, and research for this approach were conducted within two internationally
recognized universities in both North America and Australia, involving three research
collaborators. The effort included 373 participants representing 31 different nationalities
with a wide range of ethnic backgrounds (Table 1). As Table 2 represents, there was a
relatively equitable representation of both males and females along with a notable
representation of work experience. University participants are ideal for this type of
pedagogy method development because of their dedicated engagement to education. These
participants also represent applicant and employee pools that human resource professionals
will need to interact within the near future as these people reach the job market and require
further training and development.

Experiential training method

Experiential approaches have been identified as effective for solidifying the complexities
involved in cross-cultural training (Brislin 2000). Traditionally cross-cultural training tends
to focus on culture-specific and information types of training as these approaches are often
easier to administer. However, approaches that rely exclusively on culture-specific and
information have been viewed as less effective in culturally distant environments where
contact intensity with host nationals will be high (Mendenhall, Dunbar and Oddou 1987).
Participants in our study engaged in an eight-week training process related to CQ
development. The training was embedded within international management and cross-
cultural management courses so it was a topic of natural fit within that main area of focus.
The approach we used was called an experiential approach because trainees were required
to engage a new cultural activity and new cultural group. Experiential approaches to CQ
development are proposed as being ‘the most rigorous and effective in developing high
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1327

Table 2. Other participant demographics.

Undergraduate (n ¼ 144) Graduate (n ¼ 229)

Educational status
Male 44% 37%
Female 56% 63%
Work experience 84% 78%
Management experience 13% 22%
Foreign student 54% 95%
Travel frequency outside of home country (prior to age 18)
Never 9% 50%
One time 12% 10%
More than 1 but less than 5 times 38% 14%
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

More than 5 but less than 10 times 17% 13%

Over 10 times 24% 13%
Age (mean) 20.6% 24.7%

CQ’ (Thomas and Inkson 2003, p. 72). Experiential approaches can also greatly benefit
from knowledge-based (factual) training, which also became part of our entire process as
described in more detail with the following stages.2 This process follows a general cross-
cultural training approach as apparent in other work (Goldstein 1991; Cushner and Brislin
1996) and provides the grounding for our training setup. This pattern includes awareness
(see Stage 1), experience (see Stages 2, 3, and 4), internalization (see Stage 5), and then
communication (see Stage 6) with social-sharing (see Stage 7). Following is an abbreviated
version of our training approach; for a more detailed version see MacNab (2010).

Stage 1: awareness development

Participants were provided basic ‘awareness-level’ knowledge related to key concepts
associated with the intended education. This type of basic, awareness-level stage has been
suggested as a key first step in cross-cultural types of training (Cushner and Brislin 1996)
and is more specifically considered the first step within recommended processes of
teaching CQ (Thomas and Inkson 2003).

Stage 2: providing experiential instructions

Participants are then provided specific instructions about seeking out a type of cultural
experience and group, which will potentially allow them to experiment and test
themselves in using key aspects of CQ.

Stage 3: pre-experience check

A ‘pre-experience check’ was then provided to help ensure participants were reasonably
within the education parameters for selecting their target experience (see MacNab 2011
for a sample shell of a pre-experience check format).

Stage 4: new cultural experience

Participants engage in their intended experience during a specific time frame and in
relation to instructions. Trainers maintain open lines of communication to address any
questions or concerns trainees might have during this time.
 Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all data variables used in this study.
1328

Variable Mean SD CQMC1 CQMC2 CQMC3 CQMC4 CQM1 CQM2 CQM3 CQM4 CQB1 CQB2 CQB3 CQB4 SE1 SE2

CQMC1 4.19 0.66 1.00

CQMC2 4.20 0.64 0.68 1.00
CQMC3 4.17 0.66 0.61 0.69 1.00
CQMC4 4.22 0.63 0.52 0.59 0.67 1.00
CQM1 4.03 0.81 0.38 0.37 0.40 0.37 1.00
CQM2 3.97 0.77 0.39 0.41 0.40 0.39 0.62 1.00
CQM3 4.04 0.80 0.26 0.34 0.31 0.34 0.44 0.59 1.00
CQM4 4.03 0.74 0.37 0.42 0.44 0.41 0.48 0.51 0.53 1.00
CQB1 3.24 1.24 0.10 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.17 0.18 0.15 1.00
CQB2 3.41 1.10 0.11 0.12 0.05 0.16 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.11 0.47 1.00
CQB3 3.37 1.08 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.51 0.65 1.00
CQB4 3.04 1.12 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.18 0.13 0.47 0.40 0.52 1.00
SE1 3.76 0.92 0.15 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.24 0.17 0.25 0.04 20.04 20.02 0.01 1.00
SE2 3.73 0.88 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.17 0.28 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.57 1.00
SE3 3.57 0.81 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.06 0.19 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.28 0.37
SE4 3.69 0.83 0.21 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.20 20.02 20.05 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.54
SE5 3.63 0.89 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.32 0.34
B. MacNab et al.

