Predictors of intercultural success
January 2016
M.F. Schilderman
The effect of intercultural personality traits on
communicative behavior and interaction success
Research Master’s Thesis
Research Master in Communication Science: Corporate Communication Graduate School of Communication
Universiteit van Amsterdam
M.F. Schilderman 10618112
1
Abstract
Multicultural personality traits, including cultural empathy, flexibility, open-mindedness, emotional stability and social initiative, have been shown to positively affect international aspirations and orientations. The aim of this study is to examine how these personality traits relate to communicative behavior in intercultural settings, and whether they predict intercultural interaction success. Participants (n = 97) completed the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000) and subsequently took part in an intercultural simulation game (Barnga: a popular game in intercultural training sessions) in groups of 10-20. Interaction success was measured on two scales: an interaction assessment scale (positive/negative interaction evaluation) by self-report and peer-evaluated interpersonal trust, as reported by co-players. Structural Equation Modeling yielded a positive relationship between emotional stability and self-reported positive interaction assessment as well as positive evaluation by peers. This effect was mediated through the amount of stress perceived during the interaction. Social initiative was positively related to evaluation by peers. The other multicultural personality traits were unrelated to communicative behavior or interaction outcomes in this intercultural simulation game.
2
Introduction
The debate on global mobility has intensified over the last years. Societies are becoming more multicultural and individuals participate in intercultural interactions on a daily basis (Wang et al., 2003; Asaratnam & Doerfel, 2005). Debates on multicultural and diversity issues are more at focus and questions arise as to how one should deal with these developments (Wang et al., 2003). Arguably these debates have intensified over the past years due to the recent increase of refugees entering from the Middle East to bordering countries and Europe. As we can see in many of today’s papers, these developments often result in social unrest and discrimination, but also foster philanthropic and empathic reactions. Interestingly, no consensus has been reached in the academic world what so ever on what predicts these reactions and how we can ensure effective interactions with others from different cultural backgrounds.
In the corporate world, businesses seem to be exploring the best ways to make international teams work, minimize cultural barriers and protect their overseas investments. Internationalization is therefore an important topic for practically any large business these days. Many organizations have been sending expatriates abroad with the goal of gaining new resources or information, networks or creating a competitive advantage (Edström & Galbraith, 1977; Sambharya, 1996; Spreitzer, McCall & Mahony, 1997; Dowling, Welch & Schuler, 1999; Carpenter, Sanders & Gregersen, 2001; Takeuchi, Tesluk, Yun & Lepak, 2005; Downes, Varner & Musinski, 2007; Peltokorpi, 2008; Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012). Corporate partnerships with companies in other countries have steadily increased over the past few years (Juch, Rathje & Köppel, 2007; Juch & Rathje, 2011). However, working in a culture different from one’s own may bring new insights on the one hand, but also raise difficulties and misunderstandings on the other (Leung & Stephan, 1998; Earley & Ang, 2003; Rathje, 2007; Juch & Rathje, 2011; Molinsky, 2013; Ang, Leung & Tan, 2014). As early as the late 1960s, studies report very high rates of expatriate early returns and cross-national alliance failure, sometimes ranging up to 70-80% (Adams & Kobayashi, 1969; Geringer & Hebert, 1991; Spekman, Isabella, MacAvoy & Forbes, 1996; Johnson, Lenartowicz & Apud, 2006; Juch & Rathje, 2011). This has been estimated to cost about $250,000 – 1 million US
3 dollars per expatriate (Hill, 2001). However, even expatriates that do stay their full assignment are not necessarily successful. They may cost a company even more when they demonstrate a poor ability to effectively manage a merger or joint-venture, or are not able to successfully work with co-workers (Johnson, Lenartowicz & Apud, 2006).
Frequently mentioned sources of this failure are cultural differences or the inability to communicate properly with individuals from another culture (Stüdlein, 1997; Apfelthaler, 1999; Strähle, 2004; Juch et al., 2007; Lee & Sukoco, 2010; Juch & Rathje, 2011). Predictors of the ability to interact across cultures have therefore been of much interest to both academics as well as the corporate world. Generally, the ability for effective cultural interactions has been labeled ‘intercultural communication competence’ (e.g., Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman, 2003; Fantini & Tirmizi, 2006; Johnson et al., 2006; Sinicrope, Norris & Watanabe, 2007; Whaley & Davis, 2007; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). However, there is no consensus over what exactly intercultural competence is and how it predicts intercultural interaction success (Deardorff, 2009). A recent literature review article of Ang et al. (2014) that lists the current literature on this topic includes 30 intercultural competence models and more than 300 related constructs. Unfortunately many of these models have merely a vague interpretation of intercultural success (e.g., international orientation, work-related goals), while studies on the effect of intercultural competence on communicative behavior in intercultural contexts are scarce (Gudykunst & Shapiro, 1996; Mol, Born & Van der Molen, 2005).
The aim of this paper is to introduce a new conceptual model which includes communicative behavior. On the basis of this model, the goal is to empirically assess if intercultural competence is a predictor of communicative behavior in intercultural situations, and consequently if this leads to successful interactions. Hopefully this study gains insights into what traits lead to what types of behavior and consequently to interaction success. Such information will be a valuable addition to the current academic knowledge on this topic. Furthermore, the implications of the results will also be of much interest to the corporate world, for example when
4 firms are sending individuals abroad or when one works internationally or in culturally diverse teams.
Intercultural communication competence
An individual’s level of ‘intercultural communication competence’ has been assumed to predict success and effectiveness in intercultural interactions. One of the leading definitions describes intercultural communication competence as the “appropriate and effective management of
interaction between people who, to some degree or another, represent different or divergent affective, cognitive, and behavioral orientations to the world.” (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009, p. 7).
Conceptualizations of intercultural competence however, are highly diverse in their disciplines, terminologies and objectives. Over the past few decades, intercultural communication competence has primarily been seen either as a set of skills, as attitudes or as personality traits (Ang et al., 2014). Each of these three will shortly be described:
The first set of intercultural competency models takes certain skills or capabilities as the base of intercultural competence. When demonstrating these skills in interactions, individuals are assumed to be more effective in intercultural interactions. The Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Communication (BASIC) by Koester & Olebe (1988) includes several of such skills, like ‘display of respect’ and having a ‘good interaction posture’. This scale is based on Ruben’s Intercultural Behavioural Assessment Index (1976). Examples of other skills are ‘management of anxiety’ (Gudykunst, 1993), ‘knowledge of other cultures and/or countries’ (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984; Redmond & Bunyi, 1993; Earley & Ang, 2003; Javidan & Teagarden, 2011), ‘linguistic and communicative skills’ (Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Kim, 1993; Gudykunst, 1993) and the ‘ability to listen’ (Arasaratnam & Doerfel, 2005). However, one may argue that these skills are not necessarily measuring ‘intercultural competence’, but rather competence in social interactions in general.
