See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259509699
Cultural intelligence (CQ) in action: The effects of personality and
international assignment on the development of CQ
Article in International Journal of Intercultural Relations · January 2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.11.002
CITATIONS
85
READS
2,701
3 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Work motivation View project
Faruk Şahin
Mugla Üniversitesi
47 PUBLICATIONS 1,876 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Sait Gurbuz
Hanzehogeschool Groningen
54 PUBLICATIONS 2,406 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Onur Köksal
Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University
39 PUBLICATIONS 345 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Onur Köksal on 21 November 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
Author’s personal copy
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 152–163
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Intercultural Relations
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
Cultural intelligence (CQ) in action: The effects of personality
and international assignment on the development of CQ
Faruk S¸ ahin a, Sait Gurbuz b,∗, Onur Köksal a
a Nigde ˘ University, Turkey
b Turkish Military Academy, Turkey
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 28 November 2012
Received in revised form 7 September 2013
Accepted 16 November 2013
Keywords:
Cultural intelligence
Personality
International assignment
Multicultural environment.
a b s t r a c t
We examined (1) the effect of international assignments on the development of cultural
intelligence – CQ over time (2) whether crucial personality traits (i.e., extraversion and
openness to experience) had a moderating role in the relationship between international
assignments and CQ in a longitudinal design. A total sample of 145 military personnel
participated in the study at the beginning of the deployment (Time 1) and 121 persons
participated at the end of the deployment (Time 2) in a multinational and multicultural
military organization. Repeated measures multivariate analysis of covariance showed that
the 6-month international assignment did have a statistically significant effect on the
development of all four facets of CQ over time. Moreover, moderated multiple regression analyses demonstrated that individuals who are high on extraversion improved their
metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ more than did individuals who are low on extraversion.
Similarly, individuals who are high on openness to experience improved their motivational
CQ more than did individuals who are low on openness to experience. Implications for
future research and practice are discussed.
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Although cultural intelligence (CQ) is a new construct, it has attracted considerable attention worldwide and across
diverse disciplines ranging from international management to cross-cultural psychology. Prior research has demonstrated
the predictive power of CQ on several beneficial individual and organizational outcomes (Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2012; Van
Dyne et al., 2012).
Despite much research indicating that CQ offers great promise as an antecedent to many individual and organizational
outcomes, there has been limited research on antecedents of CQ. Ng et al. (2012) reported that antecedents of CQ have been
studied in terms of individual differences such as personality traits and prior international experience. Previous research
has accumulated important findings on the effects of international experience (e.g., Shannon & Begley, 2008; Tarique &
Takeuchi, 2008; Tay, Westman, & Chia, 2008) on CQ. Of the Big Five personality traits, openness to experience was found to
be positively related to all factors of CQ (e.g., Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006; Moody, 2007). However none of these studies,
to date, has examined whether personality variables affect the relationship between international experience and CQ over
time, despite recent calls for longitudinal research on international experience and CQ (Ng et al., 2012). Given that CQ has
been argued to be an important individual capability to function and to manage effectively in cross-cultural contexts (Earley
The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ministry of National Defense or the
Turkish Armed Forces.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 5324768585.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Gurbuz).
0147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.11.002
Author’s personal copy
F. S¸ ahin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 152–163 153
& Ang, 2003; Earley & Peterson, 2004), a study examining the effect of personality variables on the relationship between
international experience and CQ over time would provide valuable cues for assessing readiness for further international
assignments and training needs.
The present study investigates the effect of international assignments on the development of CQ over time. More specifically, we focus on certain personality traits (i.e., extraversion and openness to experience) and examine in a longitudinal
design how individuals with these personality traits change their CQ following international assignment.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1. Cultural intelligence and international experience
Earley and Ang (2003) defined cultural intelligence (CQ) as “a person’s capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts” (p. 59). CQ is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct made up four components: Metacognitive (an individual’s
consciousness and awareness during intercultural interactions), cognitive (general knowledge about the norms, practices
and of a culture), motivational (capability to direct attention and energy toward learning about appropriate responses and
functioning effectively), and behavioral CQ (flexibility in exhibiting situationally appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions
during intercultural interactions) (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Ng & Earley, 2006).
CQ is based on capabilities that can be enhanced through training, experience, and education (Earley & Peterson, 2004;
Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009). According to situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991), exposure to different cultural
environments provides individuals with the social context and authentic activities to learn how to live and work in different
cultural environments (Ng et al., 2012). According to Lave and Wenger (1991) learning is “an integral and inseparable
aspect of social practice” (p. 31). In a situated learning approach, knowledge, skills and behaviors are learned in social and
cultural contexts that reflect how knowledge is obtained and applied in everyday situations (Fox, 2000). Hence, international
experience provides knowledge and social context that can affect individuals’ CQ. In thinking about international experience
and the four factors of CQ, we predict that international work experience is related to all components of CQ.
International experience can influence mental (metacognitive and cognitive) components of CQ. Working and living in
other cultures provide individuals with unique cultural consciousness, awareness, and knowledge. Exposure to other cultures
offers individuals the opportunity to consciously examine their own cultural assumptions, and to be actively engaged in
thinking and reflecting before and during interactions. Moreover, international experience can enhance the appreciation of
the similarities between cultures and understanding of how cultures are different through gaining the knowledge of norms,
practices, and conventions in other cultures. Individuals with international experience are more aware of the similarities
and differences in cultural universals and cultural values which reflect high cognitive CQ. Prior findings have confirmed that
international experience is related to mental components of CQ. For example, studies have found that international work
experience predicted metacognitive CQ (Shannon & Begley, 2008; Tarique & Takeuchi, 2008) and cognitive CQ (Tarique &
Takeuchi, 2008; Tay et al., 2008).
