CQ Example 5

Running Head: A PATHWAY TO CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE VIA CONTACT 1
Embracing the Unexpected:

An Experiential Education Pathway to Cultural Competence
Brent MacNab
University of Sydney
Valerie Rosenblatt and Reginald Worthley
University of Hawaii
Author Note
The authors would like to thank professors Linn Van Dyne, Soon Ang and Gilad Chen
for their organization of a 2009 CQ research symposium. Their valuable review of our work
was important for the development of this manuscript. Finally, we wish to sincerely thank the
participants of this study for their valuable time and feedback.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Brent MacNab,

University of Sydney Business School, Room 448, H10 Storie Dixon Building, The University
of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: brent.macnab@sydney.edu.au
A PATHWAY TO CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE VIA CONTACT 2
Abstract
Social learning paradigm suggests that people learn from observation and experience. This study
examines a process by which experiential contact with members of a different cultural group
contributes to the development of an individuals ability to effectively function in culturally
diverse contexts. The hypothesized model, grounded in contact theory and experiential learning
research, proposes that contact type influences the development of cultural intelligence (CQ) by
means of disconfirmation and an increase in stereotype awareness and alteration. The process
was tested in a theoretically-based CQ education program with management students and
professionals. The results, based on structural equation modeling, confirmed the important roles
of disconfirmation, stereotype awareness, and stereotype alteration in the development of CQ.
Given the experience of optimal contact with members of a different cultural group, participants
reported experiencing disconfirmation about attitudes and beliefs. Disconfirmation was found
to be related positively to both the increase in stereotype awareness and alteration. In turn,
these were found to play complementary roles in the development of all examined aspects of
CQ development indicators. Managers and educators understanding these processes are better
equipped to craft the most effective CQ development, training and education efforts.
Keywords: cultural intelligence, contact theory, disconfirmed expectancy, stereotypes,
experiential education
Embracing the Unexpected:
An Experiential Education Pathway to Cultural Competence
Increasing globalization and diversity compels researchers and practitioners to look
for ways to increase the ability to adjust and function effectively in culturally-diverse contexts
(Earley & Ang, 2003), also known as cultural intelligence (CQ). Earley and Ang (2003) argue
that individuals with higher levels of CQ are likely to show greater cultural knowledge, engage
in a greater amount of critical thinking, reflective observation, have greater motivation to learn
about different cultures, and can exhibit culturally appropriate behaviors. These individuals
are also proposed to undergo more effective adjustment in different cultures, achieve better
performance, and tend to be more successful in culturally diverse settings (Ang & Van Dyne,
2009).
CQ is viewed as a vital competency in cross-cultural management (Earley & Ang, 2003)
. Specifically, CQ has been connected to a wide range of positive management aspects, such as
effective adjustment of expatriates (Berry & Ward, 2006; Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009), better
performance (Ang, et al., 2007), lower burnout (Tay, Westman, & Chia, 2009), constructive
team dynamics (Flaherty, 2009), suspension of judgment (Brislin, Worthley, & MacNab, 2006),
and effective development of leadership (Ng, et al., 2009).
Considering the above, cultural intelligence development is an important topic to
researchers and practitioners (Ng, et al., 2009; Tan & Chua, 2003). Cultural Intelligence
Education (MacNab, in press; MacNab, Brislin, & Worthley, in press) has been proposed as
a process designed to enhance individual levels of CQ through guided contact with members
of different cultural groups. Aiming to distinguish from cross-cultural training methods
primarily focused on cross-cultural knowledge and skills, CQ education is a process-based
approach emphasizing the development of the dynamic aspects of CQ, including metacognition,
motivation and behavior; it also emphasizes CQ development as a longer-term commitment.
Drawing from Banduras (1977) social learning theory, Kolbs (1976) experiential learning
theory, Cushner and Brislins (1996) social contact learning, and Allports (1954) contact
theory, CQ education uses the effectiveness of optimal contact, awareness, and reflection to
build CQ capabilities; aspects which are also recommended by other experts in the area of CQ
development (Kim & Van Dyne, 2011; Ng, et al., 2009).
Research provides evidence that successful contact and experience with different cultures
can contribute to the development of cultural intelligence and greater functioning in culturally
diverse contexts (Church, 1982; Crowne, 2008; Ng, et al., 2009); however further process
clarity would be beneficial and is needed. In addition, not all experiences may contribute to
the development of cultural intelligence equally (Brislin & Macnab, 2004; Kim & Van Dyne,
2011). Researchers have established that optimal contact conditions proposed by Allport (1954)
, including equal status among participants, common goals, personalized connection, and support
of authority, are necessary for achieving favorable results during the experiential CQ education
(Kim & Van Dyne, 2011; MacNab, et al., in press).
This work investigates the process by which optimal contact influences the development
of individual cultural intelligence in the context of experiential CQ education. Integrating
contact theory research (Allport, 1954; Brown & Hewstone, 2005; MacNab, et al., in press) and
Adlers (2002) effective stereotyping framework with models of experiential and social learning
(Bhawuk, 2009a, 2009b; Cushner & Brislin, 1996; Kolb, 1976), this work proposes a model
whereby optimal contact with members of culturally different groups influences the development
of CQ by providing an opportunity to experience disconfirmed expectancy and by increasing
the awareness of, and ability to alter, stereotypes. Contact theory research shows that optimal
contact with members of different groups may lead to disconfirmation of expectations and
stereotypes, making individuals more aware of the stereotypes they use when interacting with
others and ultimately resulting in adjustment of stereotypes (Brown & Hewstone, 2005). Adler
(2002) argues that culturally effective international managers must be aware of their stereotypes
and be able to adjust their stereotypes to fit different cultural contexts. Earley and Ang (2003)
suggest that greater awareness and ability to modify ones stereotypes is related to higher levels
of ones CQ. Figure 1 summarizes schematically the posited model.
This work contributes toward research on experiential education and the related influence
in the development of cultural intelligence. Further, we empirically investigate the role of
disconfirmed expectancy in the development of an individuals ability to adjust and function
effectively in culturally new settings. In addition, this research explores the role of stereotype
awareness and alteration in the advancement of CQ. In exploring these relations process
specificity can surface and process clarity then becomes attainable.
Following we provide an overview of CQ and CQ education, an explanation of the
hypothesized relations in the proposed process, a summary of the CQ experiential education
method, proposed model analysis, and discussion with recommendations.
CQandExperientialCQEducation
Following Sternberg and Dettermans (1986) framework of the multiple foci of
intelligence, cultural intelligence is theorized as a multi-dimensional construct consisting
of cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral facets (Earley & Ang, 2003).
Metacognitive CQ centers on higher-order cognitive processes incorporating conscious cultural
awareness, reflection on experiences, active challenging of assumptions, and adjustment of
cognitive structures (Ang & Van Dyne, 2009). Motivational CQ incorporates drive, enthusiasm
and perseverance to deal with challenges of intercultural encounters, and capability to direct
focus in a culturally different context (Ang & Van Dyne, 2009). Behavioral CQ refers to the
ability to exhibit verbal and non-verbal action appropriately in different cultural contexts (Ang &
Van Dyne, 2009).
