INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE AND CROSS-CULTURAL ADAPTATION OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN TAIWAN
Dr. Ted Tsai (PhD) Professor of National Taiwan Normal University Graduate Institute of International Human Resource Development Taipei, Taiwan sttsai99@gmail.com Nadine Lawrence Graduate Student Graduate Institute of International Human Resource Development Taipei, Taiwan elnadine@msn.com

Abstract Cultural intelligence CQ is a new construct that was first introduced to examine the differences in how effective persons were in communicating across different cultures. Accordingly, having a high level of cultural intelligence means that individuals will be better able to extract and logically interpret information gathered from cross cultural interactions, and become more flexible in adjusting to different settings. Cultural Intelligence is unique because it focuses on the skills that are needed for success in coping in an unfamiliar culture. Therefore, knowledge of ones cultural intelligence levels aims to provide insights into ones capability to cope with multicultural situations. Thus, the main purposes of this study were firstly, to examine the cultural intelligence levels of International students in Taiwan with a view towards looking at its correlation with their cross-cultural adaptation levels. The research method used for data collection was a quantitative research survey using the 20 item Cultural Intelligence Scale and a nine (9) item cross-cultural adaptation scale. The sample comprised of 384 persons (n=384, Male=188, Female= 196). The results of this study show that cultural intelligence levels can impact cross cultural adaptation. Cultural Intelligence is a relatively new construct, therefore, a study of this nature will add significantly to the limited pool of studies on cultural intelligence. It can also assist the various institutions in Taiwan in making the transition and life of foreigners smoother. It can also help future visitors in preparation for adjusting and adapting to life in Taiwan. Keywords: Cross-cultural Adaptation, Cultural Intelligence, Demographic Data (age, geographical region, nationality, program of study) International Students

569

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

1. History of International Students in Taiwan Students opt to study abroad for many different reasons. In the case of Taiwan, the past decade has seen an influx of many students who have been drawn to its education system. These students are encouraged to study in Taiwan through exchange programs, government scholarships, private scholarships, and in extreme cases many students come on their own will. More specifically, in Taiwan, the number of international students has been on a constant increase. The Ministry of Education (2010) reported that there has been an increase in international students from 16, 909 to 45,000 between the years 1998 and 2010. Many students choose Taiwan for Mandarin Language learning, others as exchange students and a large group comes to Taiwan to study for degrees at the many universities. As reported by Chang (2006), 36% of university departments in Taiwan now offer courses for international students. It is the responsibility of these Universities to accommodate these culturally diverse students. As mentioned previously, the numbers for international students in Taiwan has been steadily increasing. Yet, little is known about the cultural intelligence levels of these students. These students come from all over the world (North, Central and South America, The Caribbean, Africa, Europe, Oceania, and Asia). They all have many expectations and different cultural backgrounds to the Taiwanese people. Crossing cultures is a stressful experience that is complicated by the academic expectations of studying in another country; therefore it is imperative to prepare students for dealing with the expected cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions of intercultural adjustment. This preparation may allow them to deal more effectively with adjusting thus facilitating their cross cultural adjustment (Brislin & Yoshida, 1994; Cushner & Brislin, 1996; Landis & Bhagat, 1996; Martin & Harrel, 1996; Paige, 1993). Cultural intelligence CQ is a new construct that has been posited to affect cross cultural adaptation. Presently, in Taiwan, there is no empirical research that has been done using these variables. Therefore, this research will serve to provide meaningful information to international students, their home countries and the host schools in Taiwan. As the term of cultural intelligence is a relatively new one, this study will be able to add significantly to the pool of studies. The results might also highlight other factors that can be studied in-depth in the future. 2. Purposes of the Study The purposes of this research are namely to: 1. Identify the cultural intelligence levels and cross cultural levels of International students in Taiwan. 2. Compare the differences of Cultural Intelligence levels of International students based on their demographic data. 3. Examine the correlation between Cultural intelligence and Cross-cultural Adaptation of the International students. 4. Determine if Cultural Intelligence levels can predict Cross-cultural Adaptation levels of International students in Taiwan. 3. Questions of the Study