Another perspective on intercultural communication competence is to view it as a set of attitudes towards other cultures. These models are generally depicted as an incremental scale,
5 beginning with an ethnocentric perspective and ending with an ethnorelative perspective. Ethnocentric attitudes create denial and defense states of mind towards other cultures, which relates to low intercultural competency. People in these states of mind experience the world solely from their own cultural identity and may denigrate or feel superior to other cultural groups (Hammer et al., 2003; Olson & Kroeger, 2001). Ethnorelative attitudes are characterized by acceptance, adaptation and integration of other cultures into one’s own perspective, which is associated with high intercultural competence. People in these states of mind tend to seek cultural differences and are able to adapt to new perspectives (Hammer et al., 2003). In these models ethnorelative attitudes, as opposed to ethnocentric attitudes, are expected to lead to intercultural success. Examples of such models are the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) by Bennett (1986), the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) which is based on the DMIS-model by Bennett & Hammer (1998) or the Intercultural Sensitivity Index (ISI) by Olson & Kroeger (2001). Most of these scales claim that exposure to ‘otherness’ will increase positive attitudes (i.e. becoming more ethnorelative), but this is to be doubted. Exposure to other countries can also create the opposite effect and lead individuals to become more negative (i.e. more ethnocentric).
Over the last decade, intercultural competency models that focus on intercultural personality traits are in vogue (Huang, Chi & Lawler, 2005; Peltokorpi, 2008). Intercultural personality traits are thought to determine individual behavior in intercultural interactions. The Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS) was developed by Matsumoto et al. (2001) and lists a number of personality traits which relate to intercultural competency, such as emotion regulation, openness, flexibility and critical thinking (Van de Vijver, 2008). Another widely used instrument of intercultural personality traits is the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) which was created by van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven in 2000. The MPQ measures five intercultural personality traits: open-mindedness, cultural empathy, social initiative, emotional stability and flexibility. These five traits were selected on the basis of a factor analysis from a larger selection of personality traits. There is considerable overlap between the ICAPS instrument (Matsumoto et al., 2001) and MPQ instrument on a number of traits: namely, ‘flexibility’, ‘empathy’
6 and ‘openness’. Van de Vijver & Leung (2009) claim that therefore those three are the most “crucial in intercultural competence” (Van de Vijver & Leung, 2009, 407). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire has been validated in a large number of studies, and has shown to be of more value than commonly used personality scales (such as the Big Five) for the prediction of international orientation and aspiration (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000; Van Oudenhoven, Mol & Van der Zee, 2003; Van der Zee, Atsma & Brodbeck, 2004; Leone, Van der Zee, Van Oudenhoven, Perugini & Ercolani, 2005; Leong, 2007; Yakunina, Weigold, Weigold, Hercegovac & Elsayed, 2012). Because of the strong validation of this scale, the focus of this study is on these intercultural personality traits as the basis of intercultural competence, rather than skills or attitudes.
Intercultural success
It is theorized that intercultural competence leads to success or effectiveness in intercultural interactions. However, what the outcome of intercultural communication competence exactly means has also been a topic of much debate. As stated by Spitzberg and Changnon (2009):
Competence has been variously equated with understanding (e.g., accuracy, clarity, co-orientation, overlap of meanings), relationship development (e.g., attraction, intimacy), satisfaction (e.g., communication satisfaction, relational satisfaction, relational quality), task effectiveness (e.g., goal achievement, efficiency, institutional success, negotiation success), appropriateness (e.g., legitimacy, acceptance, assimilation), and adaptation. (p.6) Even though these outcomes are diverse in nature, they can either be described as psychological outcomes (e.g., communication satisfaction, relationship building) or task-related outcomes (e.g., goal achievement).
There seems to be a major link that is missing between intercultural communication competence and intercultural success. One must first demonstrate a form of behavior during this interaction to get from intercultural competence (for example intercultural personality traits) to successful interaction outcomes (Deardorff, 2010). Unfortunately, descriptions of what this
7 behavior should look like are, to our knowledge, non-existent. The current descriptions remain general and either describe the nature (e.g., ‘effective’ or ‘appropriate’) or development (e.g., changing attitudes) of the behavior rather than perceptible communicative behavior. Studies describing the nature of behavior do not go into how this behavior manifests itself in interactions. Studies describing the development generally focus on the adaptation or change in behavior (i.e. adapting oneself to the ‘new’ culture) (Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Huang et al., 2005; Peltokorpi, 2008; Shaffer & Harrison, 1998; Caligiuri, 2000; Lee & Sukoco, 2010). These studies explain the importance of change in behavior, but they fail to explain how it shows or should show in interactions. Therefore there are no studies which show that intercultural personality traits significantly affect concrete and observable behavior. Consequently, there is no empirical prove that intercultural personality traits have predictive power on behavior in intercultural interactions.
Secondly, measures of intercultural success as described above have shown to be relatively hard to measure and have mostly been measured through self-reports (Sinicrope et al., 2007). As mentioned before, the outcome of intercultural communication competence is seen as ‘effective and appropriate communication’. Effectiveness can be seen as a task-related outcome: one’s ability to accomplish one’s communication goal. This can reasonably be evaluated through self-reported data, unless there is a high risk of social desirability. ‘Appropriate communication’ can be seen as a psychological outcome. Whether one behaves in a manner that is socially expected and accepted (appropriateness) is arguably best evaluated from the perspective of both the communicator as well as the other person with whom the communication occurs (Shay & Baack, 2004; Arasaratnam, 2009). Combining direct and indirect measures has demonstrated to show “more layers and nuances in the growth of intercultural competence than those discernable by
indirect assessments alone” (Straffon, 2003; Deardorff, 2004; Fantini & Tirmizi, 2006; Van de Vijver
& Leung, 2009; Sinicrope et al., 2007, p. 31). Sinicrope at al. state in ‘Understanding and Assessing Intercultural Competence’ that a “combination of indirect and direct assessments will produce a
8
identifiable in indirect assessments” (Sinicrope et al., 2007, p. 33). In this study intercultural
success will therefore be measured both through self-report and peer-report.