As a competency, cultural intelligence may be developed through training (Earley &
Ang, 2003; Ng, et al., 2009; Tan & Chua, 2003). Built on the premises of experiential learning
(Bhawuk, 2001; Kolb, 1984), social learning processes (Bandura, 1977; Cushner & Brislin,
1996), and contact theory (Allport, 1954), CQ education is the cyclical process of developing the
competencies and capacities for effective cultural awareness, knowledge, passion, interaction,
and adjustment (MacNab, et al., in press; MacNab, Worthley, & Brislin, 2007). Experiential
learning (Kolb, 1976) advocates the effectiveness of direct experience and reflection in the
development of capabilities. Social learning processes (Bandura, 1977; Cushner & Brislin, 1996)
accentuate the role of social sharing in synthesis, reflection, and further application of direct
experiences. Contact theory (Allport, 1954) specifies optimal contact conditions necessary to
achieve favorable results during experiential CQ education and developmental efforts (Kim &
Van Dyne, in press; MacNab, et al., in press; MacNab & Worthley, 2010; MacNab, et al., 2007).
The CQ education process we employ for this study is a six to eight-week, multi-
stage process (see MacNab, in press, for discussion); we selected this approach because of its
specificity, replicability in an advanced learning environment, and establishment in the literature.
First, participants are provided with awareness-level knowledge, encompassing key concepts
such as culture, stereotypes, and cultural intelligence. In addition, individuals are given an
opportunity to reflect on the acquired information by engaging in hands-on group activities
designed to apply the new concepts in simulated intercultural contexts. Then, individuals are
guided through a quasi-controlled, real-life contact with members of a culturally different group,
which allows them to learn from experience and test themselves in using key aspects of CQ.
Participants are encouraged to seek experiences that meet optimal contact parameters (Allport,
1954). After the contact, participants reflect and write about their real-life interactions as
specifically related to the development and use of cultural intelligence. Finally, participants are
provided with feedback from the trainer and the fellow trainees and a discussion is held.
MacNab and colleagues (in press; 2010; 2007) provide empirical evidence in support
of the positive impact of their experiential CQ education process on all examined areas of
CQ, including metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ. In addition, optimal contact
parameters in the context of their CQ education process have been shown to positively relate to
the enhancement of individual stereotype syntheses (MacNab, 2009). In this study, we aim to
uncover a process by which optimal contact with members of different cultural groups influences
the CQ development process.
TheProcessofCQDevelopmentviaContact
OptimalContactandtheDevelopmentofCQ
Research has shown that greater amounts of cross-cultural contact and experience
contribute to the enhancement of all four facets of individual CQ (Crowne, 2008; Ng, et al.,
2009; Shannon & Begley, 2009; Tarique & Takeuchi, 2009). Grounding their argument in social
learning theory (Bandura, 1977), Tarique and Takeuchi (2009) explain that individuals with a
greater amount of international experience are more likely to develop greater cognitive structures
that govern social behavior, show greater motivation to learn about new cultures, and display
more appropriate behavior guided by more comprehensive knowledge structures.
Drawing from Dewey (1938) and Itin (1999), MacNab and Worthley (2010) point
out that not all types of experience may contribute to the development of cultural intelligence
equally. Unstructured approaches may become too overwhelming, preventing future efforts to
experience and learn. Drawing on contact theory research (Allport, 1954; Brown & Hewstone,
2005; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003; Pettigrew, 1998), MacNab, Brislin, and Worthley
(2010) argue that establishment of the optimal contact conditions outlined by Allport (1954)
are beneficial in cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral transformations. These
conditions include: (a) equal status between contact parties; (b) establishments of common goals/
common ground; (c) meaningful personalized contact; and (d) support and endorsement of
contact from recognized authorities or leaders (Allport, 1954). Cross-cultural contact literature
tends to support Allports (1954) position as meaningful (Caligiuri, 2000; Church, 1982).
Brislin (1981) explains that equal-status contact, when members of one cultural group are
not perceived as having more power than another, promotes willingness to interact, to motivate
mutual feedback, and to encourage learning from others. Common goals help overcome
tensions inherent in cross-cultural encounters and encourage cooperation. Personalized contact
provides an opportunity for individuals to break down barriers of communication, to challenge
preconceived attitudes and stereotypes, and to develop a more accurate view of others. Finally,
support of authorities may enhance motivation to engage in cross-cultural contact and to apply
the acquired knowledge and experience to future contact opportunities. Based on previous
theoretical and empirical evidence, we propose:
Hypothesis 1. Optimal contact is positively related to the development of: (a)
metacognitive CQ: (b) motivational CQ; and (c) behavioral CQ.
OptimalContactandDisconfirmedExpectancy
During contact with members of a different cultural group, individuals often experience
disconfirmed expectancy (Bhawuk, 2009b; Brislin, 1981; Cushner & Brislin, 1996). Cross-
cultural disconfirmed expectancy involves situations in which a person expects a certain
attitude, reaction or behavior from an individual of another culture, yet experiences something
else. According to Snyder and Stukas (1999), disconfirmed expectancy may result from the
use of stereotypes to predict behaviors of others during interactions. Stereotypes, described
as cognitive categories depicting qualities for broad social categories of individuals (Fiske
& Taylor, 1984), are frequently used to deal with complexity of stimuli and help individuals
interpret others behavior (Brislin, 1981). For example, armed with a strong subconscious
or rigid stereotype that all Germans are punctual (Cooper & Kirkcaldy, 1995), a person may
experience a disconfirmation when a German business partner shows up to a meeting late
without an agenda. Consistent with previous arguments, we posit:
Hypothesis 2. Optimal contact is positively associated with experience of disconfirmed
expectancy.
OptimalContact,StereotypeAwarenessandStereotypeAlteration
Drawing on Adlers (2002) effective stereotyping framework, MacNab (2009) argues that
stereotype awareness involves an individual ability to understand and articulate what stereotypes
are and how stereotypes influence ones attitudes, judgments, and actions. Stereotype alteration
refers to an individuals propensity to modify existing stereotypes based on actual interaction
or evidence. Effective global managers and sojourns must be aware of their stereotypes and
regulate them when faced with disconfirming experiences (Adler, 2002; Cushner & Brislin,
1996).
A sizable part of contact theory literature has examined the impact of optimal
contact on stereotype awareness and stereotype alteration (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Dovidio et
al., 2003; Pettigrew, 1998). Brewer and Miller (1984) argue that optimal contact increases the
awareness of individual characteristics, undermines the validity of outgroup stereotypes, and
leads to dissolution of social categories. Gaertner and Dovidio (2000) suggest that optimal
contact allows individuals to redraw social category boundaries through the formation of
common identities and superordinate categorization, making interactants aware that members of
another group are also members of ones own group on a different dimension (Gaertner, et al.,
2000, p. 102). Hewstone and Brown (1986) propose that optimal contact increases the salience
of each groups superiorities and inferiorities, such that members of both groups become aware
of and appreciate the indispensible contribution of one another. Consistent with these views, a
number of studies have demonstrated that optimal contact is associated with increased stereotype
awareness and formation of more favorable attitudes toward members of other groups (Brown
and Hewstone, 2005; Dovidio et al, 2003). Hewstone (1996) has argued that work on
stereotype change via stereotype disconfirming information is simply a cognitive analysis of the
contact hypothesis (Hill & Augoustinos, 2001, p. 244). Thus, we expect:
Hypothesis 3. Optimal contact is positively related to the development of: (a) stereotype
awareness and (b) stereotype alteration.