SE6 3.59 0.79 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.11 0.23 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.38 0.54
SE7 4.22 0.66 0.19 0.19 0.23 0.19 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.16 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.38
SE8 3.97 0.71 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.12 0.11 0.21 0.15 0.21 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.34 0.42
CES1 3.88 1.02 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.06 20.05 20.02 20.11 20.14 0.06 20.03
CES2 4.13 0.89 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.16 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 20.03 0.07 0.10
CES3 3.94 0.89 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.17 0.10 0.10 0.02 20.02 0.05 20.01 0.02
CES4 4.18 0.82 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.08
CCG1 3.41 1.12 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.02 20.03 0.07 0.01 0.04
CCG2 3.77 0.86 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.16 0.11 0.18 0.02 20.06 20.04 0.12 0.08 0.12
CCG3 3.69 0.94 0.03 20.02 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.08 0.02 20.02 20.06 0.09 0.01 0.04
CCG4 3.38 0.95 0.05 0.01 0.00 20.01 0.05 0.14 0.13 0.03 0.05 0.01 20.02 0.03 0.04 20.04
CIC1 3.56 1.05 0.10 0.17 0.12 0.14 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.05 20.02 20.02
CIC2 4.09 0.88 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.09 0.13 0.06 0.16 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.13 0.18
 Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

Table 3 – continued

Variable Mean SD CQMC1 CQMC2 CQMC3 CQMC4 CQM1 CQM2 CQM3 CQM4 CQB1 CQB2 CQB3 CQB4 SE1 SE2

CIC3 3.93 1.06 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.19 0.15 0.07 0.14 0.08 0.13 0.11 0.04 0.09
CIC4 3.95 1.04 0.15 0.19 0.18 0.23 0.11 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.03
CSA1 4.03 0.91 0.23 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.06 0.01 2 0.04 2 0.04 0.03 0.07
CSA2 3.96 0.79 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.28 0.26 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.17 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.13
CSA3 3.94 0.89 0.19 0.20 0.17 0.27 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.24 0.11 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.10
CSA4 3.68 0.87 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.19 0.17 0.05 0.13

Variable SE3 SE4 SE5 SE6 SE7 SE8 CES1 CES2 CES3 CES4 CCG1 CCG2 CCG3 CCG4 CIC1 CIC2 CIC3 CIC4 CSA1 CSA2 CSA3
SE3 1.00
SE4 0.33 1.00
SE5 0.32 0.33 1.00
SE6 0.30 0.43 0.31 1.00
SE7 0.20 0.37 0.32 0.37 1.00
SE8 0.24 0.35 0.34 0.38 0.39 1.00
CES1 20.04 0.04 0.02 20.03 0.03 20.03 1.00
CES2 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.39 1.00
CES3 20.03 20.04 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.24 0.36 1.00
CES4 0.09 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.39 0.63 0.47 1.00
CCG1 20.01 20.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.13 0.18 0.25 0.24 1.00
CCG2 0.07 20.02 20.01 0.05 0.03 0.15 0.06 0.12 0.20 0.18 0.45 1.00
CCG3 0.02 20.02 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.17 0.32 0.25 0.60 0.62 1.00
CCG4 20.03 20.12 20.01 20.03 20.07 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.27 0.07 0.50 0.40 0.57 1.00
CIC1 20.04 20.10 20.02 0.03 0.01 0.03 20.02 2 0.02 0.23 0.09 0.18 0.21 0.18 0.22 1.00
CIC2 0.09 0.16 0.13 0.25 0.22 0.17 20.02 0.06 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.19 0.15 0.10 0.27 1.00
CIC3 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.08 20.05 2 0.01 0.18 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.40 0.45 1.00
CIC4 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.03 20.03 0.04 0.23 0.05 0.04 0.15 0.17 0.13 0.37 0.52 0.49 1.00
The International Journal of Human Resource Management

CSA1 0.06 20.02 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.15 0.20 0.31 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.11 0.22 1.00
CSA2 0.06 0.09 0.21 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.24 0.14 0.24 0.21 0.20 0.17 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.38 1.00
CSA3 20.01 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.25 0.43 0.29 0.17 0.26 0.29 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.17 0.27 0.36 0.26 1.00
CSA4 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.14 0.15 0.23 0.29 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.24 0.15 0.16 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.40

Notes: Correlations larger in absolute value of 0.100 are significant at the 0.05 level of significance. Correlations larger in absolute value of 0.172 are significant at the 0.001 level of
1329

significance.
 1330 B. MacNab et al.

Stage 5: post-experience and internalization

A post-experience write-up was then required which allowed participants to describe the
experience and reflect on the interaction as specifically related to CQ, using CQ and the
components of CQ.

Stage 6: trainer feedback and communication

Participants are then provided written feedback which generally tends to be structured
around application and validation. See MacNab (2011) for more details.

Stage 7: group discussion and social sharing

Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

Finally, participants were placed into small groups of three to five and encouraged to
discuss their experience with others. Once this activity has taken place a larger forum for
discussion is opened and each group is asked to report on any interesting outcomes of their
small group discussion.

