INTRODUCTION

Linking culture to behavior in organizations is one of the distinctive features of the field of international management (see Devinney, Pedersen, & Tihanyi, 2010), and the importance of understanding the effect of cultural differences on management behavior has never been greater. As organizations increasingly face a knowledge-based competitive environment (Doz, Santos, & Williamson, 2001), the human aspect of management becomes ever more important. And, as the forces of globalization and migration patterns influence the world of work, the need to interact effectively with individuals who are culturally different, either face-to-face or through electronic media, is critical. Therefore the ability to assess variation in the capability of individuals to function across cultural contexts and with culturally different others is fundamental to furthering our understanding of the influence of culture on business operations.

Much has been learned from early anthropological study of culture (e.g., Geertz, 1973; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Mead, 1937) and from large-scale studies of cultural values (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Schwartz, 1992) about how societies are similar and different. However, this latter set of studies has been criticized for an overreliance on values (Earley, 2006; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006) and alternatives such as social axioms (Bond et al., 2004) or sources of guidance (Smith & Peterson, 1988; Smith, Peterson, & Schwartz, 2002) have been proposed. These recent efforts overcome the problem of thinking of culture as simply a set of values by recognizing that culture is the set of learned meanings maintained by a group of people (see Rohner, 1984). However, they do not do an adequate job of linking cultural context to behavior. Recent work, based in cognitive theory, provides the potential for integrated explanations of the processes that combine cognitive structures and societal context to understand action (see Peterson & Wood, 2008). As opposed to a reliance on cultural dimensions for explanations of culturally different behavior, cognitive theory suggests that cultural differences in the cognitive structures that drive behavior are made salient at different times (e.g., Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000). This recognition opened the door to the idea that in addition to culture-specific knowledge a more general development of cognitive structures and processes might occur that could influence intercultural effectiveness. The construct that has been theorized to embody this notion is cultural intelligence (CQ). cultural intelligence was introduced to the literature by Earley (2002: 274) as “a person’s capability to adapt effectively to a new cultural context.” This introduction was followed by two books (Earley & Ang, 2003; Thomas & Inkson, 2003), from which two somewhat different conceptualizations emerged. By far the most popular instrument to measure the construct is a 20-item self-report questionnaire constructed by Ang et al. (2007). However, rather than reflecting the theoretical uniqueness of the cultural intelligence construct, this measure seems to resemble other intercultural effectiveness inventories (see Paige, 2004 for a review) with some limitations in incremental validity (see Ward, Fischer, Lam, & Hall, 2009). In this article we describe and validate an alternative measure of cultural intelligence that, while brief and easy to use, captures the original theoretical intent of a multifaceted culture general form of intelligence that is related to effective intercultural interactions.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR A NEW SCALE

The conceptualization of cultural intelligence that guides the scale development effort described here is the result of a decade long program of research that began with the articulation of (a) what is included and what is not included in the construct; (b) the process through which these facets are developed in individuals; (c) how these underlying facets combine to form the higher level construct of cultural intelligence; and (d) the process through which the construct influences intercultural effectiveness. This theory of cultural intelligence (see Thomas et al., 2008) forms the basis for the measure reported here. This initial focus on theory and the establishment of content validity through expert opinion is consistent with an emphasis on content validity in scale development and contrasts to the mechanistic application of psychometric procedures, which has been recently criticized (see Diamantopoulos, 2005; Rossiter, 2002). Cultural intelligence is the ability that individuals have to interact effectively across cultural contexts and with culturally different individuals. It is theorized to consist of three facets of cultural knowledge, cross-cultural skills, and cultural metacognition that reflect the higher-level latent factor.

Despite being developed independently cultural intelligence as defined here has much in common with the Earley and colleagues’ initial articulation of the construct (Earley, 2002; Earley & Ang, 2003). First, both conceptualizations identify individual differences that will explain and predict effectiveness in a cross-cultural context. Second, the constructs are culture independent in that their development is not tied to a specific cultural context. Finally, the constructs are multidimensional. However, to set the stage for the following discussion of the development of a new scale two differences are important to identify. The first has to do with the number and type of constituent elements, and the second, which is a result of the operationalization of the construct (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008), is the way in which the elements combine or emerge.

While other more minor theoretical variations exist between cultural intelligence approaches, the main difference in terms of constituent elements is the absence here of a motivational facet – the motivation to direct energy positively toward intercultural interaction. Our view is that specifying a motivational facet of cultural intelligence is problematic in the same way as is the relationship of motivation to general intelligence. Motivation and intelligence may have a limited recursive relationship, but they are not components of each other (see Ackerman, 1996; Ceci, 1990). Specifying a motivational component of cultural intelligence casts a pro-social (positive) halo over the construct (Gelfand, Imai, & Fehr, 2008) that we do not believe exists. In contrast we suggest that it is possible that cultural intelligence could be employed in the service of less than noble goals. Motivation is concerned with the willingness to behave in a particular way, while cultural intelligence is the ability to interact effectively. Therefore we consider motivation, while potentially an important element in cross-cultural interactions, to be external to cultural intelligence.

