www.ssoar.

info

Hype or hope? A new look at the research on

cultural intelligence
Fang Fang; Schei, Vidar; Selart, Marcus

Preprint / Preprint
Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article

Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation:

Fang Fang, Schei, V., & Selart, M. (2018). Hype or hope? A new look at the research on cultural intelligence.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 66(66), 148-171. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-
ssoar-65227-3

Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use:

Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-SA Lizenz (Namensnennung- This document is made available under a CC BY-SA Licence
Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen) zur Verfügung gestellt. (Attribution-ShareAlike). For more Information see:
Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de
Running head: CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 1

Hype or hope? A new look at the research on cultural intelligence

Fang Fanga, Vidar Scheia,*, Marcus Selarta

a
NHH Norwegian School of Economics

April 11, 2018

*
Corresponding author at: Department of Strategy and Management,

NHH Norwegian School of Economics, Helleveien 30, 5045 Bergen, Norway.

Phone: +47 5595 9871.

E-mail address: vidar.schei@nhh.no (V. Schei).

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 2

Abstract

Cultural intelligence (CQ), the capability by which expatriates, managers, and others

involved in cross-cultural interactions function effectively in a globalized world, was

introduced in 2003 and has garnered wide attention recently. In this paper, we present a

detailed and up-to-date review of 142 empirical articles in the CQ research field. We first

examine the concept of CQ, including its definition, structure, measurement, and validity. We

then review the vast number of empirical studies that investigate the antecedents,

development, direct and indirect effects, moderating effects, and aggregated effects of CQ, as

well as qualitative studies. The analysis shows several issues that likely will be relevant to the

research debate in the near future. These issues include investigations of (1) whether cultural

intelligence is universal or culture-specific, (2) why objective measures that assess CQ are

lacking, (3) to what extent a person can develop cultural intelligence, (4) to what extent there

are dark sides to cultural intelligence, and (5) the role cultural intelligence plays as a

predictor of individual and group performance. Addressing these questions may help us

reveal the true potential of CQ in contemporary organizations and thus, affirm that the

promise of CQ is more than just hype.

Keywords:

Cultural intelligence

CQ

Culture

Intercultural relations

Review
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 3

1. Introduction

The concept of globalization is key to understanding the modern world. Recent

technological advances have made international communication and transportation much

easier than our ancestors could ever have imagined. These advances open up new

opportunities, as well as misunderstandings and conflict. Therefore, identifying competences

with which individuals can be effective in cross-cultural interaction has become increasingly

important to management scholars and practitioners.

Of the efforts to isolate such competences, a recently developed concept—cultural

intelligence (CQ)—has emerged and captured a great deal of attention. Among the abundant

constructs, terms, and models in cross-cultural research, CQ, defined as the capability to

function well in culturally diverse situations (Earley & Ang, 2003), has, despite its short

history, “undergone a remarkable journey of growth” (Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009, p. 30).

The first years of CQ focused on defining the concept; empirical research increased around

2008, focusing first on antecedents and effects and more recently, on indirect effects and

methods for developing CQ. The research on CQ has become extensive, as indicated by

around 30 articles in each of the years 2016 and 2017. But is CQ just hype, or is it truly

helpful in dealing with contemporary cultural diversity?

The aim of the present review is to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date

assessment of the literature on CQ, as well as suggestions for future research. In doing so, we

build on previous review articles on CQ (Andresen, & Bergdolt, 2016; Ang, Rockstuhl, &

Tan, 2015; Bücker, 2014; Leung, Ang, & Tan, 2014; Ng et al., 2009; Ott & Michailova,

2018). However, this review differs from previous studies in important ways. Most notably,

this review includes articles that were published since 2015. Due to the rapid growth in

research, this adds 59 empirical studies published after the most recent review (i.e., Ott &

Michailova, 2018). The latest developments have introduced new variables in CQ research
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 4

(Arli, Pekerti, Kubacki, & Rundle-Thiele, 2016), more complex relationships among familiar

variables (M. Li, Mobley, & Kelly, 2016), and new measurement tools (Alon, Boulanger,

Meyers, & Taras, 2016). Moreover, the most recent research also has a somewhat different

pattern than earlier studies, for example, focusing more on the direct and indirect effects of

CQ. In this review, we focus on the latest studies—research that we believe will enhance

understanding of the field substantially.

Furthermore, the inclusion criteria for this review differed slightly from those of

previous reviews. We included all studies on cultural intelligence that appear in the Web of

Science database. Thus, this review covers a wider range of research fields—including

business, management, education, psychology, as well as some rarely covered fields, such as

information science and public administration—than previous reviews. We also address

different levels of CQ research, including individual, dyadic, and organizational levels. In

sum, this approach resulted in the inclusion of 86 empirical studies on CQ that have not been

covered in any of the reviews mentioned above. Consequently, we aim to present a

comprehensive, up-to-date picture of the origin, development, status, and potential future

directions of CQ research.

The paper is organized as follows. First, we present the data collection procedure for

the review (Section 2). Then, we introduce the concept of CQ, including its definition and

structure (Section 3). We then examine empirical studies of CQ, including measurement and

validity (Section 4), antecedents (Section 5), development (Section 6), direct and indirect

effects (Section 7), moderating effects (Section 8), aggregated effects (Section 9), and

qualitative studies (Section 10). In the final section, we offer suggestions for future research

directions (Section 11).

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 5

2. The data collection process

The studies reviewed were identified through the Web of Science database, which

was selected because it is a leading database for scientific articles that provides scholarly

criteria for its journal selections. We used the search terms cultural intelligence or CQ and

searched for these terms in the title or the topic of the article.

Articles outside the study scope, in fields such as anthropology, biology, medicine,

neurosciences, psychiatry, and zoology, were excluded. Furthermore, we included only

articles written in English and only journal articles—thus excluding, for example, book

reviews, meeting abstracts, and proceedings. We tracked all studies until the last update on 1

April 2018, while the earliest publication related to CQ appeared in 2002.

The selection process resulted in 186 studies in total. The journals that published the

most articles on CQ research were Academy of Management Learning & Education (15),

International Journal of Intercultural Relations (15), International Journal of Human

Resource Management (14), and Group and Organization Management (12). These journals

together published around 30% of the total 186 publications. Other studies on CQ were

dispersed among 87 other journals.

For the convenience of analysis, we classified the publications on CQ as theoretical or

empirical articles. The total numbers of the two types of publications were 37 and 149,

respectively. The percentage of theoretical vs. empirical articles has been decreasing

somewhat, which seems reasonable during the establishment of the conceptual framework of

CQ. Specifically, after 2006, nine theoretical articles focused on the conceptual framework,

including a special issue in Group and Organization Management. Thereafter, the focus of

research has shifted to empirical studies.

The empirical studies included in the present review measured CQ as a variable. Four

articles examined CQ as a control variable, and three articles measured derivative measures
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 6

of CQ, for example, the malleability of CQ (Cuadrado, Tabernero, & Briones, 2014).

Therefore, we focused on the remaining 142 empirical publications. Among these articles,

128 studies employed a quantitative method to measure CQ, while 14 studies employed

qualitative methods, including interview, case study, and content analysis.

The studies that used quantitative methods were further classified according to their

main themes: measurement scale and validity, antecedents of CQ, CQ development, effects

of CQ, CQ as a moderator, or CQ at the aggregate level. This classification was applied for

the convenience of this review, and each article was categorized into one theme only when

presented in the subsequent tables. The vast majority of the studies fell easily into one of the

categories, but some studies covered different themes simultaneously, in which case the

studies are assigned to the most prevalent theme when we discuss the studies.

An overview of the research on CQ is illustrated in Figure 1. The recent rapid

increase in studies on CQ makes it difficult for previous reviews to keep track of the

literature. Therefore, we distinguish between articles published before 2015 and those

published from 2015 to the present. This categorization also makes potential trends and

changes of topics in CQ research more visible. As can be seen in Figure 1, the latest studies

focus on the empirical part of CQ—quantitative studies in particular. The four studies that

used CQ as control variable were published in recent years, which indicates that CQ research

has not been confined to its own field but has also been noticed and acknowledged in the

wider field of cross-cultural competence. Furthermore, publications concerning antecedents

and direct and indirect effects of CQ have increased rapidly in recent years, while the number

of studies measuring CQ development and CQ at the aggregate level and studies adopting

qualitative methods have decreased since 2015.

Insert Figure 1 about here

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 7

Importantly, this review includes only studies that explicitly addressed the issue of

CQ. The area of intercultural competence is clearly much more than just CQ (see for example

the reflections by Kealy (2015) and Ruben (2015)). However, although examining a broader

scope in intercultural competence would provide a more extensive analysis, the amount of

research is simply too large to integrate in a single review article. Moreover, the concept of

cultural intelligence is well defined and highly cited, and no other measurement of

intercultural competence has resulted in such a vast amount of scientific studies in recent

years. Therefore, we suggest that CQ deserves treatment as a research area in its own right;

however, we emphasize that this concept is a part of the larger literature on intercultural

competence.

3. Cultural intelligence

3.1. The definition of cultural intelligence

The first established and most frequently adopted definition of CQ was given by Ang

and Van Dyne (2008) as “the capability of an individual to function effectively in situations

characterized by cultural diversity” (p. 3). However, several other definitions have been

suggested. Thomas et al. (2008) listed eight different definitions of CQ, including their own

definition: “a system of interacting knowledge, linked by cultural metacognition, that allows

people to adapt to, select, and shape the cultural aspects of their environment” (p. 126).

Although there are nuances of words and terms in these definitions, all are aimed at

answering the same question: Why are some persons more effective than others in culturally

specific situations?

CQ should be distinguished from other concepts of intelligence, such as emotional

intelligence (EQ) and social intelligence (Earley, 2002). CQ enables people to “look beyond

their own cultural lens” (Earley, 2002, p. 285) and is argued to be critical for cross-cultural
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 8

situations, which is not the case for social and emotional intelligence. CQ has also been

distinguished from personality traits. As a type of competence, CQ is state-like and malleable

and can be predicted by personality traits that are more stable (see Section 5.1 for more about

this point).

3.2. The structure of cultural intelligence

Ang and Van Dyne (2008) suggested that CQ is a multidimensional construct

consisting of four dimensions: metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ.

This four-dimensional structure has been widely adopted, although some earlier research

combined the metacognitive and cognitive facets into one dimension. Some researchers

(Thomas, 2006; Thomas et al., 2008) also questioned whether the motivational dimension

should be included in cross-cultural competence and suggested a three-dimensional model

that includes cultural knowledge, cultural skills, and cultural metacognition. The labels of CQ

dimensions may vary, for example, cognitive, physical, and emotional (Earley &

Mosakowski, 2004) or knowledge, skills, and attributes (Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud,

2006). However, aside from these different labels, there is a common view of what

constitutes CQ.

Metacognitive CQ refers to “an individual’s level of conscious cultural awareness

during cross-cultural interactions” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 5). Previous research has

assumed that metacognitive CQ includes an individual’s self-concept and inductive reasoning

(Earley, 2002) as well as the ability to question one’s own expectations. However, Klafehn,

Li, and Chiu’s (2013) empirical results questioned “the uniqueness of the metacognitive CQ

subscale as a stand-alone subfacet” (p. 974), which will be discussed in more detail in the

validity section (Section 4.2).

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 9

Cognitive CQ refers to “knowledge of norms, practices and conventions in different

cultures that has been acquired from educational and personal experiences” (Ang & Van

Dyne, 2008, p. 5). The knowledge component of CQ includes culture-specific knowledge

(which provides information about rules and norms in different cultures) and culture-general

knowledge (which provides information about a complex and specific environment).

Although CQ was defined as a culture-general construct, at least for the cognitive

component, it is hard to fully exclude culture-specific knowledge. We will discuss this

further in Section 11.1.

Motivational CQ reflects the “capability to direct attention and energy towards

learning about and functioning in situations characterized by cultural differences” (Ang &

Van Dyne, 2008, p. 6). Motivational CQ includes interest and confidence in cross-cultural

interactions, as well as direct effort and energy expended in cross-cultural interactions.

However, researchers have also questioned the motivational dimension of the CQ construct.

For example, Thomas (2006) distinguished motivation and intelligence as “willingness” and

“ability,” which behave in respective ways, and argued that motivation casts a halo effect

over the CQ construct that should not exist.

Behavioral CQ reflects the “capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and non-verbal

actions when interacting with people from different cultures” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 6).

Behavioral CQ concerns verbal and non-verbal behaviors and provides the necessary

conditions for other CQ aspects to function effectively. Importantly, mimicking typical

behaviors in other cultures could function as a double-edged sword. For example, empirical

studies on social identity theory have shown that moderate adaptation increases attraction,

while a high level of adaptation has a negative effect (Francis, 1991). This topic is discussed

further in in Section 11.4.

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 10

4. Measurement and validity of cultural intelligence

4.1. The Cultural Intelligence Scale

The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) developed by Ang and colleagues (Ang et al.,

2007; Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2008) is by far the most commonly used tool for measuring

CQ. More than 90% of the quantitative articles examined in this review adopted the CQS or

the revised version as a measurement tool. The scale has also been translated from English to

several other languages, including Chinese, French, German, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish,

Turkish, and Vietnamese.

The CQS contains 20 items, such as “I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with

people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me” (metacognitive); “I know the legal and

economic systems of other cultures” (cognitive); “I enjoy interacting with people from

different cultures” (motivational); and “I use pause and silence differently to suit different

cross-cultural situations” (behavioral). When developing the scale, Van Dyne et al. (2008)

conducted a series of studies to demonstrate its generalizability across samples, time,

countries, and methods. In general, the CQS has shown good construct validity and predictive

power (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013).

Research studies related to the validity of CQS are summarized in Table 1. These

studies examined the fitness of CQ models (Ward, Fischer, Lam, & Hall, 2009), the

distinctiveness of CQ from other constructs, such as EQ (T. Moon, 2010a), the validity of

CQS in languages other than English (Moyano, Tabernero, Melero, & Trujillo, 2015), and

measurement equivalence across countries (Bücker, Furrer, & Weem, 2016; Schlägel &

Sarstedt, 2016).

Insert Table 1 about here

Overall, the four-factor model of CQ has been confirmed (AL-Dossary, 2016;

Moyano et al., 2015). CQ is also distinct from general cognitive ability (Ward et al., 2009)
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 11

and from personality and EQ (Şahin, Gürbüz, Köksal, & Ercan, 2013), although several

researchers also emphasized the strong link between CQ and EQ (T. Moon, 2010a; Thomas

et al., 2015; Ward et al., 2009).

For the predictive power of CQ, some studies found that CQ predicts dependent

variables over and above EQ (T. Moon, 2010a; Şahin et al., 2013) while other studies failed

to do so (Klafehn et al., 2013; Putranto, Nuraeni, Gustomo, & Ghazali, 2018; Ward et al.,

2009). For example, Putranto et al. (2018) found that EQ has a statistically significant

positive relationship with students’ performance, measured with grade point averages

(GPAs), while CQ failed to show a statistically significant relationship with students’

performance. Klafehn et al. (2013) also questioned the uniqueness of the metacognitive CQ

subscale as it “shared more than 50% of its variance with the other three subscales of the

CQS” and “exhibits weak divergent validity evidence” (p. 976). In addition to the self-rated

CQS, Klafehn et al. (2013) examined peer-rated measures and found that peer-rated CQ has

higher factor loadings and therefore, should be better at assessing CQ than self-rated

measurements.

The CQS has also been translated into Arabic (AL-Dossary, 2016), Spanish (Moyano

et al., 2015), and Turkish (Şahin et al., 2013) and shows good validity. However, previous

researchers were cautious when comparing cross-cultural CQS scores. Schlägel and Sarstedt

(2016) examined the validity of CQS across five samples (China, France, Germany, Turkey,

and the US), and measurement equivalence was established only between the Turkish and

U.S. samples. Bücker et al. (2016) compared CQ scores between Chinese and Dutch samples,

and the 20-item, four-dimensional model of CQ failed to show measurement equivalence

across the countries. A two-dimensioned model that combined metacognitive and cognitive

CQ into one single dimension: “internalized cultural knowledge”, and motivational and
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 12

behavioral dimensions into “effective cultural flexibility” (Bücker, Furrar, & Lin, 2015) had

a better fit when comparing CQ scores across different countries.