The following conceptual model corrects this deficiency, as it includes behavior, as well as both task-related and psychological interaction outcomes. The aim of this study is to assess this model and identify which intercultural personality traits affect which types of behavior and consequently what leads to intercultural success (both task-related and psychological). The final goal is to assess whether, and if so which intercultural personality traits predict intercultural success. A graphical depiction of this model is shown below in Figure 1:
Figure 1. Conceptual model for intercultural success
Research overview
In order to measure both behavior and intercultural success in interactions, one needs to put individuals in some sort of intercultural interaction. Putting individuals in real-life intercultural contexts would require not only a substantial investment in resources but also call for an extensive account of contextual variables. Therefore it was chosen to simulate intercultural situations by means of an intercultural simulation game. Ruben (1979) advocated the use of simulation games as a substitute of intercultural experiences when natural real-life situations are difficult to obtain (Sinicrope et al., 2007). "Barnga" (Thiagarajan, Steinwachs & International society for intercultural education, training and research, 1990) is a simulation activity developed for a variety of contexts of intercultural awareness-raising programs. It is commonly used in intercultural training sessions to simulate an intercultural experience and widely recognized as a
Intercultural personality traits Behavior in intercultural interactions Task-related outcomes Psychological outcomes Intercultural Competence Intercultural Success Behavior
9 useful intercultural awareness game. In order to evoke genuine reactions from participants, individuals are not told the true purpose of the game and are also not told the aim is to simulate an intercultural interaction. The following description was taken from the Intercultural Project:
“Participants play a simple card game in small groups, where conflicts begin to occur as participants move from group to group. This simulates real cross-cultural encounters, where people initially believe they share the same understanding of the basic rules. In discovering that the rules are different, players undergo a mini culture shock similar to actual experience when entering a different culture. (…) Difficulties are magnified by the fact that players may not speak to each other but can communicate only through gestures or pictures. Participants are not forewarned that each is playing by different rules; in struggling to understand why other players don’t seem to be playing correctly, they gain insight into the dynamics of cross-cultural encounters.” (The Intercultural Project, at http://www.lancaster.ac.uk).
The intercultural aspect of the game lies in the fact that each group has different rules to start with and that they are not aware what the rules exactly are for the people at other tables. This is highly similar to experiencing another culture where the cultural rules are slightly different to your own, but you aren’t sure what the exact differences are. People react to this situation in similar ways as to how someone could react in unfamiliar intercultural interactions.
Although the focus of this study will be on intercultural personality traits as the base for intercultural competence, no clarity exists up to this point as to how these traits manifest themselves in behavior. Assumptions have been made in the articles of Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven (2000), which will serve as a basis for the hypothesized related behavior. This results in one type of behavior per personality trait, which is assumed to be predicted by that particular personality trait. Table 1 shows one type of behavior related to each of the MPQ traits. A description is given as to how this behavior will manifest itself in the game for people scoring high and people scoring low on that particular trait.
10
Table 1. MPQ traits and their related behavior in intercultural situations
Intercultural Personality Trait (MPQ)
Related behavior Manifestation of high and low levels of the trait
Open-mindedness Awareness High: listening, aware of ‘otherness’/ ‘other realities’
Low: judging, not interested in others
Cultural empathy Understanding High: understanding and empathic of other’s reality
Low: only focused on own reality
Flexibility Adaptation High: letting go of own ‘cultural rules’, experimenting
Low: sticking with the ‘known’ and own ‘cultural rules’
Emotional stability Calmness High: calmness
Low: stressed, frustrated, nervous Social initiative Pro-activeness High: active attitude, initiating contact
Low: passive attitude, disregarding interaction
For each of these intercultural personality traits as described above it is hypothesized that they are positively related to their respected behavioral manifestation. For example, someone who scores high on ‘cultural empathy’ will show more ‘understanding’ behavior and someone who is very emotionally stable will show more calmness throughout the game.
The next step is to look at how communicative behavior then affects intercultural success. Up to this point, not much is known as to what types of behavior predict intercultural success, as behavior is generally not included as a measurable variable. There is some evidence that adaptation leads to intercultural success. Research by Shay & Baack (2004) shows that a change
11 in role behavior (‘role innovation’) by managers predicts positive self-reports of their performance. Other studies also demonstrated the positive effect of adaptation on managerial effectiveness and have stressed the perceived importance of adaptation in expatriate success (Kriegl, 2000; Calgiuri & Tarique, 2012). It is therefore hypothesized that adaptation will lead to intercultural interaction success. Up to this point there seems to be no proof that a display of ‘understanding’ or ‘awareness’-related behavior leads to intercultural interaction success. However, one can maintain that before an individual adapts its behavior to a new situation, it must first be aware of the differences and understand the new context. Therefore it is hypothesized that awareness and understanding will also lead to intercultural interaction success. Lastly, an empirical study was conducted by Tye & Chen (2005) among HR-professionals. This study asks experienced HR-professionals to indicate which type of behavioral profiles were more likely to succeed on international assignments. Extraversion (here: pro-activeness) and stress tolerance (here: calmness) were rated as the most important. It is therefore hypothesized that pro-activeness and calmness lead to intercultural interaction success.
Hypothesis 1a: there is a positive effect of open-mindedness on awareness (i.e. being aware of ‘otherness’/‘other realities’).
Hypothesis 1b: there is a positive effect of cultural empathy on understanding (i.e. understanding the ‘other reality’).
Hypothesis 1c: there is a positive effect of flexibility on adaptation (i.e. letting go of your own cultural rules and experimenting).
Hypothesis 1d: there is a negative effect of emotional stability on the amount of stress/frustration individual’s experience.
Hypothesis 1e: there is a positive effect of social initiative on a pro-active attitude (i.e. activeness, initiating contact).
Hypothesis 2a: there is a positive effect of awareness on task-related interaction outcomes. Hypothesis 2b: there is a positive effect of understanding on task-related interaction outcomes.
12
Hypothesis 2c: there is a positive effect of adaptation on task-related interaction outcomes. Hypothesis 2d: there is a negative effect of stress on task-related interaction outcomes.
Hypothesis 2e: there is a positive effect of pro-activeness on task-related interaction outcomes. Hypothesis 3a: there is a positive effect of awareness on psychological interaction outcomes. Hypothesis 3b: there is a positive effect of understanding on psychological interaction outcomes. Hypothesis 3c: there is a positive effect of adaptation on psychological interaction outcomes. Hypothesis 3d: there is a negative effect of stress on psychological interaction outcomes.
Hypothesis 3e: there is a positive effect of pro-activeness on psychological interaction outcomes
Figure 2. Conceptual model for intercultural success
Figure 2 offers a graphical depiction of the hypothesized relationships. During the game the participants are documented on their behavior (self-report) and their intercultural success (through self-report and peer evaluation).