In the original exposition of cultural intelligence (Earley, 2002: 283; Earley & Ang, 2003: 86–90) an effort was made to describe the process through which the components interacted. In subsequent work, however, cultural intelligence is described as an aggregate multidimensional construct in which the four dimensions, which make up the construct, exist at the same level as the conceptualization of the overall construct (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). However, aggregate constructs by definition are formed as a mathematical function of their dimensions (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998), and the current popular operationalization of cultural intelligence with the 20-item self-report measure (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008) does not specify the relationship between the overall construct and each dimension. The four-factor structure has been found in a number of studies and the internal consistency reliability of the factors is good (Ang et al., 2007; Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2008) and one factor or another has been related to a number of dimensions of intercultural effectiveness (see Ang et al., 2007). However, with this measure, little if anything can be said about the relationship of the overall construct of cultural intelligence to outcome variables. And, to our knowledge, no study has shown how the four facets (measured in this way) are aggregated. In our view, while the internal consistency of each facet and the predictive validity of some elements may be good, this measurement loses the conceptual distinctiveness of the construct. In this form the measure does not reflect a theoretically based multidimensional type of intelligence, but a loosely aggregated set of facets and is thus similar to other inventories of this type with somewhat marginal utility (see Diamantopoulos, 2005 for a discussion).

Recognizing the limitations of this measure, some scholars have begun to focus on the underlying facet of cultural metacognition as the key construct to explain intercultural effectiveness (e.g., Mor, Morris, & Joh, 2013). This is certainly one way forward as this element is central to both conceptualizations of cultural intelligence. However, we believe that a measure of individual variation in cultural intelligence that captures the complexity of the theoretical construct has significant potential for international management research. The articulation and validation of such a measure is the goal of the remainder of this article.

MEASURING CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE

Defining this construct as a type of intelligence as opposed to intercultural competence or any number of similar terms has two advantages. It substitutes well-studied ideas in cognitive psychology for the more popular, but less well specified, concepts such as global mindset (e.g., Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002; Levy, Beechler, Taylor, & Boyacigiller, 2007) that have made their way into the management literature. In addition it clearly separates this individual difference construct from institutional and environmental influences on intercultural effectiveness (see Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006).

Intelligence is commonly defined as the abilities necessary for adaptation to an environmental context (Binet & Simon, 1916; Sternberg, 1997; Wechsler, 1939). Cultural intelligence is this ability as applied to a specific aspect of the environmental context – the cultural context. Consistent with contemporary views of intelligence, we define cultural intelligence as multifaceted (see Gardner, 1985; Sternberg, Lautrey, & Lubart, 2003) and as a unique construction of abilities that exists outside the cultural boundaries in which these abilities are developed. Cultural intelligence consists of knowledge and skills, developed in specific cultural (intercultural) contexts, but is dependent on the culture general process of cultural metacognition to produce culturally intelligent behavior. The measurement implications of each of these three facets of cultural knowledge, cross-cultural skills, and cultural metacognition are reviewed in the following.Footnote 1

Cultural Knowledge

Cultural knowledge is composed of both declarative (Chi, 1978) or content-specific knowledge and general process knowledge of the effect of culture on one’s own nature or the nature of others (Chi & VanLehn, 1991). Content-specific knowledge relates to recognizing the existence of other cultures and defining the nature of these differences, and is at the core of systems definitions of intelligence (see Sternberg, 1997). This knowledge allows a grasp of the internal logic and modal behavior of another culture so that we can map ourselves onto the terrain of the new culture (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000). Process knowledge involves intercultural encounters, the demands of problem solving and how these demands can be met under varying conditions. The creation of this cultural general knowledge involves learning from specific experience with culturally different others, resulting in higher levels of cognitive complexity (see Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006). Therefore cultural knowledge should be assessed with regard to an understanding of different cultures as well as the complexity of this knowledge.