International experience should also relate to motivational CQ. International studies have shown that international work
experience can impact expatriates’ success in international assignments because experienced individuals are likely to be
willing to relocate in different environments (Brett & Reilly, 1988), able to exert more effort (Feldman & Bolino, 2000),
work with other individuals from different cultural backgrounds (Richard, 2000), and communicate well with host nationals
(Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985). Moreover, prior research has reported that international work experience is positively related
to motivational CQ (Shannon & Begley, 2008; Tarique & Takeuchi, 2008).
Finally, international experiences should relate to behavioral CQ. Individuals who live or work in other cultures gain
knowledge than can further affect his or her attitudes and behaviors through mental structures (Shannon & Begley, 2008;
Tarique & Takeuchi, 2008). Walsh (1995) defined mental structures as a “mental template that individuals impose on an
information environment to give it form and meaning” (p. 281). These mental structures have influences on individuals’
interpreting and reacting to the information environment which may further facilitate situationally appropriate behavior in
diverse cultural settings (Tarique & Takeuchi, 2008).
Previous research has accumulated important findings on the effects of international experience on CQ (Ng et al., 2012).
In addition to real life experience, several specific programs (e.g., Fischer, 2011; MacNab, 2012; MacNab & Worthley, 2012)
intended to provide individuals with cross-cultural experience have been found useful in the development of CQ. Thus, we
predict the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1. Individuals’ levels of metacognitive CQ (H1a), cognitive CQ (H1b), motivational CQ (H1c), and behavioral CQ
(H1d) will be higher after the international assignment than at the beginning of the international assignment.
2.2. Moderating role of personality
Earley and Ang (2003) conceptualized CQ as a state-like individual difference that can be influenced by trait-like individual
differences such as personality traits. To date, several researches (Ang et al., 2006; Moody, 2007; Oolders, Chernyshenko, &
Stark, 2008; Ward & Fischer, 2008) indicated that significant relationships exist between specific personality traits and CQ.
In general, researchers have concluded that openness to experience (Ang et al., 2006; Caligiuri, 2000; Moody, 2007; Oolders
Author’s personal copy
154 F. S¸ ahin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 152–163
et al., 2008; Ward & Fischer, 2008) and extraversion (Ang et al., 2006; Moody, 2007) traits are related to CQ. Given the
pervasive nature of personality traits on individuals’ attitudes and behaviors (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007), these personality
traits may influence the relationship between international experience and CQ. Specifically, personality will affect how
individuals perceive cross-cultural environment, thus effecting how they internalize international experience, which further
develops CQ. Since, previous studies have demonstrated that openness to experience and extraversion have more relevance
to novel and unfamiliar situations (e.g., Ang et al., 2006; Caligiuri, 2000; Moody, 2007; Oolders et al., 2008), but have found
inconsistent relationship among CQ and other Big Five personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional
stability), we focus on openness to experience and extraversion as potentially important personality traits influencing the
relationship between international experience and CQ.
Extraversion is characterized by the need to be in social situations and by having social facility. Individuals who are
high in extraversion seek excitement, are active, gregarious, assertive, bold, and adventuresome (Goldberg, 1992; McCrae &
Costa, 1999). Extraverts are self-confident and sociable, which means they excel during interpersonal interactions and are
very at ease during these interactions (John & Srivastava, 1999). Exposure to new cultural environment offers extroverts
opportunities to interact with individuals from different cultural background and learn the knowledge of norms, practices,
and conventions in other cultures. Although there is little empirical support for the relation between extraversion and
mental ability (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004), Ang et al. (2006) found that extraversion was related to cognitive CQ
and Moody (2007) reported significantly positive relationship between extraversion and metacognitive CQ. These findings
indicate that being confronted with a variety of experiences in cross-cultural situations extraverts are more likely to examine
their own cultural assumptions and values and learn the cultural knowledge. Moreover, those high on extraversion are
adventurous and ambitious which implies a tendency to expose themselves to new and unfamiliar situations. Previous
research (Ang et al., 2006; Moody, 2007) also suggests a relationship between extraversion and motivational CQ. Finally,
extraverts also show a higher tendency to enjoy interpersonal interactions and therefore may display more flexible behavior.
This in turn suggests that experiences in cross-cultural environment should lead extraverts to develop their behavioral CQ
(Ang et al., 2006). In sum, we propose that international experience will have a greater impact on the development of CQ
for individuals who are high on extraversion. Therefore, we predict the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2. The personality trait extraversion moderates the relationship between international experience and CQ,
such that individuals who are high on extraversion are more likely to change their metacognitive CQ (H2a), cognitive CQ
(H2b), motivational CQ (H2c), and behavioral CQ (H2d) following international assignment.