Procedure and sample
Task-related outcomes Psychological
outcomes
Intercultural Competence Behavior Intercultural Success
Cultural empathy Open-mindedness Flexibility Emotional stability Social initiative Understanding Awareness Adaptation Stress Pro-active
13 Participants were recruited through a management consulting firm based in the Netherlands. The sample consisted of a broad group with a wide age-range (17 to 62 years old) and a large selection of occupations. Recruiting of participants occurred via the following procedure: if companies or organizations would apply for one of the services of the management consulting firm, they were asked whether they would be willing to participate in this study. Participation (i.e. questionnaires and game instructions) could either be in English or Dutch, participants were asked to choose which they felt most comfortable with. A One-way ANOVA showed no significant difference in variance between the English or Dutch group on any of the variables. We can therefore assume these groups to be equal in further analyses. Upon agreement, participants were sent the link to the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. A reminder was sent in case the questionnaire was not filled out within a few days. Participants were then invited to take part in the simulation game Barnga in groups of 10-20. Participants we not told the name of the game or its real purpose. Instead it was stressed that the goal was to win rounds and move as many tables up as possible. Instructions were given and participants filled out the peer review forms at the end of each round of the game, starting from round 2 when participants first moved to a new table. At the end of the game participants were asked to fill out the self-report form. The game would take approximately 5-6 rounds, which is about 45 minutes to 1 hour. At the end participants were debriefed and were invited to talk about their experiences during the game.
The sample consisted of 97 participants, the average age was 35.5 years old (SD = 13.96); 58.3% was female. Participants were from a wide range of industries: 23.7% was student, 19.6% from the medical field, 16.5% was a business consultant/trainer, 16.5% from the police force, 9.3% was in law and 14.4% had occupations in other fields. Just over half of the participants had obtained a university degree (52.3%), 35.2% had an applied sciences degree, 8% an associate degree, 3.4% had finished high school and lastly 1.1% had obtained a PhD. Most participants had the Dutch nationality (77.3%), others came from a wide arrange of backgrounds.
14 The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000) consists of 5 scales, consisting of 17 to 20 items per scale. Respondents give their answers on 5-point scales, ranging from 1 (not at all applicable) to 5 (totally applicable). Open-mindedness is measured by items such as ‘‘tries out various approaches” (+). A sample item for Cultural Empathy is ‘‘tries to understand other people’s behavior’’ (+). An item representing the Flexibility scale is ‘‘looks for regularity in life’’ (-). Emotional Stability is indicated by items such as ‘‘is sensitive to criticism’’ (-). Finally, a sample item from the Social Initiative scale is ‘‘easily approaches other people’’ (+). All scales showed sufficient Cronbach’s alpha level (i.e. at least .60, ideally .80) (George & Mallery, 2003), which can be found in Table 2. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis demonstrated a sufficient model fit for all scales and revealed the best model fit if each scale was reduced to between 6 and 12 items (Table 2). The minimum required model fit indices adhered to are: 1) Model chi-square should be (nearly) non-significant, 2) Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) should be below .05; 90% CI: lower bound should be below .05 and higher bound below .10, 3) Comparative fit index (CFI) should be over .90 (Batista-Foguet & Coenders, 2000; Marsh et al., 2010; Arbuckle, 2010; Byrne, 2010).
Table 2. Reliability and CFA model fit of MPQ scales
MPQ scales Cronbach’s alpha
χ2 (df), p-value CFI RMSEA, CI90%[LB, HB]
Open-mindedness α = .89 36.28 (35), p = .41 1 .02 [ 0, 08 ] Cultural empathy α = .90 41.94 (44), p = .56 1 0 [ 0, .06 ] Flexibility α = .82 11.85 (14), p = .62 1 0 [ 0, .09 ] Emotional stability α = .92 52.11 (54), p = .55 1 0 [ 0, .06 ] Social initiative α = .88 6.01 (9), p = .74 1 0 [ 0, .08 ]
Behavior during the simulation game was measured through a self-report at the end of the game. Awareness was measured on a single item: “during what round did you figure out the ‘rules’
15 were different for some of the other players at your table?”. Understanding was measured on a single item: “during what round did you figure out what the rules were of those other players at your table?”. Adaptability was measured on two items: “during what round did you let go of your ‘own rules’” and “during what round did you experiment with different rules”. Each item required the respondent to write down the round number during which they exhibited the behavior, or if they did not do it at all. Stress level was measured on a 3-item scale: “Rate to what extent you felt stressed (1), nervous (2) and upset (3) during the game”. With answer options ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Pro-activeness was measured on a three-item scale: “I was actively trying to advance the entire group during the game”(+), “I made attempts to interact with others without communicating verbally”(+) and “I remained passive as the game unfolded”(-). These answer options also ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Cronbach’s alpha for the stress level scale was sufficient (α = .81), and improved a little when the third item (‘upset’) was deleted. This increased the Cronbach’s alpha to α = .83, and therefore it was decided to keep only the first two items. The pro-activeness scale showed insufficient reliability and model fit and it was therefore not included as a scale in the final model, but only as a single observed variable.
Intercultural success was measured both as a task-related outcome and as a psychological outcome, and through indirect (self-report) and direct (peer assessment) measures. Task-related outcomes can be reaching ones goal during the interaction (effective communication). In case of this simulation game, it was clearly stressed at the beginning that the goal of the game was to win as many rounds as possible and therefore win the game. Task-related outcomes in this interaction therefore correspond to the number of won rounds. This was measured through self-report on a single-item at the end of the game: “how many rounds did you win?”. Psychological outcomes should be evaluated from the perspective of both the communicator as well as the other person with whom the communication occurs (appropriate communication). Co-players were asked to evaluate their peers (after each round) on a validated 5-item semantic differential scale (with 7 points) by assessing how they felt about the other person (Ohanian, 1990). A sample item is “sincere – insincere”. Participants were also asked to evaluate the interaction themselves after
16 each round. This scale was modified from the Day Reconstruction Method (Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz & Stone, 2004) and consists of seven items, with answer options ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Two sample items of this scale are: “Please rate how you felt during the interaction: frustrated/annoyed” (-) and “Please rate how you felt during the interaction: happy/at ease” (+).
