cq example 5

5/24/2018 CQ Example 5

1/49

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:[email protected]


2/49

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


3/49


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


4/49


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


5/49


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.

CQ and Experiential CQ Education

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 CQcenters on higher-order cognitive processes incorporating conscious cultural


6/49


awareness, reflection on experiences, active challenging of assumptions, and adjustment of

cognitive structures (Ang & Van Dyne, 2009). Motivational CQincorporates 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 CQrefers 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 educationis 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


7/49


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.

The Process of CQ Development via Contact

Optimal Contact and the Development of CQ

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


8/49


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:


9/49


Hypothesis 1. Optimal contact is positively related to the development of: (a)

metacognitive CQ: (b) motivational CQ; and (c) behavioral CQ.

Optimal Contact and Disconfirmed Expectancy

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.

Optimal Contact, Stereotype Awareness and Stereotype Alteration

Drawing on Adlers (2002) effective stereotyping framework, MacNab (2009) argues that

stereotype awarenessinvolves an individual ability to understand and articulate what stereotypes


10/49


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:


11/49


Hypothesis 3. Optimal contact is positively related to the development of: (a) stereotype

awareness and (b) stereotype alteration.

Disconfirmed Expectancy, Stereotype Awareness and Stereotype Alteration

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 modelposits

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. Thesubtyping modelcontends 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.


12/49


Disconfirmed Expectancy and the Development of CQ

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:


13/49


Hypothesis 5. Experience of disconfirmed expectancy is positively associated with the

development of: (a) metacognitive CQ; (b) motivational CQ; and (c) behavioral CQ.

Stereotype Awareness and Stereotype Alteration

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, discussingself-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 stereotypingstartswith 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.

Stereotype Awareness and the Development of CQ

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.


14/49


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.


15/49


Stereotype Alteration and the Development of CQ

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,


16/49


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

Participants and Procedure

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


17/49


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 andafter 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 &


18/49


Worthley, 2010, in press; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). All responses were made on a 5-point scale

ranging from 1 =strongly disagreeto 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


19/49


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


20/49


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


21/49


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.

Measurement Model

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.


22/49


Hypothesized model

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,


23/49


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


24/49


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.


25/49


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.

Supplementary Analyses

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


26/49


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


27/49


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


28/49


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


29/49


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


30/49


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.


31/49


Practical Implications

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

ofguidedoptimal 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 theprocessin 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


32/49


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.


33/49


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.


34/49


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.


35/49


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.


36/49


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.


37/49


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.


38/49


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.


39/49


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.


40/49


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.


41/49


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.


42/49


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.


43/49


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 beforeand afterscores. Before represents participants retrospectiveself-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 atp< 0.05.


44/49


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 betweenpreandpostscores. 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 atp< 0.05.


45/49



46/49


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.


47/49


Figure 2: Structural equation model results for the full hypothesized model.

Note: signifies development, assessed as a difference between beforeand afterintervention

scores. Before represents participants retrospectiveself-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.


48/49


Figure 3: Structural equation model results for the reduced model.

Note: signifies development, assessed as a difference between beforeand afterintervention

scores. Before represents participants retrospectiveself-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.


49/49


Figure 4: Structural equation model results for the reduced model based on pre and post

development scores.

Note: signifies development, assessed as a difference betweenpreandpostintervention

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

Documents

development of cq

experiential contact

effective cq development

greater cultural knowledge

contact theory

experiential education

contact type

based cq education program