4.2. Other measures of cultural intelligence

In addition to the widely used CQS, we identified two other measurement scales: the

Short Form measurement of Cultural Intelligence (SFCQ) and the Business Cultural

Intelligence Quotient (BCIQ).

Thomas et al. (2015) developed the SFCQ based on the three-facet model of CQ

(Thomas, 2006; Thomas et al., 2008). A 10-item scale was used to measure cultural

knowledge, skills, and metacognition, and although this instrument is relatively new, Pekerti

and Arli (2017) adopted this measurement. In addition to the exclusion of the motivational

dimension, this tool measures a broader aspect of each dimension of CQ, although the

instrument includes fewer questions than the CSQ. For example, the behavioral component of

CQS focuses on the adaptation of one’s verbal and non-verbal behavior in cross-cultural

situations, while the SFCQ includes relational skills, tolerance of uncertainty, empathy, and

perceptual acuity, with sample questions, such as, “I accept delays without becoming upset

when in different cultural situations and with culturally different people.” Concerning the

validity of the SFCQ, Thomas et al. (2015) showed that CQ is moderately correlated with—

yet distinct from—EQ and personality, and predicted intercultural effectiveness.

Focusing on applying CQ in business and workplace contexts, Alon et al. (2016)

developed the BCIQ model, which is, according to the authors, “uniquely suitable for

business research applications” (p. 85). The measurement includes 18 self-reported questions

that measure three dimensions: motivation, adaptation, and learning behavior. This

measurement tool is also distinct from the CQS regarding the cognitive component. The
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 13

BCIQ includes 20 true/false questions to measure the respondents’ global knowledge. Sample

statements include “A knife is not an appropriate gift in Russia.”

5. Antecedents of cultural intelligence

We now discuss the antecedents of CQ. The research is summarized in Table 2. We

categorized the predictors of CQ into two main categories: (1) individual traits and

capabilities and (2) intercultural experience. The studies of personality and other individual

differences mostly used student samples, while studies of intercultural experience typically

examined samples with work experience, such as expatriates.

Insert Table 2 about here

5.1. Traits and capabilities

The Big Five personality dimensions are the most frequently examined traits in the

CQ literature. The Big Five and CQ are multidimensional constructs. Thus, effects on overall

CQ and on dimensions of CQ have been examined. For the Big Five, the studies in this

review used various scales to measure the dimensions, and the number of items differed

considerably among the studies, for example, ranging from 44-item scales (Depaula,

Azzollini, Cosentino, & Castillo, 2016; Harrison, 2012) to a 120-item scale (Ang, Van Dyne,

& Koh, 2006).

The most promising dimension of the Big Five for CQ appears to be openness to

experience. The positive effect of openness to experience was found to be related to all CQ

dimensions (Ang et al., 2006; M. Li et al., 2016) and to overall CQ (Depaula et al., 2016;

Harrison, 2012). Agreeableness also seems to be positively related to overall CQ (Harrison,

2012) and to the behavioral dimension of CQ (Ang et al., 2006). However, emotional

stability is the only dimension of the Big Five to have a statistically significantly negative

link to behavioral CQ (Ang et al., 2006). Researchers also recently examined more complex
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 14

interactions between the Big Five and CQ. Interestingly, M. Li et al. (2016) examined the

interplay of openness and agreeableness. Their results showed that when agreeableness is

high, openness is positively related to aspects of CQ, and when agreeableness is low, this

relationship disappears. The authors suggested that open individuals who are low on agree-

ableness are “less likely to learn from culturally different others … due to their lower level of

interpersonal competencies” (M. Li et al., 2016, p. 106).

Several individual differences other than the Big Five have been related to CQ. For

example, N. Nel, J. A. Nel, Adams, and De Beer (2015) found that intellect (“the ability to

think and obtain knowledge”) and facilitating (“the ability to direct and lead people according

to one’s own experiences”) are positively related to metacognitive CQ (p. 5). Moreover,

language ability was found to be positively related to overall CQ (Harrison, 2012), while

social intelligence was found to positively predict CQ to a greater extent than other predictors

(Depaula et al., 2016). Adair, Buchan, X. P. Chen, and Liu (2016) examined the relationship

between context dependency and CQ. Communicators who are more dependent on context

cues (such as eye contact, body movement, and use of silence in communication) were found

to have a higher level of overall CQ. Similarly, Holtbrügge and Engelhar (2016) found that

cultural boundary spanners, who are able to react depending on situational cues, have higher

CQ in all four dimensions. Bernardo and Presbitero (2017) found that people who strongly

believe that different cultural groups are connected and influence each other

(polyculturalism) also tend to have higher CQ. Polyculturalism also partially explains the

country-level differences among the CQ results.

5.2. Intercultural experiences

CQ can be developed with cross-cultural contact. International experience provides a

crucial and unique context that creates the opportunity for CQ learning and development.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 15

Therefore, intercultural experience is one of the most frequently examined predictors of CQ.

Most previous research supports a positive link between intercultural experience and CQ

(Harrison, 2012; H. K. Moon, Choi, & Jung, 2013; Pekerti & Arli, 2017). However, a

common understanding of how to measure intercultural experience is lacking. Some

researchers examined different types of intercultural experiences. For example, Crowne

(2008) distinguished among employment, education, vacations, and other types of

experience. The study linked educational experience to overall CQ and all CQ dimensions

and employment experience to overall CQ and metacognitive and behavioral CQ. Kurpis and

Hunter (2017) also found that intercultural experience gained through work or travel abroad

is positively correlated with all aspects of CQ, while intercultural knowledge gained through

classes and studies has a positive link to cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ. Some

authors, however, focused on certain types of experience, such as expatriation (H. K. Moon

et al., 2013) and immigration (Pekerti & Arli, 2017).

Some researchers also examined the depth of intercultural experience. For example,

Crowne (2008) used the number of countries visited to measure the depth of intercultural

experience and found that higher levels of cross-cultural exposure increase CQ.

Correspondingly, M. Li et al. (2013) found that the length of overseas experience is

positively correlated with CQ, and the relationship is strengthened when participants have a

divergent learning style that “emphasizes concrete experience and reflective observation” (p.

36). However, Schwarzenthal, Juang, Schachner, van de Vijver, and Handrick (2017)

examined effects of intercultural contact on CQ and failed to find differential effects among

adolescents with immigrant and non-immigrant backgrounds.

Given the various methods of measuring intercultural experiences, it is not surprising

that previous review articles found inconsistent results across the four dimensions of CQ

(Ang et al., 2015; Ng, Van Dyne, Ang, & Ryan, 2012). To deal with this lack of consistency,
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 16

future research may need to examine which measurements of intercultural experience are the

most relevant for CQ research or focus on specific experiences and how they are related to

aspects of CQ. For example, one recent theoretical article (O’Sullivan, 2017) suggested that

the salience of religious value conflicts should adversely impact motivational CQ, while the

introduction of religious symbols should exacerbate this relationship. Furthermore, we need

to know more details about how to improve CQ through intercultural experience and training.

We now turn to the question of how CQ can be developed.

6. Development of cultural intelligence

Although intercultural experience in itself may be helpful, as indicated above, in this

section, we focus on studies that aimed to train individuals to develop CQ or related

concepts. The research on the development of CQ is summarized in Table 3.

Insert Table 3 about here

Previous research covered various training approaches for improving CQ. Training

approaches differ, ranging from passive methods, such as lectures (Buchtel, 2014), to

experiential and involved methods, such as role-plays and behavior modification training

(Bücker & Korzilius, 2015; Fischer, 2011). Lectures are considered cost-effective, non-

threatening, and able to transmit large amounts of information rapidly (Fischer, 2011), while

experiential methods, such as simulation games, provide safe environments “for trying out

new behaviors, for understanding old behaviors, and testing how other people react to what

we do” (Bücker & Korzilius, 2015, p. 2000). Some studies also provided various training

projects that enabled participants to interact with people from different cultures. Four articles

(Alexandra, 2018; MacNab, Brislin, & Worthley, 2012; MacNab & Worthley, 2012;

Rosenblatt, Worthley, & MacNab, 2013) used a series of training projects that included

procedures such as pre-experience check and after-experience feedback to help participants

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 17

benefit more from the contact. Other similar experiential projects included a distance course

with foreign partners (Ko, Boswell, & Yoon, 2015) and virtual multicultural team projects

(Erez et al., 2013; Taras et al., 2013).

In general, training has been found to improve overall CQ and the dimensions of CQ.

Experiential training seems to be most effective for the development of motivational CQ

(Taras et al., 2013) and behavioral CQ (Ko et al., 2015). Classroom training, including

lectures and role-plays, as well as simulation games, appears to be most important for the

development of metacognitive CQ (Buchtel, 2014; Bücker & Korzilius, 2015; Eisenberg et

al., 2013) and cognitive CQ (Eisenberg et al., 2013; Rehg, Gundlach, & Grigorian, 2012).

Examining students in a Canadian–European exchange program, McRae, Ramji, Lu, and

Lesperance (2016) found that students who spend a semester working abroad improve their

metacognitive and behavioral CQ, while students who spend a semester studying abroad

increase their cognitive CQ. However, unexpectedly, Fischer (2011) reported that cognitive

CQ decreases after intercultural training lectures and suggested that this might happen

because “the experience showed them how little they knew about cultural differences” and

made participants “realize their limits in terms of intercultural competence” (Fischer, 2011, p.

773).

Previous research has also considered other factors that facilitate CQ development.

For example, self-efficacy is positively related to overall CQ development and to aspects of

CQ (MacNab et al., 2012; MacNab & Worthley, 2012; Rehg et al., 2012). Similarly,

personality traits such as open-mindedness (Fischer, 2011) are positively correlated to CQ

development. Interestingly, students’ CQ level before training was not linked with their

efforts during training or satisfaction after the course, suggesting that training can also benefit

people with low initial CQ (Ramsey & Lorenz, 2016; Reichard et al., 2015). Presbitero and

Toledano (2017) found that when members of a global team had more opportunities to
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 18

communicate with each other, their CQ training and improvement would more easily result in

better task performance than was the case for members with low contact intensity.

Most research on CQ development has been longitudinal, measuring the difference in

CQ before and after interventions. The length of training varied from two hours (Reichard,

Dollwet, & Louw-Potgieter, 2014) to six months (Şahin, Gürbüz, & Köksal, 2014). Several

studies used control groups to increase validity (Buchtel, 2014; Bücker & Korzilius, 2015;

Eisenberg et al., 2013; Ramsey & Lorenz, 2016). For example, Ramsey and Lorenz (2016)

found that overall CQ improved statistically significantly in the treatment group after

training, while the control group showed no such effects. However, Bücker and Korzilius

(2015) found that among the four dimensions of CQ, only the increase in metacognitive CQ

was larger in the experimental group than in the control group. Finally, several studies also

examined whether the effects of interventions persisted and found that CQ improvement was

maintained after one month (Reichard et al., 2015) and six months (Erez et al., 2013).

7. Effects of cultural intelligence

We now discuss the effects of CQ. The effects of CQ examined by previous

researchers can be roughly divided into three categories: direct effects, indirect effects, and

mediating effects. We organize this section accordingly, looking at effects associated with

psychological well-being, interpersonal effectiveness, and performance. Psychological well-

being is affected by stress and problems that occur when adapting to unfamiliar cross-cultural

contexts and intercultural communications, as well as the adjustment when facing such

challenges. Interpersonal effectiveness is related to cross-cultural communication issues, such

as trust, knowledge sharing, and cooperation. Finally, performance includes subjectively

rated performance (self-rated and other-rated) and objectively measured performance.

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 19

7.1. Direct effects

The direct effects of CQ are summarized in Table 4a. The most thoroughly researched

outcome of CQ is cross-cultural adjustment and performance. The effects of CQ have been

most frequently examined in relation to expatriation (Guðmundsdóttir, 2015), intercultural

teamwork (Groves & Feyerherm, 2011), and international education (Y. C. Lin, A. S. Y.

Chen, & Song, 2012).

Insert Table 4a about here

In general, overall CQ (Lin et al., 2012) and CQ facets (Zhang & Oczkowski, 2016)

were found to be positively related to cross-cultural adjustments. Some authors focused on a

specific target group. For example, Guðmundsdóttir (2015) examined Nordic expatriates

working and living in the United States, while others specified only the participants’ host

countries, such as expatriates in Japan (Huff, Song, & Gresch, 2014). The link between CQ

and cross-cultural adjustment has also been found to be moderated by other variables. Lin et

al. (2012), for instance, showed that EQ had a moderating effect on the relationship between

CQ and adjustment. Others examined the moderating effect of cultural distance asymmetry

(Zhang & Oczkowski, 2016) but failed to find any effects when studying two groups of

expatriates (Australian expatriates in China and Chinese expatriates in Australia).

The opposite of cross-cultural adjustment can be measured with constructs such as

adaptation problems (Ward, Wilson, & Fischer, 2011), anxiety (Bücker, Furrer, Poutsma, &

Buyens, 2014), and suspicion (Luu, 2017). Generally, CQ was found to be negatively linked

with these variables. However, by examining Australian- and non-Australian-born samples,

Arli et al. (2016) failed to find support for a connection between CQ and harmful alcohol

consumption and dependence symptoms.

Regarding performance effects of CQ, individual- (Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne,

& Annen, 2011) and team-level effects (Khani, Etebarian, & Abzari, 2011) have been
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 20

examined. Khani et al. (2011) found that CQ as an individual-level construct predicts team

performance at the group level. Groves and Feyerherm (2011) examined the effects of

leaders’ overall CQ on leader and team performance and found that CQ is positively related

to performance at both levels, over and above EQ.

CQ and performance can be measured using self-rating methods (Khani et al., 2011)

or peer-rating methods (Presbitero, 2016a). Presbitero (2016a) used a sample of call-center

workers, and CQ positively predicted task performance as rated by the participants’

supervisors. Another study found that school principals’ CQ level is correlated with Latino

student achievement in their schools in the United States, while teachers’ CQ failed to show

similar effects (Collins, Duyar, & Pearson, 2016). Furthermore, Luu (2017) found that

employees’ perception of their supervisors’ CQ is negatively related to employees’ suspicion

level. Along with self-rated adjustment and well-being, the effects of CQ have been

investigated objectively, such as via accuracy on ability tests (Grand, Golubovich, Ryan, &

Schmitt, 2013) and academic achievement on standardized tests (Collins et al., 2016).

However, Grand et al. (2013) and Collins et al. (2016) did not find that CQ has predictive

power for these objective results.

CQ can also be positively connected to interrelationship variables, such as group

acceptance for newcomers (Joardar, Kostova, & Ravlinet, 2007) and different leadership

styles (Ramsey, Rutti, Lorenz, Barakat, & Sant’anna, 2017; Solomon & Steyn, 2017).

Overall, CQ has been linked to transformational leadership, which emphasizes offering

followers a vision and inspiring them by acting as role models (Ramsey et al., 2017), while

Solomon and Steyn (2017) found that leaders’ metacognitive CQ and motivational CQ are

better predictors for empowering leadership (i.e., focus on assigning authority and

responsibilities to followers) than for directive leadership (i.e., emphasizing precise goals and

instructions). Young, Haffejee, and Corsun (2017) found that overall CQ and all dimensions
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 21

of CQ, with the exception of cognitive CQ, are negatively related to ethnocentrism. However,

only motivational CQ statistically significantly predicted changes in ethnocentrism after a 4-

week mentoring program.