Results
The full conceptual model was built in IBM SPSS AMOS to represent the hypothesized relationships between the variables and analyzed by means of structural equation modelling. The model consists of a measurement part (MPQ scales), structural part (behavior) and two latent growth models. The latent growth models each consist of four time points with observed data (round 2, round 3, round 4 and round 5) relating to the interaction assessment (self-report) and peer-evaluation (co-players). The model was estimated using Maximum-Likelihood estimation. Missing data was missing at random and was mostly due to the fact that participants had only partly filled out questionnaires. The missing observations were imputed using regression imputation. This way information from the joint distribution of the variables is used to make the imputation and no cases are lost.
Model convergence was without problems, showing no Heywood cases and a steady decrease of the Diameter and F without fluctuations. Unfortunately, model fit was very bad, as it yielded no acceptable estimates on any of the model fit indices. In order to obtain a better model fit, items were deleted if they did not significantly decrease model fit. Candidates for removal were identified through the modification indices and were deleted based on the following reasons: 1) no significant effect estimate was given for the variable between any of the other variables, 2) the variable showed very high error correlations with other variables. No particular threshold was used, but items were deleted based on descending M.I. Par change estimates, starting with the highest value. After systematically removing effects and variables from the model, a model with acceptable model fit on all fit indices was obtained with the following fit estimates: χ2 (133) =
17 152.28, p < .121, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .04, 90%CI [0, .07]. Modification indices suggested adding an error correlation between the error terms of time point 3 and 4 in the peer-evaluation latent growth model (M.I. 4.702, par change -.217). This substantially increased model fit to excellent fit statistics: this increased the p-value with .067, CFI with .02 and the RMSEA decreased with .01. Therefore it was chosen to add this error correlation in the final model. No other acceptable options for improvement of the model were given in the modification indices.
In this model, the personality traits of open-mindedness, cultural empathy and flexibility had to be omitted because they did not fit the hypothesized model. In the behavioral part, there were only effects visible of the personality traits on stress and pro-activeness: awareness, understanding and adaptation showed no significant associations. In the outcomes part, only psychological outcomes (interaction assessment by self-report and peer evaluation by co-players) showed significant effects from any of the traits or behavior. Task-related outcomes had no significant predictors. Lastly, time-point 5 in the interaction assessment latent growth model had to be omitted. ‘Intercultural success’ is made up of psychological outcomes only, namely ‘positive evaluation’ (by peers) and ‘interaction assessment’ (self) and consists of an intercept and slope each. A graphical depiction of the significant hypotheses can be found in Figure 3, a copy of the AMOS output model can be found in Appendix A.
18
Figure 3. Empirical model of intercultural success (standardized estimates)
The model was estimated using Maximum Likelihood estimation; this resulted in an identified, recursive model with 132 degrees of freedom. Model fit is excellent: χ2 (132) = 146.17, p < .188, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .03, 90%CI [0, .06].
There is a weak positive effect (β = .26, p = .035) of Social Initiative on Pro-activeness (“(pro-) actively trying to advance the group”), meaning that people who tend to demonstrate social initiative will show more attempts to pro-actively work in an intercultural group. There is a weak to moderate negative effect of Emotional Stability on Stress level (β = -.30, p = .031) (scale made up out of ‘stress’ and ‘nervous’, a higher score indicates a higher stress level). This demonstrates that the more emotionally stable a person is, the less stressed and nervous he is during the game. There is a strong positive effect (β = .60, p = .005) of Social Initiative on the slope of Evaluation by Peers. If someone scores high on Social Initiative, the positive evaluation by peers increases more pronounced over time (i.e. a stronger slope). There is a very strong negative effect of Stress level on the intercept of Interaction assessment (β = -.81, p < .000). This means that people with high stress levels have a lower initial positive evaluation of the interaction (i.e. a more
Intercultural Competence Behavior Intercultural Success
Emotional stability Social initiative Stress - Pro active Positive evaluation (peers) Interaction assessment (self) Intercept Intercept Slope Slope TP3 TP2 TP4 TP5 TP3 TP2 TP4 .26 -.30 .60 -.81 -.52
19 negative initial interaction evaluation). There is a strong negative effect of Stress level on the intercept of Evaluation by Peers (β = -.52, p < .000), indicating that people with high stress levels have a lower initial positive evaluation by peers (i.e. a more negative initial evaluation by peers). Only hypothesis 1d (‘negative effect of emotional stability on stress’), 1e (‘positive effect of social initiative on pro-activeness’) and 3d (‘negative effect of stress on psychological outcomes’) can be accepted. There was no statistical support to uphold the other hypotheses, therefore hypotheses 1a through 1c, 2a through 2e and 3a through 3c and 3e should be rejected.
Conclusion & discussion
The goal of this paper is to assesses the predictive value of intercultural communicative competency on behavior and consequently on intercultural interaction success. Three out of the five intercultural personality traits as defined by Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven (2000) have demonstrated to show no predictive power with regards to communicative behavior in the complete model. In this study, open-mindedness, cultural empathy and flexibility do not affect communicative behavior (i.e. awareness, understanding, adaptability, calmness or pro-activeness) in intercultural interactions. Social initiative and emotional stability do have an effect on behavior, respectively on activeness and stress level. Social initiative shows to be a predictor of a pro-active attitude during the game, and also demonstrates a direct effect on the strength of which positive evaluations increased during the interaction. Emotional stability has a positive effect on both the initial evaluation by peers, as well as the (positive) interaction assessment by the individuals themselves. This effect is mediated through the amount of stress that someone experiences during the game. High emotional stability leads to less stress, which consequently results in more positive evaluations by peers and through self-report. Based on these results, only social initiative and emotional stability predict communicative behavior in intercultural settings. Neither the intercultural personality traits, nor any of the communicative behaviors affect task-related outcomes in this simulation. This indicates that intercultural personality traits only lead to positive psychological outcomes in intercultural interactions, and not to task-related
20 outcomes. This is quite a remarkable finding as it suggests that for example performance outcomes in corporate settings are not positively influenced by specific intercultural personality traits or behavior. This stands in sharp contrast with earlier studies which measured task-related outcomes. Caligiuri and Tarique (2012) found a positive effect of cross-cultural competencies on managerial effectiveness such as negotiating and supervision skills in intercultural situations. This contradiction of results can be due to the fact that the task-related outcome in this study is more strongly related to the simulation game rather than for example to managerial tasks. This will be further discussed in the limitations paragraph below.