Measurement model
There were three sets of items, embedded together, used in developing the structural model
for this research: One for GSE, one for measuring key components of Contact Theory, a
third for measuring key CQ outcome indicators. The instrument was reflective of the
training process and was administered following the eight-week training process.
Our instrument held a total of 36 items, containing eight for GSE, 16 for Contact
Theory, and 12 for CQ. The items used in our instrument were drawn from a combination
of published validated scales and established theory (Sherer, Maddux, Mercadante,
Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs and Rogers 1982; Shelton 1990; Schwarzer 1994), Contact Theory
(Allport 1954; Pettigrew and Tropp 2006), and CQ (Ang, Van Dyne, Koh and Ng 2004;
Early and Peterson 2004; Ang, Van Dyne and Koh 2006; Ang et al. 2007). In some
instances adjustments were required to reasonably fit the nature of our study (e.g. context
specific items in the CQ scale). Table 3 shows means and standard deviation as well as
correlations for all of the variables in this study.
Because all participants were enrolled in programs that required high levels of English
proficiency, our study was able to use English as the instrument language. Example
manifest items for each of the three scales can be found in Appendix 1 (GSE), Appendix 2
(full scale included for Contact Theory Context), and Appendix 3 (CQ development).
All scales were grounded on a five-point Likert scale format with 1 ¼ strongly agree;
3 ¼ Neutral; 5 ¼ strongly disagree. Scale items 2 and 4 represented selections that would
be associated with agreement or disagreement (respectively). Means, standard deviations,
and reliabilities for all scales are shown in Table 4. Each component of our instrument
demonstrated good reliability as demonstrated by the following Cronbach’s (1951) alpha
coefficients: GSE: 0.85, Contact Theory: 0.83, CQ: 0.81.
The measurement model was estimated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
using AMOS. CFA was used instead of an exploratory factor analysis since all of the
scales were versions of already existing instruments. Model fit was acceptable with
x2/df ¼ 1.585, CFI ¼ 0.93, IFI ¼ 0.93, TLI ¼ 0.92, RMSEA ¼ 0.040 and PCLOSE ¼ 1.
All factor loadings proved to be significant with all p-values less than 0.001. All of the
standardized factor loadings had values between 0.47 and 0.88.
In testing for discriminant validity with each of the higher-order factors (Contact
Theory and LCQ), the x2 differences between two different models were obtained for each
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1331

Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for all factors.

Factor Mean SD Reliability

Self-efficacy factor (8 items) 3.77 0.54 0.85
Contact theory factor (16 items) 3.89 0.68 0.83
Equal status CT1 4.03 0.67 0.79
Common ground CT2 3.57 0.78 0.83
Individual contact CT3 3.88 0.76 0.75
Support of authority CT4 3.90 0.61 0.74
Learning cultural intelligence factor (12 items) 3.83 0.69 0.81
Metacognitive LCQ1 4.20 0.55 0.85
Motivational LCQ2 4.02 0.63 0.82
Behavioral LCQ3 3.26 0.90 0.82
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

Table 5. Discriminant validity tests and correlations between factors.

Contact theory CT1 CT2 CT3 CT4
Equal status CT1 0.255 0.104 0.440
Common ground CT2 197.9 0.235 0.364
Individual contact CT3 235.4 180.9 0.320
Support of authority CT4 162.8 162.2 165.7
Learning cultural intelligence LCQ1 LCQ2 LCQ3
Metacognitive LCQ1 0.549 0.134
Motivational LCQ2 196.1 0.187
Behavioral LCQ3 149.0 196.7
Notes: Chi-square differences are below diagonal and are all significant at a level of significance lower than
0.001. Correlations are above diagonal and are all significant at a level of significance lower than 0.01.

pair of lower-order factors and are reported in Table 5. The two different models were
the unconstrained model and another model that was identical except constraining the
correlation between the factors to be equal to 1. All x2 differences were significant
(all p-values less than 0.001) which supports discriminant validity for each of the two
higher-order factors.

Data collection
The data for this study was collected between 2005 and 2007. All data collection was
completed by three collaborators intimately involved in this project and well versed on the
subject of CQ. All participants remained completely anonymous during the data collection
process and there is no way of matching particular responses with specific participants.
Participants were told the research involved examination of teaching people important
aspects related to cross-cultural training and they were aware that it would also involve an
evaluation of their completed experiential process. The response rate for our data
collection effort was high at over 90% with data for cohort groups collected in the same
instance and following training.
Since both dependent and independent variables were derived from a questionnaire
that the respondents filled out at one point in time, a potential problem is common method
bias. The Harmon One-Factor Test as outlined in Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and
Podsakoff (2003) was conducted with the following results: an unrotated factor analysis
yielded seven factors with eigenvalues greater than one which accounted for 99.1% of the
total variance whereas factor 1 only accounted for 37% of the variance. The fact that a
 1332 B. MacNab et al.

single factor solution did not emerge and that factor 1 did not explain most of the
variability reassures that common method bias is unlikely to be a major concern.
Another potential issue is that of self-generated validity (Feldman and Lynch 1988)
whereby participant responses might be influenced by measurement sequence. However,
this probability is significantly reduced when certain participant attributes like personal
relevance, expertise, trait involvement, and articulated values systems are present.
Arguably after completing and investing in a carefully constructed multiweek educational
process, which required significant involvement and reflection, our participants were
neither casually engaged nor casually informed about the core topics of the survey.

Results
Since all of the hypotheses are based on latent variables, structural equation modeling
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

(SEM) is the appropriate analysis. The model is shown in abbreviated fashion in Figure 1.