Cultural Skills

A key element that is consistent across theories of cultural intelligence is the presence of a skill or behavioral component. Exhibiting cultural intelligence involves skills associated with learning from social experience, appreciating critical differences in culture and background between oneself and others, relating successfully with culturally different others, and being able to adapt behavior appropriate to the particular cultural situation. Therefore the construct of cultural intelligence is very broad, so broad in fact (in parallel with general intelligence, see Gottfredson, 2002) that the skills component might be categorized and measured in any number of ways. While we had theorized a skills component in the domain presented previously (see Thomas et al., 2008), our review of literature presented a wide range of specific skills in dozens of inventories that were potential contenders as a facet of cultural intelligence. Therefore in the initial empirical work based on this theory (Thomas et al., 2012) we focused on those skills that have been theorized and demonstrated to have a relationship with intercultural effectiveness (Thomas & Fitzsimmons, 2008). However, even this reduction yielded far too many skills to be considered. We therefore relied on a traditional psychometric approach to item reduction. Note that the goal here was not to increase internal consistency reliability in some artificial way (see Rossiter, 2002), but to systematically reduce a large number of items to manageable categories. These skill measures were reduced through factor analysis (84 initial skill items selected from a range of existing scales based on the extent to which they represented the content of the skills domain theorized were reduced to 24 with a sample of 495 participants in 85 different countries of origin) to five skill categories. A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across four cultural clusters was conducted with models constrained to equal factor loadings across cultures to establish equivalence. The resultant five skill categories were relational skills, tolerance of uncertainty, adaptability, empathy, and perceptual acuity, all of which should be assessed in a measure of cultural intelligence.Footnote 2

Cultural Metacognition

Cultural metacognition occupies a central position in the theory of cultural intelligence underlying the measure developed here. Based on the more general concept of metacognition (Flavell, 1979), cultural metacognition is knowledge of and control over one’s thinking and learning activities in the specific domain of cultural experiences and strategies. It functions by regulating cognition, transferring knowledge gained in specific experiences to broader principles, focusing cognitive resources, and compensating for individual disadvantages in cultural knowledge or skills (Thomas et al., 2008). Not all researchers agree on all aspects of metacognition. However, there seems to be a general consensus that metacognition involves the ability to consciously and deliberately monitor one’s knowledge processes and cognitive and affective states, and also to regulate these states in relation to some goal or objective. This aspect of cultural intelligence is indicative of what Sternberg (1985) suggested are core mental processes that transcend environmental context. The components of this process include (a) the recognition or awareness of the issue or problem, (b) analysis of information about the problem, allocating mental resources to solve it, and monitoring the solution, and finally (c) evaluating the solution to the problem and processes that can be applied across contexts. An empirical construct validation of metacognition has found support for similar context-independent elements (Allen & Armour-Thomas, 1993). Therefore an assessment of cultural metacognition involves measuring: (a) awareness of the cultural context, (b) conscious analysis of the influence of the cultural context, and (c) planning courses of action in different cultural contexts (Thomas et al., 2012).

Our definition of cultural intelligence is a system consisting of cultural knowledge, cross-cultural skills, and cultural metacognition that allows people to interact effectively across cultures. As opposed to the currently popular four-facet model, which consists of four elements that do not reflect a single construct, our conceptualization is of a single construct in which the three facets are compensatory. For example, two individuals might have similar cultural intelligence scores but in one individual this might be reflected in very high cultural metacognition, but in low cross-cultural skills and for the other individual reflected in low cultural metacognition and high levels of cross-cultural skills. This structure influences our approach to measurement as discussed ahead.

METHOD

Instrument Development

Consistent with the theory of cultural intelligence we sought to construct a measure that would assess the latent construct (see Law et al., 1998) of cultural intelligence, which is in turn reflected in three facets of cultural knowledge, cross-cultural skills, and cultural metacognition. As in general intelligence (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000), cultural intelligence is theorized to be a reflective model where the underlying construct of cultural intelligence is indicated in the measure as opposed to a formative model in which the latent construct is an index composed of the measures (see Coltman, Devinney, Midgley, & Venaik, 2008 for a discussion). In this case, cultural intelligence is an indirect reflective model (see Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000) because of the multiple mediating constructs of cultural knowledge, cross-cultural skills, and cultural metacognition (shown graphically ahead in Figure 2).

An original instrument created to capture the construct involved a matrix of assessment approaches contained in an online delivery system (see Thomas et al., 2012). This measure was sophisticated (employing concurrent cognitive process tracing using verbal protocol, for example) and demonstrated good reliability and validity. However, both administration and coding was very complex, which has limited its acceptance and utility. Therefore based on our theory of cultural intelligence and guided by the initial instrument development, we extracted the key elements of the measure of each facet of cultural intelligence to form a 10-item scale consisting of measures of the three constituent elements of cultural knowledge, cultural skills, and cultural metacognition (English-language version of the short form cultural intelligence (SFCQ) scale shown in Appendix A). In support of the content validity of the scale the wording of specific items was created by an international panel of experts in cross-cultural management to best represent each overall facet. The scale was translated and back translated (Brislin, 1970) into five languages, the equivalence of which is tested ahead.