DisconfirmedExpectancy,StereotypeAwarenessandStereotypeAlteration
Contact theory suggests that disconfirmation is crucial for successful outcomes of inter-
group contact, including stereotype awareness and stereotype alteration (Cook, 1978; Pettigrew,
1998). Research on cognitive processes involved in the revision of stereotypes has identified
three possible mechanisms: Bookkeeping, conversion, and subtyping (Weber & Crocker, 1983)
. All three mechanisms suggest that social categories change on the basis of encountering
disconfirmations or discrepancies with ones current stereotypes. The bookkeeping model posits
that stereotypes change incrementally (Rothbart, 1981) as individuals become aware of minor
stereotype inconsistencies and fine tune the stereotypes accordingly. The conversion model
suggests that stereotype change is more radical (Rothbart, 1981), resulting from encounters with
dramatic and salient stereotype inconsistencies. The subtyping model contends that stereotypes
are hierarchical structures and advocates that awareness of discrepant information leads to the
development of more differentiations and subtypes within a particular stereotype. Crocker,
Fiske and Taylor (1984) argue that disconfirmations are most likely to contribute to stereotype
awareness and change when the discrepancies are undeniable, unambiguous, memorable and
stable. In line with the cognitive models of stereotype alteration, we argue:
Hypothesis 4. Greater experience of disconfirmed expectancy is positively related to the
development of: (a) stereotype awareness and (b) stereotype alteration.
DisconfirmedExpectancyandtheDevelopmentofCQ
Building on Kolbs (1976) experiential learning model, Bhawuk (2009a) proposed that
disconfirmed expectancy resulting from concrete experiences with individuals from different
cultures may provide an opportunity to develop intercultural competencies. When expectations
are met during interactions, individuals often use automated, habitual responses. However,
when expectations are not met, individuals attention is directed to the disconfirmed evidence,
and motivated individuals, such as those in related educational processes, more readily engage
in reflective observations (Bhawuk, 2009a, 2009b). Reflective observations, encompassing
awareness and critical thinking, have been linked to the development of metacognitive CQ (Ang
& Van Dyne, 2009).
Disconfirmed expectancy may also positively relate to the development of motivational
CQ. Theorists suggest that discrepancies between expectations and actual occurrences motivate
discrepancy-reduction efforts (Adams, 1963; Bandura, 1986; Festinger, 1957; Rokeach, 1979).
According to Bandura (1986), increased motivation to learn occurs when individuals experience
imbalance between the schemata or scripts they already have and the actual perceived course of
events. Such disconfirmations are abundant during intercultural experiences (Bhawuk, 2009b).
Also, disconfirmed expectancy may connect positively to the development of behavioral
CQ. According to Bhawuk (2009a), as a result of disconfirmed expectancy, individuals
engaging in reflective observations gain culture-specific knowledge. Having culture-specific
knowledge allows individuals to engage in culture-appropriate behavior in the future (Earley &
Ang, 2003). Based on the previous evidence, we posit:
Hypothesis 5. Experience of disconfirmed expectancy is positively associated with the
development of: (a) metacognitive CQ; (b) motivational CQ; and (c) behavioral CQ.
StereotypeAwarenessandStereotypeAlteration
Cross-cultural managers unaware of stereotypes, and how these influence perception or
behavior, are in danger of making inefficient decisions (Adler, 2002; Osland, Bird, Delano, &
Jacob, 2000). For example, discussing self-fulfilling stereotypes, Snyder (1982) points out that
a lack of stereotype awareness may lead individuals to act in ways that conform to stereotypes
of oneself and others, ignoring reality that does not fit the stereotypes. Adler (2002, p. 81)
suggested that effective stereotyping starts with the stereotype being consciously held, leading
toward the possibility of stereotype alteration. Osland and colleagues (2000), in their work
on sophisticated stereotyping, establish that awareness of ones stereotypes is a critical first
step in gaining the possibility for adjustment of stereotypes. These positions help establish the
following in our model:
Hypothesis 6. The development of stereotype awareness is positively related to
stereotype alteration.
StereotypeAwarenessandtheDevelopmentofCQ
Effective global managers must be aware of their cultural stereotypes (Adler, 2002;
Osland, et al., 2000). Not being aware of stereotypes, individuals may inaccurately evaluate
a person or a situation, basing their judgment on broad assumptions about a particular group
instead of the actual individual attitudes and behavior (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 2002).
We posit that the development of stereotype awareness is connected to the advancement of CQ.
Greater awareness in general has been argued to contribute to the development of greater
metacognition (Kuhn, 2000). Flavels (1979) seminal work on metacognition asserts that the
most fundamental contribution to the advancement of individual metacognitive abilities occurs
when individuals become aware that others behavior is guided by beliefs and values which may
not be congruent with their own. As people become more aware of their beliefs or stereotypes,
during contact with members of different cultural groups, they become more reflective and
cognizant of their thought processes, leading to greater metacognitive CQ.
Greater stereotype awareness is also likely to relate to the enhancement of motivational
CQ. As suggested by Rokeach (1979), lack of congruence between categorical representations
of stimuli may result in the experience of self-dissatisfaction due to moral, or competence-
related, issues. Guided by the hedonic principle of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain,
individuals are motivated to minimize this self-dissatisfaction (Higgins, 1998). They become
motivated to learn more about the new person and new cultural environment they interact with
(Rokeach, 1979).
The development of stereotype awareness may also be viewed as a prerequisite of
culturally intelligent behavior (MacNab & Worthley, 2010; Thomas & Inkson, 2004). Culturally
intelligent behavior is characterized by greater awareness of nuances (e.g. stereotypes, norms,
scripts, etc.) of different cultural systems and the ability to incorporate and express these nuances
in behaviors during cross-cultural contacts (Earley & Ang, 2003). Thus:
Hypothesis 7. The development of stereotype awareness is positively related to the
development of: (a) metacognitive CQ; (b) motivational CQ; and (c) behavioral CQ.
StereotypeAlterationandtheDevelopmentofCQ
In addition to having greater stereotype awareness, most internationally effective
managers are able to alter their stereotypes (Adler, 2002). Thus, we believe the ability to alter
stereotypes is also associated with the development of CQ. For example, Ang and Van Dyne
(2009) state that individuals who actively question cultural assumptions and adjust their own
cognitions are likely to show greater levels of metacognitive CQ.
Individuals willing to change their stereotypes are also likely to exhibit higher levels of
motivational CQ. The motivational facet of cultural intelligence is positively associated with
the personality trait of openness to experience (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006). Flynn (2005)
reports that those who score higher on openness to experience are more predisposed to consider
stereotype-disconfirming evidence and alter their stereotypes.
According to Walsh (1995), cognitive structures that individuals develop and change as
a result of experience influence interpretation of environmental stimuli and subsequent behavior.
Snyder, Tanke, and Berscheid (1977) suggest that stereotypes may guide and influence peoples
interactions and serve as a basis for predictions of others future behavior. Individuals, who are
likely to adjust their stereotypes, are also likely to modify their behavior to fit the newly updated
stereotypes. Therefore, we posit:
Hypothesis 8. The development in the ability to alter stereotypes is positively related to
the development of: (a) metacognitive CQ; (b) motivational CQ; and (c) behavioral CQ.