Based on the purpose of this study, the researchers seek to answer the following questions: 1. Is there a statistically significant gender difference with respect to the Cultural Intelligence subscales (metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral)? 2. Are there differences among meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral, against Age, Nationality and Program of study? 3. Is there a relationship between Cultural Intelligence with Self efficacy, Cross cultural Adaptation and Cross cultural communication? 570

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

4. Is Cultural Intelligence predicted by Self efficacy, Cross cultural Adaptation and Cross cultural
communication?

5. Cross-cultural Adaptation According to Ward, (2001), adaptation is the process of altering ones behavior to fit in with a new environment and circumstances or as a response to social pressure. Three factors of adjustment as posited by Brislin (1993) are having successful relationships with people from other cultures, feeling that these interactions are warm and cordial and accomplishing tasks in an efficient manner. In the case of the international student, he or she travels to another culture for a specific length of time with the intention of returning to his or her home country. Crossing cultures during the study abroad experience is considered a major event which brings with it considerable amount of stress, involving both confrontation and adaptation to unfamiliar physical and psychological experiences and changes (Furnham & Bochner, 1982: Kim, 2000; Martin & Harrel, 1996, Ward et al 2001). For decades, researchers have been investigating the student sojourners life; the problems that have caused stress on them, and the factors which may have affected their academic performance. Crossing cultures is a stressful experience that is complicated by the academic expectations of studying in another country; therefore it is imperative to prepare students for dealing with the expected cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions of intercultural adjustment. This preparation may allow them to deal more effectively with adjusting thus facilitating their cross cultural adjustment (Brislin & Yoshida, 1994; Cushner & Brislin, 1996; Landis & Bhagat, 1996; Martin & Harrel, 1996; Paige, 1993).

6. Cultural Intelligence In todays increasingly global and diverse work settings, the ability to function effectively in multi-cultural situations is important for many stakeholders, that is; employees, students and managers (Inkson and Thomas 2004). In 2003, Earley and Ang proposed a multidimensional construct Cultural Quotient or CQ. This theory is based on current theories of intelligence that seek to help better understand how individuals are able to successfully adapt to new cultural contexts. Cultural Intelligence CQ is similar to Intelligence Quotient IQ and Emotional Quotient EQ in that it quantifies a set of capabilities believed to be important to both personal and professional success. What makes cultural intelligence unique is its focus on the skills that are needed for success in unfamiliar cultures (Early and Ang 2003). Therefore, knowledge of ones cultural intelligence provides insights into ones capability to cope with multicultural situations. It also gives insights in how one engages in cross-cultural interactions as well as how one performs effectively in culturally diverse settings. The concept of cultural intelligence was introduced by (Earley, 2002; Early and Ang, 2003) to examine the differences in how effectively individuals communicate across cultures. Additionally, knowledge of the cultural intelligence of others provides insights about how best to interact with them in multi-cultural situations and how to engage effectively in cross cultural interactions (Ang and Earley 2003). According to Early & Ang (2003), having a high level of cultural intelligence means that individuals are more able to extract and logically interpret information gathered from cross cultural interactions, and are more flexible in adjusting to different settings.