Openness to experiences, one of the Big Five personality traits, encompasses broad-mindedness, curiosity, creativity, having wide interest, flexibility of thoughts, and inventiveness (Costa & McCrae, 1995; McCrae & Costa, 1999). Past research has
demonstrated that openness to experience is correlated with knowledge-based or ‘crystallized’ aspects of intellectual ability
(Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005). This indicates that individuals high on openness to
experience are curious, flexible, unconventional, and trying out new things, and therefore likely to ‘invest’ in intellectual
activities and acquire more knowledge (Ang et al., 2006; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2006). Exposure to new and unfamiliar cultural environments provides individuals with cultural consciousness, awareness, and knowledge. Individuals who
are high on openness to experience are defined as being intelligent, curious, broad-minded, and versatile. Being confronted
with an opportunity to consciously examine their own cultural assumptions and values and learn the knowledge of norms,
practices, and conventions in other cultures, individuals who are high on openness to experience are expected to increase
their mental components (metacognitive and cognitive) of CQ. It seems likely that individuals who are high on openness to
experience are willing to expose themselves to a new and unfamiliar cultural environment that would allow them to satisfy
their curiosity and interests. This in turn suggests that experiences in a cross-cultural environment should lead individuals
to develop their motivational CQ. Finally, individuals who are high on openness to experience are willing to learn new things,
look for new experiences, and regulate their behavior in accordance with novel situations. Hence, international experience
offers those with high openness to experience opportunities to add new forms of behavior to their repertoire. Fischer (2011)
found that individuals who are high on open-mindedness (similar to openness to experience) were more likely to report
increases in motivational CQ following an intercultural training. We propose that international experience will have a greater
impact on the development of CQ for individuals who are high on openness to experience. Thus, we predict the following
hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3. The personality trait openness to experience moderates the relationship between international experience
and CQ, such that individuals who are high on openness to experience are more likely to change their metacognitive CQ
(H3a), cognitive CQ (H3b), motivational CQ (H3c), and behavioral CQ (H3d) following international assignment.
3. Methods
3.1. Participants
Participants consisted of military personnel from the Turkish troops who were deployed for a 6-month mission from
May to December 2011 at the European Union Force (EUFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. EUFOR is a multinational and
multicultural military organization with approximately 1500 troops from 28 nations. The troop contributing nations are 23
Author’s personal copy
F. S¸ ahin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 152–163 155
members of the European Union (e.g., Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, and Hungary)
and five non-member of the European Union (Albania, Chile, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Switzerland, and
Turkey). The EUFOR has two main goals: (1) to support Bosnia and Herzegovina efforts to maintain the safe and secure
environment and (2) to provide capacity-building and training support to the Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of Defence
and Armed Forces (EUFOR, 2012). The troops conjointly conduct exercises in different training areas, collaborate and work
together to achieve the same goal. Located at Camp Butmir in Sarajevo, the troops have opportunities to interact with each
other during working time as well as at leisure time. Some units of the EUFOR such as Liaison and Observation Teams have
opportunities to interact with local people. Our focus of the current study is on the effect of international assignment and
personality on the development of CQ in a multicultural setting. As such, the current study (conducted in a multinational
and multicultural military environment) offers an ideal context for testing our hypotheses.
A total of 145 persons participated at the beginning of the deployment (Time 1) and 121 persons participated at the
end of the deployment (Time 2) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We were able to match records from 112 participants across
both time points. All 112 participants were male with average age of 32.10 years (SD = 5.47). The sample was 50.9% noncommissioned officers and 49.1% officers. Average years of military service was 9.91 (SD = 5.40), and 46.4% of the respondents
had experiences of military mission abroad more than one time. With respect to education level of the respondents; 67.7%
had a bachelor’s degree and above (e.g., master’s degree), while 32.3% had an associate degree or below.
3.2. Procedure
Prior to deployment, all Turkish soldiers attended one-month pre-deployment training and preparation program that
trained them to operate and fulfill their tasks at a higher level of effectiveness required for multinational military environment. Given that pre-deployment training and preparation may have a strong and positive impact on intercultural capabilities
development (e.g., Deshpande & Viswesvaran, 1992; Littrell, Salas, Hess, Paley, & Riedel, 2006) and may lead more realistic
evaluations of one’s capabilities (e.g., Fischer, 2011), we measured CQ after pre-deployment training and preparation period.
We secured permission from the Senior National Representative. A list of military members was provided by the chief of
personnel office. At the beginning of the deployment, participants completed measures of CQ, the Big Five traits of personality
and demographic questions. Surveys were distributed at daily training meetings and then collected in the first week of the
deployment (Time 1) at the EUFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Two weeks prior to the end of the deployment (approximately
six months after Time 1), we sent the follow up survey containing a cover letter in bulk to the personnel office, accompanied
by instructions to distribute the survey to individual persons (Time 2). Participants completed measure of CQ and returned
the survey in an addressed envelope to us. Comparisons of the respondents to those who did not complete the survey showed
that there is no significant difference on any of the variables.
3.3. Measures
Cultural intelligence. We measured CQ using Ang et al.’s (2007) 20-item scale. The Turkish version of the CQ scale has been
found to be reliable and valid instrument to measure individual’s intercultural capabilities (S¸ ahin, Gürbüz, Köksal, & Ercan,
2013). Answers were recorded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This
scale includes four items for metacognitive facet of CQ (e.g., “I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting
with people with different cultural backgrounds”), six items for cognitive facet of CQ (e.g., “I know the cultural values and
religious beliefs of other cultures”), five items for motivational facet of CQ (e.g., “I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar
to me”), and five items for behavioral facet of CQ (e.g., “I change my verbal behavior (accent, tone) when a cross-cultural
interaction requires it”). The reliabilities of the subscales were .90 (Time 1) and .94 (Time 2) for metacognitive CQ, .83 (Time
1) and .90 (Time 2) for cognitive CQ, .89 (Time 1) and .91 (Time 2) for motivational CQ, and .89 (Time 1 and Time 2) for
behavioral CQ.
Personality. The Big Five traits of personality were measured using the 44-item the Big Five Inventory – BFI (Benet-Martinez
& John, 1998). Sumer, Lajunen, and Ozkan (2005) showed that the Turkish version of BFI has good psychometric properties.