Some studies also showed that CQ has an effect over and above constructs such as the

Big Five dimensions of personality (Huff et al., 2014). However, Shu, McAbee, and Ayman

(2017) recently showed that some personality traits have a predictive power over and above

CQ. For example, extraversion predicted interaction adjustment, and conscientiousness

predicted school-related adjustment, over and above CQ. Similarly, Aslam, Ilyas, Imran, and

Ur Rahman (2016) reported that EQ is the strongest predictor of managerial effectiveness

compared to other types of intelligence and that CQ did not have a statistically significant

relationship with effectiveness. Interestingly, in examining CQ in banks, Daryani, Aali,

Amini, and Shareghi (2017) demonstrated that the positive effects of CQ on performance in

public banks is greater than the effects of CQ in private banks, but the results are reversed for

EQ and ethical intelligence (i.e., a weaker effect in public banks than in private banks). This

latter finding clearly points to the important role of context when assessing the effects of CQ.

7.2. Indirect effects

In the articles discussed in the previous section, cross-cultural adjustment and

performance were recognized as two main effects of CQ. However, some researchers

examined the relationship between adjustment and performance and found that CQ has an

indirect effect on performance through cross-cultural adjustment. In this section, we discuss

the studies that investigated indirect effects of CQ. These studies are summarized in Table

4b.

Insert Table 4b about here

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 22

The general finding is that the link between CQ and performance is mediated by

cultural adjustment. For example, Lee and Sukoco (2010) examined the relationship among

CQ, cultural adjustment, cultural effectiveness, and expatriate performance and found that

cultural adjustment and cultural effectiveness fully mediate the positive effects of overall CQ

on performance. More recent work by Lee and colleagues (Lee & Kartika, 2014; Lee,

Veasna, & Sukoco, 2014) refined these findings, and the scholars noted that moderators such

as psychological contract and organizational support strengthen the relationship between CQ

and adjustment. Jyoti and Kour (2017) also found that perceived social support and previous

experience strengthen the relationship between CQ and adjustment. A mediating path from

CQ through cultural adjustment to task performance was also confirmed with managers

working in banks in India (Jyoti & Kour, 2015) and expatriates in Malaysia-based

multinational corporations (MNCs; Malek & Budhwar, 2013).

In addition to cross-cultural adjustment, other mediators, such as culture shock, have

been shown to have a partially mediating effect on the relationship between CQ and

performance (M. L. Chen, Lin, & Sawangpattanakul, 2011). A. S. Y. Chen (2015) found that

work adjustment partially mediates the relationship between CQ and job involvement.

Relating CQ to export performance, Charoensukmongkol (2015, 2016) focused on the

relationship between entrepreneurs’ CQ and the export performance of small and medium

manufacturing firms in Thailand and showed that the quality of the relationship among

entrepreneurs, their foreign customers and suppliers, and knowledge-acquisition capability

fully mediates the positive effects of overall CQ on export performance.

CQ has also been found to have a positive effect on knowledge sharing, mediated by

knowledge-sharing willingness (Collins, Chou, Warner, & Rowley, 2017) and social capital

(Tsai, Joe, W. Lin, Wu, & Cheng, 2017). Different dimensions of CQ are mediated by

different dimensions of social capital: Metacognitive CQ and motivational CQ are related to

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 23

knowledge sharing via the mediation of trust, shared vision, and social interaction, the effect

of behavioral CQ works through trust and shared vision but not social interaction, and

indirect effects of cognitive CQ are mediated only through trust. Furthermore, Jiang, Le, and

Gollan (2017) found that migrant workers with high CQ are better at suggesting constructive

ideas and persuading others to accept their suggestions and that the quality of communication

between these migrant employees and their managers partially mediates this effect.

Gonçalves, Reis, Sousa, Santos, and Orgambídez-Ramos (2015) examined the

influence of CQ on choice of conflict management styles. CQ was found to positively predict

the choice of appropriate conflict management styles, and this is partially mediated by self-

monitoring and self-interdependency. Metacognitive CQ was found to directly predict the use

of an integrating style, which is considered the most effective style in conflict resolution

(Rognes & Schei, 2010). Tuan (2016) recently examined the effects of CQ on supply chain

management mediated by corporate social responsibility (CSR) and trust. CQ aspects were

positively correlated with two facets of CSR (ethical and legal), as well as two facets of trust

(identity-based and knowledge-based), which, in turn, were positively correlated with supply

chain performance.

7.3. Mediating effects

CQ has also been used as a mediating variable, fully or partially bridging the

correlations between antecedents, such as intercultural experience and personality, and

results, such as better performance and creativity. We identified ten studies that looked at the

mediating effects of CQ. Apart from overall CQ, motivational CQ was the most adopted

mediator of all four CQ dimensions and was examined in six of the ten articles in this

category, while other dimensions of CQ were mentioned much less frequently. CQ was also
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 24

more frequently found to have a full mediation effect, as opposed to partial mediation. These

studies are summarized in Table 4c.

Insert Table 4c about here

Intercultural experience is thought to improve leadership, creativity, and innovation,

yet such effects need to be mediated by CQ. Kim and Van Dyne (2012) found that overall

CQ mediates the effects of previous intercultural contact on international leadership potential.

In a very recent study, Hu, Gu, Liu, and Huang (2017) found that overall CQ partially

mediates the relationship between intercultural experience and creativity. They also found

that social media usage for socializing purposes, such as keeping in touch with friends,

strengthens the positive effects of multicultural experience on CQ, while social media usage

to get information has no such moderating effects. Korzilius, Bücker, and Beerlage (2017)

found that individuals who label their cultural background as bi- or multicultural more often

have innovative ideas than individuals with a monocultural background. Overall CQ and its

dimensions, especially metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ, mediate such effects.

Personality and other individual differences have also been recognized as antecedents

of CQ. Remhof, Gunkel, and Schlägel (2013, 2014) examined German students’ intention to

work abroad and found that although variables such as language skill, social network, and

personality have a positive connection with such an intention, CQ is needed to fully mediate

their effects. In a recent study, Lie, Suyasa, and Wijaya (2016) found overall CQ fully

mediates the relationship between openness to experience and job satisfaction. Yunlu and

Clapp-Smith (2014) reported that cultural psychological capital (composed of four state-like

capacities: hope, optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience) is positively related to motivational

CQ, which is positively related to metacognitive awareness. Furthermore, Presbitero (2017a)

found that language ability is positively linked to task performance in an international call

center, and this effect was fully mediated by motivational CQ. Thus, motivational CQ plays a
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 25

more critical role in achieving better performance than fluency in foreign languages alone. L.

Wang, K. T. Wang, Heppner, and Chuang (2017) also found that overall CQ fully mediates

the relationship between language proficiency and international students’ satisfaction with

life.

8. Moderating effects of cultural intelligence

The research reviewed above provides a picture of the effects of CQ on psychological

well-being, interpersonal effectiveness, as well as performance. Another important issue is

the power of CQ as a moderator: When is CQ expected to interact with other variables?

Studies of the moderating effects of CQ are summarized in Table 5.

Insert Table 5 about here

CQ has been found to be an important moderator in various contexts, including

expatriation (Froese, Kim, & Eng, 2016), business travel (Ramsey, Leonel, Gomes, &

Monteiro, 2011), education (Jie & Harms, 2017), export (Magnusson, Westjohn, Semenov,

Randrianasolo, & Zdravkovic, 2013), international study (Presbitero, 2016b; Volpone,

Marquardt, Casper, & Avery, 2018), intercultural service encounters (Lorenz, Ramsey, Tariq,

& Morrell, 2017), and intercultural teamwork (Rosenauer, Homan, Horstmeier, & Voelpel,

2016). In general, CQ strengthens the relationship between intercultural differences and

cross-cultural adjustment and performance (Lorenz et al., 2017; Magnusson et al., 2013;

Rosenauer et al., 2016) and diminishes the relationship between such differences and

adaption problems as strain (Ramsey et al., 2011). For example, Rosenauer et al. (2016)

found that teams with higher national diversity have a better performance only when team

leaders’ CQ and task interdependence are high. Among the four aspects of CQ,

metacognitive CQ is the dimension that most frequently shows statistically significant

moderating effects, while motivational CQ seems to be the least important moderator.

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 26

Interestingly, the different aspects of CQ have also been shown to have opposite

moderating effects. For example, motivational CQ was found to have a positive moderating

effect on the relationship between expatriate supporting practices and adjustment, while

metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ have a negative moderating effect (Wu & Ang, 2011).

The authors suggested that expatriates need to be intrinsically motivated to work overseas in

order to benefit from expatriate support practices. Awan, Kraslawski, and Huiskonen (2018)

also found that motivational CQ has a moderating effect in the opposite direction of the

effects of metacognitive and behavioral CQ. Others also identified that CQ may have

detrimental effects. When examining the relationship between travelers’ stress and

differences between host and home countries, Ramsey et al. (2011) found that travelers with

higher CQ become more stressed when they travel to countries in which cultural-cognitive

differences are more prominent.

In recent research, the dimensions of CQ have also been found to interact with one

another. Relating cultural knowledge to creativity, Chua and Ng (2017) found that cognitive

CQ and creativity have an inverted U-shaped relationship. Although cultural knowledge

benefits creativity, too much knowledge has a detrimental effect because of cognitive

overload and entrenchment. However, such relationships exist only when metacognitive CQ

is low. When metacognitive CQ is high, cognitive CQ has no statistically significant effects

on creativity.

9. Aggregated effects of cultural intelligence

Although CQ is defined as an individual-level construct, some studies measured CQ

at the individual level and then aggregated the scores to the group level. This aggregation can

be performed in several ways. For example, the CQ scores of the individuals in a group can

be aggregated by using the sum or the mean of the individuals’ scores. Other methods for
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 27

treating CQ data at the group level include using the score of the group members who have

the highest or lowest CQ score or the CQ score of a specific member (e.g., the leader of the

group); even the standard deviation of the scores may yield valuable insights. Studies of CQ

at an aggregate level are shown in Table 6.

Insert Table 6 about here

At the dyadic level, most researchers examined which individual’s CQ (the maximum

or minimum CQ in the dyad) is strongest and related it to the outcome. Imai and Gelfand

(2010) demonstrated that the minimum CQ score is enough to predict integrative behaviors in

a negotiation simulation, which, in turn, predicts joint profits. However, Chua, Morris, and

Mor (2012) found that the maximum CQ of a dyad predicts success in a creative

collaboration task. Others have found effects related to the minimum and maximum CQ

member; the minimum CQ in the dyad influences the frequency of collaborative behaviors,

while the maximum CQ influences the quality evaluation of collaboration (Y. Li, Rau, H. Li,

& Maedche, 2017). Therefore, it was suggested that global virtual collaboration can be

improved by adjusting a team’s CQ composition according to the team type or goals.

Members with the highest CQ are crucial for task-oriented, temporary teams, while for stable,

long-term teams, it is more important to help members with the lowest CQ level.

At the team level, either aggregated individual CQ scores or modified CQS items

were used to measure team CQ. For example, “I enjoy interacting with people from different

cultures” was changed to “Agents in my firm enjoy interacting with people from different

cultures” (X. P. Chen, Liu, & Portnoy, 2012) and “People in my organization enjoy

interacting with people from different cultures” (Froese et al., 2016). Four studies (X. P.

Chen et al., 2012; Crotty & Brett, 2012; Magnusson, Schuster, & Taras, 2014; Moon, 2013)

found team CQ works as a moderator. For example, Crotty and Brett (2012) reported that

team members’ individual metacognitive CQ is statistically significantly (positively) related

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 28

to creativity, and the team-level CQ magnifies such a relationship. Similarly, Froese et al.

(2016) found that individual motivational CQ moderates the negative relationship between

team motivational CQ and turnover intention.

Finally, two studies examined the direct and indirect effects of team CQ. M. L. Chen

and C. P. Lin (2013) showed that three of the four aspects of CQ (the exception was the

behavioral aspect) are positively related to knowledge sharing. Adair, Hideg, and Spence

(2013) considered the composition of teams and found that in culturally heterogeneous

teams, metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ have a positive effect on shared values, while in

culturally homogeneous teams, metacognitive CQ and motivational CQ have a negative

effect. The authors suggested that the negative effect of CQ in culturally homogeneous teams

could be because “the presence of culturally flexible and open-minded members” could “lead

homogeneous groups to feel threatened and conflicted” (Adair et al., 2013, p. 955).

10. Qualitative research on cultural intelligence

The most common methodological approach to the empirical study of CQ has been

quantitative. However, some examined CQ by using a qualitative approach. The 14

qualitative studies are summarized in Table 7.

Insert Table 7 about here

Most qualitative studies used interviews to collect data. Various topics were covered

in these studies, including the dimensions and structure of CQ (Kaufman & Hwang, 2015),

the distinctiveness of CQ compared to other constructs (Lee, 2010), the development of CQ

(Schreuders-van de Bergh & Du Plessis, 2016), and firm-level CQ (Capatina et al., 2011).

The most common research contexts were international business and education.

Differing from quantitative studies, qualitative researchers relied on a wider range of

definitions and structures of CQ. For example, Oliver, de Botton, Soler, and Merrill (2011)
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 29

adopted Flecha’s (2000) definition and viewed CQ as the ability to interpret one’s own

situation. Others (Capatina et al., 2011; Gertsen & Søderberg, 2010) adopted Plum, Achen,

Dræby, and Jensen’s (2008) definition of CQ as “the ability to make yourself understood and

to establish a constructive partnership across cultural differences” (p. 19).

Most qualitative studies adopted the three-dimensional model of CQ (Thomas, 2006;

Thomas et al., 2008), while some studies also identified aspects of CQ that were largely

ignored in quantitative studies. For instance, Pless, Maak, and Stahl (2011) reported the

following CQ dimensions: general knowledge about other cultures, culture-specific

knowledge, cultural empathy and sensitivity, and being nonjudgmental. The recognition of

culture-specific knowledge as an important aspect of CQ is particularly interesting because

most CQ theory and measurement emphasized CQ as culture-general and not specific to

certain cultures. Qualitative studies often focused on specific cross-cultural settings. For

example, Kainzbauer and Hunt (2016) examined foreign teachers in graduate schools in

Thailand and recognized specific features in classrooms in Thailand, such as hierarchy,

authority with a kind heart, and collectivist group activities.

Qualitative studies on the development of CQ were tailored to specific training

projects. Methods including narratives (Gertsen & Søderberg, 2010), dialogue (Oliver et al.,

2011), and workshops (de Ramírez, 2015) were shown to be effective for CQ training. More

particularly, qualitative data provided more details about the learning process. For example,

Shapiro, Ozanne, and Saatcioglu (2008) recognized four stages for international buyers to

increase CQ, while Kainzbauer and Hunt (2016) identified improvement of CQ as an ongoing

learning process. By examining self-initiated expatriates, Schreuders-van de Bergh and Du

Plessis (2016) found that development of motivational CQ slowed down at the starting phase

because expatriates face too many new choices and explorations. Various projects also led to

the improvement of different aspects of CQ. For example, Mosakowski, Calic, and Earley’s
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 30

(2013) service-learning project had limited effects on behavioral CQ but enhanced

metacognitive, cognitive, and motivational CQ, while de Ramírez’s (2015) student-led

workshops were more effective in improving metacognitive and behavioral CQ.

11. Future research suggestions

Having examined the progress in the CQ research reviewed, in this section, we

discuss suggestions for further development of the field. Future research could focus on

different elements to enhance understanding of CQ, for example, fundamental questions of

what CQ is, how to measure CQ, and empirical evidence that could be added to the existing

nomological framework. Below, we focus on five questions that we believe could benefit the

CQ field.

11.1. Is cultural intelligence universal or cultural-specific? Defining the animal

There is no lack of definitions and models in cross-cultural competence. Rathje

(2007) observed that a “dizzying amount of material can be explained to a great extent by the

lack of any unity in the definition of the term ‘intercultural competence’ itself” (p. 254), and

later asked fundamental questions, such as, “Is intercultural competence universal or culture-

specific?” and “When is intercultural competence required?” (p. 256).