571

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

In order to better explain cultural intelligence, Early and Ang (2003), identified the following four factors to cultural intelligence, namely; meta-cognitive, cognitive cultural intelligence, motivational cultural intelligence and behavioral cultural intelligence. Meta-cognitive CQ This refers to a persons ability to recognize and understand appropriate expectations for each cultural situation he or she encounters. Cognitive CQ In explaining the factors of cultural intelligence, Ang and Earley (2003) emphasized that the cognitive factor uses knowledge of self, environment and information handling and is mainly focused on how people store, process and retrieve social information that is important to their cultural interactions. Motivational CQ The motivational factor is based on the concept of self concept as they view motivational CQ as a specific form of self efficacy and intrinsic motivation in cross cultural situations. Behavioral CQ Behavioral CQ is the final factor in the cultural intelligence model as suggested by Ang and Earley (2003). The key principle in this factor is persistence as it is necessary for gaining new skills. In addition to the new skills, a person with high cultural intelligence will be able to determine when to use those skills. From the current body of research, Ang, et al (2007) proposed that individuals with high meta-cognition or strategic cultural intelligence are consciously aware of other's cultural inclinations during and before interaction. In contrast, persons with high cognitive cultural intelligence comprehend similarities and dissimilarities across cultures (Brislin et al 2006). Other researchers have also proposed their models for cultural intelligence. For example, Inkson and Thomas (2004) claimed that there are three components to cultural intelligence. They are knowledge, mindfulness and behavioral skills which are all interrelated. In explaining these components knowledge involves both knowledge of the culture as well as the fundamental principles of cross cultural interactions. The ability to pay attention to cues in the different cross cultural interactions is termed as mindfulness, (Inkson and Thomas 2004). Finally, a person exhibiting good behavioral skills knows how to choose the appropriate behavior from a pool of other behaviors that will be for a particular cultural situation. Deci and Ryan, (1985) advanced that individuals with high motivational cultural intelligence, are known to focus their energy and attention toward cross-cultural situations founded on intrinsic benefits. They are also confident in their effectiveness in such settings (Bandura, 2002). On the other hand, individuals with high behavioral cultural intelligence use verbal and non-verbal means in order to display behaviors that are considered 'appropriate' (Gudykunst, et.al, 1988).

6. Cultural Intelligence and Demographic Data

572

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

Early and Ang (2003) developed the twenty (20) item scale that has been used to assess cultural intelligence. Even though the assessment of cultural intelligence is mainly done on persons who are planning to travel overseas for the purposes of work, it can also be done on persons who are involved in any form of intercultural interaction such as students. In addition to being multi faceted, the CQ scale is also multi leveled. Early and Ang (2003) explained that there are different levels of abstraction. For example; some levels such as metacognitive and cognitive levels are higher than those of declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. These meta-components as described by Early and Ang (2003) are the higher order mental processes that individuals who are culturally intelligent would use to guide them into solving problems. They continued by stating that a culturally intelligent person uses different levels of behavior to handle problems when interacting across cultures. According to (Kim 2006), CQ is an underdeveloped yet promising area of research that holds great promise for better understanding on how effective a sojourner will be in a new cultural context. However, empirical research on cultural intelligence CQ is limited, mainly because the construct is new. Nonetheless, interest in this topic is growing as exhibited in the following studies. Ang et al (2006) in a study on business school students in a public university in Singapore found that the four dimensions of CQ were distinct yet related to the Big Five personality dimensions. Another study done by Templar et al (2006) studied motivational CQ and found that it predicted adjustment of global professionals beyond realistic job and living previews. Kim (2003) in a theoretical research on CQ and its effects on cross cultural adjustment proposed that CQ may have a more powerful and direct effect on expatriate adjustment and performance than other personality traits. Kowner (2002) added to the research on cultural intelligence by stating that in order to make a person culturally intelligent it is imperative that this person undergoes extensive training in interacting with the different culture. His study was conducted using Japanese and Westerners as the sample group. The results of his research showed that the Japanese persons often felt inferior to the Westerners because they were not able to discern whether the Westerners were treating them as equals or as inferiors. In a study by Hai and Hoon (n.d) about educating Singaporean students about Cultural Intelligence, they posited that the first priority should be to educate them about other cultures. They further stated that before going to another country it is important to take the time to learn about the business and social protocols of that country. They also found that geographical proximity to another country does not mean better understanding of that countries culture as can be exemplified by the rocky relationship that Singapore has with its geographical neighbors Malaysia and Indonesia. Thus as stated by Hai and Hoon (n.d), education in cultural intelligence should start from a young age, from primary up to tertiary education. This education should focus on developing the following two competencies: an awareness of oneself and knowledge of others. Another study conducted using a large IT company in India found that there is a positive relationship between ones ability to appreciate age diversity and Cultural Intelligence. It also found that there is a positive relationship between attitude to other genders and cultural intelligence (Khorokiwala 2008).