The scale includes short items that were selected from Big Five prototype definitions. Participants indicated the applicability
of characteristics and behaviors to themselves on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). The scale included eight items for extraversion (e.g., “I see myself as someone who is talkative”), nine items
for agreeableness (e.g., “I see myself as someone who is considerate to almost everyone”), nine items for conscientiousness
(e.g., “I see myself as someone who does things efficiently”), eight items for neuroticism (e.g., “I see myself as someone who
worries a lot”), and ten items for openness (e.g., “I see myself as someone who values artistic, esthetic experiences”). The
reliabilities of subscales were .87 for extraversion, .89 for agreeableness, .83 for conscientiousness, .86 for neuroticism, and
.91 for openness.
To assess the discriminant validity of the constructs measured in this study, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) using covariance matrix and maximum likelihood estimation. Given the sample size and the number of indicators per factors, we used item parcels to conduct CFA procedures (e.g., Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002).
Results of the proposed nine-factor structure (metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, behavioral CQ, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness) demonstrated good fit with the data, 2(288 df) = 694.25,
p < .1; root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.064; standardized root-mean-square residual = 0.084; nonnormed fit
Author’s personal copy
156 F. S¸ ahin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 152–163
index = .93; (Bentler’s) comparative fit index = .92 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hoyle, 1995). To test for the discriminant validity
of the constructs, we compared the nine-factor model with several alternative models. Nested model comparisons demonstrated that the nine-factor model was superior to the alternative models. Hence, the fit indices of the nested models showed
that personality and CQ were distinct constructs.
4. Analyses and results
We conducted different sets of analyses. Given that 46.4% of the respondents in our sample had international experiences,
we controlled for this (coded as 0 for individuals who have no prior international experience, 1 for individuals who have
prior international experience). Previous research has shown international experience as an important antecedent to CQ
(Ng et al., 2012). First, in order to test whether the international assignment improved cultural intelligence, we analyzed
data using a repeated measures multivariate analysis of covariance (RM-MANCOVA), with prior international experience as
covariate (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).
Second, in order to test whether individuals high on openness and extraversion would acquire more CQ, a moderated
multiple regression analysis was conducted. Following the steps in analysis performed by Fischer (2011), in the first step,
prior international experience was entered as control variable to minimize its spurious effect on the dependent variable. In
the second step, we entered any of the CQ dimensions and personality traits at Time 1. Finally, the interaction term between
any of the CQ dimensions and personality traits at Time 1 were entered into the regression equation to predict changes in
the dependent variable at Time 2. The significant interaction shows that the change in scores of any of the CQ dimensions
from Time 1 to Time 2 depends on the level of personality traits at Time 1 (Aiken & West, 1991).
The means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and inter-correlations of the variables were presented in Table 1.
Means and standard deviations for CQ factors at Time 1 and Time 2 in terms of prior international experience were shown
in Table 2.
4.1. The effect of international assignment
RM-MANCOVA results indicated that after controlling prior international experience, the six-month international assignment did have a statistically significant effect on metacognitive CQ [F(1, 110) = 36.16, p < .01, 2 = .24], cognitive CQ, [F(1,
110) = 35.48, p < .01, 2 = .24], motivational CQ [F(1, 110) = 6.30, p < .05, 2 = .54], and behavioral CQ [F(1, 110) = 54.13, p < .01,
2 = .33]. The main effect of prior international experience on CQ factors was not significant. However, there was a significant interaction between prior international experience and time for metacognitive CQ [F(1, 110) = 6.79, p < .05, 2 = .06],
indicating that time effect was greater for individuals who did not have prior international experience than individuals who
had prior international experience.
As a result, findings supported Hypothesis 1 which predicted that individual’s levels of metacognitive CQ, cognitive
CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ would be higher after the international assignment than at the beginning of the
international assignment. As is evident from Table 2, the mean change scores of CQ factors were significantly greater for
Time 2 than for Time 1.
4.2. The effect of personality
To test the prediction that individuals who are high on specific personality traits (i.e., extraversion and openness to
experience) are more likely to change their CQ following international assignment; a hierarchical regression was performed.
Table 3 presented regression results testing the moderating effect of personality (extraversion and openness to experience)
on international assignment effects. The variance inflation factors and results (VIFs < 4) indicated that multicollinearity is
not a problem (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Results showed that the interaction terms entered in step 3
accounted for a significant increases in explained variance on metacognitive CQ at Time 2 (R2 = .035, F(4, 107) = 71.942,
p < .001), motivational CQ at Time 2 (R2 = .028, F(4, 107) = 22.684, p < .001) and behavioral CQ at Time 2 (R2 = .025, F(4,
107) = 44.788, p < .001). The interaction effects were shown in Figs. 1–3.
As hypothesized, Fig. 1 revealed that individuals who are high on extraversion improved their metacognitive CQ more
than did individuals who are low on extraversion. The slope in Fig. 1, was significantly steeper for individuals who are high on
extraversion (ˇ = .87, t = 14.01, p < .001) compared to those who are low on extraversion (ˇ = .61, t = 7.23, p < .001). Therefore,
Hypothesis 2a was supported. Fig. 2 showed that individuals who are high on extraversion improved their behavioral CQ
more than did individuals who are low on extraversion. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the slope was significantly steeper for
individuals who are high on extraversion (ˇ = .84, t = 12.70, p < .001) compared to those who are low on extraversion (ˇ = .47,
t = 5.33, p < .001). Therefore, Hypothesis 2d was supported. However, the regression analysis found no other interaction
effects, indicating that greater extraversion did not affect changes in cognitive CQ and motivational CQ at Time 2. Therefore,
Hypothesis 2b and 2c was not supported.