Potential demographic influences

Since some of the participants were undergraduate students and others were graduate
students we wanted to address the question of whether degree status had any influence on
the model. We also gathered data on gender, age, work experience, management
experience, nationality, and travel experience in other countries. All of these demographic
variables were added to the model to act as covariates. Gender demonstrated a significant
relation with GSE – something supported in other work related to GSE (MacNab and
Worthley 2008). Females had lower GSE scores than males ( p-value , 0.001).
Management experience was also directly related to GSE ( p-value , 0.001). Work
experience, also included in examination of CQ within other work (see Lee and Sukoco
2010), was slightly ( p-value ¼ 0.022) and directly related to GSE and management
experience was slightly ( p-value ¼ 0.045) and directly related to our indicators of CQ
development. The relationships between the hypothesized variables changed very little
when these demographic variables were added to the model, but all model results are
presented in Tables 5 and 6. CT1 – CT4 represent the four latent components of Contact
Theory with each component being represented by four manifest items. LCQ1 – LCQ3
represent the three components for indicators of learning CQ (LCQ) with each component
being represented by four manifest items. GSE is represented by eight manifest items.
The overall x2 test, which tests the null hypothesis of perfect model fit, is generally
considered to be an appropriate measure only when the total sample size is less than 200
(Bollen and Long 1993). Further, this test is affected by the correlations within the model,
with higher correlations suggesting poorer fit. The present research has a sample size
Table 6. Model estimates and standardized regression weights for components of contact theory
and learning cultural intelligence.
Contact Theory Estimate Standardized SE CR ( p-value)
Common ground 1.000 0.455
Equal status 0.198 0.525 0.191 4.82 ( p , 0.001)
Individual contact 0.810 0.417 0.184 4.40 ( p , 0.001)
Support of authority 1.927 1.059 0.363 5.31 ( p , 0.001)
Learning CQ Estimate Standardized SE CR ( p-value)
Metacognitive 1.000 0.775
Motivation 1.232 0.813 0.161 7.66 ( p , 0.001)
Behavioral 0.367 0.203 0.124 2.96 ( p ¼ 0.003)
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1333

Table 7. Model estimates including standardized regression weights for testing hypotheses.

Hypothesis Estimate Standardized SE CR ( p-value)

1. LCQ ˆ GSE 0.337 0.333 0.079 4.28 ( p , 001)
2. LCQ ˆ CT 0.706 0.525 0.139 5.08 (p , 0.001)
Note: LCQ, learning cultural intelligence indicators; GSE, general self-efficacy; CT, Contact Theory.

greater than 200 and the correlations within the model were expected to be fairly high.
Because of the problems involved with the x2test, alternative fit indices have been
provided as common with SEM analysis. These include the RMSEA, with values below
0.05 considered to reflect good model fit; PCLOSE which tests whether the population
RMSEA is no greater than 0.05 (values close to 1 are desirable), the CFI, IFI, and TLI all
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

with values greater than 0.90 considered to reflect good fit; and the x 2/df, with values less
than 2.0 considered to reflect good model fit (Bollen 1989). With SEM, good model fit
indicates that the structural format researchers propose is generally supported or mirrored
by the data.
These well-established measures, RMSEA ¼ 0.040, PCLOSE ¼ 1.00, CFI ¼ 0.91,
IFI ¼ 0.91, TLI ¼ 0.90 and x 2/df ¼ 1.56, all reflected acceptable model fit. Table 6
addresses the issue of whether the latent variables, Contact Theory, and LCQ, are related
to their respective components. It shows that all lower-order latent components for each of
the higher-order latent variables are related with all of the p-values being 0.003 or less.
The two hypotheses under consideration are addressed in Table 7 and also summarized
in Figure 1. Hypothesis 1: General self-efficacy will be positively related to indicators of
participant CQ development and learning, is supported with a standardized regression
coefficient of 0.333 and a p-value less than 0.001. Hypothesis 2: Contact Theory contextual
requirements will be positively related to participant development and learning of CQ, is also
supported with a standardized regression coefficient of 0.525 and a p-value less than 0.001.
Since our structural model holds higher-order constructs and our structural paths are
positive and significant, the issue of type I error needs to be addressed. Petter, Straub and
Rai (2007) have established parameters to clearly assess between formative and reflective
relations between higher-order and lower-order constructs. Type I error becomes an
increased probability if the higher order –dependent construct is formative. Our dependent
construct measures indicators of learning CQ (as opposed to CQ). These indicators are
driven by an experiential approach. The relation, for this reason and others, is therefore
reflective. Since our dependent construct cannot be positioned as formative and our sample
size is not excessive, the probability of type I error is further reduced.3

Discussion
‘Much of culture cannot be learned from a book...[and the] 21st century will need a lot of
creativity from persons developing theories and teaching practices for cross-cultural
management’ (Hofstede 2003, p. 39). We believe our current work advances the literature
by, among other things, developing a creative CQ development and training approach that
can be replicated by international human resource professionals in industry and teachers in
educational environments.
CQ represents advancement in cross-cultural training as it builds a comprehensive and
holistic approach that is likely to be useful in certain environments like multicultural
settings (Thomas and Inkson 2003; Earley and Peterson 2004; Brislin et al. 2006).
Important work has been developed examining the potential benefits of CQ within business
 1334 B. MacNab et al.

environments (Earley and Mosakowski 2004), individual traits which might influence
individual propensity toward CQ (Thomas and Inkson 2003; Earley and Peterson 2004;
Brislin et al. 2006), contextual demands on one’s CQ (Earley and Ang 2003), and
instruments to measure individual levels of CQ (Earley and Mosakowski 2004; Ang et al.
2004; 2007). However, there is a significant need for empirical work in these areas. Our
research represents one of the first efforts to develop an empirical approach for examining
individual and contextual influences on CQ development. An experiential approach in CQ
development is established as recommended by others (Thomas and Inkson 2003). We find
support which suggests that our experiential approach to CQ development shows promise
and certain individual and contextual components will likely influence the learning process.