7. Methodology

573

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

This research employed a quantitative method approach for data gathering. The questionnaire was distributed to international students at different universities here in Taiwan.

Participants Table 1 shows the biographical data of the 384 international students. It may be observed that females were a majority of the students. Also, most of the students were enrolled for undergraduate studies. The international students were from six geographical regions with approximately one in four (26.6%) originating from the Americas.

Table 1 Participants demographic data (N = 384) Category N % Gender Female Male Age Under 20 21-25 26-30 31-35 Over 35 years Field of study Mandarin Chinese Undergraduate Graduate Nationality Americas Caribbean African Asian European Oceania 87 57 76 75 58 30 22.6 14.8 19.7 19.5 15 7.8 100 174 108 26 45 28 41 164 108 45 26 10.6 42 28.1 11.7 2.7 196 188 51.04 48.96

Instrument

574

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

The data for this research was collected using the Cultural Intelligence Scale and the Cross-cultural Adaptation Scale. The Cultural Intelligence Scale developed by Ang, et al. (2007) is a 20 item questionnaire with questions relating to meta-cognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ and behavioral CQ. The response format was that of a 5 point Likert type scale anchored by 1 = strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. A measure of the internal consistency of the scores obtained from the scale had a Cronbach alpha value of .905. Similarly the four subscales of CQ of had alpha values of over .80. The Cross-cultural Adaptation Scale meanwhile consists of nine (9) questions and was adapted for use by Black (1988) from the work of Torbin (1992). It also is a five point Likert type scale anchored by 1= strongly disagree and 5= strongly agree. Scores from this scale were found to be reliable with an acceptable Cronbach Alpha of .78. Data Analysis Different statistical methods from Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) PC version 19.0 were computed to analyze the international students CQ levels as well as their Cross-cultural adaptation levels. These methods included descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA and linear regression analysis. 8. Empirical Results Independent samples t-test was computed in order to determine whether there were statistically significant gender differences with respect to the Cultural Intelligence subscales (meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral). Table 2 shows the mean scores and standard deviations for the different variables according to gender. It is noticeable from the table that with respect to gender, the different means were very close to each other. Indeed the t-test indicated that the means were not significantly different. Table 2 Means and standard deviations of the different subscales by to gender Subscale Gender Mean Std. Deviation Meta - Cognitive Female 15.04 2.620 Male 15.25 2.948 Cognitive Female 15.22 3.535 Male 15.63 3.723 Motivation Female 20.06 3.127 Male 20.14 3.078 Behavioral Female 18.53 3.370 Male 18.32 3.618

To determine whether differences could be established among the variables, against Age, Nationality and Program of study, one way analysis of variance was computed. The initial analysis involving the Age is shown in Table 3. It is observable from the table that there were no differences among meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral in respect of the age. This decision is reached because is this case there was significant value less than 0.05.

575

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

Table 3 ANOVA analysis for differences among meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral with respect to Age Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Meta - Cognitive Between Groups 60.904 6 10.151 1.317 .248 Within Groups 2866.685 372 7.706 Total 2927.588 378 Cognitive Between Groups 165.990 6 27.665 2.138 .048 Within Groups 4838.819 374 12.938 Total 5004.808 380 Motivation Between Groups 40.949 6 6.825 .707 .644 Within Groups 3590.439 372 9.652 Total 3631.388 378 Behavioral Between Groups 56.410 6 9.402 .769 .595 Within Groups 4513.652 369 12.232 Total 4570.061 375

With respect to Nationality it may be observed in Table 4 that only Meta Cognitive [F (5,372) = 2.551, p < 0.05] and Cognitive [F (5,374) = 3.266, p < 0.05] were statistically significantly different. Post hoc analysis using Duncans method revealed that in both instances the differences were between Caribbean and American students. Table 4 ANOVA analysis for differences among meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral with respect to Nationality Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Meta - Cognitive Between Groups 96.563 5 19.313 2.551 .028* Within Groups 2816.085 372 7.570 Total 2912.648 377 Cognitive Between Groups 209.082 5 41.816 3.266 .007* Within Groups 4789.052 374 12.805 Total 4998.134 379 Motivation Between Groups 96.048 5 19.210 2.030 .074 Within Groups 3520.071 372 9.463 Total 3616.119 377 Behavioral Between Groups Within Groups Total 59.156 4510.721 4569.877 5 369 374 11.831 12.224 .968 .437