As can be seen in Fig. 3, it appears that individuals who are high on openness to experience improved their motivational CQ
more than did individuals who are low on openness to experience. The slope in Fig. 3, was significantly steeper for individuals
who are high on openness to experience (ˇ = .69, t = 8.04, p < .001) compared to those who are low on openness to experience
(ˇ = .40, t = 3.27, p < .001). Therefore, Hypothesis 3c was supported. The regression analysis indicated that greater openness
Author’s personal copy
F. S¸ ahin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 152–163 157
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and scale reliabilities and inter-correlations.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. Age 32.10 5.47 –
2. Previous missions in
international operations
.80 1.03 .43** –
3. Service in the armed
forces
9.91 5.40 .90** .48** –
4. Education 3.05 1.01 .23** .19* .17 –
Time 1
5. Metacognitive CQ 4.93 1.49 .14 .23* .13 .10 (.90)
6. Cognitive CQ 3.93 1.30 .10 .10 .06 .11 .24** (.83)
7. Motivational CQ 5.22 1.50 .24** .16 .16 .04 .60** .36** (.89)
8. Behavioral CQ 4.80 1.37 .14 .20* .10 –.01 .58** .34** .69** (.89)
9. Conscientiousness 5.38 1.70 .04 .01 –.04 .11 .06 –.03 .13 .10 (.83)
10. Agreeableness 5.16 1.72 .04 –.05 –.04 .09 .20* –.03 .19* .16 .06 (.89)
11. Neuroticism 3.75 1.69 .04 .05 .04 –.02 –.13 .14 –.14 –.19* .04 .02 (.86)
12. Extraversion 5.40 1.37 .05 .10 .05 .05 .40** .04 .30** .37** .12 .34** –.07 (.87)
13. Openness 5.17 1.47 .15 .08 .11 .10 .39** .15 .23* .36** .03 .13 .01 .19* (.91)
Time 2
14. Metacognitive CQ 5.38 1.23 .12 .10 .10 .13 .83** .28** .53** .54** .07 .17 –.08 .44** .40** (.94)
15. Cognitive CQ 4.39 1.14 .02 .01 .01 .14 .15 .81** .20* .23* .05 .02 .11 .06 .17 .19* (.90)
16. Motivational CQ 5.60 1.06 .24** .16 .14 .03 .46** .21* .66** .56** .21* .15 –.08 .31*** .34** .43** .11 (.91)
17. Behavioral CQ 5.50 1.05 .13 .11 .07 –.02 .39** .31** .48** .78** .06 .28** –.08 .40** .43** .39** .24** .41** (.89)
CQ = cultural intelligence. Reliability coefficients are in parentheses along the diagonal.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
Author’s personal copy
158 F. S¸ ahin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 152–163
Table 2
Means and standard deviations for CQ factors scores over time.
Individuals n Time 1 Time 2
Metacognitive CQ Cognitive CQ Motivational CQ Behavioral CQ Metacognitive CQ Cognitive CQ Motivational CQ Behavioral CQ
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
No Prior International Experience 60 4.75 1.52 3.82 1.39 5.13 1.66 4.64 1.39 5.37 1.21 4.40 1.25 5.50 1.22 5.43 1.13
Prior International Experience 52 5.15 1.45 4.05 1.19 5.33 1.30 4.99 1.32 5.39 1.26 4.37 1.00 5.71 .85 5.58 .96
Total 112 4.93 1.49 3.93 1.30 5.22 1.50 4.80 1.37 5.38 1.23 4.39 1.14 5.60 1.06 5.50 1.05
CQ = cultural intelligence.
Author’s personal copy
F. S¸ ahin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 152–163 159
Table 3
Hierarchical regression results for the moderating effect of personality (extraversion and openness) on international assignment effects.
Predictor/step B R2 R2
DV: Metacognitive CQTime2
1. Prior International Experience –.09 .010
2. Metacognitive CQTime1 .79***
Extraversion .08
Openness .10 .729 .719
3. Metacognitive CQTime1 × Extraversion .13**
Metacognitive CQTime1 × Openness .07 763 .035
DV: Cognitive CQTime2
1. Prior International Experience –.04 .00
2. Cognitive CQTime1 .71***
Extraversion .02
Openness .22** .672 .672
3. Cognitive CQTime1 × Extraversion .03
Cognitive CQTime1 × Openness .10 .691 .019
DV: Motivational CQTime2
1. Prior International Experience .05 .027
2. Motivational CQTime1 .60***
Extraversion .10
Openness .26** .459 .432
3. Motivational CQTime1 × Extraversion .08
Motivational CQTime1 × Openness .13* .487 .028
DV: Behavioral CQTime2
1. Prior International Experience .04 .013
2. Behavioral CQTime1 .73***
Extraversion .18**
Openness .10 .627 .614
3. Behavioral CQTime1 × Extraversion .14**
Behavioral CQTime1 × Openness .09 .652 .025
CQ = cultural intelligence; DV = dependent variable.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
Metacognitive CQTime1
-1 SD +1 SD
Metacognitive CQTime2
3
2
1
6
5
4
7
High extraversion
Low extraversion
Fig. 1. The moderating effect of extraversion on international assignment effects (metacognitive CQ). Note. Low score equals one standard deviation below
the mean; high score equals one standard deviation above the mean. Only scores plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean of metacognitive
CQ scores at Time 1 are plotted.
to experience did not affect changes in metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ at Time 2. These results did not
support Hypothesis 3a, Hypothesis 3b, and Hypothesis 3d.
For the sake of completeness, we tested the effects of other personality traits (conscientiousness, agreeableness and
neuroticism) on the relation between international assignment and CQ. No interaction effects were found.