Cultural knowledge is measured with two items that assess knowledge of the ways in which cultures vary and also the complexity of that knowledge. Complexity is measured indirectly by asking respondents the extent to which they can give examples of cultural differences. Previous instrument development (Thomas et al., 2012) indicated the ability to relate stories of cultural variation was indicative of more complex thinking in this regard. Each of the five cultural skill dimensions of relational skills, perceptual acuity, empathy, adaptability, and tolerance of uncertainty are represented by one item. Finally, the three facets of cultural metacognition of awareness, analysis, and planning are measured by one item each.

Validity Assessments

First, to establish content validity items were carefully selected to match the theoretical conceptualization of cultural intelligence. Some approaches to scale development suggest that this is the only type of validity that is essential (Rossiter, 2002). Our view (consistent with Diamantopoulos, 2005; Finn & Kayande, 2005) is “that both theoretical and empirical criteria are necessary to design and validate measurement models” (Coltman et al., 2008: 2). Therefore we took several additional steps to establish the validity of the SFCQ scale similar to the scale validation procedure used by Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003) in their work on core self-evaluations and also as recommended by DeVellis (2012).

Since reliability is a necessary condition for construct validity (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991), as a second step we estimated internal consistency by Cronbach’s α, and investigated the item-total correlations.

Third, to establish construct validity we investigated the factor structure with regard to theoretical predictions of the relationship among multiple items (Schwab, 1980). In this case, cultural intelligence should be a second-order single factor with three first-order factors, namely, knowledge, skills, and metacognition. We further investigated the equivalence of the factor structure across five language versions of the scale.

Fourth, we examined the relationship between the SFCQ scale and other similar constructs by constructing a nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). One aspect of the nomological network is discriminant validity. In this case, discriminant validity was evaluated by testing whether the SFCQ scale was distinct from emotional intelligence (EQ) and personality traits such as Extraversion and Openness. Another aspect of the nomological network is convergent validity. This was tested by evaluating the relationship of the SFCQ scale with Ethnocentrism and multicultural experience, such as whether people were born in a different country than their parents, the number of languages they speak, and the number of countries in which they had lived and the number of countries they had visited.

Fifth, we investigated the criterion-related validity with multiple variables. We examined if the SFCQ scale related as predicted to several variables that are often associated with intercultural effectiveness. We tested if the SFCQ scale predicted whether or not individuals had a close friend from other cultures, which is often used as a surrogate for the ability to develop long-term relationships with culturally different others (Canary & Dainton, 2003). We then examined the relationship of the scale to intercultural adjustment, which is often considered one factor in multifaceted assessments of intercultural effectiveness (Caligiuri, 1997). We also examined whether SFCQ predicted correct causal attributions of intercultural interactions. The ability to make so-called isomorphic attributions (describe accurately the causes of behavior of others from a different culture) is a long-standing criterion of intercultural effectiveness (Triandis, 1975).

Finally, we examined whether the SFCQ scale displayed incremental validity by predicting job performance among people who work with others from other cultures, beyond that accounted for by personality traits and EQ.

Samples

We collected data from 3526 participants in 14 samples around the world.Footnote 3 Since we theorized cultural intelligence to be a culture-independent construct, we recruited participants in a variety of cultures and with a wide range of demographic characteristics in order to better generalize from the results. The survey was conducted in five languages – English, French, Indonesian, Turkish, and traditional Chinese. Additional information about each sample, including sample size, language in which the survey was administrated, age, gender, number of countries of birth, is reported in Table 1. Data were collected at different points in time and samples are numbered based on the time sequence.

Table 1 Characteristics of samples
Full size table

Measures

Not all measures were collected in every sample. The measures collected in each sample are indicated in Table 1. Not all measures were included in all subsequent analyses. Ahead we indicate which samples and measures are used to test each step of the analysis. The following section describes the measures used. Reliability estimates of the measures included in the research are reported for the overall sample only, except for the SFCQ measure where reliability estimate for each sample are also reported. Information on the reliability of all measures in each sample can be obtained from the first author.

Cultural intelligence was measured by the 10-item SFCQ scale presented in Appendix A on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all, 5=extremely well). Internal consistency reliability as measured by Cronbach’s α was 0.88 in the overall sample. The internal consistency reliability of the SFCQ scale was calculated for each sample and along with the means and standard deviations is reported in Table 2.