It is claimed that CQ is a culture-general construct (i.e., not bound to a specific

culture) that emphasizes the capability to handle unfamiliar situations. Such a claim raises the

practical question of how we should recognize and measure such culture-general abilities.

We typically gain cultural knowledge from specific cross-cultural experiences that provide

guidelines for “dos and don’ts” when communicating with people from another culture.

However, such experiences and knowledge may not lead to success in contact with people

from cultures other than the one(s) we are familiar with. Therefore, we need more universal
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 31

guidelines to direct us in various situations. To address such needs, Van Dyne et al. (2012)

clarified that cultural-general knowledge and cultural-specific knowledge are complementary

and are indispensable for cognitive CQ. Cultural-general knowledge provides major elements

that constitute a cultural environment and explains why similarities and differences across

cultures exist and how an individual is shaped by the environment in which he or she resides.

Cultural-specific knowledge provides details about specific cultural contexts, and insider

understanding of specific cultures helps us operate effectively and efficiently in specific

cultural domains. However, the sample items in Van Dyne et al.’s (2012) study were limited

in scope and focused on an organizational context. Further research should work on the

cultural-general and cultural-specific domains of CQ and address practical questions about

measurement. For example, should we expect a person to be culturally intelligent when he or

she has experienced many cultures, or should he or she live in a certain number of cultures

long enough to have acquired a deeper understanding of them?

Another noteworthy issue regarding the cultural-general perspective is the difference

between intercultural competence and general social competence. Intercultural interaction is

included in social interaction. As social intelligence can benefit interaction in general, it is

necessary to justify why we still need specific intercultural competences such as CQ. In order

to justify the distinctiveness of CQ as a unique construct, it might be advantageous to

examine what the difference is between interaction with people from different cultural

orientations and interaction with people from one’s own cultural background. Future research

could pay more attention to the specifics of such cultural diversity and examine more closely

situational and contextual factors that trigger CQ to function in such settings.

11.2. Is it all in our head? The lack of objective measures of cultural intelligence
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 32

There are doubts about the self-assessment measures that dominate the research on

CQ (Kealey, 2015). Thus, there have been several calls for the development of new, more

objective measures. For example, Kumas-Tan, Beagan, Loppie, MacLeod, and Frank (2007)

questioned an underlying assumption in measuring cross-cultural competence, that is,

measuring participants’ confidence in themselves and their feelings of comfort when

interacting with others instead of measuring the capabilities or competencies of the

participants. Kumas-Tan et al. (2007) argued that people who believe they are culturally

aware and sensitive may underestimate how their ethnocentrism hampers their ability to be

culturally competent, and “the more you experience another culture and learn, the more you

realize what you don’t know about people from other cultures” (p. 555).

Another consideration for self-assessments is, of course, “socially desirable”

responses (Kealey, 2015). Participants may interpret the aim of the research and try to find

the “right answer” rather than one that truthfully reflects their real competence, status, or

attitude. CQ researchers have adopted certain procedures to avoid such social desirability

bias. For example, Bücker et al. (2016) checked the correlation between CQ and the social

desirability score and found a small correlation, below the 0.20 level. Varela and Gatlin-

Watts (2014) also considered social desirability bias by cross-validating CQ measures,

especially the cognitive and behavioral facets. The authors added multiple-choice items to

measure cultural knowledge and asked participants to answer how they should behave in a

number of specific cross-cultural situations.

Thus, the development of objective measures of CQ could help overcome the

underlying assumption and social desirability problems. In a recent paper, Cumberland, Herd,

Alagaraja, and Kerrick (2016) suggested adopting multiple assessment methods to measure

cultural knowledge and skills. Apart from self-report measures, methods such as situational

judgement tests (SJTs) and computer simulations could provide situations that would occur in
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 33

cross-cultural encounters and a set of possible responses to address the situations. The

participants are asked to rate these responses, identify the most appropriate choice, and

decide how they should behave. For example, using SJT methods with scenarios describing

telephone conversations between expatriates and their local customers, ethnocentrism and

empathy were measured by ranking several alternative responses (Ascalon, Schleicher, &

Born, 2006). Observations could also be used to measure the frequency of cultural-

appropriate behaviors in field studies (Ruben & Kealey, 1979) and in simulation games, or

participants asked to identify cultural-related issues in images and scenarios. Alon et al.

(2016) added true/false statements such as, “A knife is not an appropriate gift in Russia” to

their CQ measurement scale to measure participants’ “hard knowledge” about specific

cultures and to cross-validate the results with self-report results of cognitive CQ. Further

research could pay closer attention to the development of more objective measures of CQ.

However, researchers should be careful to put an equal sign between cultural-appropriate

behaviors and CQ. Having the capability to behave properly does not necessarily mean

actually behaving in such ways.

11.3. Can I learn this? How cultural intelligence can be developed

Although previous research showed the effectiveness of various training methods for

improving CQ, the process of CQ learning and development was rarely discussed. For

example, we may wonder whether CQ increases linearly during the learning period or

whether a learning curve exists. Promisingly, recent research indicated that the learning

effects may persist for one month (Erez et al., 2013) and even six months (Reichard et al.,

2014) after CQ training has been completed. However, more studies concerning the duration

of effects and their rate of fading would be useful. In addition, the generalizability of the

learning for use across cultural contexts could be investigated.

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 34

Furthermore, except for some qualitative results (Schreuders-van de Bergh & Du

Plessis, 2016; Shapiro et al., 2008), we know little about the details of the development of

CQ, for example, how many stages people experience while they develop their CQ and which

aspects of CQ should be developed first for others to improve. Future research on CQ

development may obtain valuable information from existing stage and learning cycle models.

For example, Hammer and Bennett (2009) recognized six stages (denial, defense,

minimization, acceptance, adaptation, and integration) in the development process of

intercultural sensitivity that indicate the progression of one’s worldview while accumulating

intercultural experiences. Thomas et al. (2008) suggested that the process of developing

cultural intelligence is not linear but a loop process. It could be beneficial for CQ researchers

to adopt similar developmental models and frameworks, as more empirical evidence will be

needed in the future to establish a more detailed understanding of the learning process of CQ.

11.4. Too much of a good thing? Considering the negative effects of cultural intelligence

CQ is—similar to other concepts of intelligence—essentially a positively loaded

word. However, future research may (re)consider the “halo effect” of CQ, which

automatically links it to successful results. Gelfand, Imai, and Fehr (2008) noted that

researchers should “be mindful of the positive halo that currently exists around CQ” (p. 381)

and questioned the general assumption that high CQ consistently brings positive outcomes. It

is reasonable to suggest that under certain circumstances, people with higher CQ might take

advantage of others with the help of their cross-cultural knowledge to try to benefit

themselves, thus, likely reducing the total benefit to the group.

Similarly, identity security theory also suggests that high-level CQ may challenge the

security of one’s self-identity and “decrease an individual’s basic sense of belongingness”

(Gelfand et al., 2008, p. 382). Social identity theory suggests that group members belonging
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 35

to certain cultural groups need a certain degree of distinctiveness and react negatively if this

group distinctiveness is threatened by outsiders (Francis, 1991). Thus, a substantial

adaptation could be recognized as a threat and lead to suspicion and caution rather than

kindness.

Previous reviews have called for “divorcing” intercultural competence from positive

results and suggested that future research should also consider negative effects of CQ

(Rathje, 2007). However, to date, there has been little research on the negative results of CQ.

Rare exceptions are Ramsey et al. (2011), who found that higher CQ leads to more stressed

travelers, and Chua and Ng (2017), who found that cognitive CQ and creativity have an

inverted U-shaped relationship rather than a linear relationship. The introduction of power

distribution and social network analysis may also be relevant for digging into the dark side of

CQ, which enables people with higher CQ to take advantage of others.

11.5. Bundle of sticks? Expanding cultural intelligence to the team and organizational levels

CQ was originally defined as an individual capacity that explains individual-level

variation, and most CQ studies were conducted at the individual level. However, researchers

in the field have repeatedly called for higher-order CQ research that extends above the

individual level (Ang et al., 2015; Gelfand et al., 2008; Ng et al., 2012), in order to seize the

“many exciting research opportunities for organizational behavior and strategy scholars” (Ng

et al., 2012, p. 48). Nevertheless, we must be careful when discussing issues such as “group

CQ” or “organizational CQ,” as these terms could refer to the cultural intelligence of

individual members of a group or organization and to the cultural intelligence of the

organization. To expand a microlevel construct of intelligence to macrolevel organizational

intelligence, Glynn (1996) identified three sets of mechanisms: (a) the aggregation model,

which recognizes organizational intelligence as an aggregation of its individual members’

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 36

intelligence; (b) the cross-level model, which recognizes organizational intelligence as the

mechanisms that transfer and encode individual intelligence in an organization’s systems;

and (c) the distributed model, which recognizes organizational intelligence as “the richness

and ecological validity of an organization’s systemic interaction patterns” (p. 1091).

Previous CQ research mainly adopted the aggregation model and measured team CQ

as the average score of the team members’ individual CQ scores (Adair et al., 2013; Crotty &

Brett, 2012; T. Moon, 2013), Organizational CQ has also been examined at the distributed

level, focusing on the organization’s systems, patterns, and mechanisms. Referring to

theories such as the resource-based view of the firm and dynamic capabilities (Teece, Pisano,

& Shuen, 1997), organizational CQ has been identified as capabilities that help an

organization gain competitive advantages in global markets. Conceptual frameworks and

measurement tools for organizational CQ have been developed following this line of research

(Ang & Inkpen, 2008; T. Moon, 2010b; Yitmen, 2013). However, to date, few CQ studies

have adopted cross-level models. Individual CQ has been linked to group-level effects, such

as team effectiveness (Khani et al., 2011), team interaction quality (Charas, 2015), and

knowledge-sharing behavior (Collins et al., 2017). Nonetheless, we need more knowledge

about how CQ is formed by the processes of knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, and

team interaction. Situational factors may be important in these interactions as people may

behave differently while dealing with business partners, friends, opponents, and so on, and

such differences cannot be found without expanding the research to higher orders beyond

individual CQ. Important factors for dyad- and group-level research may include power,

competitive/cooperative settings, and emotions, which leaves plenty of room for the future

development of CQ research.

Future research could also address aggregated-level CQ by examining the distribution

of CQ within a group. For example, which CQ score is the most effective predictor of dyadic
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 37

or group performance: the higher, the lower, the average, the variance, or the CQ of a specific

individual (e.g., the leader)? The answer seems to depend on the nature of the task and

various environmental factors. For example, when a person with high CQ negotiates, he or

she could adopt a fixed-pie assumption and try to gain benefits from his or her opponent

through CQ advantages. However, he or she could adopt a win-win assumption, and his or

her high CQ could benefit communication and cooperation. Empirical studies at the dyadic

level have also suggested that it is beneficial to adjust the team’s CQ composition according

to team type or goals (Y. Li et al., 2017). Therefore, considering the type of team and its

composition would be useful when examining CQ at the aggregate level.

11.6. Conclusion

The trends of technological development and globalization demand deeper answers to

the following question: “Why are some people more effective in cross-cultural settings than

others?” In response, previous literature has provided an abundance of constructs, models,

and measurements. CQ is one promising concept that first appeared in the field in 2003, and

as shown in this review, has received much attention since then. Of course, CQ is not the

only candidate in the field of intercultural competence, and other domains of investigation

exist which have long examined this issue but with somewhat different language (Kealey,

1979; Ruben, 2015; Ruben & Kealey, 1979). In these investigations, parallel concepts are

often applied, however, the core questions and the identified challenges are the same, but the

nomenclature applied is different.

To prove that CQ is more than just hype, we collected and examined 142 empirical

articles, and found promising results concerning the measurement, antecedents, development,

and effects of CQ, as well as the use of CQ at the aggregate level. In particular, results from

recent years contributed valuable knowledge to the field. Articles published since 2015
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 38

provided new measurement tools, new variables, as well as more detailed and complex

results. However, recent articles also questioned established theories and measurement

methods of CQ, calling for renewed efforts regarding gathering information about contexts

and more details about the process of developing CQ. In this article, we suggested that future

research should pay more attention to the culture-specific aspects of CQ, the negative effects

of CQ, as well as higher-order CQ. The list is not meant to be exhaustive. However, we hope

this contribution inserts a valuable piece into the whole CQ puzzle.

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 39

References
Adair, W. L., Buchan, N. R., Chen, X. P., & Liu, D. (2016). A model of communication

context and measure of context dependence. Academy of Management Discoveries,

2(2), 198–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amd.2014.0018

Adair, W. L., Hideg, I., & Spence, J. R. (2013). The culturally intelligent team: The impact of

team cultural intelligence and cultural heterogeneity on team shared values. Journal

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 941–962.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022113492894

AL-Dossary, S. A. (2016). Psychometric properties of the cultural intelligence scale in a

Saudi Arabian context. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 24(4),

305–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12149

Alexandra, V. (2018). Predicting CQ development in the context of experiential cross-

cultural training: The role of social dominance orientation and the propensity to

change stereotypes. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17(1), 62–78.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0096

Alon, I., Boulanger, M., Meyers, J., & Taras, V. (2016). The development and validation of

the Business Cultural Intelligence Quotient. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management,

23(1), 78–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-10-2015-0138

Andresen, M., & Bergdolt, F. (2016). A systematic literature review on the definitions of

global mindset and cultural intelligence–merging two different research streams. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(1), 170–195.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1243568

Ang, S., & Inkpen, A. C. (2008). Cultural intelligence and offshore outsourcing success: A

framework of firm‐level intercultural capability. Decision Sciences, 39(3), 337–358.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00195.x
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 40

Ang, S., Rockstuhl, T., & Tan, M. L. (2015). Cultural intelligence and competencies. In J. B.

Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed.,

pp. 433–439). Oxford: Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01730.x

Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition,

distinctiveness, and nomological network. In S. Ang and L. Van Dyne (Eds.),

Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3–

15). New York, NY: Sharpe.

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of

cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 100–123.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601105275267

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K.-Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A.

(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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-

8784.2007.00082.x

Arli, D., Pekerti, A., Kubacki, K., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2016). Exploring the impact of self‐

construal and cultural intelligence on alcohol consumption: Implications for social

marketing. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(4),

269–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1559

Ascalon, M. A., Schleicher, D. J., & Born, M. P. (2006). Cross-cultural social intelligence:

An assessment for employees working in cross-national contexts. Cross Cultural

Management: An International Journal, 15(2), 109–130.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527600810870570

Aslam, U., Ilyas, M., Imran, M. K., & Ur Rahman, U. (2016). Intelligence and its impact on

managerial effectiveness and career success (evidence from insurance sector of

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 41

Pakistan). Journal of Management Development, 35(4), 505–516.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2015-0153.

Awan, U., Kraslawski, A., & Huiskonen, J. (2018). Buyer-supplier relationship on social

sustainability: Moderation analysis of cultural intelligence. Cogent Business &

Management, 5(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1429346

Bernardo, A. B., & Presbitero, A. (2017). Belief in polyculturalism and cultural intelligence:

Individual-and country-level differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 119,

307–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.006

Buchtel, E. E. (2014). Cultural sensitivity or cultural stereotyping? Positive and negative

effects of a cultural psychology class. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 39, 40–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.003

Bücker, J. (2014). Cultural intelligence as a key construct for global talent management. In

A. Al Ariss (Ed.), Global talent management: Challenges, strategies and

opportunities (pp. 65–78). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05125-3_5

Bücker, J., Furrer, O., & Lin, Y. (2015). Measuring cultural intelligence (CQ): A new test of

the CQ scale. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 15(3), 259–284.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470595815606741

Bücker, J., Furrer, O., Poutsma, E., & Buyens, D. (2014). The impact of cultural intelligence

on communication effectiveness, job satisfaction, and anxiety for Chinese host

country managers working for foreign multinationals. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 25(14), 2068–2087.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.870293

Bücker, J., Furrer, O., & Weem, P.T. (2016). Robustness and cross-cultural equivalence of

the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS). Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 42

Expatriate Management Research, 4(3), 300–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JGM-05-

2016-0022

Bücker, J. J., & Korzilius, H. (2015). Developing cultural intelligence: Assessing the effect of

the Ecotonos cultural simulation game for international business students. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(15), 1995–2014.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1041759

Capatina, A., Micu, A., Lukacs, E., Micu, A. E., Cristache, N., & Susanu, I. (2011).