5. Discussion
The findings of the present study indicated the six-month international assignment did have a statistically significant
effect on the development all four facets of CQ over time. Moreover, the results showed that extraversion has a moderating
role in the relationship between international assignment and metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ, while openness to
experience personality trait has a moderating role in the relationship between international assignment and motivational
CQ.
Author’s personal copy
160 F. S¸ ahin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 152–163
Behavioral CQTime1
-1 SD +1 SD
Behavioral CQTime2
3
2
1
6
5
4
7
High extraversion
Low extraversion
Fig. 2. The moderating effect of extraversion on international assignment effects (behavioral CQ). Note. Low score equals one standard deviation below the
mean; high score equals one standard deviation above the mean. Only scores plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean of behavioral CQ scores
at Time 1 are plotted.
Motivational CQTime1
-1 SD +1 SD
Motivational CQTime2
3
2
1
6
5
4
7
High openness to
experience
Low openness to
experience
Fig. 3. The moderating effect of openness to experience on international assignment effects (motivational CQ). Note. Low score equals one standard
deviation below the mean; high score equals one standard deviation above the mean. Only scores plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean of
motivational CQ scores at Time 1 are plotted.
One of the primary contributions of the present study is the empirical examination of the effect of international assignments on the development of CQ over time. Previous studies showed the positive link between international experience and
CQ (e.g., Shannon & Begley, 2008; Tarique & Takeuchi, 2008; Tay et al., 2008). This study extends the findings from previous studies and provides empirical evidence that international assignment have a significant effect on the development all
four facets of CQ in a multicultural setting. Specifically, after a period of six months all four facets CQ scores of the participants were significantly improved. Working and/or living in other cultures provides knowledge and social context that can
affect individuals’ CQ. Another contribution of the present study is the finding that personality traits (i.e., extraversion and
openness to experience) have a moderating role in the relationship between international assignment and CQ. Our study
provides empirical evidence that extraversion moderated the relationship between international assignment and metacognitive and behavioral CQ, such that individuals who were high on extraversion changed their metacognitive and behavioral
CQ than did individual who are low on extraversion. This makes sense because those who are self-confident, sociable and
assertive seek opportunities to interact with others who have different cultural backgrounds during cross-cultural interactions. Moreover, extraverts also show a higher tendency to enjoy interpersonal interactions and therefore may display
more flexible behavior. Thus, our study show that CQ improvement (i.e., metacognitive and behavioral CQ) benefits resulting
from international assignment experiences may depend on the extent to which individuals who are high on extraversion.
Our study also provides empirical evidence that openness to experience moderated the relationship between international
assignment and motivational CQ. Openness to experience is characterized by curiosity, having a wide range of interests, and
broad-mindedness. Looking at the findings of the present study more deeply, it can be said that individuals who are high on
openness to experience changed their motivational CQ than did individual who are low on openness to experience.
Contrary to our expectations, moderating role of personality traits (i.e., extraversion and openness to experience) in the
relationship between international assignment and some facets of CQ was not confirmed. Van Dyne et al. (2012) suggested
that some individuals may be high on all factors of CQ, while some individuals may be high on any factors of CQ. For
example, some individuals may know a lot about the norms, practices, and conventions in other cultures. Some individuals
may be adept at exhibiting appropriate behaviors in new cultural settings. This indicates that individuals have different CQ
profile. Moreover, previous research have indicated that the four factors of CQ have unique contributions to effectiveness in
Author’s personal copy
F. S¸ ahin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 152–163 161
culturally diverse settings (e.g., Ang et al., 2007; Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, & Tangirala, 2010; Imai & Gelfand, 2010; Templer,
Tay, & Chandrasekar, 2006). Perhaps, one explanation for why personality traits extraversion and openness to experience
did not have effect on the relationship between international assignment and some factors of CQ is that individual may
have different CQ profiles (Van Dyne et al., 2012). Specifically, future research efforts investigating different CQ profiles with
relation to personality traits will be an important contribution.
5.1. Implications for research and practice
The finding that the international assignment in a multicultural environment is associated with higher levels of CQ
contributes to the literature in several ways. First, this finding provides support for the conceptual models that suggest
international assignment is effective in developing cross-cultural competence as Johnson, Lenartowicz, and Apud (2006)
argued. Second, we extend prior research findings on international experience–CQ relationship by including multinational
military setting and using longitudinal design. Third, the current study is the first to examine personality as a moderating
variable in the relationship between international assignment and CQ in a multi-cultural environment. Thus, this study
also responds to calls for longitudinal research on whether personality variables affect the relationship between international experience and CQ (Ng et al., 2012). We encourage researchers to examine the relationship between other individual
differences (e.g., self-efficacy, core self-evaluation) and CQ factors.
The present study also has practical implications for international and/or multinational assignments especially for
selecting, training, and developing a more culturally intelligent workforce. For example, since our results uncovered that
international assignments have an impact on development of CQ over time, individuals who have prior multi-cultural
assignment experience are more likely to have higher CQ and might function effectively in a novel environment. Thus,
it seems reasonable that multinational organizations should place more emphasis on prior international experience
and consider recruiting individuals with international work experience in selecting candidates for multinational assignments and expatriation. Furthermore, since our results provide support for moderating role of personality traits (i.e.,
extraversion and openness to experience) in relationship between international assignment and certain facets of CQ, organizations should take into consideration personality profiles when selecting individuals for multinational assignments and
expatriation.