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of SFCQ scale across samples
Full size table

As shown in Table 2 the average mean score across samples was 3.55 with a standard deviation of 0.57. Across the 14 samples, all internal consistency reliability estimates as measured by Cronbach’s α were above 0.77 with an average reliability of 0.85. Across the 14 samples, the average item-total correlations ranged from 0.43 to 0.63 on the 10 items with a mean of 0.55. The distribution of the SFCQ score across all samples is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1
figure 1

Distribution of SFCQ score across all samples.

Note: Missing data N=4.

Full size image

This distribution with some very minor deviations follows a normal curve. Based on a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test it is slightly leptokurtic (Kurtosis=0.29) and has a very small negative skewness (Skewness=−0.23). In large samples, minor deviations from normality are often statistically significant, but often do not deviate enough from normality to make realistic differences in analysis and the visual appearance of the distribution is of greater importance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). Overall, this distribution is what we would expect from an individual difference construct across a large sample of participants. Minimum and maximum scores for each item suggested that respondents used the entire response scale indicating that scores did not have range-restriction.

Other measures included in the validation studies were EQ, personality, intercultural effectiveness, sociocultural acculturation and adaptation, ethnocentrism, job performance, attribution accuracy, and demographics. Details of these measures are reported in Appendix B.

RESULTS

Construct Validity

To examine construct validity of the SFCQ measure we conducted a CFA using EQS 6.0 software package (Bentler, 2008) with maximum likelihood estimation and mean structure analysis to compare a one-factor model vs a theoretically based model with one second-order factor (CQ) and three first-order factors (knowledge, skills, metacognition) using data from Sample 1, N=499. A graphic representation of the second-order factor structure is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2
figure 2

Indirect reflective factor structure of SFCQ.

K=Knowledge, S=Skills, M=Metacognition

Full size image

A good model fit is indicated by a non-significant χ2 test, but since χ2 is sensitive to a large sample size, we also considered other recommended model fit indices to evaluate model fit, including standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI). A good model fit is indicated by SRMR lower than 0.08, RMSEA lower than 0.06, and other indices higher than 0.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999). The one-factor structure yielded poor model fit, with χ2(35)=263.48, p<0.01, NNFI=0.84, CFI=0.86, SRMR=0.06, RMSEA=0.11, 90% CI=(0.10,0.13). In contrast, the second-order factor structure yielded good model fit, with χ2(32)=127.67, p<0.01, NNFI=0.93, CFI=0.95, SRMR=0.04, RMSEA=0.08, 90% CI=(0.06,0.09). All items significantly loaded on the expected factors and the factor loadings ranged from 0.58 to 0.86. Data fit the theoretically driven second-order factor structure confirming the construct validity of the measure. A vanishing tetrad test (Bollen & Ting, 2000; Hipp, Bauer, & Bollen, 2005; Ting, 1995) supported the reflective structure of the construct.Footnote 4

Measurement Equivalence

Fundamental to equivalence of a culture-independent construct is that the scale functions in a similar manner in different languages. To test if the English-language SFCQ scale had been translated appropriately, we examined its equivalence across five language groups (English, French, Indonesian, Turkish, and traditional Chinese) by conducting a likelihood ratio test (Bollen, 1989) with multi-group CFA (Little, 1997) using data from all samples N=3526 (English=2091, French=496, Indonesian=543, Turkish=153, traditional Chinese=243). We examined a configural model, a metric invariance model with constraints on the factor loadings between the observed variables and their respective first-order factors across the five language groups, and a final metric invariance model with constraints on the factor loadings as well as paths between the second-order factor and the three first-order factors. All three models yielded good model fit, and χ2 difference tests indicated that the final metric invariance model fit did not significantly deteriorate from the less restrictive models. These results supported metric invariance across the five language groups and indicated that the relationships between the items in the SFCQ scale and the three first-order factors, as well as the relationships between the second-order CQ factor and the three first-order factors are equivalent across the five language versions. These results also lend support to the accurate translation of the scale. Model fit indices and χ2 difference tests are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Model fit indices and χ 2 difference tests of measurement equivalence
Full size table

Discriminant and Convergent Validity

To construct a nomological net we evaluated the relationship of the SFCQ scale with EQ, personality, ethnocentrism, and indicators of multicultural experience (number of languages spoken, number of countries lived in, number countries visited, having parents born in a different country). Correlations based on the composite score of each variable are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Correlations between SFCQ, EQ, personality, and multicultural experience variables
Full size table