Overall, the extant literature reveals that optimal contact, disconfirmed expectancy,
and stereotype awareness and alteration influence the development of metacognitive,
motivational, and behavioral facets of cultural intelligence. Given the relationships described
above, it is reasonable to speculate that disconfirmed expectancy, stereotype awareness, and
stereotype alteration mediate the relationship between optimal contact and the development
of CQ. However, since currently there is insufficient theoretical groundwork to make a-priori
predictions, this study examines the mediating role of disconfirmed expectancy, stereotype
awareness, and stereotype alteration in an exploratory manner within a process:
Research Question 1: Does disconfirmed expectancy and the development of stereotype
awareness and alteration mediate the relationship between optimal contact and the
development of cultural intelligence?
Methods
ParticipantsandProcedure
Participants in the study were 367 graduate university management students and
professionals who partook in a multi-week experiential CQ education process as part of an
international management course. Of the trainees, who were on average 25.20 years old, 64%
were female, 71% were Asian, and 70% had work experience.
An important part of the CQ education process (see MacNab, in press) involved
preparation for and participation in direct contact with members of a culturally different group.
Participants were instructed to engage in a new cultural experience conforming to the optimal
contact conditions: (a) equal status positions among participants and target group members; (b)
establishments of common goals/grounds; (c) meaningful, personalized, one-on-one contact with
members of the target culture group; and (d) as supported by the instructors and the authorities
of the target culture group. Among the different types of experiences that participants partook
included interactions with culturally-different religious groups, participation in culture-specific
sport/wellness activities not common in ones own culture, or a significant interaction with a
family from a different culture. Prior to the experience, participants were provided with an
introduction to the concepts of optimal contact, disconfirmed expectancy, stereotype awareness
and alteration, culture, cultural intelligence and CQ development. After the contact, participants
were given an opportunity to reflect on the experience individually, and in a group, and were
provided with feedback from the instructors.
Following the experiential CQ education process, participants completed questionnaires
assessing their experience of optimal contact and disconfirmed expectancy during the
engagement. They also reflected on their levels of cultural intelligence, stereotype awareness,
and stereotype alteration before and after the CQ education process. Because all participants
were enrolled in programs which required high levels of English proficiency, the study was
conducted in English. All participants remained anonymous during the data collection process.
They were encouraged to provide honest assessments and were assured that the information
provided in the survey would have no influence on their course performance. Participants were
offered an alternative, non-survey, reflective option if they did now wish to participate in the
survey. The response rate was over 90%.
Measures
The items for this study were available from a combination of published validated scales
and established research on contact theory, disconfirmed expectancy, stereotype awareness
and alteration, and cultural intelligence (Ang, et al., 2007; MacNab, 2009, 2010; MacNab &
Worthley, 2010, in press; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). All responses were made on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Development of cultural intelligence. The development of the metacognitive,
motivational, and behavioral facets of CQ were assessed using the before and after approach,
sometimes referred to as a retrospective pretest-posttest design (Howard, Schmeck, & Bray,
1979, p. 130), with fourteen items from the CQ scale (Ang et al., 2007). For each CQ item,
participants evaluated themselves in two temporal settings before and after. Before
represents participant self-assessment of their level of CQ prior to partaking in the CQ education
process in the beginning of the course. After represents participant self-assessment of their CQ
following the CQ education process. These temporal measuring anchors were clearly explained
both verbally and in writing to all participants. This temporal approach is recommended
as one effective avenue for measuring complex interpersonal human attributes over time
(Golembiewski, Billingsley, & Yeager, 1976; Howard & Dailey, 1979; Terborg, Maxwell, &
Howard, 1982); it is deemed especially effective in educative settings where participants may not
fully understand the measured concepts (like CQ) until after the training intervention, as in our
study.
The development of the three facets of cultural intelligence was determined as a
difference between the before and after scores. Four items measured the development of
metacognitive CQ (Cronbachs Alpha = 0.76). An example item is I am conscious of the
cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds:
Now (currently following the new culture experience); Then (before this semester). Five
items measured the development of motivational CQ (Cronbachs Alpha = 0.80). An example
item is I enjoy interaction with people from different cultures: Now (currently following the
new culture experience); Then (before this semester). Five items measured the development
of behavioral CQ (Cronbachs Alpha = 0.76). An example item is I use different facial
expressions when a cross-cultural situation requires it: Now (currently following the new culture
experience); Then (before this semester).
Development of stereotype awareness. Five items measured participants levels of
awareness of stereotypes in social interactions (MacNab, 2009) before and after the CQ
education process. A sample item is I am aware of my stereotype perceptions about other
groups: Now (currently following the new culture experience); Then (before this semester).
The development of stereotype awareness was determined as a difference between the before and
after scores for all five items (Cronbachs Alpha = 0.77).
Development of stereotype alteration. Five items assessed participants ability to alter
stereotypes in social interactions (MacNab, 2009) before and after the CQ education process.
An example item is I am capable of changing my stereotypes about people I interact with:
Now (currently following the new culture experience); Then (before this semester). The
development of stereotype alteration was determined as a difference between the before and after
scores for the five items (Cronbachs Alpha = 0.81).
Experience of disconfirmed expectancy. Four items allowed participants to reported
their experience of disconfirmed expectancy (MacNab, 2009) during contact with members
of a different cultural group (Cronbachs Alpha = 0.75). A sample item is, I am aware that I
sometimes experience the unexpected during a new culture experience.
Optimal contact. Twenty one items were used to assess the four conditions of optimal
contact (MacNab, et al., in press). Five items measuring equal status (e.g., People did not
attempt to dominate each other during the experience) were averaged to yield the equal
status score (Cronbach's alpha = 0.75). Five items measuring common goals (e.g., For both
myself and the group (new contact culture) I interacted with, there were common goals) were
averaged to yield the common goals score (Cronbach's alpha = 0.77). Five items measuring
personalized contact (e.g., I came to know some people in the other group (new contact culture)
on a personal level) were averaged to yield the personalized contact score (Cronbach's alpha
= 0.72). Three items measuring support of authorities (e.g., I felt the instructor encouraged
me to participate in this cultural experience) were averaged to yield the support of authorities
score (Cronbach's alpha = 0.77). Three items measuring support of authorities of the other
group (e.g., Leaders of the other group (new contact culture) had a positive attitude toward this
interaction) were averaged to yield the support of other authorities score (Cronbach's alpha =
0.62). Cronbachs alpha of the scale with five averaged indicators was 0.70.
Control variables. We controlled for age, gender (0 = male; 1 = female), ethnicity (0 =
Asian, 1 = otherwise), and work experience (0 = no work experience; 1 = previous work
experience) because these variables have been found to influence individual adjustment and CQ
performance in cross-cultural environments (Chen, Liu, & Portnoy, in press).
Analysis
Structural equation modeling (SEM) procedures based on the analysis of covariance
structures were used to test the proposed theoretical model. We have specified the model
structure a-priori based on previous theoretical and empirical research and as such used a
confirmatory approach to the data analysis. Analyses were conducted using the AMOS 17
program. First, we tested the fit of the measurement model as recommended by Anderson and
Gerbing (1988). Following the establishment of the measurement model, the data was matched
to the hypothesized model and assessed for goodness-of-fit. The assessment of the model fit was
based on multiple criteria consistent with the recommendations made by Hu and Bentler (1999):
Normed chi-square (2 / df, values of 1 to 3 indicate good fit, Bollen, 1989); the comparative fit
index (CFI, values close to 0.90, Bollen, 1989); the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI, values close to
0.95, Bentler & Bonett, 1980); and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA,
values below 0.05, Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The hypotheses were tested utilizing path
analysis. Non-significant parameters were deleted, and the final best-fitting model was
determined using the 2 difference test. In the final reduced model, the mediated effects were
examined and tested for significance using the Bootstrap estimation procedure in AMOS with
95% bootstrapping confidence intervals recommended by Cheung and Lau (2008). All analyses
used covariance matrix and maximum likelihood estimation.