Opportunities for a Romanian company’s business development in countries with

cultural intelligence compatibility. African Journal of Business Management, 5(30),

11946–11954. http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.517

Chao, M. M., Takeuchi, R., & Farh, J. L. (2017). Enhancing cultural intelligence: The role of

implicit culture beliefs and adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 70, 257–292.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12142

Charas, S. (2015). Improving corporate performance by enhancing team dynamics at the

board level. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 12(2), 107–131.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2013.35

Charoensukmongkol, P. (2015). Cultural intelligence of entrepreneurs and international

network ties: The case of small and medium manufacturing firms in Thailand.

Management Research Review, 38(4), 421–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-

2013-0214

Charoensukmongkol, P. (2016). Cultural intelligence and export performance of small and

medium enterprises in Thailand: Mediating roles of organizational capabilities.

International Small Business Journal, 34(1), 105–122.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266242614539364
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 43

Chen, A. S. Y. (2015). CQ at work and the impact of intercultural training: An empirical test

among foreign laborers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 47, 101–

112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.029

Chen, A. S. Y., Lin, Y. C., & Sawangpattanakul, A. (2011). The relationship between cultural

intelligence and performance with the mediating effect of culture shock: A case from

Philippine laborers in Taiwan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(2),

246–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.005

Chen, M. L., & Lin, C. P. (2013). Assessing the effects of cultural intelligence on team

knowledge sharing from a socio‐cognitive perspective. Human Resource

Management, 52(5), 675–695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21558

Chen, X. P., Liu, D., & Portnoy, R. (2012). A multilevel investigation of motivational

cultural intelligence, organizational diversity climate, and cultural sales: Evidence

from US real estate firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 93–106.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024697

Chua, R. Y., Morris, M. W., & Mor, S. (2012). Collaborating across cultures: Cultural

metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2), 116–131.

http://dx.doi.orG/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.009

Chua, R. Y., & Ng, K. Y. (2017). Not just how much you know: Interactional effect of

cultural knowledge and metacognition on creativity in a global context. Management

and Organization Review, 13(2), 281–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/mor.2016.32

Collins, N., Chou, Y. M., Warner, M., & Rowley, C. (2017). Human factors in East Asian

virtual teamwork: A comparative study of Indonesia, Taiwan and Vietnam. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(10), 1475–1498.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1089064
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 44

Collins, K. S., Duyar, I., & Pearson, C. L. (2016). Does cultural intelligence matter? Effects

of principal and teacher cultural intelligence on Latino student achievement. Journal

for Multicultural Education, 10(4), 465–488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JME-07-2015-

0026

Crotty, S. K., & Brett, J. M. (2012). Fusing creativity: Cultural metacognition and teamwork

in multicultural teams. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(2), 210–

234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2012.00097.x

Crowne, K. A. (2008). What leads to cultural intelligence? Business Horizons, 51(5), 391–

399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.03.010

Crowne, K. A. (2013). An empirical analysis of three intelligences. Canadian Journal of

Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 45(2), 105–

114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029110

Cuadrado, E., Tabernero, C., & Briones, E. (2014). Dispositional and psychosocial variables

as longitudinal predictors of acculturative stress. Applied Psychology, 63(3), 441–479.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00531.x

Cumberland, D. M., Herd, A., Alagaraja, M., & Kerrick, S. A. (2016). Assessment and

development of global leadership competencies in the workplace: A review of

literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 301–317.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645883

Daryani, S. M., Aali, S., Amini, A., & Shareghi, B. (2017). A comparative study of the

impact of emotional, cultural, and ethical intelligence of managers on improving bank

performance. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 6(2), 197–210.

http://dx.doi.org/10.19236/IJOL.2017.02.05
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 45

de Ramírez, C. K. (2015). Strategy and action: Assessing student‐led culture workshops

within the professions. Foreign Language Annals, 48(1), 56–67.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/flan.12125

Delpechitre, D., & Baker, D. S. (2017). Cross-cultural selling: Examining the importance of

cultural intelligence in sales education. Journal of Marketing Education, 39(2), 94–

108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0273475317710060

Deng, L., & Gibson, P. (2009). Mapping and modeling the capacities that underlie effective

cross-cultural leadership: An interpretive study with practical outcomes. Cross

Cultural Management: An International Journal, 16(4), 347–366.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527600911000339

Depaula, P. D., Azzollini, S. C., Cosentino, A. C., & Castillo, S. E. (2016). Personality,

character strengths and cultural intelligence: “Extraversion” or “openness” as further

factors associated to the cultural skills. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana,

34(2), 415–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.12804/apl34.2.2016.13

Earley, P. C. (2002). Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations: Moving

forward with cultural intelligence. Research in organizational behavior, 24, 271–299.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24008-3

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across

cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Cultural intelligence. Harvard Business Review,

82(10), 139–146.

Eisenberg, J., Lee, H. J., Brück, F., Brenner, B., Claes, M. T., Mironski, J., & Bell, R. (2013).

Can business schools make students culturally competent? Effects of cross-cultural

management courses on cultural intelligence. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 12(4), 603–621. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0022

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 46

Elenkov, D. S., & Manev, I. M. (2009). Senior expatriate leadership’s effects on innovation

and the role of cultural intelligence. Journal of World Business, 44(4), 357–369.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2008.11.001

Erez, M., Lisak, A., Harush, R., Glikson, E., Nouri, R., & Shokef, E. (2013). Going global:

Developing management students’ cultural intelligence and global identity in

culturally diverse virtual teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education,

12(3), 330–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0200

Fischer, R. (2011). Cross-cultural training effects on cultural essentialism beliefs and cultural

intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(6), 767–775.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.08.005

Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing words: Theory and practice of dialogic learning. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield.

Francis, J. N. (1991). When in Rome? The effects of cultural adaptation on intercultural

business negotiations. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3), 403–428.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490308

Froese, F. J., Kim, K., & Eng, A. (2016). Language, cultural intelligence, and inpatriate

turnover intentions: Leveraging values in multinational corporations through

inpatriates. Management International Review, 56(2), 283–301.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11575-015-0272-5

Gelfand, M. J., Imai, L., & Fehr, R. (2008). Thinking intelligently about cultural intelligence.

In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory,

measurement, and applications (pp. 375–388). New York, NY: Sharpe.

Gertsen, M. C., & Søderberg, A. M. (2010). Expatriate stories about cultural encounters—A

narrative approach to cultural learning processes in multinational companies.

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 47

Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(3), 248–257.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2010.06.003

Glynn, M. A. (1996). Innovative genius: A framework for relating individual and

organizational intelligences to innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4),

1081–1111. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/259165

Gölgeci, I., Swiatowiec-Szczepanska, J., & Raczkowski, K. (2017). How does cultural

intelligence influence the relationships between potential and realised absorptive

capacity and innovativeness? Evidence from Poland. Technology Analysis & Strategic

Management, 29(8), 857–871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1245858

Gonçalves, G., Reis, M., Sousa, C., Santos, J., & Orgambídez-Ramos, A. (2015). The effect

of multicultural experience in conflicts management styles: Mediation of cultural

intelligence and self-monitoring. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics,

3(1), 4–21.

Grand, J. A., Golubovich, J., Ryan, A. M., & Schmitt, N. (2013). The detection and influence

of problematic item content in ability tests: An examination of sensitivity review

practices for personnel selection test development. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 158–173.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.009

Gregory, R., Prifling, M., & Beck, R. (2009). The role of cultural intelligence for the

emergence of negotiated culture in IT offshore outsourcing projects. Information

Technology & People, 22(3), 223–241.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593840910981428

Groves, K. S., & Feyerherm, A. E. (2011). Leader cultural intelligence in context: Testing the

moderating effects of team cultural diversity on leader and team performance. Group
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 48

& Organization Management, 36(5), 535–566.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601111415664

Guðmundsdóttir, S. (2015). Nordic expatriates in the US: The relationship between cultural

intelligence and adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 47, 175–

186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.05.001

Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (2009). The intercultural development inventory (IDI). In

M. A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence (pp.

203–218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-

1767(03)00032-4

Harrison, N. (2012). Investigating the impact of personality and early life experiences on

intercultural interaction in internationalised universities. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 36(2), 224–237.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.007

Holtbrügge, D., & Engelhard, F. (2016). Study stays abroad. Individual motivations, cultural

intelligence and the mediating role of cultural boundary spanning. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 15(3), 435–455.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0128

Hu, S., Gu, J., Liu, H. & Huang, Q. (2017). The moderating role of social media usage in the

relationship among multicultural experiences, cultural intelligence, and individual

creativity. Information Technology & People, 30(2), 265–281.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2016-0099

Huff, K. C., Song, P., & Gresch, E. B. (2014). Cultural intelligence, personality, and cross-

cultural adjustment: A study of expatriates in Japan. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 38, 151–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.08.005

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 49

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(2), 83–98.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.001

Jiang, Z., Le, H., & Gollan, P. J. (2017). Cultural intelligence and voice behavior among

migrant workers: The mediating role of leader–member exchange. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–31.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1322119

Jie, S., & Harms, R. (2017). Cross-cultural competences and international entrepreneurial

intention: A study on entrepreneurship education. Education Research International.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/9042132.

Joardar, A., Kostova, T., & Ravlin, E. C. (2007). An experimental study of the acceptance of

a foreign newcomer into a workgroup. Journal of International Management, 13(4),

513–537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2007.02.002

Johnson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-cultural competence in

international business: Toward a definition and a model. Journal of International

Business Studies, 37(4), 525–543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400205

Jyoti, J., & Kour, S. (2015). Assessing the cultural intelligence and task performance

equation: Mediating role of cultural adjustment. Cross Cultural Management, 22(2),

236–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCM-04-2013-0072

Jyoti, J., & Kour, S. (2017). Factors affecting cultural intelligence and its impact on job

performance: Role of cross-cultural adjustment, experience and perceived social

support. Personnel Review, 46(4), 767–791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-12-2015-

0313
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 50

Kainzbauer, A., & Hunt, B. (2016). Meeting the challenges of teaching in a different cultural

environment–evidence from graduate management schools in Thailand. Asia Pacific

Journal of Education, 36(Supp 1), 56–68.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.934779

Kaufman, S. R., & Hwang, A. (2015). Cultural intelligence and mindfulness in two French

banks operating in the US environment. Management Research Review, 38(9), 930–

951. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-02-2014-0035

Kealey, D. J. (2015). Some strengths and weaknesses of 25 years of research on intercultural

communication competence: Personal reflections. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 48, 14-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.005

Khani, A., Etebarian, A., & Abzari, M. (2011). The relationship between cultural intelligence

and group effectiveness in Mobarakeh steel company. African Journal of Business

Management, 5(17), 7507–7510. http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.428

Kim, Y. J., & Van Dyne, L. (2012). Cultural intelligence and international leadership

potential: The importance of contact for members of the majority. Applied

Psychology, 61(2), 272–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00468.x

Klafehn, J., Li, C., & Chiu, C. Y. (2013). To know or not to know, is that the question?

Exploring the role and assessment of metacognition in cross-cultural contexts.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 963–991.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022113492893

Ko, B., Boswell, B., & Yoon, S. (2015). Developing intercultural competence through global

link experiences in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,

20(4), 366–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2013.837441

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 51

Korzilius, H., Bücker, J. J., & Beerlage, S. (2017). Multiculturalism and innovative work

behavior: The mediating role of cultural intelligence. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 56, 13–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.11.001

Kumas-Tan, Z., Beagan, B., Loppie, C., MacLeod, A., & Frank, B. (2007). Measures of

cultural competence: Examining hidden assumptions. Academic Medicine, 82(6),

548–557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3180555a2d

Kurpis, L. H. & Hunter, J. (2017). Developing students’ cultural intelligence through an

experiential learning activity: A cross-cultural consumer behavior interview. Journal

of Marketing Education, 39(1), 30–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0273475316653337

Lee, L. Y. (2010). Multiple intelligences and the success of expatriation: The roles of

contingency variables. African Journal of Business Management, 4(17), 3793–3894.

Lee, L. Y., & Kartika, N. (2014). The influence of individual, family, and social capital

factors on expatriate adjustment and performance: The moderating effect of

psychology contract and organizational support. Expert Systems with Applications,

41(11), 5483–5494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.02.030

Lee, L. Y., & Sukoco, B. M. (2010). The effects of cultural intelligence on expatriate

performance: The moderating effects of international experience. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(7), 963–981.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783397

Lee, L. Y., Veasna, S., & Sukoco, B. M. (2014). The antecedents of cultural effectiveness of

expatriation: Moderating effects of psychological contracts. Asia Pacific Journal of

Human Resources, 52(2), 215–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-

7941.2013.00055.x

Lee, L. Y., Veasna, S., & Wu, W. Y. (2013). The effects of social support and

transformational leadership on expatriate adjustment and performance: The

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 52

moderating roles of socialization experience and cultural intelligence. Career

Development International, 18(4), 377–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-06-2012-

0062

Leung, K., Ang, S., & Tan, M. L. (2014). Intercultural competence. Annual Review of

Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 489–519.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091229

Li, M., Mobley, W. H., & Kelly, A. (2013). When do global leaders learn best to develop

cultural intelligence? An investigation of the moderating role of experiential learning

style. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(1), 32–50.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0014

Li, M., Mobley, W. H., & Kelly, A. (2016). Linking personality to cultural intelligence: An

interactive effect of openness and agreeableness. Personality and Individual

Differences, 89, 105–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.050

Li, Y., Rau, P. L. P., Li, H., & Maedche, A. (2017). Effects of a dyad’s cultural intelligence

on global virtual collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,

60(1), 56–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2016.2632842

Lie, D., Suyasa, P. T., & Wijaya, E. (2016). The mediating role of cultural intelligence in the

relationship between the openness to experience personality trait and job satisfaction

among expatriates. Makara Human Behaviour Studies in Asia, 20(1), 46–56.

http://dx.doi.org/10.7454/mssh.v20i1.3486

Lin, Y. C., Chen, A. S. Y., & Song, Y. C. (2012). Does your intelligence help to survive in a

foreign jungle? The effects of cultural intelligence and emotional intelligence on

cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4),

541–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.03.001
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 53

Lisak, A., & Erez, M. (2015). Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of

global characteristics. Journal of World Business, 50(1), 3–14.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

Lorenz, M. P., Ramsey, J. R., & Richey, R. G. (2018). Expatriates’ international opportunity

recognition and innovativeness: The role of metacognitive and cognitive cultural

intelligence. Journal of World Business 53, 222–236.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.11.004

Lorenz, M. P., Ramsey, J. R., Tariq, A., & Morrell, D. L. (2017). Service excellence in the

light of cultural diversity: The impact of metacognitive cultural intelligence. Journal

of Service Theory and Practice, 27(2), 475–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-02-

2016-0044

Luu, T. (2017). Cultural intelligence and state suspicion: Attachment styles as moderators.

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 22(1), 113–132.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-06-2015-0032

MacNab, B., Brislin, R., & Worthley, R. (2012). Experiential cultural intelligence

development: Context and individual attributes. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 23(7), 1320–1341.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.581636

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(1), 62–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.12.001

Magnusson, P., Schuster, A., & Taras, V. (2014). A process-based explanation of the psychic

distance paradox: Evidence from global virtual teams. Management International

Review, 54(3), 283–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11575-014-0208-5

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 54

Magnusson, P., Westjohn, S. A., Semenov, A. V., Randrianasolo, A. A., & Zdravkovic, S.