As shown in Table 4, the SFCQ scale had a negative and moderate relationship with ethnocentrism and a weak to moderate relationships with EQ and personality traits (correlations ranged from 0.17 to 0.44). To demonstrate that SFCQ is distinct from EQ and personality traits, we conducted CFAs with χ2 difference test to determine whether the correlations between SFCQ and EQ as well as personality traits are different from 1 (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991). In the first CFA model testing EQ, we freely estimated the correlation between latent factors CQ and EQ. The model yielded good fit, with χ2(291)=674.29, p<0.01, NNFI=0.96, CFI=0.96, SRMR=0.05, RMSEA=0.04, 90% CI=(0.04,0.04). In the second model, we fixed the correlation between CQ and EQ to 1. χ2 significantly increased (Δχ2=244.30, Δdf=1, p<0.01), indicating the model significantly deteriorated from the first model and that the correlation between the SFCQ scale and EQ was significantly different from 1. Following the same approach we found that the correlations between SFCQ and the five personality traits differed from 1 as well. Although the SFCQ scale was correlated with EQ and some personality traits, these data indicate that they measure different things. This provided initial support for discriminant validity and was consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of cultural intelligence.

We also found evidence to support convergent validity. Indicators of multicultural experience, specifically number of languages spoken, number of countries lived in, and number of countries visited, were all positively correlated with CQ (see Table 4). Also, a comparison of mean scores on the measure of CQ indicated significantly higher CQ for those individuals who were born in a different country from their parents (Mdiff=3.69, Msame=3.54, t=3.91, p<0.01). Taken together these results provide support for the SFCQ scale as a valid measure of cultural intelligence as theorized.

Criterion-Related Validity

The criterion-related validity of the SFCQ scale was examined with regard to its relationship with (a) overall intercultural effectiveness, (b) sociocultural acculturation and adaptation, (c) the ability to develop long-term relationships with culturally different others, (d) the ability to make accurate intercultural attributions, and (e) job performance in a culturally diverse environment.

To examine the relationship between the SFCQ scale and intercultural effectiveness we selected participants who had the opportunity for intercultural interactions by limiting the sample to only those who had a close friend or best friend from another culture, or who interacted with people from other cultures at work from Samples 8–13, N=877. We regressed intercultural effectiveness on the SFCQ scale and found that CQ significantly predicted intercultural effectiveness (β=0.27, t=7.51, p<0.01, ΔR2=0.05) after controlling for EQ and the five personality traits.

As noted previously, one key indicator of intercultural effectiveness (Thomas & Fitzsimmons, 2008), and one that is commonly found in multidimensional measures of overseas effectiveness (Caligiuri, 1997), is the ability of individuals to adapt to their host culture. We measured sociocultural acculturation and adaptation with two different scales in two independent samples. In Sample 6 (N=164) we measured sociocultural acculturation with the scale developed by Ward and Rana-Deuba (1999) and found it significantly correlated with the SFCQ scale (r=0.17, p<0.05). In Sample 7 (N=229), we examined the relationship between a measure of sociocultural adaptation developed by Ward and Kennedy (1999) and the SFCQ scale and found significant correlation between the two scales (r=0.29, p<0.01).

A second often cited indicator of intercultural effectiveness is the ability to develop long-term relationships with culturally different others. A surrogate for this ability is whether or not an individual has a close friend from another culture or whether his/her best friend is from another culture (Canary & Dainton, 2003). We expected that CQ would relate to whether or not individuals had a close friend or best friend from another culture. Further we expected this effect would still be significant after controlling for EQ and personality.

Drawing on data from all samples except Sample 5 in which these measures were not included (N=2406), we examined the mean differences on the SFCQ scale for those participants who reported having a close friend (or best friend) from another culture and those who did not. Results indicated that those participants who had a close friend (or best friend) from another culture scored significantly higher on the SFCQ scale than those who did not (close friend: MYes=3.69, MNo=3.24, t=17.02, p<0.01; best friend: MYes=3.77, MNo=3.50, t=8.65, p<0.01). Additionally, we conducted logistic regressions and found that the SFCQ scale significantly predicted the close or best friend relationship (close friend: Wald χ2=44.04, p<0.01; best friend: Wald χ2=15.91, p<0.01) after controlling for EQ and personality traits.A behavioral indicator of effectiveness in intercultural interactions is the ability to make accurate causal attributions for the behavior of culturally different others (Triandis, 1975). Honing this ability was the basis for the development of the cultural assimilator approach to cross-cultural training. In order to evaluate the ability of the SFCQ scale to predict accurate causal attributions participants (Sample 14, N=112) were shown two videos of intercultural interactions (described in Appendix B) and then asked after each video to choose among four possible causes of the behavior of one of the protagonists. To test the relationships of cultural intelligence as measured by the SFCQ scale we regressed the accuracy of participant’s attributions on SFCQ controlling for age, gender, and EQ. Results indicated that the SFCQ scale significantly predicted the correct attribution (β=0.33, t=3.23, p<0.01, ΔR2=0.09).