Individual characteristics
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

Based on previous theoretical positions which support that GSE will play a meaningful role
in CQ (Earley and Peterson 2004), an examination of this particular individual trait became
one focus of this study. There is support suggesting that GSE influences internalization of
CQ development. Cultural interaction is challenging and requires perseverance which is
part of self-efficacy. Our findings suggest that organizations wishing to select the most
effective pool of candidates for experiential CQ development might include indications of
candidate GSE as part of the initial selection criteria mix.
Other research has indicated that the personality trait of openness, one of the Big Five
personality dimensions, was influential with all aspects of CQ (Ang et al. 2006). Coupled
with our research on CQ training, GSE and openness might be a meaningful combination
of individual traits relating to CQ and CQ development.
Our research also gathered other individual participant information like work
experience and foreign travel experience. While none of these other individual measures
significantly impacted the theorized relations of our model and study, both work experience
and foreign travel experience demonstrated some relation to our CQ development indicators
within this particular study. Because general life experiences and travel experiences might
expose one to certain dynamics related to CQ (e.g. like ambiguity acceptance and
suspension of judgment) (Brislin et al. 2006) it is not too surprising that these components
were also influential. These types of past experiences might also become a part of the mix for
candidate training selection. These finding also suggest that one manner of starting to prime
people for the most effective reception to experiential approaches for CQ development
might be through travel abroad opportunities. This finding lends interesting support for
educational programs that provide such opportunities and support for experiential CQ
training within new cultural contexts. However, we advocate that such travel abroad
programs be supplemented also with CQ education and training because Lee and Sukoco
(2010) discovered that international travel without enhanced CQ can actually reduce levels
of expatriate cultural adjustment while other studies (MacNab and Worthley 2011) have
found alternative results to our current findings on travel and CQ development. To establish
a wider base of understanding more research should be done in the area of international
travel experience, CQ development, and cultural adjustment.

Contextual influences
Related to our experiential approach, Contact Theory was found to have a significant impact
on indicators of CQ development. Participants, who encountered contact contexts that
mirrored Contact Theory’s main parameters, demonstrated greater internalization of the CQ
outcome indicators. This is relevant as it represents one of the first empirical examinations
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1335

of contextual parameters related to CQ development efforts. The findings also provide

potential insight about how to best structure intercultural group contact related to CQ
development efforts. Trainers and educators are advised to consider the main components of
Contact Theory parameters in helping structure new culture contact opportunities.

Future directions and limitations

This research effort represents one of the first to develop, examine, and quantitatively
analyze an experiential CQ development process. However, more is needed in the future.
At this stage of our research, potential issues related to academic integrity and research
approval made it difficult to set up certain experimental designs. For example, it was
difficult to justify denying participants enrolled in management courses access to this
training approach (which would have been an effective way to establish a control group).
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

Creatively and ethically overcoming these, and other, issues in future work are slated for our
next stage of research. Therefore, while our results indicate promise, future experimental
research is encouraged.
The experiential approach to CQ development established in this study requires about
eight weeks. We recommend that the presented approach to CQ training take ‘weeks’ and
not ‘days’. Participants must be allowed time to internalize awareness-level knowledge,
think about contact culture possibilities, and then receive some guiding feedback.
Participants must then engage in the new culture contact activity and then have enough
time to reflect and write about and discuss their experience. There are perhaps some
surface benefits to a more rapid introduction to CQ but the full benefits and internalization
for all components of CQ are not as likely. This nuance could represent a ‘limitation’ for
application but more empirical research related to the duration of CQ training and outcome
effectiveness could be examined. For example, can such apparent benefits be realized in
experiential approaches that are significantly less than eight weeks of duration?
This research effort examines self-reported measures for participant CQ development.
It would be useful to conduct research that examined other indicators of internalization of
CQ. One could develop an experimental design where individual(s) in the actual contact
culture group are examined related to participant’s interaction. A performance aspect that
requires effective CQ could be introduced.
Our research examined specific individual traits and context aspects theoretically
related to CQ development. However, there are potentially more individual and contextual
nuances that could be relevant. Contact intensity has been related to stronger demands
upon one’s CQ (Earley and Ang 2003; Brislin et al. 2006). It is possible with experiential
CQ development that the intensity of the selected target culture contact will influence the
overall outcome. It is possible that certain participant cultural traits, like comfort with
ambiguity often associated with uncertainty avoidance, might be associated with one’s
capability to internalize CQ. GSE was examined related to our individual, experiential
approach. It would be of potential value to also examine group self-efficacy in relation to
both individual and group approaches to our experiential CQ development. We
recommend that all of these areas and more be examined in future efforts.
Our research examined the overall influence of Contact Theory on CQ training
outcome indicators. A natural progression of this current research effort would be to
examine the specific component nuances of Contact Theory (cooperativeness, common
ground, nondominance, leadership support) upon CQ outcome indicators.
There are CQ traits and skills that are proposed as being advanced. Brislin et al. (2006)
suggested that types of deception awareness, humor, and other communication skills
could be considered advanced CQ. The experiential approach summarized within this
 1336 B. MacNab et al.