(2013). The role of cultural intelligence in marketing adaptation and export

performance. Journal of International Marketing, 21(4), 44–61.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jim.13.0055

Malek, M. A., & Budhwar, P. (2013). Cultural intelligence as a predictor of expatriate

adjustment and performance in Malaysia. Journal of World Business, 48(2), 222–231.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.006

Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2013). Assessing cross-cultural competence: A review of

available tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 849-873.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022113492891

McRae, N., Ramji, K., Lu, L., & Lesperance, M. (2016). Developing global-ready graduates:

The CANEU-COOP experience. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education,

17(4), 377–386.

Moon, H. K., Choi, B. K, & Jung, J. S. (2012). Previous international experience, cross‐

cultural training, and expatriates’ cross‐cultural adjustment: Effects of cultural

intelligence and goal orientation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(3),

285–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21131

Moon, H. K., Choi, B. K, & Jung, J. S. (2013). Comprehensive examination on antecedents

of cultural intelligence: Case of South Korea. Personnel Review, 42(4), 440–465.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2011-0146

Moon, T. (2010a). Emotional intelligence correlates of the four-factor model of cultural

intelligence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(8), 876–898.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941011089134
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 55

Moon, T. (2010b). Organizational cultural intelligence: Dynamic capability perspective.

Group & Organization Management, 35(4), 456–493.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601110378295

Moon, T. (2013). The effects of cultural intelligence on performance in multicultural teams.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(12), 2414–2425.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12189

Mor, S., Morris, M. W., & Joh, J. (2013). Identifying and training adaptive cross-cultural

management skills: The crucial role of cultural metacognition. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 12(3), 453–475.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0202

Mosakowski, E., Calic, G., & Earley, P. C. (2013). Cultures as learning laboratories: What

makes some more effective than others? Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 12(3), 512–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2013.0149

Moyano, M., Tabernero, C., Melero, R., & Trujillo, H. M. (2015). Spanish version of the

Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS). Revista de Psicología Social, 30(1), 182–216.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2014.991520

Nel, N., Nel, J. A., Adams, B. G., & De Beer, L. T. (2015). Assessing cultural intelligence,

personality and identity amongst young white Afrikaans-speaking students: A

preliminary study. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1–12.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.643

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.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2009.47785470
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 56

Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Ryan, A. M. (2012). Cultural intelligence: A review,

reflections, and recommendations for future research. In A. M. Ryan, F. T. L. Leong,

& F. L. Oswald (Eds.), Conducting multinational research: Applying organizational

psychology in the workplace (pp. 29–58). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13743-002

Oliver, E., de Botton, L., Soler, M., & Merrill, B. (2011). Cultural intelligence to overcome

educational exclusion. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(3), 267–276.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800410397805

O’Sullivan, S. L. (2017). Applying cultural intelligence to religious symbols in

multinationals. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 24(2), 365–382.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-05-2015-0069

Ott, D. L., & Michailova, S. (2018). Cultural intelligence: A review and new research

avenues. International Journal of Management Reviews. 20(1), 99–119.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12118

Pekerti, A. A., & Arli, D. (2017). Do cultural and generational cohorts matter to ideologies

and consumer ethics? A comparative study of Australians, Indonesians, and

Indonesian migrants in Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(2), 387–404.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2777-z

Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2011). Developing responsible global leaders through

international service-learning programs: The Ulysses experience. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 237–260.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2011.62798932

Plum, E., Achen, B., Dræby, I., & Jensen, I. (2008). CI: Cultural intelligence: The art of

leading cultural complexity. London, England: Middlesex University Press.

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 57

Presbitero, A. (2016a). Cultural intelligence (CQ) in virtual, cross-cultural interactions:

Generalizability of measure and links to personality dimensions and task

performance. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 29–38.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.11.001

Presbitero, A. (2016b). Culture shock and reverse culture shock: The moderating role of

cultural intelligence in international students’ adaptation. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 53, 28–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.05.004

Presbitero, A. (2017a). It’s not all about language ability: Motivational cultural intelligence

matters in call center performance. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 28(11), 1547–1562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1128464

Presbitero, A. (2017b). Religious expatriates’ cultural intelligence and adaptation: The role of

intrinsic motivation for successful expatriation. Journal of Global Mobility: The

Home of Expatriate Management Research, 5(2), 146–157.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JGM-09-2016-0041

Presbitero, A., & Quita, C. (2017). Expatriate career intentions: Links to career adaptability

and cultural intelligence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 118–126.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.11.001

Presbitero, A., & Toledano, L. S. (2017). Global team members’ performance and the roles

of cross-cultural training, cultural intelligence, and contact intensity: The case of

global teams in IT offshoring sector. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 1–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1322118

Putranto, N. A. R., Nuraeni, S., Gustomo, A., & Ghazali, A. (2018). The relationship between

cultural intelligence, emotional intelligence, and student performance. International

Journal of Business, 23(1), 17–25.

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 58

Ramsey, J. R., Leonel, J. N., Gomes, G. Z., & Monteiro, P. R. R. (2011). Cultural

intelligence’s influence on international business travelers’ stress. Cross Cultural

Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 21–37.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527601111104278

Ramsey, J. R., & Lorenz, M. P. (2016). Exploring the impact of cross-cultural management

education on cultural intelligence, student satisfaction, and commitment. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 15(1), 79–99.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2014.0124

Ramsey, J. R., Rutti, R. M., Lorenz, M. P., Barakat, L. L., & Sant’anna, A. S. (2017).

Developing global transformational leaders. Journal of World Business, 52(4), 461–

473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.06.002

Rathje, S. (2007). Intercultural competence: The status and future of a controversial concept.

Language and Intercultural Communication, 7(4), 254–266.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/laic285.0

Rehg, M. T., Gundlach, M. J., & Grigorian, R. A. (2012). Examining the influence of cross-

cultural training on cultural intelligence and specific self-efficacy. Cross Cultural

Management: An International Journal, 19(2), 215–232.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527601211219892

Reichard, R. J., Dollwet, M., & Louw-Potgieter, J. (2014). Development of cross-cultural

psychological capital and its relationship with cultural intelligence and ethnocentrism.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(2), 150–164.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051813515517

Reichard, R. J., Serrano, S. A., Condren, M., Wilder, N., Dollwet, M., & Wang, W. (2015).

Engagement in cultural trigger events in the development of cultural competence.

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 59

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4), 461–481.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2013.0043

Remhof, S., Gunkel, M., & Schlägel, C. (2013). Working in the “global village”: The

influence of cultural intelligence on the intention to work abroad. German Journal of

Human Resource Management/Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 27(3), 224–250.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1688/1862-0000_ZfP_2013_03_Remhof

Remhof, S., Gunkel, M., & Schlaegel, C. (2014). Goodbye, Germany! The influence of

personality and cognitive factors on the intention to work abroad. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(16), 2319–2343.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.884613

Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond general

intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence

(CQ) on cross‐border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social

Issues, 67(4), 825–840. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01730.x

Rognes, J. K., & Schei, V. (2010). Understanding the integrative approach to conflict

management. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 82–97.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941011013885

Rosenauer, D., Homan, A. C., Horstmeier, C. A., & Voelpel, S. C. (2016). Managing

nationality diversity: The interactive effect of leaders’ cultural intelligence and task

interdependence. British Journal of Management, 27, 628–645.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12131

Rosenblatt, V., Worthley, R., & MacNab, B. (2013). From contact to development in

experiential cultural intelligence education: The mediating influence of expectancy

disconfirmation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(3), 356–379.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0199
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 60

Ruben, B. D. (2015). Intercultural communication competence in retrospect: Who would

have guessed? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 48, 22–23.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.010

Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency

and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 3(1), 15–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(79)90045-2

Şahin, F., Gurbuz, S., & Köksal, O. (2014). Cultural intelligence (CQ) in action: The effects

of personality and international assignment on the development of CQ. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 39, 152–163.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.11.002

Şahin, F., Gürbüz, S., Köksal, O., & Ercan, Ü. (2013). Measuring cultural intelligence in the

Turkish context. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(2), 135–144.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12024

Salmon, E. D., Gelfand, M. J., Çelik, A. B., Kraus, S., Wilkenfeld, J., & Inman, M. (2013).

Cultural contingencies of mediation: Effectiveness of mediator styles in intercultural

disputes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(6), 887–909.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1870

Schlägel, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Assessing the measurement invariance of the four-

dimensional cultural intelligence scale across countries: A composite model approach.

European Management Journal, 34(6), 633–649.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.002

Schreuders-van den Bergh, R., & Du Plessis, Y. (2016). Exploring the role of motivational

cultural intelligence in SIE women’s adjustment. Journal of Global Mobility, 4(2),

131–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JGM-02-2016-0003
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 61

Schwarzenthal, M., Juang, L. P., Schachner, M. K., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Handrick, A.

(2017). From tolerance to understanding: Exploring the development of intercultural

competence in multiethnic contexts from early to late adolescence. Journal of

Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(5), 388–399.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.2317

Shapiro, J. M., Ozanne, J. L., & Saatcioglu, B. (2008). An interpretive examination of the

development of cultural sensitivity in international business. Journal of International

Business Studies, 39(1), 71–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400327

Shu, F., McAbee, S. T., & Ayman, R. (2017). The HEXACO personality traits, cultural

intelligence, and international student adjustment. Personality and Individual

Differences, 106, 21–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.024

Solomon, A., & Steyn, R. (2017). Leadership styles: The role of cultural intelligence. SA

Journal of Industrial Psychology, 43(1), 1–12.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v43i0.1436

Taras, V., Caprar, D. V., Rottig, D., Sarala, R. M., Zakaria, N., Zhao, F., . . . & Bryła, P.

(2013). A global classroom? Evaluating the effectiveness of global virtual

collaboration as a teaching tool in management education. Academy of Management

Learning & Education, 12(3), 414–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0195

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (2008). Dynamic capabilities and strategic

management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 27–51.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789812834478_0002

Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence,

realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural

adjustment. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 154–173.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601105275293
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 62

Thomas, D. C. (2006). Domain and development of cultural intelligence: The importance of

mindfulness. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 78–99.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601105275266

Thomas, D. C., Elron, E., Stahl, G., Ekelund, B. Z., Ravlin, E. C., Cerdin, J. L., . . . &

Maznevski, M. (2008). Cultural intelligence: Domain and assessment. International

Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(2), 123–143.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470595808091787

Thomas, D. C., Liao, Y., Aycan, Z., Cerdin, J. L., Pekerti, A. A., Ravlin, E. C., . . . &

Moeller, M. (2015). Cultural intelligence: A theory-based, short form measure.

Journal of International Business Studies, 46(9), 1099–1118.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.67

Tsai, Y. H., Joe, S. W., Lin, C. P., Wu, P. H., & Cheng, Y. H. (2017). Modeling knowledge

sharing among high-tech professionals in culturally diverse firms: Mediating

mechanisms of social capital. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15,

225–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41275-017-0048-8

Tuan, L. T. (2016). From cultural intelligence to supply chain performance. The International

Journal of Logistics Management, 27(1), 95–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-01-

2014-0009

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS. In S. Ang

& L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and

applications (pp. 16–40). New York, NY: Sharpe.

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. Social and Personality

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 63

Psychology Compass, 6(4), 295–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-

9004.2012.00429.x

Varela, O. E., & Gatlin-Watts, R. (2014). The development of the global manager: An

empirical study on the role of academic international sojourns. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 13(2), 187–207.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0289

Volpone, S. D., Marquardt, D. J., Casper, W. J., & Avery, D. R. (2018). Minimizing cross-

cultural maladaptation: How minority status facilitates change in international

acculturation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 249–269.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000273

Wang, M. (2016). Effects of expatriates’ cultural intelligence on cross-cultural adjustment

and job performance. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 55, 231–243.

Wang, L., Wang, K. T., Heppner, P. P., & Chuang, C. C. (2017). Cross-national cultural

competency among Taiwanese international students. Journal of Diversity in Higher

Education, 10(3), 271–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000020

Ward, C., Fischer, R., Lam, F. S. Z., & Hall, L. (2009). The convergent, discriminant, and

incremental validity of scores on a self-report measure of cultural intelligence.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(1), 85–105.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164408322001

Ward, C., Wilson, J., & Fischer, R. (2011). Assessing the predictive validity of cultural

intelligence over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 138–142.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.032

Wood, E. D., & St. Peters, H. Y. (2014). Short-term cross-cultural study tours: Impact on

cultural intelligence. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

25(4), 558–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.796315

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 64

Wu, P. C., & Ang, S. H. (2011). The impact of expatriate supporting practices and cultural

intelligence on cross-cultural adjustment and performance of expatriates in Singapore.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(13), 2683–2702.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.599956

Xu, X. J., & Chen, X. P. (2017). Unlocking expatriates’ job creativity: The role of cultural

learning, and metacognitive and motivational cultural intelligence. Management and

Organization Review, 13(4), 767–794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/mor.2017.50

Yalçınkaya, H., & Özer, Y. (2017). Another lesson learned in Afghanistan: The concept of

cultural intelligence. International Peacekeeping, 24(3), 434–460.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2016.1244485

Yitmen, I. (2013). Organizational cultural intelligence: A competitive capability for strategic

alliances in the international construction industry. Project Management Journal,

44(4), 5–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21356

Young, C. A., Haffejee, B., & Corsun, D. L. (2017). The relationship between ethnocentrism

and cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 58, 31–41.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.04.001

Yunlu, D. G., & Clapp-Smith, R. (2014). Metacognition, cultural psychological capital and

motivational cultural intelligence. Cross Cultural Management, 21(4), 386–399.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCM-07-2012-0055

Zhang, Y., & Oczkowski, E. (2016). Exploring the potential effects of expatriate adjustment

direction. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23(1), 158–183.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-05-2015-0062
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 65

NUMBER

NUMBER
theoretical after 2015
30 qualitative before 2015
11
quantitative
25

20
8 16

15 26
13 9 2 5
7 9
10 13 5
0 10 10 9
4 5 5 5 5 6
3
5
0

0
2002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017
YEAR CATEGORIES
Number of reviewed articles—year by year Number of reviewed articles—classified by categories

Fig. 1. Overview of research on cultural intelligence (CQ).

CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 66

Table 1
Measurement and validity of cultural intelligence.
Author and year Scale Results
Proposed four-factor model of CQ was confirmed.
Ward et al.
CQS CQ was distinct from general cognitive ability and multicultural personality but had a strong correlation with EQ.
(2009)
CQ failed to predict adjustment over and above EQ, general cognitive ability, and multicultural personality.
CQ and EQ were distinct but related constructs.
Moon (2010a) CQS EQ factors related to social competence (social awareness and relationship management) explained CQ over and
beyond the EQ factors related to self-competence (self-awareness and self-management).
CQ and EQ were distinct but related constructs.
Crowne (2013) CQS
Social intelligence failed to be superordinate to EQ and CQ.
Klafehn et al. CQ was distinct from Big Five personality dimensions.
CQS-Peer-report
(2013) Peer-report measures were better at assessing CQ than self-report measures.
measures
Self-reported metacognitive CQ failed to predict sociocultural adaptation.
Proposed four-factor model of CQ was confirmed in the Turkish context.
Sahin et al. (2013)
CQS-Turkish CQ was distinct from EQ and Big Five personality dimensions.
CQ predicted task performance over and above EQ.
Moyano et al. Proposed four-factor model of CQ was confirmed with the Spanish version.
CQS-Spanish
(2015) Only motivational dimension of CQ had a significant positive correlation with self-esteem.
A 10-item scale was used to measure three dimensions of cultural intelligence: cultural knowledge, skills, and
Short form measure metacognition.
Thomas et al.
of cultural Sample questions include: I know the ways in which cultures around the world are different. (K); I can change
(2015)
intelligence (SFCQ) my behavior to suit different cultural situations and people. (S); I am aware of the cultural knowledge I use when
interacting with someone from another culture. (M)
AL-Dossary Four-dimensional structure of CQ was confirmed in a Saudi Arabian context.
CQS-Arabic
(2016) CQS showed adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability.
BCIQ measurement includes 18 self-report questions and 20 true/false questions.
Business cultural
Alon et al. (2016) Sample questions include: I am open to new ideas, people, and culture. (C); I pay close attention to how my
intelligence quotient
words affect the people with whom I interact. (L); I read editorials on international business. (M); A knife is not
(BCIQ)
an appropriate gift in Russia. (True/False)
CQS (20-item and
Bücker et al. In a comparison of the CQ results for Chinese and Dutch samples, the short 12-item CQS version showed good
12-item short
(2016) discriminant validity and cross-cultural invariance, which is lacking in the full 20-item CQS version.
versions)
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 67

In a comparison of CQ results across five countries (China, France, Germany, Turkey, and the US), partial
Schlägel &
measurement invariance was established only between the Turkish and U.S. samples.
Sarstedt (2016) CQS
The Chinese sample showed a lack of discriminant validity between metacognitive and behavioral dimensions.
Metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ had no significant effect on expatriation intention.
Putranto et al. Overall CQ and all CQ components were positively correlated with EQ. CQ was negatively correlated with
CQS
(2018) students’ performance measured by GPA, while EQ was positively correlated with students’ performance.
Note. CQ = Cultural intelligence; CQS = Cultural Intelligence Scale; EQ = Emotional intelligence; GPA = Grade point average.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 68

Table 2
Antecedents of cultural intelligence.
Author and year Antecedents Results
Ang et al. (2006) Big Five personality Conscientiousness was positively related to metacognitive CQ; agreeableness and emotional stability were
related to behavioral CQ positively and negatively, respectively; extraversion was positively related to all
aspects except metacognitive CQ; and openness was positively related to all four CQ aspects.
Crowne (2008) Intercultural experience Individuals who have been abroad have higher CQ. Employment abroad was positively related to overall and
metacognitive CQ while education abroad was positively related to overall CQ and all four CQ aspects.
Depth of cultural exposure also increased CQ.
Harrison (2012) Big Five personality, Agreeableness and openness were positively related to overall CQ.
Intercultural experience, The extent to which the individuals were exposed to a multicultural environment positively was related to
Language ability, overall CQ.
International orientation Language ability and international orientation were positively related to overall CQ.
Li et al. (2013) Intercultural experience Length of previous experience was positively related to overall CQ and all four aspects of CQ.
The relationship was strengthened when participants had divergent learning styles, which emphasized concrete
experience and reflective observation.
Moon et al. (2013) Intercultural experience, Previous work experience in an overseas department was positively related to cognitive CQ, and experience
Contextual variables, with foreigners in one’s home country was positively related to metacognitive CQ. Number of co-expatriates
Self-monitoring from one’s home country and number of local employees in the host country were related to CQ aspects
negatively and positively, respectively. Perceived promotion opportunity after expatriation was positively
related to metacognitive CQ and motivational CQ. Self-monitoring was positively related to all aspects of CQ.
Nel et al. (2015) Identity Intellect, facilitating, and ethnic identity were positive predictors of metacognitive CQ.
(personal, multi-ethnic, Ethnic identity was a positive predictor and religious identity was a negative predictor of cognitive CQ.
religious), Soft-heartedness, facilitating, extroversion, and religious identity were positive predictors for motivational CQ.
Personality Soft-heartedness and conscientiousness were positive predictors of behavioral CQ.
Adair et al. (2016) Context dependence Individuals who were more dependent on context cues in communication had higher overall CQ.
Depaula et al. (2016) Big Five personality, Openness was a positive predictor of overall CQ.
Social intelligence Social intelligence was a positive predictor of overall CQ over and above other predictors.
Holtbrügge & Cultural boundary Cultural boundary spanners, who respect others’ values and respond depending on situational cues, had higher
Engelhar (2016) Spanning (CBS) CQ in all four dimensions.
CBS mediated the indirect relationship between motivation to study abroad and CQ.
Li et al. (2016) Big Five personality When agreeableness was high, openness was positively related to all CQ aspects except motivational CQ; when
agreeableness was low, no such relationship existed.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 69

Bernardo & Polyculturalism, Polyculturalism predicted overall CQ in both samples (Australian and Chinese) examined in the study and
Presbitero (2017) multiculturalism predicted the difference in CQ between these two samples. Multiculturalism predicted only overall CQ in the
Chinese sample.

Kurpis & Hunter Intercultural experience Study-based intercultural experience was positively related to all aspects of CQ except metacognitive CQ.
(2017) Work-/travel-based intercultural experience was positively related to all aspects of CQ.
Pekerti & Arli (2017) Intercultural experience In a comparison of samples of Australians, Indonesians, and Indonesian migrants in Australia, migrants were
found to have the highest CQ levels.
Schwarzenthal et al. Intercultural experience Heritage cultural exploration and intercultural contact positively predicted all aspects of CQ.
(2017) Age did not correlate with CQ.
Note. CQ = Cultural intelligence.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 70

Table 3
Development of cultural intelligence.
Length of
Author and year Training approaches Results
intervention
Fischer 4 weeks Lectures, Cognitive CQ decreased.
(2011) Simulation game, More open-minded students at Time 1 were more likely to report increases in
Behavior training motivational CQ at Time 2.
MacNab et al. 6 to 8 weeks Experiential training General self-efficacy and optimal contact conditions (equal status, mutual goals,
(2012) projects personal contact, and organizational support) were positively related to the
development of overall CQ.
MacNab & Worthley 6 to 8 weeks Experiential training General self-efficacy was positively related to the development of overall CQ and three
(2012) projects aspects of CQ (metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral).
Previous international travel experiences did not have a meaningful relation with CQ
development.
Rehg et al. 9 days Lectures Cognitive CQ and behavioral CQ improved.
(2012) Self-efficacy was positively related to all aspects of CQ after training but not before
training.
Eisenberg et al. 1 to 12 weeks Cross-cultural Overall CQ improved after training; no such effects observed for control group.
(2013) management course Course has stronger effects on metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ than motivational
CQ and behavioral CQ.
Erez et al. 4 weeks Virtual multicultural Overall CQ improved, and this effect lasted for six months after the project had ended.
(2013) team project Trust at the team level moderated the project’s effect on team members’ CQ: there were
significant CQ increases at medium and high levels of team trust, and only a marginally
significant increase at low levels of team trust.
Rosenblatt et al. 6 to 8 weeks Experiential training Time 1 CQ was negatively correlated with CQ development, while Time 2 CQ was
(2013) projects positively correlated with CQ development.
Participants who perceived optimal intercultural contact were more likely to experience
expectancy disconfirmation, which was associated with greater CQ development.
Taras et al. 2 months Virtual multicultural Motivational CQ improved.
(2013) team project
Buchtel 12 weeks Cultural psychology Metacognitive CQ improved; no such effects were observed in the control group.
(2014) course
Reichard et al. 2 hours Classroom training, Overall CQ improved; this effect lasted for one month after the training ended.
(2014) Group work,
Role-play
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 71

Sahin et al. 6 months Deployment mission All four CQ aspects improved.

(2014) Individuals with higher extraversion improved metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ
more than did individuals low on extraversion.
Individuals with higher openness improved motivational CQ more than individuals
with low openness.
Varela & Gatlin- 65.31 days International exchange Metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ improved.
Watts (2014) (in average) study When cultural distance increased, development of metacognitive CQ was less
predictable from preexisting levels.
Wood & St. Peters 11/12 days Short-term study tour All CQ aspects except behavioral CQ improved.
(2014)
Bücker & Korzilius N/A Cultural simulation Overall CQ and all aspects except cognitive CQ improved.
(2015) game, Only the increases for overall CQ and metacognitive CQ were larger in the
Role-play experimental group than in the control group.
Ko et al. (2015) 7 weeks Distance course with Behavioral CQ improved.
partners from Korea
Reichard et al. (2015) 4 hours Classroom training Overall CQ improved.
Level of engagement was related to CQ at Time 2 but not at Time 1.
McRae et al. (2016) 4 months Exchange program Overall CQ and three of four CQ aspects improved (excluding motivational CQ).
Students working abroad improved more on metacognitive and behavioral CQ, while
students studying abroad increased more on cognitive CQ.
Ramsey & Lorenz 16 weeks Cross-cultural Overall CQ improved; no such effects observed for control group.
(2016) management course Overall CQ after the course was positively related to students’ academic satisfaction.
Chao, Takeuchi, & 1 semester Exchange program Overall CQ and all four CQ aspects improved.
Farh (2017)
Presbitero & 6 months Lectures, Overall CQ improved; CQ level after training was positively related to individual-level
Toledano (2017) Role-play task performance, and contact intensity moderated this effect.
Case study
Alexandra (2018) 6–8 weeks Experiential training Overall CQ improved.
projects Social dominance orientation was negatively related to CQ development.
The prosperity to change stereotypes mediated this effect.
Note. CQ = Cultural intelligence.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 72

Table 4a
The effects of cultural intelligence: direct effects.
Author and year Dependent variables Results
Templer, Tay, & Cross-cultural adjustment Global professionals’ motivational CQ was positively related to all three cross-cultural adjustment
Chandrasekar (2006) factors (work, general, and interaction) after controlling for accuracy of their expectations about
job and living conditions abroad.
The effect of motivational CQ on work and general adjustment was over and above that of the
control variables.
Joardar et al. (2007) Group acceptance Newcomer’s CQ (indicated by prior experience and reputation for establishing a relationship with
the host culture) was positively related to group acceptance of the relevant newcomer.
Groves & Feyerherm Leader performance, Leaders’ overall CQ was positively related to leader performance and team performance on
(2011) Team performance culturally diverse working teams, over and above EQ.
Team diversity positively moderated the relationship between CQ and performance.
Khani et al. (2011) Team effectiveness Overall CQ and all four facets were positively related to group effectiveness.
Motivational CQ and behavioral CQ predicted team effectiveness.
Rockstuhl et al. (2011) Leadership effectiveness Overall CQ was positively related to cross-border leadership effectiveness but not to general
leadership effectiveness, after controlling for general mental ability, EQ, and personality.
Ward et al. (2011) Adaptation problems Motivational CQ negatively predicted adaptation problems (psychological symptoms and
sociocultural difficulties).
Controlling for age, gender, length of residence abroad, and region of origin, the overall amount of
variance explained by the model was not significant.
Lin et al. (2012) Cross-cultural adjustment Both overall CQ and all four aspects of CQ were positively related to cross-cultural adjustments,
after controlling for gender, age, previous overseas experience, and language ability.
EQ positively moderated the relationship between CQ and cross-cultural adjustment.
Grand et al. (2013) Accuracy in identifying No CQ aspects (metacognitive, cognitive, and behavioral) were significantly related to accuracy to
biased items identify biased items in a verbal ability test.
Bücker et al. (2014) Anxiety, Overall CQ was negatively related to anxiety and positively related to job satisfaction and
Job satisfaction communication effectiveness.
Huff et al. (2014) Cross-cultural adjustment Motivational CQ was positively related to all three cross-cultural adjustment factors (work,
general, and interaction) over and above the Big Five personality dimensions.
Guðmundsdóttir (2015) Cross-cultural adjustment Metacognitive CQ was positively related to all three cross-cultural adjustment factors (work,
general, and interaction); motivational CQ was positively related to general and interaction
adjustment.
Lisak & Erez Leadership emergence Individuals with higher overall CQ, global identity, and openness to diversity (H-H-H pattern)
(2015) were more likely to emerge as leaders than were other team members in virtual team projects.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 73

Arli et al. (2016) Alcohol consumption Overall CQ was significantly related to hazardous alcohol use but not to harmful alcohol use and
dependence symptoms for the Australian sample. For the non-Australian sample, CQ was not
significantly related to alcohol consumption.
Aslam et al. (2016) Career success, Overall CQ had insignificant link with either career success or managerial effectiveness, while EQ
Managerial effectiveness was the strongest predictor of these variables.
Collins et al. (2016) Latino students’ U.S. school principals’ overall CQ was positively related to Latino students’ achievement in their
achievement schools, while teachers’ CQ level had no such effects.
Presbitero (2016a) Task performance All four aspects of CQ were positively related to task performance in virtual teams.
Zhang & Oczkowski Cross-cultural adjustment Motivational CQ was positively related to cross-cultural adjustment.
(2016) Cultural distance asymmetry failed to show a moderating effect on relationship between CQ and
cross-cultural adjustment.
Delpechitre & Baker Adaptive selling Students with higher CQ are able to adjust their selling behaviors well and to perform at a higher
(2017) behaviors, level in their role-play presentations in a cross-cultural selling situation.
Role-play performance
Daryani et al. (2017) Bank performance Overall CQ was positively related to bank performance.
Effects of CQ on public bank performance were more significant than their effects on private
banks, while emotional and ethical intelligence had greater effect on private bank performance.
Luu (2017) State suspicion Employee perceptions of supervisors’ CQ level (both overall CQ and all four dimensions) were
negatively related to employees’ state suspicion.
Motivational CQ and behavioral CQ had stronger effects than metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ.
Presbitero (2017b) Adaptation Overall CQ was positively related to psychological and sociocultural adaptation.
Intrinsic motivation moderates the relationship between CQ and adaptation.
Ramsey et al. (2017) Transformational Overall CQ was positively related to global leaders’ transformational leadership behaviors.
leadership International experience strengthened such relationship.
Shu et al. (2017) Cross-cultural adjustment All four dimensions of CQ were positively related to cross-cultural adjustment.
For interaction adjustment, extraversion had a predictive power over and above CQ.
For school-related adjustment, conscientiousness had a predictive power over and above CQ.
Solomon & Steyn (2017) Leadership Leader’s metacognitive CQ and motivational CQ were positively related to empowering
leadership, while all dimensions except behavioral CQ were positively related to directive
leadership. The correlation between CQ and empowering leadership was stronger than the
correlation between CQ and directive leadership.
Wang (2016) Work performance Overall CQ was positively related to expatriates’ job performance.
Young, Haffejee, & Ethnocentrism Overall CQ and all dimensions of CQ except cognitive CQ were negatively related to
Corsun (2017) ethnocentrism.
Only motivational CQ significantly predicted the change in ethnocentrism after a 4-week
mentoring program.
Note. CQ = Emotional intelligence; EQ = Emotional intelligence.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 74

Table 4b
The effects of cultural intelligence: indirect effects.
Dependent
Author and year Mediators Results
variables
Lee & Sukoco (2010) Individual Cultural Cultural adjustment and cultural effectiveness fully mediated the positive effects of
performance adjustment, overall CQ on performance.
Cultural International work and travel experience can enhance cultural adjustment and
effectiveness effectiveness in the situation of higher CQ but can reduce it with lower CQ.
Chen et al. (2011) Individual Culture shock Culture shock partly mediated the positive effects of overall CQ on performance.
performance
Malek & Budhwar Performance Cross-cultural Interaction CQ (motivational and behavioral) was directly related to contextual
(2013) (task contextual) adjustment performance.
(general, work, Interaction adjustment mediated the positive effects of awareness CQ (metacognitive
interaction) and cognitive) and interaction CQ on performance (task and contextual); work
adjustment mediated the effects of both CQ facets on task performance.
Lee & Kartika (2014) Performance Cross-cultural Overall CQ was positively related to cross-cultural adjustment, which, in turn, was
adjustment positively related to better performance.
Higher levels of psychological contract and organizational support strengthened the
positive effects of CQ on expatriate adjustment.
Lee et al. (2014) Cultural Cross-cultural Cultural adjustment fully mediates the positive effects of overall CQ on cultural
effectiveness adjustment effectiveness.
Charas (2015) Team interaction Task performance, Team interaction quality mediated the positive effects of overall CQ on task
quality Profitability performance and profitability.
Chen (2015) Job involvement Work adjustment Work adjustment partially mediated the relationship between overall CQ and job
involvement.
Intercultural training magnified the positive effects of overall CQ on work adjustment.
Gonçalves et al. (2015) Conflict Self-monitoring, Self-monitoring and self-interdependence partially mediated the relationship between
management Self- overall CQ and conflict management style.
style interdependence Metacognitive CQ predicted the integrating style of conflict management.
Charoensukmongkol Export Quality of Quality of relationship between entrepreneurs and foreign customers, as well as
(2015) performance relationship suppliers, fully mediated the positive effects of overall CQ in export performance.
Jyoti & Kour (2015) Task Cultural Cultural adjustment fully mediated the positive effects of overall CQ on task
performance adjustment performance.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 75