* p < 0.05

576

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

The final analysis involved establishing differences between the Program of study and the four Cultural Intelligence sections (meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral). Table 5 shows that even here there were no statistically significant differences. Table 5 ANOVA analysis for differences among meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral with respect to Program of study

Meta Cognitive

Cognitive

Motivation

Behavioral

Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

Sum of Squares 13.851 2908.415 2922.265 26.589 4965.021 4991.609 65.576 3552.986 3618.562 12.276 4551.683 4563.960

df 3 373 376 3 375 378 3 373 376 3 370 373

Mean Square 4.617 7.797 8.863 13.240 21.859 9.525 4.092 12.302

F .592

Sig. .621

.669

.571

2.295

.077

.333

.802

The next analysis involved determining whether Cultural Intelligence had a positive relationship with Self efficacy, Cross cultural Adaptation and Cross cultural communication. It may be seen from Table 6 that all these variables were positively related to Cultural Intelligence. This suggests that the higher the Cultural Intelligence levels the more positive the other variables were. Table 6 Pearson correlation coefficients of the subscales of the questionnaire 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Self efficacy Cross cultural Adaptation Cross cultural communication Cultural Intelligence .383** .355** .442** .540** .501** .422**

The final question investigated whether Cultural Intelligence was predicted by Self efficacy, Cross cultural Adaptation and Cross cultural communication. This analysis was completed by conducting a stepwise regression analysis. It may be observed from Table 7 that Model 3 explained 40.8% of the variance with all the variables included. The final model shows that the three variables do indeed predict Cultural Intelligence. In fact, the prediction may be represented by the equation: Cultural Intelligence = 17.264 + .672 (Self efficacy) + .537 (Cross cultural Adaptation) + .420 (Cross cultural communication).

577

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

Table 7 Model Summary of the stepwise regression analysis Model R .529a R Square .279 Adjusted R Square .277 Std. Error of the Estimate 7.956

1 2 3
a. b. c.

.624b .389 .386 7.335 c .639 .408 .403 7.232 Predictors: (Constant), Self efficacy Predictors: (Constant), Self efficacy , Cross cultural Adaptation Predictors: (Constant), Self efficacy , Cross cultural Adaptation , Cross cultural communication Table 7 Coefficientsa of the final Model of the stepwise regression analysis

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

Sig.

B
1 2 (Constant) Self efficacy 34.724 .970

Std. Error
2.960 .082 3.232 .082 .080 3.364 .083 .084 .125

Beta
.529 .400 .355 .366 .299 .156 11.730 11.768 6.461 9.011 8.000 5.133 8.147 6.372 3.353 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001

(Constant) 20.879 Self efficacy .735 Cross cultural Adaptation .639 3 (Constant) 17.264 Self efficacy .672 Cross cultural Adaptation .537 Cross cultural communication .420 a. Dependent Variable: Cultural Intelligence

9. Conclusions The results of this study show that there were no significant gender differences for all the variables related to cultural intelligence. This is a good indication as the Universities in Taiwan will not have to be concerned about one particular sex having higher levels than the other. According to the literature, persons high in meta-cognitive and cognitive levels of Cultural Intelligence are able to recognize and understand appropriate expectations for each cultural interaction. That person should also be able to incorporate knowledge of self, the environment to determine how they will behave in different cross cultural interactions. Differences were not established either among these variables in relation to age and the program of study. With respect to nationality, the differences were only established between students from the Caribbean and America.