Results
Table 1 show descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations.
MeasurementModel
In the model, optimal contact, experience of disconfirmed expectancy, development
of stereotype awareness, development of stereotype alteration, and development of cultural
intelligence were latent constructs. For the control variables, single indicators were used
assuming that they were measured without error. The measurement model provided an
acceptable fit to the data: 2/df = 1.482, CFI = .929; TLI = .917; and RMSEA = .036. Standard
factor loadings ranged from .41 to .77.
Hypothesizedmodel
The hypothesized model provided an acceptable fit to the data: 2/df = 1.499; CFI = .925;
TLI = .914; and RMSEA = .037. Overall, it is estimated that all predictors of the development
of metacognitive CQ explain 46.8 percent of its variance; all predictors of the development of
motivational CQ explain 34.1 percent of its variance; and all predictors of the development of
behavioral CQ explain 52.7 percent of its variance. Figure 1 presents the results of the path
analysis with standardized parameter estimates (for ease of presentation control variables are not
depicted in the figure).
Among the control variables, work experience was significantly and positively related to
the experience of disconfirmed expectancy (standardized parameter estimate = 0.13, p = 0.03).
Age was related positively to the development of stereotype awareness (standardized parameter
estimate = 0.13, p = 0.04). Those who identified themselves as Asian demonstrated less
profound experience of disconfirmed expectancy (standardized parameter estimate = 0.20, p =
0.001) but more profound motivational CQ development (standardized parameter estimate = -
0.18, p = 0.003).
Directly, optimal contact was related to the development of only metacognitive CQ
(Hypothesis 1a is supported), but not behavioral or motivational CQ (Hypothesis 1b and 1c
are not supported). Optimal contact was also directly associated with participants experience
of disconfirmed expectancy (Hypothesis 2 is supported). Optimal contact was only indirectly
related to the development of stereotype awareness and alteration by the mediation of
disconfirmed expectancy (Hypothesis 3 is not supported). While the experience of disconfirmed
expectancy was directly linked to the development of stereotype awareness (Hypothesis 4a is
supported), it was not so to stereotype alteration (Hypothesis 4b is not supported). Furthermore,
the experience of disconfirmed expectancy was not related directly to the development of
the three facets of cultural intelligence (Hypothesis 5 is not supported). As predicted, the
development of stereotype awareness was positively linked to the increased capability to alter
stereotypes (Hypothesis 6 is supported). In addition, greater stereotype awareness was also
associated with the development of metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ (Hypothesis 7a and
7c are supported), but not motivational CQ (Hypothesis 7b is not supported). Greater ability to
alter stereotypes was found to be directly related to the advancement of motivational CQ and
behavioral CQ (Hypothesis 8b and 8c are supported), but not metacognitive CQ (Hypothesis 8a
is not supported).
We compared the fit of our proposed model to an alternative trimmed model, which
dropped nonsignificant paths. This respecification resulted in no significant change in statistical
fit according to the 2 difference test, albeit a more parsimonious model: 2/df = 1.465; CFI
= .926; TLI=.920; RMSEA = 0.036. Figure 3 presents the reduced model with standardized
parameter estimates. The exploratory mediation analyses of the reduced model show that, in
addition to being directly related to the development of metacognitive CQ, optimal contact is
also related to the development of metacognitive CQ (standardized indirect effect estimate =
0.08, p = 0.002), motivational CQ (standardized indirect effect estimate = 0.05, p = 0.001), and
behavioral CQ (standardized indirect effect estimate = 0.08, p = 0.002) indirectly by means of
disconfirmed expectancy and stereotype awareness plus stereotype alteration. The experience of
disconfirmed expectancy mediates the relationship between optimal contact and the development
of stereotype awareness (standardized indirect effect estimate = 0.12, p = 0.002). Both
disconfirmed expectancy and the development of stereotype awareness support the link between
optimal contact and the development of the ability to alter stereotypes (standardized indirect
effect estimate = 0.10, p = 0.002). Stereotype awareness mediates the relationship of the
experience of disconfirmed expectancy with the development of the ability to alter stereotypes
(standardized indirect effect estimate = 0.23, p = 0.002) and the development of metacognitive
CQ (standardized indirect effect estimate = 0.18, p = 0.002). Together the development of
stereotype awareness and stereotype alteration support the connection between the experience of
disconfirmed expectancy and the development of motivational CQ (standardized indirect effect
estimate = 0.12, p = 0.001) and behavioral CQ (standardized indirect effect estimate = 0.19, p =
0.001).
Common Method Variance. Common method variance (CMV) may be an issue for
studies where data for the dependent and independent variables are collected from a single
source using a single instrument. To provide a level of assurance that the statistical and practical
significance of the results has not been influenced by CMV, we conducted two statistical
procedures recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003). First, we
conducted the widely used Harmans single factor test. In an exploratory factor analysis, a total
of 33 items were loaded on a single latent factor. The model showed a poor fit (2/df = 3.751;
CFI = .635; TLI=.608; RMSEA = .087), suggesting that a single common method factor does not
account for the majority of the covariance among the measures. Second, we controlled for the
effects of an unmeasured latent methods (CMV) factor. We allowed the items to load on their
theoretical constructs as well as on a latent CMV factor. We then examined the significance of
the structural paths in the model with and without the latent common method variance factor.
The model encompassing the latent CMV factor showed a slightly better fit (2/df = 1.416; CFI
= .941; TLI=.928; RMSEA = 0.034); however, the significance and the estimates associated with
the structural paths remained practically unchanged.
Alternative models. A number of alternative models were tested where we
changed the order of the variables in the model. The fit of the alternative models was compared
using the descriptive model fit statistics test based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), in
which the smaller AIC index value indicates better fit (Kline, 2011). Path analyses were also
conducted. In one alternative model, the direction of the paths from the development of
stereotype awareness and alteration to the three facets of cultural intelligence was reversed,
suggesting that optimal contact and disconfirmed expectancy were first linked to the
development of cultural intelligence which in turn was linked to the development of stereotype
awareness and alteration. However, this model showed an inferior fit and a much larger AIC
value (2/df = 1.579; CFI = .913; TLI = .900; RMSEA = .040; AIC = 1236.904) than the final
model (2/df = 1.465; CFI = .926; TLI = .920; RMSEA = .036; AIC = 1152.353). In another
model, all paths were reversed such that the development of cultural intelligence was associated
with greater development of stereotype awareness and alteration, which in turn were associated
with greater experience of disconfirmed expectancy and ultimately greater optimal contact
experience. The fit of this model (2/df = 1.595; CFI = .911; TLI = .897; RMSEA = .040; AIC =
1246.090) was also inferior to the final model. In addition, the paths from the development of
stereotype awareness and alteration to the experience of disconfirmed expectancy and optimal
contact were not significant.
SupplementaryAnalyses
To provide a greater level of assurance that our results have not been influenced by the
CMV bias, which may have resulted from the fact that the participants reported their
development of stereotype awareness, stereotype alteration, and cultural intelligence scores
retrospectively in a single post-intervention survey, we conducted supplementary analyses. A
subset of our sample (N = 229) reported their levels of stereotype awareness, stereotype
alteration, and cultural intelligence prior to and after engaging in the CQ education program. So
instead of calculating the development scores using the before and after, or retrospective
pretest-posttest design approach as described previously, we used the pre and post approach.