study is intended as an introduction to CQ. Follow-up training that places participants in

more advanced settings, or using advanced methods, could be considered, developed,
and analyzed.
Perhaps there are fundamental ways in which the concept of CQ might be further
expanded or improved? Other types of CQ could be further explored. For example, intra-CQ
might represent a subcategory of CQ that specifically applies to contexts that are often
assumed to be culturally similar but are not. The concept of CQ is applied to international
(cross-national) contexts but the concept can also hold meaningful value within nationally
domestic contexts where cultural diversity can also be significant (MacNab et al. 2007).
Levels of CQ could also be examined in relation to development goals and outcomes.
CQ is a process whereby the subject grows in capability. Thomas (2006) describes five
levels or stages of CQ development. These specific levels should be tested in relation to
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

specific training methods because it is likely that certain interventions will be more effective
at different individual stages. With Thomas’ (2006) proposed levels of CQ development,
more could be done to further clarify these and in developing specifics for measuring.
Our research examined university participants engaged in management studies. While
this sample frames the generalizability of the findings, we believe our participant-sample is
relevant to both education and international human resource considerations alike. Our
sample represents individuals that human resource professionals will need to evaluate and
train in the immediate future. Furthermore, the nature of our method tends to resemble
aspects of goal-directed, multicultural teams within certain organizations. Given that our
participants are preparing for, and are currently engaged in, such careers it is meaningful to
provide such business education and training efforts during their university experience.
However, our study could be examined with other participants in other settings. It is also
suggested that spousal adjustment in trailing spouse sojourn situations is critical for overall
international assignment success (Kupka and Cathro 2007) and we believe examination of
our approach on development of trailing spouse CQ would present a useful area as well.

Notes
1. Assumed similarity bias is the propensity for people to believe that their (cultural) perspective is
more similar to others than it actually is. Disconfirmed expectancy is the phenomenon where
reality does not meet expectation. Cognitive dissonance refers to an imbalance between base
cognitions (e.g. held beliefs) and new cognitions (e.g. observed reality).
2. For cultural training programs, it is important that organizers take into account important
considerations like goals, budget, time constraint, and ultimate assignment context and intensity.
It is also recognized that a more family-inclusive approach (e.g. some training for spouse and
children) would likely be beneficial in foreign assignment preparation.
3. In relation to formative and reflective considerations, authors prefer to leave the discussion
about Contact Theory’s relation between higher-order and lower-order constructs to other work.

References
Adler, N. (2002), International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour (4th ed.), Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western.
Allport, G. (1954), The Nature of Prejudice, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Amir, Y. (1969), ‘Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations,’ Psychological Bulletin, 71, 319– 343.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., and Koh, C. (2006), ‘Personality Correlates of the Four Factor Model of
Cultural Intelligence,’ Group and Organizational Management, 31, 1, 100– 123.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., and Ng, K. (2004), ‘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.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1337

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Nh, K.Y., Templer, K., Tay, C., and Chandrasekar, N.A. (2007),
‘Cultural Intelligence: Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment and Decision Making,
Cultural Adaptation, and Task Performance,’ Management and Organization Review, 3, 3,
335– 371.
Bandura, A. (1977a), ‘Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change,’
Psychological Review, 84, 2, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1977b), Social Learning Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2002), ‘Social Cognitive Theory in Cultural Context,’ Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 51, 269– 290.
Berry, J. (1997), ‘Immigration, Acculturation and Adaptation,’ Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 46, 1, 5 – 68.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

Bhawuk, D.P.S. (1998), ‘The Role of Culture Theory in Cross-Cultural Training: A Multi-Method
Study of Culture-Specific, Culture-General and Culture Theory-Based Assimilators,’ Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 630– 655.
Bhawuk, D.P.S. (2001), ‘Evolution of Cultural Assimilators: Toward Theory-Based Assimilators,’
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 2, 141– 164.
Bhawuk, D.P.S., and Brislin, R. (2000), ‘Cross-Cultural Training: A Review,’ Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 49, 1, 162– 191.
Black, J., and Gregersen, H. (1999), ‘The Right Way to Manage Expats,’ Harvard Business Review,
77, 2, 52 – 62.
Bollen, K. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New York: Wiley.
Bollen, K., and Long, J. (1993), Testing Structural Equation Models, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bond, M. (2003), ‘Cross-Cultural Social Psychology and the Real World of Culturally Diverse
Teams and Dyads, Chapter 3,’ in Cross-cultural Management, eds. D. Tjosvold and K. Leung,
Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Brislin, R. (1981), Cross-Cultural Encounters: Face-to-Face Interaction, Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Brislin, R. (1991), The Art of Getting Things Done: A Practical Guide to the Use of Power,
New York: Praeger.
Brislin, R. (2000), Understanding Culture’s Influence on Behavior (2nd ed.), Toronto:
Thomson Learning.
Brislin, R., and MacNab, B. (2004), ‘Inter-Cultural Communication and Effective Decision Making:
Contributions to Successful International Business Ventures,’ in Handbook of Asian
Management, eds. K. Leung and S. White, New York: Kluwer, pp. 397– 414.
Brislin, R., MacNab, B., and Nayani, F. (2008), ‘Cross-Cultural Training: Applications and
Research, Chapter 24,’ in Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management Research, eds. P. Smith,
F. Peterson and D. Thomas, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 397– 410.
Brislin, R., MacNab, B., and Worthley, R. (2006), ‘Cultural Intelligence: Understanding Behaviors
that Serve People’s Goals,’ Group and Organization Management, 31, 1, 40 – 55.
Brislin, R., Worthley, R., and MacNab, B. (2006), ‘Evolving Perceptions of Japanese Workplace
Motivation: An Employee – Manager Comparison,’ International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Management, 5, 1, 87 – 104.
Costa, P., and McCrae, R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEOPI-R) and New Five
Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) Professional Manual, Odessa FL: PAR.
Cronbach, L. (1951), ‘Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Consistency of Tests,’ Psychometrica,
16, 297– 334.
Cushner, K., and Brislin, R. (1996), Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide (2nd ed.),
Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Deutsch, M. (2007), ‘Career in Social Psychology,’ APS Award Paper, May 26.
Dewey, J. (1938), Experience and Education, New York: Dover.
Earley, C., and Ang, S. (2003), Cultural Intelligence, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Earley, C., and Mosakowski, E. (2004), ‘Cultural Intelligence,’ Harvard Business Review, 82, 10,
139– 146.
Earley, C., and Peterson, R. (2004), ‘The Elusive Cultural Chameleon: Cultural Intelligence as a
New Approach to Intercultural Training for the Global Manager,’ Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 3, 1, 100– 115.
 1338 B. MacNab et al.