In previous research, it is assumed that all of the MPQ-traits positively affect intercultural success (Van Oudenhoven et al., 2003; Van der Zee et al., 2004; Leone et al., 2004; Leong, 2007; Yakunina et al., 2011). This is only partly confirmed by this study. As stated before, there is considerable overlap between the ICAPS instrument (Matsumoto et al., 2001) and the MPQ instrument on a number of traits: namely, ‘flexibility’, ‘empathy’ and ‘openness’. Van de Vijver & Leung state that these three are therefore the most “crucial in intercultural competence” (Van de Vijver & Leung, 2009, p. 407). In this study however, none of these three traits were predictors of intercultural success, which stands in contrast to these earlier claims. This difference can be caused by the deployment of different measures of intercultural success in the aforementioned studies, for example ‘international orientation’ and ‘international aspirations’ (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000). Such measures are related to one’s personal worldview and perspective rather than to managing intercultural interactions as is the case in this study. This indicates that intercultural traits such as ‘open-mindedness’ are predictors of perspective-measures of intercultural success, while intercultural traits such as ‘emotional stability’ and ‘social initiative’ are predictors of interaction-measures of intercultural success. It is advisable that future research measures multiple concepts of intercultural success in order to get a clearer picture of what trait predicts what type of outcome.
One can argue that emotional stability and social initiative are more generic personality traits rather than intercultural personality traits. The core concept of these two traits is not
21 necessarily directly linked to an intercultural situation, as opposed to for example ‘cultural empathy’ which is defined as “the capacity to identify with the feelings, thoughts and behavior of
individuals from different cultural backgrounds” (Tamas, 2016, p. 82). Rather, they are assumed to
be helpful when in social and/or unfamiliar situations in general. Their related behavioral manifestations (respectively stress level and pro-activeness) can also be regarded as general social behavior manifestations in interactions as opposed to intercultural behavior. This indicates that in intercultural experiences social behavior in general is much more important than specifically intercultural behavior. However, the original article of Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven demonstrated the incremental value of the MPQ over the Big Five personality traits (which are general traits) when predicting international aspirations and orientation. This discrepancy opens up the debate as to whether general (social) traits or intercultural personality traits are better predictors of intercultural success. It can be argued that emotional stability and social initiative should not be regarded as intercultural personality traits, or as general (social) traits but rather as traits useful in unfamiliar settings.
As demonstrated above, results in this study differ on some accounts from results in previous studies. Most likely these differences are due to a different choice in measures of intercultural success. This study measures intercultural success in interactions from the perspective of oneself and of peers. To our knowledge, such measures have not been used before. Also, this study concretizes existing intercultural competency models by adding communicative behavior into the equation. This innovative approach broadens our understanding of intercultural competency, how it manifests itself in observable behavior and to what extent it leads to successful interactions in intercultural contexts.
This study has some limitations. Firstly, one should note that the use of simulation games begs the question of external validity. To what extent does a simulation truly represent the real world, in this case, an intercultural interaction? Even though this simulation comes very close to a real experience, no strong claims can be made as to whether the results are generalizable to real-life
22 intercultural interactions (Van de Vijver & Leung, 2009). Unfortunately, the validity of Barnga has not yet been tested in previous studies. Barnga is a popular and often used simulation in intercultural training sessions and gained wide recognition in its applicability and usefulness. One should however take into account the possibility that Barnga does not properly represent an intercultural experience. This would mean that results of this study are not necessarily related to a real-life intercultural experience. This could then indicate that emotional stability and social initiative are predictors of interaction success in general, rather than intercultural interactions. It is also possible that if indeed Barnga is not a decent representation of an intercultural interaction, truly intercultural traits such as cultural empathy are not ‘activated’. If participants do not associate the simulation with cultural differences, then perhaps only the more regular social traits (e.g., social initiative, emotional stability) are triggered as opposed to the more culturally focused traits. However, this seems somewhat unlikely because of the recognition of Barnga within the intercultural training field as an obviously useful simulation. Nevertheless, future research should look into the validity of intercultural simulation games like Barnga to assess whether they are proper representations of intercultural experiences.
Secondly, one major limitation in this study is the fact that task-related outcomes are only measured on one variable. This one variable was also strongly linked to the simulation game (i.e. ‘winning rounds’ during the game). Future research should test other task-related outcome variables in order to get a more substantial and complete measure of this concept. This also goes for the communicative behavior variables. Because of the use of a simulation, all of the communicative behavior variables were linked to the game environment. Also, some variables were measured on a single item rather than on multiple items. A more extensive measure of each type of behavior does increase validity. Future research should therefore consider using more items and/or using a more controlled simulation environment.
Thirdly, the sample consists of mostly Dutch participants (77.3%). Assessment criteria for intercultural interaction success can be interpreted differently across cultures. For example, one can argue that a person from Japan may find certain types of communicative behavior in a person
23 appropriate, while someone from Brazil may not. This can lead to different results in display of intercultural successful behavior. In this sample, low stress levels lead to positive results, but this can be different when this experiment is conducted in another sample. Also, people from different cultures may have different response styles in surveys. These differences include different use of extreme scores on scales, interpretation of scale anchors or categories and meaningfulness of concepts (Van Hemert, Van de Vijver, Poortinga & Georgas, 2002; Harzing, 2006; Harzing, Köster & Zhao, 2012). Even though in this study a One-Way ANOVA shows no differences between nationalities on the dependent variables, the sample of non-Dutch participants is probably too small to show differences. Results of this study are therefore limited to this experiment and sample, and further investigations are called for in various cultural settings.
Fourth, a sample of 97 participants is usually considered small when doing structural equation modeling analyses. A low sample size results in diminished statistical power which can negatively affect the likelihood that a significant finding actually reflects a true effect (Button et al., 2013). It is therefore not impossible that a type I error has been made: the null-hypothesis was incorrectly rejected and results actually do not uphold in the real world. A larger sample would have been more favorable and is recommended for future research. This will decrease the chance of such errors and claims can therefore be made with more certainty.
Lastly, many have stated the importance of using other-ratings in assessing intercultural success (Straffon, 2003; Deardorff, 2004; Shay & Baack, 2004; Fantini & Tirmizi, 2006; Arasaratnam, 2009; Van de Vijver & Leung, 2009; Sinicrope et al., 2007). The use of both self and peer-reports for intercultural success in this study can therefore be considered a great advantage. The use of other-ratings can also be an advantage when assessing the communicative behavior. In that way, the observable behavior can be more thoroughly documented and any discrepancies between the perspective of oneself and the interpretation by others can be unveiled. For future research it is therefore recommended that peer-evaluations are also used with regard to behavior.