578

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

This would confirm that the International students in Taiwan are able to use their knowledge of self and the new culture that they are in to guide their behavior. This in a way shows that the international students are cognizant of the difference in cultures and are able to use the appropriate behavior for each intercultural interaction. Even though, no statistical difference was found between Program of study and cultural intelligence levels, this can be a positive thing for schools in Taiwan as it shows that the courses the students chose to study do not affect their cultural intelligence levels. The findings also indicated that Cultural Intelligence was positively related with Self efficacy, Cross cultural Adaptation and Cross cultural communication. The correlation was found between motivational and behavioral aspects of cultural intelligence. According to the literature, persons high in motivational CQ are better able to adapt to a new culture as they have strong intrinsic motivation that propels them to make the adjustment to the new culture. On the other hand, persons high in behavioral CQ are persistent to learn more about the new culture that they are in. They are also able to decide how and when to use the new skills that they have gleaned from the culture.

10. Recommendations for Future Research This research only focused on International students in Taiwan. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized to other countries or populations. Future research can be conducted on other groups within Taiwan to test if cultural intelligence levels will affect cross cultural adaptation. This research used students from Universities throughout Taiwan. Future research can focus on students in universities in North Central or South of Taiwan. Additionally, the research was also limited only to students age, gender, program of study, and nationality. Other demographics were not of interest by the researchers.

579

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

References

Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook on cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Bandura, A. (2002), Social Cognitive Theory in Cultural Context. Applied Psychology, 51: 269290. Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. (1994). Intercultural communication training: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chang, Q.S. (2006). Internationalization of higher education from the perspective of Globalization. Bureau of International Cultural, Educational Relations, Ministry of Education. Taiwan. Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. (1996). Intercultural interactions: A practical guide (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Earley, P. C., & Ang, S.(2003). Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures. California: Stanford University Press. Gudykunst, W.B & Hammer, M.R. (1988). Strangers and hosts: An uncertainty reduction based theory of intercultural adaptation. In: Y.Y. Kim and W.B. Gudykunst, Editors, Cross-cultural adaptation: Current approaches, Sage, Newbury Park 106139. Hai and Hoon (n.d). Educating singaporeans on cultural intelligence: Enhancing the competitive edge. Inkson, K. & Thomas, D. (2004). People skills for global business: Cultural intelligence. USA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Khorokiwala, M. (2008). Cultural Intelligence (CQ): A new approach to measuring and enhancing intercultural competencies. Retrieved March 5th, 2011 from http://uvaes.academia.edu/MuqarramKhorakiwala/Talks/29254/Cultural_Intelligence_CQ_A_new_a pproach_to_measuring_and_enhancing_intercultural_competencies

580

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

Kim, K. (2006). Cultural intelligence and international assignment effectiveness. Texas: GILAD CHEN. Kowner, R. (2002). Japanese communication in intercultural encounters: The barrier of status related behavior. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 339-362. Landis, D., & Bhagat, R. (1996). A model of intercultural behavior and training. In D. Landis & R. Bhagat (Eds), Handbook of Intercultural training (2nd ed., pp.1-13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Martin, J., & Harrell, T. (1996). Reentry training for intercultural sojourners. In D. Landis & R. Bhagat (Eds), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 307-326). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Ministry of Education statistics. Retrieved September 20, 2010 from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100813202924852 Paige, M. (1993). On the nature of intercultural experiences and intercultural education. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. . Templer, K,.; Tay, C,. Chandrasekar, A. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living C. Group & Organization Management; 31, 1; ABI/INFORM Global.

581

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

APPENDIX A

Cultural Intelligence Scale Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree 2 Neutral 3 Agree 4 Strongly Agree 5

Meta-cognitive 1. I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people from different cultures. 2. I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me. 3. I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions. 4. I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from different cultures. Cognitive 5. I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures. 6. I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other languages. 7. I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures. 8. I know the marriage systems of other cultures. 9. I know the arts and crafts of other cultures. 10. I know the rules for expressing non verbal behaviors in other cultures. Motivational 11. I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures. 12. I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is new to me. 13. I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me. 14. I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me. 15. I am confident that I can get accustomed to the shopping. Behavioral 16. I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. 17. I use pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural situations. 18. I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural interaction requires it.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

582

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT (ICM 2011) PROCEEDING

19. I change my non-verbal behavior when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. 20. I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

583