Feldman, J., and Lynch, J. Jr. (1988), ‘Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on
Beliefs, Attitude, Intention and Behavior,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 3, 421– 435.
Florida, R. (2005), The Flight of the Creative Class, The New Global Competition for Talent,
New York: Harper Collins.
Foster, D. (2000), ‘Cross-Cultural Issues in the Global Workplace,’ Global Business Information
Network Conference, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University.
Gardner, H. (1983), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, New York: Basic Books.
Goldstein, D., and Smith, D. (1999), ‘The Analysis of the Effects of Experiential Training on
Sojourner’s Cross-Cultural Adaptability,’ International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 1,
157– 173.
Goldstein, I. (1991), ‘Training in Work Organizations,’ in Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (2nd ed.), eds. M. Dunnette and L. Hough, Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychology Press, pp. 507– 619.
Hansell, L. (2000), ‘Putting Contact Theory into Practice: Using the Partners Program to Develop
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

Intercultural Competence,’ Electronic Magazine of Multicultural Education, www.eastern.

edu:93/publications/emme/2000fall/hansell.html
Hasan, B., and Ali, J. (2006), ‘The Impact of General and System Specific Self-Efficacy on
Computer Training Learning and Outcomes,’ Academy of Information and Management
Sciences Journal, 9, 1, 17 – 36.
Hechanova, R., Beehr, T., and Christiansen, N. (2003), ‘Antecedents and Consequences
of Employees’ Adjustment to Overseas Assignment: A Meta-Analytic Review,’
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 2, 213– 236.
Hofstede, G. (2003), ‘The Universal and the Specific in 21st Century Management,’ Chapter 2,
in Cross-cultural Management, eds. D. Tjosvold and K. Leung, Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Jenner, S., MacNab, B., Brislin, R., and Worthley, R. (2006), ‘Cultural Change in the United States,
Canada and Mexico,’ Journal of International Business and Economy, 7, 1, 67 – 86.
Kelley, L., MacNab, B., and Worthley, R. (2006), ‘Crossvergence and Cultural Tendencies:
A Longitudinal Test of the Hong Kong, Taiwan and United States Banking Sectors,’ Journal of
International Management, 12, 1, 67 – 84.
Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,
New York: Prentice-Hall.
Kupka, B., and Cathro, V. (2007), ‘Desperate Housewives – Social and Professional Isolation
of German Expatriated Spouses,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management,
18, 951– 968.
Lee, L., and Sukoco, B. (2010), ‘The Effects of Cultural Intelligence on Expatriate Performance: The
Moderating Effects of International Experience,’ The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 21, 7, 963.
Levy-Paluck, E. (2006), ‘Diversity Training and Inter-Group Contact: A Call to Action Research,’
Journal of Social Issues, 62, 3, 577– 595.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, New York: Harper.
Locke, E., and Latham, P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
MacNab, B. (2011, in press), ‘An Experiential Approach to Cultural Intelligence Education,’
Journal of Management Education.
MacNab, B., Brislin, R., Galperin, B., Lituchy, T., and Worthley, R. (2007), ‘National Homogeneity
vs. Regional Specificity: An Examination of the Canadian Cultural Mosaic and Whistle-
Blowing,’ Canadian Journal of Regional Studies, 30, 2, 293– 312.
MacNab, B., and Worthley, R. (2008), ‘Self-Efficacy as an Intrapersonal Predictor for Internal
Whistle-Blowing: A US and Canada Examination,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 4,
407– 422.
MacNab, B.R., and Worthley, R. (2011, in press), ‘Individual Characteristics as Predictors of
Cultural Intelligence Development: The Relevance of Self-Efficacy,’ International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, DOI:10.1016/ j.ijintrel.2010.12.001.
Matsumoto, D., Kudoh, T., and Takeuchi, S. (1996), ‘Changing Patterns of Individualism and
Collectivism in the United States and Japan,’ Culture and Psychology, 2, 1, 77 – 107.
McSweeney, B. (2002), ‘Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their
Consequences: A Triumph of Faith, A Failure of Analysis,’ Human Relations, 55, 1,
89 – 118.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1339