24 The results of this study are not only an important addition to current literature on this topic, but are of value to the corporate world as well. Currently, many expatriates or business men and women who work and negotiate with people from other cultures, are not assessed on their intercultural competence beforehand. At best, they are sent to a workshop or training before going abroad for an extended period of time. However, one can argue that especially ‘emotional stability’ seems not a very trainable trait. Some suggest that an increase in exposure to ‘otherness’ can decrease intercultural anxiety and therefore creates more emotional stability. However, it has not yet been established in previous research whether this is truly the case. Therefore it should be questioned whether intercultural training sessions, which are mostly focused on training awareness and understanding, are even worth the investment. Consequently, in order to make sure these ‘investments’ by firms have a higher chance of succeeding, one could opt for a trait selection process beforehand rather than training. It may prove to be extremely valuable for companies to investigate whether a job applicant is likely to succeed in having intercultural interactions because of his emotional stability or social initiative, especially when such big financial consequences are at stake. On the other hand, intercultural training sessions can also shift their focus. Instead of making cultural awareness and understanding the core of a training session, they can develop towards training in coping strategies for unfamiliar surroundings. Such modules can then focus on ways to deal with stress and how to remain calm when in uncertain situations. This way, individuals with low emotional stability or social initiative can still learn how to thrive in foreign countries.
This study is also relevant to the public sphere. These results show that emotional stability leads to a calmer attitude, resulting in intercultural success. This effect also has a counterpart in the assumption that emotionally unstable people are more likely to panic and be upset in intercultural situations. Information on the predictors of stress is socially relevant if it is linked to tension in the intercultural arena. This is for example currently the case with the social and political debates on refugee streams from the Middle East. This study could then assist (local)
25 government in their policy development regarding social unrest and demonstrations against refugee centers.
Even though results from this study enrich our understanding of the manifestations of intercultural communication competence, future research should conduct similar experiments in different (cultural) settings to assess the validity. Also, research on real-life interactions can be costly and time-consuming, but can be of incremental value to the field, both academically and practically. Even if the results of this study should be interpreted with caution, it is innovative regrading to the inclusion of communicative behavior as requirement to connect intercultural competence and interaction outcomes. It concretizes current intercultural communication competency models to an extent which has not been done before. Furthermore, it identifies which types of personality traits and behavior lead to intercultural interaction success. Therefore this study contributes to the current body of knowledge in this field, and gives valuable new insights into the dynamics of intercultural competences. These findings will benefit social and corporate organizations all around the world, and hopefully ensure more effectivity when people communicate cross-nationally.
References
Adams, T. F. M. & Kobayashi, N. (1969). The World of Japanese Business. London: Ward, Lock Ltd. Ang, S., Leung, K. & Tan, M. L. (2014). Intercultural Competence. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 489-519.
Apfelthaler, G. (1999). Interkulturelles Management. Wien et al.: Manz Verlag.
Arasaratnam, L. A. (2009). The development of a new instrument of intercultural communication competence. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 20, 1-11.
Arasaratnam, L. A. & Doerfel, M. L. (2005). Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 29, 137–163.
26 Batista-Foguet, J. M. & Coenders, G. (2000). Modelos de Ecuaciones Estructurales [Structural
Equation Models]. La Muralla, Madrid.
Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training intercultural sensitivity. In Martin, J. (Guest Ed.), Special Issue on Intercultural Training, International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 10(2), 179-186.
Bennett, M. J. & Hammer, M. R. (1998). The intercultural development inventory (IDI) manual. Portland, OR: The Intercultural Communication Institute
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J. & Munaf, M. R. (2013). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 365-376.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis Group. Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The Big Five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate’s desire
to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53, 67-88.
Caligiuri, P. M. & Tarique, I. (2012). Dynamic cross-cultural competencies and global leadership effectiveness . Journal of World Business, 47(4), 612–622.
Carpenter, M., Sanders, W. G. & Gregersen, H. B. (2001). Bundling human capital with organizational context: The impact of international assignment experience on multinational firm performance and CEO pay. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 493-512.
Deardorff, D. K. (2004). Internationalization: In search of intercultural competence. International
Educator, 8(2), 13–15.
Deardorff, D. K. (ed.) (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousend Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deardorff, D. K. (2010). Theory Reflections: Intercultural Competence Framework/Model.
27 Dowling, P., Welch, D. E. & Schuler, R. S. (1999). International human resource management:
Managing people in a multinational context (3rd ed.). Cincinatti, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Downes, M., Varner, I. I. & Musinksi, L. (2007). Personality traits as predictors of expatriate effectiveness: a synthesis and reconceptualization. Review of Business, 27(3), 16-23. Earley, P. C. & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence: An Analysis of Individual Interactions Across
Cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Edstromn, A. & Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Transfer of managers as a coordinative and control strategy in multinational organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 248-263.
Fantini, A. & Tirmizi, A. (2006). Exploring and assessing intercultural competence. World learning
publications. Federation EIL, Brattleboro, VT.
George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Geringer, J. M. & Hebert, L. (1991). Measuring Performance of international Joint Ventures. Journal
of International Business Studies, 22(2), 341-362.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1993). Toward a theory of effective interpersonal and intergroup communication: Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) perspective. In Wiseman, R.L. & Koester, J. (eds.), Intercultural Communication Competence (33-71). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B. & Shapiro, R. B. (1996). Communication in everyday interpersonal and intergroup encounters. Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 19–45.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J. & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443.
Harzing, A. W. (2006). Response styles in cross-national mail survey research: A 26-country study.
28 Harzing, A. W., Köster, K. & Zhao, S. (2012). Response style differences in cross-national
research. Management International Review, 52(3), 341-363.
Hill, C. W. (2001). International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Huang, T. J., Chi, S. C. & Lawler, J. J. (2005). The relationship between expatriate’s personality traits and their adjustment to international assignments. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 16, 1656-1670.
Imahori, T. T. & Lanigan, M. J. (1989). Relational model of intercultural communication competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 269 – 286.
Javidan, M. & Teagarden, M. B. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring global mindset. Advances
in Global Leadership, 6, 13-39.
Johson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T. & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-cultural competence in international business: toward a definition and a model. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 525–543.
Juch, S. & Rathje, S. (2011). Cooperation Competence – a Problem-Oriented Model for Successful Interaction in Commercial Alliances. Interculture Journal, 10(13), 39 – 59.
Juch, S., Rathje, S. & Köppel, P. (2007). Cultural Fit oder Fit for Culture? Ansätze für ein effizientes und effektives Instrumentarium zur kulturellen Gestaltung der Zusammenarbeit in internationalen Unternehmenskooperationen. Die Arbeit - Zeitschrift für Arbeitsforschung,
Arbeitsgestaltung und Arbeitspolitik, 2, 89-103.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N. & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science,
306(5702), 1776-1780.