5.2. Limitations of the research
Several limitations should be acknowledged for future studies. First, although we collected self-rating of CQ at two points
in a six-month period using longitudinal design, all of our data were provided by the same individuals. The sole reliance on
this format may increase the problem of common method variance and lead to inflated correlations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Given our findings of significant interaction effects, common method bias for the present study is less
likely to be a matter of concern. Evans (1985) conducted an extensive Monte Carlo study regarding whether method variance
might generate artifactual interactions and concluded that “artifactual interactions cannot be created; true interactions can
be attenuated” (p. 305). This finding suggests that the existence of interaction effect of personality traits on international
assignment effects tends to rule out the possibility of the results being an artifact of common method bias. Nevertheless, it
would be worthwhile for future studies to consider multiple sources of data.
Second, our sample consisted of military personnel and was predominantly male. This may limit the generalizability of
our findings. However, there has been an increasing number of multinational efforts, including peacekeeping, humanitarian,
and as well as actual combat situations (e.g., Palin, 1995). As such, military members are being relied upon to interact with
members from other nations or cultures. CQ focuses on capabilities to manage effectively in situations characterized by
cultural diversity (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). Our findings which indicated the effects of international military assignment
and personality on the development of CQ suggest that individuals who are exposed to cross-cultural environment may
have opportunity to develop his or her CQ. Nevertheless, future studies should validate the findings of the present study
in other job types as well as across nationalities. Future studies should also include female participants, as well as male,
for generalizability. Finally, it would be worthwhile for future studies to conduct a qualitative study using interview or
observation that may provide broader understanding of CQ.
6. Conclusion
Our study adds to the growing literature on CQ by providing empirical evidence that international assignment has a
significant effect on the development all four facets of CQ in a multicultural setting. We also expanded CQ and personality
literature by examining the effect of personality variables on the relationship between international assignment experience
and CQ over time. Specifically, the results of our study demonstrated that extraversion moderated the relationship between
international assignment and metacognitive and behavioral CQ, while openness to experience had a moderating role only in
the relationship between international assignment and motivational CQ. Given the promising results, we hope that future
research will provide further understanding of the effect of personality on the relationship between international experience
and CQ.
Author’s personal copy
162 F. S¸ ahin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 152–163
References
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
Aiken, L., & West, D. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York: Sage.
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). 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 Organization Management, 31,
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, 335–371.
Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish
and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729–750.
Brett, J., & Reilly, A. (1988). On the road again: Predicting the job transfer decision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 614–620.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A., & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.
136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The Big Five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate’s desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated
performance. Personnel Psychology, 53, 67–88.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and individual differences. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model for understanding personality–intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95,
249–265.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Intellectual competence and the intelligent personality: A third way in differential psychology. Review of
General Psychology, 10, 251–267.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kim, K., Farh, C. I. C., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When does cross-cultural motivation enhance expatriate effectiveness? A multilevel
investigation of the moderating roles of subsidiary support and cultural distance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1110–1130.
Cohen J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). NJ: Hillsdale.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Primary traits of Eysenck’s P-E-N system: Three- and five-factor solutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69(2), 308–317.
Deshpande, S. P., & Viswesvaran, C. (1992). Is cross-cultural training of expatriate managers effective: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 16, 295–310.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 100–118.
European Union Force Fact Sheet – EUFOR. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.euforbih.org/
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323.
Feldman, D., & Bolino, M. (2000). Skill utilization of overseas interns: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of International Management, 6, 29–47.
Fischer, R. (2011). Cross-cultural training effects on cultural essentialism beliefs and cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35,
767–775.
Fox, S. (2000). Communities of practice, Foucault and actor-network theory. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 853–867.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers of the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling:
Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 83–98.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin, L.A., & O. P. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford.
Johnson, J., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-cultural competence in international business: Toward a definition and a model. Journal of International
Business Studies, 37, 525–543.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural
Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.
Littrell, L. N., Salas, E., Hess, K. P., Paley, M., & Riedel, S. (2006). Expatriate preparation: A critical analysis of 25 years of cross-cultural training research.
Human Resource Development Review, 5, 355–388.
MacNab, B. R. (2012). An experiential approach to cultural intelligence education. Journal of Management Education, 36, 66–94.
MacNab, B. R., & Worthley, R. (2012). Individual characteristics as predictors of cultural intelligence development: The relevance of self-efficacy. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 62–71.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In Pervin, L. A., & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 139–153).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A review. Academy of Management Review, 10, 39–47.
Moody, M. C. (2007). Adaptive behavior in intercultural environments: The relationship between cultural intelligence factors and Big Five personality traits.
Washington, DC: The George Washington University (unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Ng, K. Y., & Earley, P. C. (2006). Culture + intelligence: Old constructs, new frontiers. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 4–19.
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.
Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2012). Cultural intelligence: A review, reflections, and recommendations for future research. In Ryan, A. M., F. T. L. Leong, & F.
Oswald (Eds.), Conducting multinational research projects in organizational psychology (pp. 29–58). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Oolders, T., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2008). Cultural intelligence as a mediator of relationships between openness to experience and adaptive
performance. In Ang, S., & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 145–158). New York, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
Palin, R. (1995). Multinational military forces: Problems and prospects. In Adelphi paper 294. New York: OUP.
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, 879–903.
Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43,
164–177.
Sumer, N., Lajunen, T., & Ozkan, T. (2005). Big Five personality traits as the distal predictors of road accident involvement. In Underwood, G. (Ed.), Traffic
and transport psychology (pp. 215–227). Oxford: Elsevier.
S¸
ahin, F., Gurbuz, S., Koksal, O., & Ercan, Ü. (2013). Measuring cultural intelligence in the Turkish context. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
21(2), 135–144.