The pre represents the participants non-retrospective and real-time report of their level of CQ
prior to the CQ education process. An example of a pre-intervention item from the development
of metacognitive CQ scale is I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting
with people with different cultural backgrounds: Now (currently). The post represents the
participants report of their CQ levels following the CQ education process. An example of a
post-intervention item from the development of metacognitive CQ scale is I am conscious of
the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds:
Now (currently, following the new culture experience). The development of the three facets of
cultural intelligence, stereotype awareness, and stereotype alteration was determined as a
difference between the pre and post scores.
We tested the proposed theoretical model using the data from the smaller subsample
containing the pre and post scores using the same analytical procedures described above.
Optimal contact (5 items, Cronbachs alpha = 0.70), experience of disconfirmed expectancy (4
items, Cronbachs alpha = 0.73), development of stereotype awareness (5 items, Cronbachs
alpha = 0.66), development of stereotype alteration (5 items, Cronbachs alpha = 0.77),
development of metacognitive CQ (4 items, Cronbachs alpha = 0.75), development of
motivational CQ (5 items, Cronbachs alpha = 0.68), and development of behavioral CQ (5
items, Cronbachs alpha = 0.65) were represented as latent constructs in the model. Single
indicators were used for the control variables. Standard factor loadings ranged from .33 to .75.
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and zero order correlations for the pre and post
data sample. First, we estimated the recursive measurement model with confirmatory factor
analysis in AMOS 17. The measurement model fit was acceptable: 2/df = 1.200; CFI = .934;
TLI=.923; RMSEA = 0.030. Second, we assessed the hypothesized model using structural
equation modeling in AMOS 17. The results showed an acceptable fit of the data to the
hypothesized model: 2/df = 1.225; CFI = .925; TLI=.914; RMSEA = 0.031. Next, we dropped
the nonsignificant paths. The trimmed model also showed an acceptable fit 2/df = 1.207;
CFI = .927; TLI=.921; RMSEA = 0.030. The difference in chi-square between the full and
the reduced model was not significant. Figure 4 presents the reduced model with standardized
parameter estimates.
The results of the analyses of this subsample based on the pre and post data for the
development of stereotype awareness, alteration, and cultural intelligence (Figure 4) closely
resemble the results based on the before and after data (Figure 3). Optimal contact was directly
associated with the participants experience of disconfirmed expectancy. The experience of
disconfirmed expectancy is positively associated with the development of stereotype awareness.
The development of stereotype awareness was linked positively to the development of the ability
to alter stereotypes and the development of metacognitive CQ. The development of stereotype
alteration is positively associated with the development of motivational CQ and behavioral
CQ. Unlike the results based on the before and after data, optimal contact was not directly
related to the development of metacognitive CQ in the pre and post measure model. In addition,
there was no significant link from the development of stereotype awareness to the development
of behavioral CQ. However, the association between the development of the ability to alter
stereotypes and the development of behavioral CQ was stronger in the model based on pre and
post data. Like the before and after measure model, the pre and post measure model also shows
the complimentary role of both stereotype awareness and alteration as influential (together) on
all aspects of CQ development.
Corroborating the results based on the before and after data, the results of the exploratory
mediation analyses based on the pre and post data show that disconfirmed expectancy, stereotype
awareness, and stereotype alteration mediate the relationship between optimal contact and the
development of metacognitive CQ (standardized indirect effect estimate = 0.09, p = 0.001),
motivational CQ (standardized indirect effect estimate = 0.07, p = 0.001), and behavioral CQ
(standardized indirect effect estimate = 0.07, p = 0.001). Disconfirmed expectancy mediates the
relationship between optimal contact and the development of stereotype awareness (standardized
indirect effect estimate = 0.14, p = 0.001). Both disconfirmed expectancy and the development
of stereotype awareness support the connection between optimal contact and the development
of the ability to alter stereotypes (standardized indirect effect estimate = 0.12, p = 0.001).
Stereotype awareness mediates the relationship of the experience of disconfirmed expectancy
with the development of the ability to alter stereotypes (standardized indirect effect estimate =
0.32, p = 0.002) and the development of metacognitive CQ (standardized indirect effect estimate
= 0.23, p = 0.002). Together the development of stereotype awareness and stereotype alteration
support the connection between the experience of disconfirmed expectancy and the development
of behavioral CQ (standardized indirect effect estimate = 0.19, p = 0.001).
Discussion
In this study, we introduced and tested a model explicating how optimal contact
with members of a different cultural group influences the development of metacognitive,
motivational, and behavioral aspects of individual cultural intelligence development. We
posited that optimal contact contributes to the advancement of cultural intelligence directly
and mediationally by providing individuals with an opportunity to experience disconfirmed
expectancy, by raising individual awareness of stereotypes, and by enhancing the ability to
change stereotypes.
What stands out the most from our results based on both before-and-after and pre-and-
post data is that, mediationally, optimal contact was linked positively to all three examined
aspects of cultural intelligence. This finding is consistent with the social cognitive perspective
(Bandura, 1977; 1986) stating that experiences contribute to the development of self-awareness,
self-control, and knowledge structures which later influence attitudes and behaviors. Our
study also provides empirical evidence in support of experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984)
and experiential CQ education (MacNab, in press), showing the important role of awareness,
reflection, thinking, and doing in the effective transformation of experience into learning.
Another interesting finding is that the development of stereotype awareness is positively
related to the development of metacognitive CQ, but not behavioral CQ. On the other hand, the
ability to alter stereotypes is positively linked to the development of behavioral CQ, but not
metacognitive CQ. To develop conscious cultural awareness during cross-cultural interactions,
individuals need to become more aware of stereotypes they are holding about others and
stereotypes others hold about them. To be able to exhibit appropriate behaviors when interacting
with people from different cultures, an adjustment of cognitive structures, or stereotypes, appears
to be significant. Thus, stereotype awareness and stereotype alteration perform complementary
roles in the development of cultural intelligence and should likely be important considerations in
CQ training, development, and education. Adler (2002) also underscored the importance of both
stereotype awareness and alteration in the development of internationally effective individuals.
Our study empirically links the development of both stereotype awareness and alteration to the
enhancement of CQ and shows their complementary effects.
Finally, our model emphasizes the important role of disconfirmed expectancy in the
development of stereotype awareness, stereotype alteration, and all examined facets of cultural
intelligence. Disconfirmed expectancy is shown to mediate the impact of optimal contact on
the development of stereotype awareness, alteration, and CQ. The influence of disconfirmed
expectancy on stereotype awareness and stereotype alteration has been conceptually and
empirically illustrated by Monteith (1993). Theoretically, the role of disconfirmed expectancy in
the development of cultural competencies has been stressed by Cushner and Brislin (1996) and
Bhawuk (2009a). This study empirically shows the mediating role of disconfirmed expectancy
on the development of CQ. Overall, guided understanding and experience of disconfirmed
expectancy is a critical part of the experiential CQ education process.
There are a number of limitations for this study. To fully understand the benefits
of direct experience with the members of different cultural groups built around the optimal
contact conditions as suggested by Allport (1954), experimental solutions should be developed
encompassing a control group. Given the requirements encountered during our university
human subjects review process (coupled with semester timeframe limitations), designing a true
experimental version of this project, with a control group, was not immediately feasible. For
this reason, future research could design experimental approaches as a progression of this current
work. Future studies should also examine this process using different samples and measures.