A final examination of the criterion-related validity of the SFCQ scale was conducted with Samples 12 and 14 and part of Sample 11, N=264. Only those participants who reported that they had substantial engagement with culturally different others at work were included in these analyses. To test the incremental validity of the SFCQ scale on predicting job performance, we controlled for conscientiousness and EQ and found that the SFCQ scale predicted job performance over and above the effect of conscientiousness and EQ (β=0.19, t=3.12, p<0.01, ΔR2=0.03).

DISCUSSION

The promise of cultural intelligence as originally conceptualized (Earley & Ang, 2003; Thomas & Inkson, 2003) was as an individual difference construct related to intercultural effectiveness. It differs from the numerous inventories of cross-cultural skills and abilities in that it is a culture general form of intelligence that applies to the domain of intercultural interactions. This individual difference construct substitutes well-studied ideas in cognitive psychology for more popular concepts such as global mindset, and while related to intercultural interactions it is not constrained by the specific culture in which it was developed. Realization of the promise of cultural intelligence has been hampered by the lack of a rigorously developed measure that reflected its original theoretical intent. The scale presented in this article captures cultural intelligence as originally conceptualized with a short yet powerful instrument. The ability to capture the complexity of the construct of cultural intelligence with this brief instrument should certainly enhance its utility.

As shown in this series of studies, this short instrument captures the construct of cultural intelligence as theorized as an indirect reflective model with a single latent factor consisting of three mediating facets of cultural knowledge, cultural skills, and cultural metacognition:

  • Supporting the notion of a culture-independent construct, the indirect reflective model of SFCQ is equivalent across cultural and language groups. That is, cultural intelligence is not dependent on individual cultural variation.

  • In support of construct validity the SFCQ scale is modestly related to but distinct from EQ and personality and correlates positively with several indicators of multicultural experience thus establishing a nomological net.

  • With regard to criterion-related validity, the SFCQ scale demonstrates an ability to predict sociocultural adaptation, the development of long-term relationships with culturally different others, job performance in a multicultural environment, and the ability to make accurate causal attributions for cross-cultural interactions.

Therefore in these preliminary tests this measure of cultural intelligence has demonstrated its content and construct validity, and the potential to be an excellent predictor of many aspects of intercultural effectiveness. The SFCQ scale appears robust across a wide range of cultural and language groups.

Limitations

The SFCQ was subjected to a series of rigorous development procedures and tests including: the items were carefully selected to match the theoretical conceptualization of cultural intelligence, reliability and construct validity were established, equivalence across cultures demonstrated, and criterion and incremental validity examined. However, the evaluation of this new instrument must of course be conducted within the confines of our ability to establish its validity in a single series of studies. While the SFCQ met the rigorous conditions we established to prove its validity, numerous other tests could be conducted. Also, the instrument relies on the self-report of participants and is thus subject to the criticisms leveled at all self-report scales (see Spector, 1994). The participants in the study were solicited through a variety means from around the world. While every attempt was made to establish equivalence in instrument administration there was variance in this regard. In addition, some variability in response styles could also be present. However, the performance of the instrument across five language groups lends support to its universality. While this series of studies does not test every aspect of the performance of this new scale, it does provide a very solid foundation for its use in future studies. With it, there is a huge potential for advancing our understanding of individual variation in cross-cultural interactions of all types.

Implications for Measurement and Understanding of Culture

The creation of this instrument is consistent with a move toward the development of mid-range theory that links culture to action (see Earley, 2006). That is, cultural intelligence does not rely on dimensions of cultural variation for the explanation of culturally different behavior. Rather it articulates a culture general individual difference construct related to intercultural effectiveness. An important implication of the scale development process undertaken here is the attention given to articulating the nature of the relationship between the construct and its measure. Here, we theorized and demonstrated the indirect reflective structure of cultural intelligence. Often, great emphasis is placed on articulating causal relationships between constructs with little attention given to this related aspect of theory (see Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000 for a discussion). In this study, we bridge the gap between the abstract construct of cultural intelligence and the measurable phenomenon.

Both theoretical and empirical criteria were used to establish the validity of the measure. Each stage of instrument development, beginning with a determination of what should and should not be included in the construct through to sample selection for empirical validation, was conducted with a concern for the theoretical basis of cultural intelligence. While not radical in our approach, we suggest that the level of concern for theory demonstrated here, combined with rigorous psychometric analysis is relatively rare (see Sharma, 2014 for an exception). For example, the level of validity tests conducted here stands in stark contrast to the results reported in a recent review of the 10 most popular measures of cross-cultural competence by Matsumoto and Hwang (2013).