Charoensukmongkol Export Knowledge- Knowledge acquisition capability fully mediated the positive effects of overall CQ on
(2016) performance acquisition export performance.
capability
Tuan (2016) Supply chain Corporate social All four facets of CQ were positively correlated with two facets of CSR (ethical and
performance responsibility legal), as well as two facets of trust (identity-based and knowledge-based), which, in
(CSR), turn, were positively correlated with supply chain performance.
Trust Economic CSR and calculation-based trust were negatively correlated with CQ
dimensions, as well as supply chain performance.
Collins et al. (2017) Knowledge- Knowledge- Knowledge-sharing willingness fully mediated the positive relationship between
sharing behavior sharing overall CQ and knowledge-sharing behavior.
willingness
Jiang et al. (2017) Voice behavior Leader-member Quality of the exchange relationship between the employee and the supervisor (leader-
exchange member exchange) partially mediated the positive relationship between CQ and voice
behavior.
Jyoti & Kour (2017) Job performance Cross-cultural Cross-cultural adjustment fully mediated the positive relationship between CQ and job
adjustment performance.
Perceived social support and previous experience strengthened this relationship.
Tsai et al. (2017) Knowledge Social capital CQ positively correlated with knowledge sharing through mediation of different
sharing dimensions of social capital.
Metacognitive and motivational CQ were correlated with knowledge sharing via the
mediation of trust, shared vision, and social interaction. Indirect effects of cognitive
CQ were mediated only through trust; the effects of behavioral CQ were mediated by
trust and shared vision but not social interaction.
Xu & Chen (2017) Job creativity Cultural learning Metacognitive CQ and motivational CQ were positively correlated with cultural
learning, which, in turn, were positively correlated with cross-cultural job creativity.
Such effects were significant only in the condition of high domain learning and low
cultural distance.
Lorenz, Ramsey, & Innovativeness Opportunity Metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ were positively correlated with opportunity
Richey (2018) recognition recognition, which, in turn, were positively correlated with innovativeness.
Qualitative data also confirmed the importance of CQ for opportunity recognition and
innovativeness.
Note. CQ = Cultural intelligence.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 76

Table 4c
The effects of cultural intelligence: mediation.
Author and year Antecedents Effects Results
Kim & Van Dyne Prior intercultural Leadership Overall CQ mediated the positive relationship of prior intercultural contact with
(2012) contact potential international leadership potential; these mediation effects applied for majorities but
not for minorities.
Moon, Choi, & Jung Cross-cultural Cross-cultural Motivational CQ fully mediated the relationships of previous international non-
(2012) experience, Adjustment work experience and pre-departure training with general and work adjustments.
Pre-departure Cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ played fully mediating roles.
training
Language skill, Intention to Cognitive CQ fully mediated the relationship between language skill and intention
Remhof et al. (2013) Prior experience, work abroad to work abroad; all four aspects of CQ fully mediated the relationship between
Networks abroad prior experience and intention to work abroad, and partially mediated the
relationship between networks abroad and intention to work abroad.
Remhof et al. (2014) Personality Intention to Motivational CQ fully mediated the positive relationship between personality
work abroad (openness and extraversion) and intention to work abroad.
Yunlu & Clapp-Smith Cultural Metacognitive Cultural psychological capital was positively related to motivational CQ, which, in
(2014) psychological capital awareness turn, was positively related to metacognitive awareness.
Lie et al. (2016) Openness to Job satisfaction Overall CQ fully mediated the positive relationship between openness to
experience experience and job satisfaction.
Hu et al. (2017) Intercultural Creativity Overall CQ partially mediated the relationship between intercultural experience and
experience creativity.
Socializing social media usage strengthens the relationship between multicultural
experiences and CQ, whereas informational social media usage does not strengthen
this relationship.
Korzilius et al. (2017) Multiculturalism Innovative Overall CQ and its four dimensions fully mediated the positive relationship
work behavior between multiculturalism and innovative work behavior.
Cognitive CQ has a smaller mediation effect than the other three dimensions.
Presbitero (2017a) Language ability Task Motivational CQ fully mediated the positive relationship between language ability
performance. and task performance.
Wang et al. (2017) Personality Psychological Overall CQ fully mediated the positive relationship between antecedents (cultural
adjustment reflection, social connectedness, language proficiency, time in host country) and
satisfaction with life, and partially mediated the relationship between personalities
(curiosity and exploration, perseverance, and perceived language discrimination)
and satisfaction with life.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 77

Note. CQ = Cultural intelligence.

Table 5
Cultural intelligence as a moderator.
Dependent
Author and year Independent variables Results
variables
Greater overall CQ magnified the positive effect of expatriate leadership on
Elenkov & Manev organizational innovation, while no such effect was observed on product-market
(2009) Leadership Innovation innovation.
Of the four aspects of CQ, cognitive CQ and behavioral CQ had the strongest
moderating effect on innovation.
Greater overall CQ diminished the positive effect of the normative and
Ramsey et al. (2011) regulative dimensions of institutional distance on strain while magnifying the
Institutional distance Strain
positive effect of the cultural-cognitive dimension of institutional distance on
strain.
Wu & Ang Greater metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ diminished the positive effect of
(2011) Supporting practices Adjustment expatriate supporting practices on adjustment, while motivational CQ magnified
this effect.
Adaptation, Greater metacognitive CQ magnified the positive effect of marketing-mix
Magnusson et al. (2013) Environmental
Export adaptations on export performance; greater motivational CQ magnified the
difference
performance positive effect of environmental differences and marketing-mix adaptations.
Mor, Morris, & Joh
Greater metacognitive CQ diminished the positive effect of perspective taking
(2013) Perspective taking Cooperation
on cooperation expectation and decision.
Lee, Veasna, & Wu
Adjustment, Greater overall CQ magnified the positive effect of transformational leadership
(2013) Leadership
Performance on adjustment and performance.
Cultural shock,
Greater overall CQ diminished the negative effects of culture shock and reverse
Presbitero (2016b) Reverse cultural Adaptation
cultural shock on students’ psychological and sociocultural adaptation.
shock
Diversity climate, Nationality diversity was positively related to diversity climate and performance
Rosenauer et al. (2016) Nationality diversity
Performance only when overall CQ and task interdependence were high for team leaders.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 78

Cognitive CQ and creativity had a U-shaped relationship. Too much knowledge

had a detrimental effect because of cognitive overload and entrenchment.
Chua & Ng (2017) Cognitive CQ Creativity Such relationships existed only when metacognitive CQ was low. When
metacognitive CQ was high, cognitive CQ had no significant effects on
creativity.
Gölgeci, Swiatowiec-
Potential absorptive Greater metacognitive and behavioral CQ magnified the positive effect of
Szczepanska, & Innovativeness
capacity potential absorptive capacity on innovativeness.
Raczkowski (2017)
International
Greater overall CQ diminished the positive effect of personal attitude on
Jie & Harms (2017) Personal attitude entrepreneurship
international entrepreneurship intention.
intention
Willingness of
Greater metacognitive CQ magnified the positive effect of perceived cultural
Lorenz et al. (2017) Cultural differences behavior
difference on willingness of behavior adaptation.
adaptation
Presbitero & Quita Overseas career Greater overall CQ magnified the positive effect of career adaptability on
Career adaptability
(2017) intention overseas career intention.
Greater metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ magnified the positive effect of
Commitment to
Awan et al. (2018) Relational governance relational governance on sustainability commitment, while motivational CQ
sustainability
diminished such effect.
Self-perceived Host country Greater overall CQ magnified the positive effect of self-perceived minority
Volpone et al. (2018)
minority status acculturation status on acculturation.
Note. CQ = Cultural intelligence.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 79

Table 6
Aggregated effects of cultural intelligence.
Author and year Task Aggregation level Results
The negotiators with the minimum CQ score (overall, motivational, and
Imai & Gelfand Dyadic negotiation
Individual CQ in dyad behavioral) in the dyads were significantly (positively) related to advantageous
(2010) simulation
sequences, which, in turn, predicted dyadic level performance (joint profit).
Team-level CQ
Chen et al. (2012) Individual cultural Individual motivational CQ was significantly (positively) related to cultural
measured by modified
sales sales. Firm-level CQ magnified this positive relationship.
CQS.
The members with the highest score on metacognitive CQ in the dyads were
Chua et al. (2012) Dyadic creative Individual CQ in
significantly (positively) related to dyadic level performance (creative
collaboration task dyad.
collaboration)
Crotty & Brett Team members’ individual metacognitive CQ scores were significantly
Team-level CQ as
(2012) Teamwork in MNCs (positively) related to creativity. Team-level CQ magnified the positive
average
relationship between individual metacognitive CQ and creativity.
Metacognitive and behavioral CQ on the team level were significantly
Team activities
Team-level CQ as (positively) related to shared values in culturally heterogeneous teams, while
Adair et al. (2013) inside and outside
average metacognitive and motivational CQ were significantly (negatively) related to
class
shared values in culturally homogeneous teams.
Team-level CQ Three of four CQ aspects (except behavioral) were positively related to
Chen & Lin Knowledge sharing measured with the knowledge sharing; perceived team efficacy partially mediated the relationship
(2013) modified CQS between metacognitive CQ and knowledge sharing and fully mediated the
relationship between behavioral CQ and knowledge sharing.
Higher team-level overall CQ diminished the negative relationship between
Team-level CQ in
Moon (2013) Team presentation cultural diversity and initial team performance and improved team performance
average
15 weeks later at a faster pace.
Dyads with higher motivational CQ had better performance (Pareto efficiency)
Salmon et al. (2013) Dyadic dispute with Dyadic-level CQ as
in manipulative mediation conditions than in formulative mediation, while dyads
computer mediator average
with lower motivational CQ had better performance in formulative mediation.
A nine-item scale was developed to measure three facets of organizational CQ:
Yitmen (2013) Organizational CQ cross cultural coordination/integration (Process), cross-cultural competitive
NA
Scale (Position), and cross-cultural experience (Path). Organizational CQ was
positively related to international strategic alliance.
Magnusson et al. Expectation of Team-level CQ as Greater motivational CQ magnified the positive effect of expectation of
(2014) challenges average challenges on team effort.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 80

Perceived organizational motivational CQ was negatively related to individual

Organizational-level
turnover intention.
Froese et al. (2016) Expatriation CQ measured with the
Individual motivational CQ diminished the negative direct relationship between
modified CQS
organizational motivational CQ and turnover intention.
Collaboration task of Lower CQ in the dyad influenced the frequency of collaborative behaviors;
Li et al. (2017) Individual CQ in dyad
proposal writing higher CQ influenced the quality evaluation of collaboration.
Note. CQ = Cultural intelligence; MNC = Multinational corporation.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 81

Table 7
Qualitative research on cultural intelligence.
Data
Author and year Sample collection Results
method
Buyers were found to increase their cultural sensitivity through four stages:
North American buyers hiring romantic sojourner, foreign worker, skilled worker, and partner.
Shapiro et al. (2008) Interview
Asian firms Motivational dimension of CQ was less supported; buyers at all stages were
motivated to earn profit and showed no difference in motivational CQ.
Subjective and objective understanding (cognitive CQ) and motivation
IT offshore project members
Gregory, Prifling, & Case study (motivational CQ) led to cultural adaptive behaviors (behavioral CQ), which, in
(German bank and Indian
Beck et al. (2009) turn, enabled negotiated culture, characterized by trust-based interpersonal
provider)
relationships, shared understanding, and the effective resolution of conflicts.
CQ played a significant role in achieving cross-cultural leadership effectiveness.
Deng & Gibson Managers (expatriate and
Interview Four key CQ abilities were identified: cultural awareness, motivational cultural
(2009) local ) in China
adaptation, adaptive behavior, and effective cross-cultural communication.
CQ dimensions (cognitive, emotional, and communicative) were recognized in
Gertsen & Narrative
Expatriates in Danish MNCs narrations. Goal-oriented narrations were able to stimulate CQ, especially the
Søderberg (2010) Interview
metacognitive dimension.
Multiple intelligences (IQ, CQ, and EQ) were necessary for expatriate success. CQ
Lee (2010) Experts, leaders, expatriates Interview played a prominent role, and EQ and CQ were crucial in the initial stages, while IQ
was dominant when required interaction level was low.
Firm-level CQ required more than managers with high CQ; also needed
Capatina et al.
competitive resources embodied in firm routines. CQ web platform enabled
(2011) A Romanian IT company Case study
cultural profile comparisons between Romanian IT companies and different target
countries for offshore projects and displayed these competitive resources.
INCLUD-ED project (Center
Oliver et al. Egalitarian dialogues between subjects and researchers were necessary conditions
of Research in Theories and
(2011) Case study for incorporating the CQ of both parties and scientific knowledge development in
Practices that Overcome
projects engaged in to overcome educational exclusion for cultural minorities.
Inequalities, 2006–2011)
Participants in Project Ulysses Four aspects of CQ (general knowledge about other cultures, culture-specific
Pless et al. Content
(an integrated service-learning knowledge, cultural empathy and sensitivity, being nonjudgmental) were identified
(2011) analysis
program) as individual learning outcomes of projects.
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE 82

Non-U.S. students Metacognitive/cognitive and motivational CQ were enhanced after participating in

Mosakowski et al. participating in a service- the project; increases in behavioral CQ were more limited.
Interview
(2013) learning project for U.S. Conditions which facilitated CQ development were identified as: moderate cultural
military veterans distance, tight culture, low context, and high moral desirability.
Student-led workshops allowed students to develop CQ skills, especially
Students participating in
Content metacognitive and behavioral CQ, by collaborating with local organizations.
de Ramírez (2015) community service learning
analysis Through the workshops, students became more aware of how culture influences
workshops in the U.S.
organizations and how to bridge cultural differences.
Comparison between two banks indicated that both showed emphasis on cross-
Two French banking
Kaufman & Hwang cultural knowledge but different levels of mindfulness, including empathy,
institutions operating in the Case study
(2015) openness to different perspectives, and using all senses, which led to different
U.S.
levels of behavioral ability.
The facets of CQ, adopting Thomas’s (2006) three facets model (knowledge,
behavioral ability, mindfulness), were recognized as critical for foreign teachers in
Kainzbauer & Hunt Foreign teachers in graduate
Interview interconnection with their students. CQ improvement was recognized as an
(2016) schools in Thailand
ongoing learning process. Specific features in classrooms in Thailand were
recognized.
Negative reinforcement and categorization may lead to low motivational CQ.
Schreuders-van de Interactive
Self-initiated expatriate (SIE) Development of motivational CQ may slow down in the first phrase of adjustment
Bergh & Du Plessis qualitative
women as there are too many choices and new explorations, which take energy away from
(2016) analysis
reinvention.
International Security and CQ is an important factor of soft and smart power in field operations and could
Yalçınkaya & Özer
Assistance Force in Interview help to improve the ability to conquer people’s hearts and minds. Leaders should
(2017)
Afghanistan not neglect CQ as a soft power tool in peace operations.
Note. CQ = Cultural intelligence; EQ = Emotional intelligence; MNC = Multinational corporation.