PracticalImplications
The results of this work are essential for organizations looking for ways to increase their
members ability to adjust, function, and perform effectively in culturally diverse contexts.
First, although cognitive approaches to the development of CQ have their value, the inclusion
of guided optimal contact with members of a different cultural group may provide a richer
environment to enhance cultural intelligence. Second, introduction of contact during cross-
cultural training may allow trainers to target static as well as dynamic aspects of CQ. As
suggested by Rockstuhl and Ng (2009), existing programs tend to focus too narrowly on
increasing individuals knowledge, such as knowledge of cultural differences. Third, this
research points out the benefits of the optimal contact characteristics for inter-group, experiential
training programs; not all types of contact may positively influence the development of cultural
intelligence. It was also suggested by Brislin and colleagues (2008) that cross-cultural training
research needs to more carefully consider context in relation to training outcomes.
Finally, our study demonstrates the importance of the process in the development of
CQ. The advancement of all three facets of cultural intelligence was mediated by a series of
other constructs. If training participants are involved in a cross-cultural encounter, but do not
experience disconfirmed expectancy along with stereotype awareness and alteration, the benefit
to the development of CQ might be lower or otherwise deficient. Thus, although a process-based
approach to cultural intelligence requires more time, effort and expertise, it is likely to prepare
individuals for cross-cultural encounters more effectively.
In summary, based on our findings we recommend that effective experiential CQ
education endeavors: (a) include a foundation that integrates optimal contact as related to contact
theory; (b) provide conditions for the encounter of guided cultural disconfirmed expectancy; (c)
steer the participants toward identification and awareness of held stereotypes; and (d) guide the
participants toward challenging and altering those held stereotypes.
Bibliography
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
67(5), 422-436.
Adler, N. J. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Cincinnati, OH:
Thompson Learning.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice: Addison-Wesley.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition,
distinctiveness, and nomological network. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of
cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3-15). Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (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., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., et al. (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. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
Berry, J., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Acculturation and intercultural
relations. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, M. H. Segall & P. R. Dasen (Eds.), Cross-
cultural psychology: Research and applications (2 ed., pp. 345-383). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Berry, J., & Ward, C. (2006). Commentary on redefining interactions across cultures and
organizations. Group and Organization Management, 31(1), 64-77.
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2001). Evolution of culture assimilators: Toward theory-based assimilators.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(2), 141-163.
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2009a). Competence development and triple-loop cultural training. In S. Ang
& L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and
applications (pp. 342-355). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2009b). Intercultural training for the global workplace: Review, synthesis, and
theoretical explorations. In R. S. Bhagat & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Culture, organization,
and work (pp. 462-488). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley-
Interscience Publication.
Brislin, R. W. (1981). Cross-cultural encounters: Face-to-face interactions. New York, NY:
Pergamon.
Brislin, R. W., & Macnab, B. (2004). Inter-cultural communication and effective decision
making: Contributions to successful international business ventures. In K. Leung & S.
White (Eds.), Handbook of Asian Management (pp. 397-414). New York: Kluwar.
Brislin, R. W., MacNab, B., & Nayani, F. (2008). Cross-cultural training: Applications and
research. In P. B. Smith, M. F. Peterson & D. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural
management research (pp. 397-410). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brislin, R. W., Worthley, R., & MacNab, B. (2006). Cultural intelligence: Understanding
behaviors that serve people's goals. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 40-55.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255-343.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing fit. In K. A. Bollen & J.
S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136162). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). Selecting expatriates for personality characteristics: A moderating
effect of personality on the relationship between host national contact and cross-cultural
adjustment. Management International Review, 40(1), 61-81.
Chen, X.-P., Liu, D., & Portnoy, R. (in press). A multilevel investigation of motivational cultural
intelligence, organizational diversity climate, and cultural sales: Evidence from U.S. real
estate firms. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent
variables: Boostrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research
Methods, 11(2), 296-325.
Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 540-572.
Cook, S. W. (1978). Interpersonal and attitudinal outcomes in cooperating interracial groups.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12(1), 97-113.
Cooper, C. L., & Kirkcaldy, B. D. (1995). Executive stereotyping between cultures: The British
vs. German manager. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(1), 3-6.
Crocker, J., Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Schematic bases of belief change. In R. Eiser
(Ed.), Attitudinal judgment (pp. 197-226). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Crowne, K. A. (2008). What leads to cultural intelligence? Business Horizons, 51(5), 391-399.
Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. W. (1996). Intercultural interactions: A practical guide. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Dover.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present,
and the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 5-21.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flaherty, J. E. (2009). The effects of cultural intelligence on team member acceptance and
integration in multinational teams. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of
cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 192-205). New York,
NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive inquiry.
American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Having an open mind: The impact of openness to experience on interracial
attitudes and impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5),
816-826.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity
model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E.
A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization,
recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics, 4, 98-114.
Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. (1976). Measuring change and persistence
in human affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 12(2), 133-157.
Hewstone, M. (1996). Contact and categorization: Social psychological interventions to change
intergroup relations. In N. Macrae, C. Stangor & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and
stereotyping (pp. 323-368). New York, NY: Guildford.
Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on
the 'contact hypothesis'. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in
integroup encounters (pp. 1-44). Oxford: Blackwell.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46.
Hill, M. E., & Augoustinos, M. (2001). Stereotype change and prejudice reduction: Short- and
long-term evaluation of a crosscultural awareness programme. Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, 11(4), 243-262.
Howard, G. S., & Dailey, P. R. (1979). Response-shift bias: A source of contamination of self-
report measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(2), 144-150.
Howard, G. S., Schmeck, R. R., & Bray, J. H. (1979). Internal invalidity in studies employing
self-report instruments: A suggested remedy. Journal of Educational Measurement,
16(2), 129-135.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Itin, C. (1999). Reasserting the philosophy of experiential education as a vehicle for change in
the 21st century. The Journal of Experiential Education, 22(2), 91-98.
Kim, Y. J., & Van Dyne, L. (2011). Cultural intelligence and international leadership potential:
The importance of contact for members of the majority. Applied psychology: An
International Review.
Kim, Y. J., & Van Dyne, L. (in press). Cultural intelligence and international leadership
potential: The importance of contact for members of the majority. Applied psychology:
An International Review.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Management and the learning process. California Management Review,
18(3), 21-31.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
9(5), 178-181.
MacNab, B. (2009). Experiential stereotype awareness training: The relevance of context and
self-efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,
Chicago, IL.
MacNab, B. (2010). An experiential approach to cultural intelligence education. Working paper.
University of Sydney. Sydney, Australia.
MacNab, B. (in press). An experiential approach to cultural intelligence education. Journal of
Management Education.
MacNab, B., Brislin, R., & Worthley, R. (in press). Experiential cultural intelligence
development: Context and individual attributes. International Journal of Human
Resource Management.
MacNab, B., & Worthley, R. (2010). An experimental approach to teaching cultural
intellingence: Individual and contextual influences. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Canada.
MacNab, B., & Worthley, R. (in press). Individual characteristics as predictors of cultural
intelligence development: The relevance of self-efficacy. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, forthcoming.
MacNab, B., Worthley, R., & Brislin, R. W. (2007). An experiential approach to teaching
cultural intellingence: The relevance of context and intra-personal characteristics
within the learning process. Paper presented at the the annual Applied Business and
Entrepreneurship Association International Conference, Maui, HI.