Mendenhall, M., Dunbar, E., and Oddou, G. (1987), ‘Expatriate Selection, Training and Career
Pathing: A Review and Critique,’ Human Resource Planning, 26, 3, 331– 345.
Ng, K., and Earley, C. (2006), ‘CultureþIntelligence: Old Constructs, New Frontiers,’ Group and
Organizational Management, 31, 1, 4 – 19.
Ng, K., Van Dyne, L., and Ang, S. (2009), ‘From Experience to Experiential Learning: CQ as a
Learning Capability for Global Leadership Development,’ Academy of Management Learning
and Education, 8, 4, 511– 526.
Osland, J., Bird, A., Delano, J., and Jacob, M. (2000), ‘Beyond Sophisticated Stereotyping: Culture
Sensemaking in Context/Executive Commentaries,’ The Academy of Management Executive,
14, 1, 65 – 80.
Pedersen, P. (2004), ‘110 Experiences for Multicultural Learning,’ Washington, DC, APA.
Petter, S., Straub, D., and Rai, A. (2007), ‘Specifying Formative Constructs in Information System
Research,’ MIS Quarterly, 31, 4, 623–656.
Pettigrew, T. (1998), ‘Intergroup Contact Theory, Research and New Perspectives,’ Annual Review
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

of Psychology, 49, 65 – 85.

Pettigrew, T., and Tropp, L. (2006), ‘A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory,’
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 5, 751– 783.
Pippert, W. (2007), ‘A Career in Social Psychology: An Address by Morton Deutsch,’ APS Observer,
20, 10, 11 – 12.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., and Podsakoff, N. (2003), ‘Common Method Biases in
Behavioural Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies,’
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879– 903.
Ralston, D., Holt, D., Terpstra, R., and Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997), ‘The Impact of National Culture and
Economic Ideology on Managerial Work Values: A Study of the United States, Russia, Japan
and China,’ Journal of International Business Studies, 28, 1, 177– 208.
Schwarzer, R. (1994), ‘Optimistische Kompetenzerwartung: Zur Erfassung einer personellen
Bewaltigungsressource [Generalized Self-Efficacy: Assessment of a Personal Coping
Resource],’ Diagnostica, 40, 2, 105– 123.
Shelton, S. (1990), ‘Developing the Concept of General Self-Efficacy,’ Psychological Reports,
66, 987– 994.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J., Mercadante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., and Rogers, R. (1982),
‘The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and Validation,’ Psychological Reports, 51,
663– 671.
Snyder, M. (1982), ‘Self-Fulfilling Stereotypes,’ Psychology Today, July, pp. 60 – 68.
Thomas, D. (2006), ‘Domain and Development of Cultural Intelligence,’ Group and Organization
Management, 31, 1, 78 – 99.
Thomas, D., and Inkson, K. (2003), Cultural Intelligence: People Skills for Global Business,
San Francisco, CA: BK.
Van Knippenberg, D., and Schippers, M. (2007), ‘Work Group Diversity,’ Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 1, 515–541.
Wilkinson, L. (2007), ‘A Developmental Approach to Uses of Moving Pictures in Intercultural
Education,’ International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 1, 1 – 27.
Williams, R. Jr. (1947), The Reduction of Intergroup Tensions, New York: SSRC.

Appendix 1
General self-efficacy manifest item example
1. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.
2. I am confident that I could deal effectively with unexpected events.
3. If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want.
4. I can usually handle whatever comes my way.
5. It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.
6. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations.
7. I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort.
8. If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution.
 1340 B. MacNab et al.

Appendix 2
Contact Theory manifest items by category (CT)
Equal status (CT1)
1. People did not force demands on me during the experience.
2. People demonstrated mutual respect during the experience.
3. Generally I felt appreciated during the experience.
4. People were respectful during the experience.

Common ground/cooperation (CT2)

1. For both myself and the group I interacted with; there were common goals.
2. I was able to identify some common interest with the other group.
3. There was some common purpose we could all relate to.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015

4. There was an inter-dependence toward some common purpose.

Individual contact (CT3)

1. I came to know some people in the other group on a personal level.
2. I spoke directly with persons from the other group.
3. I learned the names of some people from the other group.
4. There was time to talk one-on-one with people from the other group.

Administrative/authority support (CT4)

1. I felt the instructor encouraged me to participate in this cultural experience.
2. I felt the instructor would reward quality work for this assignment.
3. Leaders of the other group had a positive attitude toward this interaction.
4. The other group was encouraged by their authority figures to participate in this
interaction.

Appendix 3
Manifest item example for learning CQ by category (LCQ)
Note: Participants were advised that the CQ questions were reflective of their position following the
training intervention.

Metacognitive (LCQ1)
1. I am now more conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with
different cultural backgrounds.
2. I am now more conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural
interactions.
3. I am better prepared to adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a
culture that is unfamiliar to me.
4. I would now be more likely to check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as I interact
with people from different cultures.

Motivation (LCQ2)
1. I am now better equipped to enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me.
2. I am now more confident that I could socialize with locals in a culture that is
unfamiliar.
3. I am now more confident that I could become accustomed to the social conditions in a
different culture.
4. I am now more certain that I could deal better with the stresses of adjusting to a culture
that is new to me.

Behavior (LCQ3)
1. I changed my verbal behavior (e.g. accent, tone, volume of voice) during the new cultural
experience.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1341

2. During the new cultural experience, I used either pauses and silence or more active talking
and less silence than I normally would.
3. During the new cultural experience, I was required to vary the rate (the amount of talking) of
my normal conversation style.
4. I was required to use different facial expressions during the new cultural experience.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 17:27 09 December 2015