Kim, M. S. (1993). Toward a theory of conversational constraints: Focusing on individual-level dimensions of culture. In Wiseman, R. L. (ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory (148-169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29 Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (3rd ed.). New York, New
York: Guilford Press.
Koester, J. & Olebe, M. (1988). The behavioral assessment scale for intercultural communication effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12(3), 233-246.
Kriegl, U. (2000). International Hospitality Management: Identifying Important Skills and Effective Training. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(2), 64-71. Lee, L. Y. & Sukoco, B. M. (2010). The effects of cultural intelligence on expatriate performance:
The moderating effects of international experience. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 21(7), 963-981.
Leone, L., Van der Zee, K. I., van Oudenhoven, J. P., Perugini, M. & Ercolani, A. P. (2005). The cross-cultural generalizability and validity of the Multicross-cultural Personality Questionnaire.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6), 1449-1462.
Leong, C. (2007). Predictive validity of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A longitudinal study on the socio-psychological adaptation of Asian undergraduates who took part in a study-abroad program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 545–559. Leung, K. & Stephan, W. G. (1998). Perceptions of injustice in intercultural relations. Applied and
Preventive Psychology, 7, 195–205.
Marsh, H. W., Lu dtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S.,Trautwein, U. & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the Big-Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modelling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471– 491.
Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J. A., Ratzlaff, C., Tatani, H., Uchida, H. & Kim, C. (2001). Development and validation of a measure of intercultural adjustment potential in Japanese sojourners: The Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS). International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 25, 483-510.
Mol, S. T., Born, M. Ph. & Van der Molen, H. T. (2005). Developing criteria for expatriate effectiveness: Time to jump off the adjustment bandwagon. International Journal of
30 Molinsky, A. L. (2013). Global Dexterity: How to adapt your behavior across cultures without losing
yourself in the process. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers’ Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39-52.
Olson, C. L. & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global competency and intercultural sensitivity. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 5, 116-137.
Peltokorpi, V. (2008). Cross-cultural adjustment of expatriates in Japan. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 19(9), 1588-1606.
Rathje, S. (2007). Intercultural Competence: The Status and Future of a Controversial Concept.
Language and Intercultural Communication, 7(4), 254-266.
Redmond, M. V. & Bunyi, J. M. (1993). The relationship of intercultural communication competence with stress and the handling of stress as reported by international students.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 235-254.
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.
Ruben, B. D. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group &
Organization Studies, 1, 334 – 54 .
Sambharya, R. B. (1996). Foreign Experience of Top Management Teams and International Diversification Strategies of U.S. Multinational Corporations. Strategic Management
Journal, 17, 739–746.
Shaffer, M. A. & Harrison, D. A. (1998). Expatriates’ psychological withdrawal from international assignments: Work, nonwork, and family influences. Personnel Psychology, 51, 87-118. Shay, J. P. & Baack, S. A. (2004). Expatriate Assignment, Adjustment and Effectiveness: An
Empirical Examination of the Big Picture. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(3), 216-232.
31 Sinicrope, C., Norris, J. M. & Watanabe, Y. (2007). Understanding and assessing intercultural competence: A summary of theory, research, and practice. Second Language Studies, 26(1), 1-58.
Spekman, R. E., Isabella, L. A., MacAvoy, T. C. & Forbes, T. (1996). Creating strategic alliances which endure. Long Range Planning, 29(3), 346-357.
Spitzberg, B. H. & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Spitzberg, B.H. & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing Intercultural Competence. In Deardoff. D. (Ed.), Intercultural Competence (2-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spreitzer, G. M., McCall, M. W. Jr. & Mahoney, J. D. (1997). Early identification of international executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 6-29.
Straffon, D. A. (2003). Assessing the Intercultural Sensitivity of High School Students Attending an International School. Intercultural Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 487-501.
Strähle, J. (2004). Cultural Due Diligence. Marburg: Tectum-Verlag.
Stüdlein, Y. (1997). Management von Kulturunterschieden. Phasenkonzept für internationale
strategische Allianzen. Wiesbaden: Gabler-Verlag.
Takeuchi, R., Tesluk, P. E., Yun, S. & Lepak, D. P. (2005). An integrative view of international experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 85-100.
Tamas, A. (2016). Culture and Communication: Understanding and Managing Emotion and Conflict on the Mars One Mission. In Kraft, N. (ed), Mars One, Humanities Next Adventure:
inside the first human settlement on Mars (75-93). Dellas, TX: BenBella Books, Inc.
The Interculture Project: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/users/interculture/pcat6.htm, retrieved on 17-12-2015.
Thiagarajan, S., Steinwachs, B. & International Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research. (1990). Barnga: A simulation game on cultural clashes. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
32 Tye, M. G. & Chen, R. Y. (2005). Selection of Expatriates: Decision-Making Models Used by HR
Professionals. Human Resource Planning, 28(4), 15-20.
Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2008). Personality Assessment of Global Talent: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. International Journal of Testing, 8(4), 304-314.
Van de Vijver, F. J. R. & Leung, K. (2009). Methodological issues in researching intercultural competence. In Deardorff, D. K. (ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (404-418). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Van der Zee, K. I. & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of
Personality, 14(4), 291-309.
Van der Zee, K., Atsma, N. & Brodbeck, F. (2004). The influence of social identity and personality on outcomes of cultural diversity in teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(3), 283-303.
Van Hemert, D. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Poortinga, Y. H. & Georgas, J. (2002). Structural and functional equivalence of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire within and between countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(8), 1229-1249.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Mol, S. & Van der Zee, K. I. (2003). Study of the adjustment of western expatriates in Taiwan ROC with the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. Asian Journal
of Social Psychology, 6(2), 159-170.
Wang, Y., Davidson, M., 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
Pscyhology, 50, 221-224.
Whaley, A. & Davis, K. (2007). Cultural competence and evidence-based practice in mental health services: a complementary perspective. American Psychologist, 62, 563–574.
Yakunina, E. S., Weigold, I. K., Weigold, A., Hercegovac, S. & Elsayed, N. (2012). The multicultural personality: Does it predict international students’ openness to diversity and adjustment?
33
Appendix
A. AMOS output of final model
Legend:
SOCIN = social initiative, EMSTA = emotional stability, STRSS = stress, PROACT = Pro-activeness (observed variable), INT_I = intercept interaction assessment, SLP_I = slope interaction assessment, INT_E = intercept peer evaluation, SLP_E = slope peer evaluation