Monteith, M. J. (1993). Self-regulation of prejudiced responses: Implications for progress in
prejudice-reduction efforts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(3), 469-
485.
Ng, K.-Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural
intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 511-526.
Osland, J. S., Bird, A., Delano, J., & Jacob, M. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping:
Cultural sensemaking in context. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 65-79.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65-85.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Rockstuhl, T., & Ng, K. Y. (2009). The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in
multicultural teams. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence:
Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 206-220). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values: Individual and societal. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Rothbart, M. (1981). Memory processes and social beliefs. In D. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive
processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 145-181). Hillsdale, N.J.:
Erlbaum.
Shannon, L. M., & Begley, T. M. (2009). Antecedents of the four-factor model of cultural
intelligence. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory,
measurement, and applications (pp. 41-55). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Snyder, M. (1982). Self-fulfilling stereotypes. Psychology Today, July, 60-68.
Snyder, M., & Stukas Jr, A. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive,
motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50(1), 273-303.
Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior:
On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 35(9), 656-666.
Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. (1986). What is intelligence? Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Tan, J.-S., & Chua, R. Y.-J. (2003). Training and developing cultural intelligence. In P. C. Earley
& S. Ang (Eds.), Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures (pp. 258-
303). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tarique, I., & Takeuchi, R. (2009). Developing cultural intelligence: The roles of international
nonwork experience. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence:
Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 56-70). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Tay, C., Westman, M., & Chia, A. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of cultural intelligence
among short-term business travellers. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of
cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 126-144). Armonk,
NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Terborg, J. R., Maxwell, S. E., & Howard, G. S. (1982). On the measurement and control of
beta change: Problems with the Bedeian, Armenakis, and Gibson technique. Academy of
Management Review, 7(2), 292-295.
Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2004). Cultural intelligence: People skills for global business. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory
lane. Organization Science, 6(3), 280-321.
Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 961-977.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations
Variable Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Optimal Contact 4.08 0.41 (0.70)
2. Disconfirmed Expectancy 4.16 0.50 0.29* (0.75)
3. Stereotype Awareness 1.05 0.68 0.07 0.21* (0.77)
4. Stereotype Alteration 0.82 0.62 -0.03 0.10 0.65* (0.81)
5. Metacognitive CQ 0.87 0.64 0.14* 0.20* 0.49* 0.43* (0.76)
6. Motivational CQ 0.56 0.60 0.04 0.02 0.32* 0.45* 0.39* (0.80)
7. Behavioral CQ 0.65 0.55 0.09 0.11* 0.50* 0.50* 0.38* 0.46* (0.76)
8. Female 0.64 0.48 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.05 -0.02
9. Age 25.20 3.99 -0.01 0.07 0.09 0.13* 0.06 0.02 0.05 -0.15*
10. Work Experience
a
0.70 0.46 0.01 0.17* 0.03 0.01 0.01 -0.05 -0.04 -0.05 0.28*
11. Ethnicity
b
0.29 0.46 0.04 0.23* -0.06 -0.09 -0.04 -0.21* -0.04 -0.17* 0.21* 0.32*
Note: N = 367. Values in parentheses represent the reliability (Cronbachs Alpha) for the scale; signifies development, assessed as
a difference between before and after scores. Before represents participants retrospective self-assessment scores of their stereotype
awareness, stereotype alteration, and CQ prior to partaking in the CQ education process reported following the intervention. After
represents participants self-assessment scores of the same constructs following the CQ education process.
a
Binary variable (0 = no, 1 = yes);
b
Binary variable (0 = Asian, 1 = Non-Asian);
* Significant at least at p < 0.05.
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations
Variable Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Optimal Contact 4.08 0.43 (0.70)
2. Disconfirmed Expectancy 4.18 0.47 0.27* (0.73)
3. Stereotype Awareness 0.43 0.58 0.05 0.20* (0.66)
4. Stereotype Alteration 0.33 0.68 0.03 0.12 0.55* (0.77)
5. Metacognitive CQ 0.47 0.71 0.05 0.18* 0.38* 0.39* (0.75)
6. Motivational CQ 0.09 0.62 0.05 0.12 0.35* 0.37* 0.29* (0.68)
7. Behavioral CQ 0.25 0.66 -0.01 0.13 0.31* 0.41* 0.33* 0.24* (0.65)
8. Female 0.62 0.49 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.04
9. Age 25.39 4.23 -0.05 0.16* -0.03 0.05 0.09 -0.01 0.14* -0.16*
11. Work Experience
a
0.72 0.45 0.03 0.17* -0.06 0.12 0.11 -0.06 -0.10 0.01 0.29*
12. Ethnicity
b
0.35 0.48 0.10 0.29* -0.10 -0.12 -0.01 -0.09 -0.10 -0.18* 0.23* 0.42*
Note: N =229. Values in parentheses represent the reliability (Cronbachs Alpha) for the scale; signifies development, assessed as
a difference between pre and post scores. Pre represents participants self-assessment scores of their stereotype awareness, stereotype
alteration, and CQ prior to partaking in the CQ education process reported prior to the intervention. Post represents participants self-
assessment scores of the same constructs following the CQ education process.
a
Binary variable (0 = no, 1 = yes);
b
Binary variable (0 = Asian, 1 = Non-Asian);
* Significant at least at p < 0.05.
Figure 1: Hypothesized model of the relationship between optimal contact, experience of
disconfirmed expectancy, development of stereotype awareness, development of the ability to
alter stereotypes, and development of the three examined facets of cultural intelligence. For
the ease of presentation control variables and paths from the four control variables to all other
constructs are omitted.
Figure 2: Structural equation model results for the full hypothesized model.
Note: signifies development, assessed as a difference between before and afterintervention
scores. Before represents participants retrospective self-assessment scores of their stereotype
awareness, stereotype alteration, and CQ prior to partaking in the CQ education process reported
following the intervention. After represents participants self-assessment scores of the same
constructs following the CQ education process. Although the model does not depict this for the
ease of presentation, we controlled for the effects of age, gender, ethnicity, and work experience.
Standardized path coefficients are reported. Bold lines signify significant paths, dashed lines
signify nonsignificant paths.
N = 367; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3: Structural equation model results for the reduced model.
Note: signifies development, assessed as a difference between before and after intervention
scores. Before represents participants retrospective self-assessment scores of their stereotype
awareness, stereotype alteration, and CQ prior to partaking in the CQ education process reported
following the intervention. After represents participants self-assessment scores of the same
constructs following the CQ education process. Although the model does not depict this for the
ease of presentation, we controlled for the effects of age, gender, ethnicity, and work experience.
Standardized path coefficients are reported.
N = 367; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4: Structural equation model results for the reduced model based on pre and post
development scores.
Note: signifies development, assessed as a difference between pre and post intervention
scores. Pre represents participants self-assessment scores of their stereotype awareness,
stereotype alteration, and CQ prior to partaking in the CQ education process reported prior to
the intervention. Post represents participants self-assessment scores of the same constructs
following the CQ education process. Although the model does not depict this for the ease
of presentation, we controlled for the effects of age, gender, ethnicity, and work experience.
Standardized path coefficients are reported.
N = 229; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

CQ Example 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CQ Example 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: A PATHWAY TO CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE VIA CONTACT 1

Embracing the Unexpected:

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Brent MacNab,

You might also like