A second implication of this study is its contribution to the development of combined emic (indigenous) and etic (universal) approaches to understanding individual differences in intercultural effectiveness (see Morris, Leung, Ames, & Lickel, 1999). In this study we followed an etic approach and defined cultural intelligence as a culture general idea that does not depend on the specific cultural context in which it was developed. We found the structure of knowledge, skills, and metacognition generalized across multiple cultural samples. However, there might be cross-cultural differences in the way that cultural intelligence operates. For example, in low context countries cross-cultural skills may involve the ability to read between the lines and interpret implicit meanings from the context. However, this capability may not be an essential part of cultural intelligence in high context countries where it is normally so well developed. The potential for indigenous characteristics of intercultural effectiveness call for future studies using an emic approach.

This study also has implications for the conceptualization of culture. The view of culture as an exogenous and static force influencing behavior of human groups has been under increased scrutiny for some time (e.g., Bruner, 1990; DiMaggio, 1997; Sperber, 1996). Recent developments in cognitive science have stimulated the discussions of how culture should be best conceptualized. Social constructivists claim that “cultural knowledge is conceptualized to be like a contact lens” that affects the individual’s perception at all times (Hong et al., 2000: 709). According to this view, culture is not a set of integrated, highly general, and stable structures, such as value orientations. Rather, it is an accumulated loose network of multiple and sometimes conflicting knowledge structures, which can be activated (or suppressed) depending on the demands of the situation (e.g., Hong et al., 2000; Markus & Conner, 2013; Shore, 1996). Our conceptualization and measurement of cultural intelligence is in line with this dynamic and constructivist view of culture. We suggest that individuals with high cultural intelligence, which was developed in specific cultural or intercultural contexts, can react effectively to the demands of new and culturally different situations. Culturally intelligent individuals may therefore engage in a process similar to cultural frame switching (e.g., Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002) – switching between cultural frameworks or systems in response to environmental demands.

By focusing on an individual’s capability to be effective in any cultural context, research in cross-cultural management can shift from an overreliance on exogenous and contextual factors (e.g., societal values). The specific cultures involved in a cross-cultural interaction become the backdrop for the culture general capabilities of the individuals involved. And, in combination with a deep understanding of cultural context it offers integrated explanations of many international management questions including issues related to overseas assignments, cross-cultural leadership, multicultural teams, and cross-cultural negotiation. An example is provided in a recent qualitative study by Barner-Rasmussen, Ehrnrooth, Koveshnikov, and Mäkelä (2014) in which they find that culture general skills (conceptually similar to cultural intelligence) combine with language skills to allow individuals to perform better as boundary spanners than those with language alone. The SFCQ offers a complimentary quantitative approach to this type of study that would allow for methodological triangulation.

There are numerous additional implications that result from being able to measure cultural intelligence as originally conceptualized. Researchers can assess and accurately reflect on the influence of the overall construct of cultural intelligence on outcomes as opposed to being relegated to a discussion of one or more subordinate facets. And, the potentially confounding effect of motivation to interact with culturally different others as opposed to the capability to do so is eliminated from the equation. Motivation can then be properly treated as a separate element in cross-cultural studies. In so doing, the potentially interacting effects of the motivation to engage in intercultural interaction and the ability to do so can be unbundled. Finally, the brevity and ease of administration of the SFCQ scale suggest a wide range of human resource management applications, especially with regard to training and development. Individuals considering work that involves high levels of cross-cultural interaction might find the instrument useful as a self-assessment and as a developmental tool related to their career aspirations. As with any single psychometric test, caution in its over interpretation is urged.

Implications for Practice

As organizations increasingly face a knowledge-based competitive environment, the human aspect of management becomes paramount. And in international management this means understanding the effect of cultural differences on management behavior. An important aspect of this endeavor is understanding variation in the ability of individuals to deal effectively with the cultural aspects of their environment. Cultural intelligence helps us explain the variation we observe in cross-cultural effectiveness among individuals who are otherwise intelligent, emotionally mature, and seem to have good social skills. If the instrument described and validated here is as robust as it initially seems it has wide application in the management of people in a global context such as in selection, training and development, performance management, and global mobility. All of these areas have the need to explain and predict individual differences in cross-cultural effectiveness (see Thomas & Lazarova, 2014). At the organizational level the success of cross-border organizational activities is increasingly concerned with the ability to deal effectively with intercultural interactions (see, e.g., Stahl, 2008). The introduction of the concept of cultural intelligence to the international management literature (Earley, 2002; Earley & Ang, 2003; Thomas & Inkson, 2003) held enormous potential for helping to explain effectiveness in intercultural interactions. We hope the development of the SFCQ scale will help it reach that potential.