Author’s personal copy
F. S¸ ahin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 152–163 163
Shannon, L. M., & Begley, T. M. (2008). Antecedents of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. In Ang, S., & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural
intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 41–55). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Tarique, I., & Takeuchi, R. (2008). Developing cultural intelligence: The roles of international nonwork experiences. In Ang, S., & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook
of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 56–70). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Tay, C., Westman, M., & Chia, A. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of cultural intelligence among short-term business travelers. In Ang, S., & L. Van
Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 126–144). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Templer, K., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and crosscultural adjustment. Group and Organization Management, 31, 154–173.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M. L., & Koh, C. (2012). Sub-dimensions of the Four Factor model of cultural intelligence: Expanding the
conceptualization and measurement of cultural intelligence (CQ). Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4), 295–313.
Walsh, J. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organizational Science, 6, 280–321.
Ward, C., & Fischer, R. (2008). Personality, cultural intelligence and cross-cultural adaption. In Ang, S., & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence:
Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 159–173). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations
Editor-in-Chief
C. Ward, Centre for Applied Cross-cultural Research, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
E-mail: [email protected]
Managing Editor
A. Arnold
International Journal of Intercultural
Relations Centre for Applied
Cross-cultural Research, PO Box 600,
Victoria University of Wellington
E-mail: [email protected]
Associate Editors
G. Horenczyk
Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, Israel
H.S. Park
Korea University, Seoul, South Korea
Book Review Editor
J. Bennett
8835 S.W. Canyon Lane,
The Intercultural Communication
Institute, Suite 238, Portland,
OR 97225, USA
Founding and Special Issues Editor
D. Landis
University of Hawaii, Hilo USA
D. Birman, University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, IL, USA
P. Boski, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
R. Brown, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
L. Chan-Hoong, National University of Singapore, Singapore
R. Clément, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
K. Cushner, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA
V. Esses, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada
A. Florack, University of Vienna, Austria
M. van Geel, Universiteit Leiden, Netherlands
H. Giles, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
S. Glazer, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
S. Goldstein, University of Redlands, Redlands, CA, USA
M. Hewstone, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
I. Jasinskaja-Lahti, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
W. Jia, Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA
B. Lam, California State University, Long Beach, CA, USA
T. (T.) Levine, Korea University
S. Liu, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
T Milfont, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
K. Moustafa Leonard, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR,
USA
J. Nezlek, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA
A.-M. Nguyen, California State University, Fullerton, CA
J. Oetzel, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
R. Paige, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
S. Safdar, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada
B. Saint-Jacques, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
D. Sam, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
C. Sibley, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
N. Sussman, City University of New York, Staten Island, NY, USA
P. Vedder, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, Netherlands
M. Verkuyten, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
Consulting Editors
Advisory and Consulting Editors Emeritus
J. W. Berry, Queens University, Kingston, ONT, Canada
M. Hammer, American University, Washington, D.C., USA
W. Lonner, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, USA
A.J. Marsella, University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI, USA
W. Stephan, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA
H. Triandis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA
O. Tzeng, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, IN, USA
J. P. van Oudenhoven, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
Editorial Office: International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Centre for Applied Cross-cultural Research, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600,
Wellington 6140, New Zealand. [email protected]
Instructions to authors:
For the full Guide for Authors please visit the journals homepage at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
Author inquiries
For inquiries relating to the submission of articles (including electronic submission) please visit this journal’s homepage at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel.
For detailed instructions on the preparation of electronic artwork, please visit http://www.elsevier.com/artworkinstructions. Contact details for questions arising
after acceptance of an article, especially those relating to proofs, will be provided by the publisher. You can track accepted articles at http://www.elsevier.com/
trackarticle. You can also check our Author FAQs at http://www.elsevier.com/authorFAQ and/or contact Customer Support via http://support.elsevier.com.
Advertising information: If you are interested in advertising or other commercial opportunities please e-mail [email protected] and your
inquiry will be passed to the correct person who will respond to you within 48 hours.
Publication information: International Journal of Intercultural Relations (ISSN 0147-1767). For 2013, volume 37 (6 issues) is scheduled for publication.
Subscription prices are available upon request from the Publisher or from the Elsevier Customer Service Department nearest you or from this journal’s website
(http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel). Further information is available on this journal and other Elsevier products through Elsevier’s website (http://www.
elsevier.com). Subscriptions are accepted on a prepaid basis only and are entered on a calendar year basis. Issues are sent by standard mail (surface within
Europe, air delivery outside Europe). Priority rates are available upon request. Claims for missing issues should be made within six months of the date of
dispatch.
Orders, claims, and journal inquiries: please contact the Elsevier Customer Service Department nearest you:
St. Louis: Elsevier Customer Service Department, 3251 Riverport Lane, Maryland Heights, MO 63043, USA; phone: (877) 8397126 [toll free within the
USA]; (+1) (314) 4478878 [outside the USA]; fax: (+1) (314) 4478077; e-mail: [email protected]; Oxford: Elsevier Customer
Service Department, The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK; phone: (+44) (1865) 843434; fax: (+44) (1865) 843970; e-mail:
[email protected]; Tokyo: Elsevier Customer Service Department, 4F Higashi-Azabu, 1-Chome Bldg, 1-9-15 Higashi-Azabu,
Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-044, Japan; phone: (+81) (3) 5561 5037; fax: (+81) (3) 5561 5047; e-mail: [email protected]; Singapore:
Elsevier Customer Service Department, 3 Killiney Road, #08-01 Winsland House I, Singapore 239519; phone: (+65) 63490222; fax: (+65) 67331510;
e-mail: [email protected]
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

View publication stats