Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: A replication and extension

lnternattonal Journal of Intercultural Relattons, Vol 11, pp 65-88, 1987 Printed m the U S A All rights reserved

0147-1767/87 $3 00 + 00 Copyright © 1987 Pergamon Journals Ltd

BEHAVIORAL D I M E N S I O N S

O F INTERCULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS:

A Replication and Extension

MITCHELL

R. HAMMER

University o f W i s c o n s i n - M i l w a u k e e ABSTRACT. Prevtous research has identified three general behavioral sktll/abihty domains that North American sojourners percewe as important in facilitating thetr intercultural effecttveness. These three dimensions are: (a) the ability to manage psychological stress; (b) the abthty to effectively communwate; and (c) the abtlity to estabhsh interpersonal relationshtps. The present study represents an attempt to rephcate findings from prevtous research. That is, the present study employed confirmatory factor analysts to test the degree to whtch the three factor model identtfted above provides a reasonable fit to data obtained from 210 North American sojourners who hved three months or longer in a foreign culture. Results mdtcate that thts three factor model provides a good fit to the data, offering additional confirmation o f the perceived importance o f the general abthties o f managing stress, effecttvely communicating, and establishmg interpersonal relationships m facthtating sojourner effective functioning in a foreign culture. INTRODUCTION T h e d r a m a t i c d e v e l o p m e n t s over the p a s t fifty years in the t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s field c o u p l e d with the t e c h n o l o g i c a l a d v a n c e s m a d e in the transp o r t a t i o n i n d u s t r y have given rise t o d a y to a w o r l d p o p u l a t i o n t h a t is m o r e k n o w l e d g e a b l e a b o u t a n d in m o r e frequent c o n t a c t with fellow " g l o b a l village" citizens t h a n at any o t h e r t i m e in w o r l d history. W i t h increasing i n t e r a c t i o n a m o n g the p e o p l e s o f the w o r l d , i n t e r c u l t u r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e c o m e s critically i m p o r t a n t , f r o m the d i p l o m a t i c s u m m i t to the c o r p o r a t e b o a r d r o o m ; f r o m the p l e t h o r a o f cross-cultural scientific Reprint requests should be sent to: Mitchell R Hammer, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Department of Communication, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201. An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Intercultural and Developmental Communication Dwision of the International Communication Association annual convention, Honolulu, Hawan, May 23-27, 1985. The author would hke to thank Dr. Robert McPhee at the Umverslty of Wlsconsm-Mdwaukee and Dr. Wilham Gudykunst at Arizona State University for their valuable comments and suggestions.

65

66

Mttchell R. Hammer

and educational conferences and exchanges to the multitude of study abroad opportunities and programs. At a global level, with the potential for nuclear holocaust ever present, effective communication among all nations is fundamental to achieving international peace. It has only been within the past 25 years, however, that researchers have directed their attention toward systematic investigation of effective intercultural communication and relations (Ruben, Askling, & Kealey, 1977). One approach that a number of authors have taken focuses on the personal characteristics of sojourners (e.g., Arensberg & Niehoff, 1971; Cleveland, Mangone & Adams, 1960; Guthrie & Zektick, 1967; Kleinjans, 1972; Maretzki, 1965; Mottram, 1963). A wide variety of personality characteristics, such as intellectual curiosity (Cleveland et al., 1960), inner security (Kleinjans, 1972), positive ego identity, personal warmth and openness (Maretzki, 1965), and an extroverted social orientation (Guthrie & Zektick, 1967) have been proffered. At a more general level, intercultural effectiveness has been variously conceptualized in terms of "universal communicators" (Gardner, 1962), "multicultural" persons (Adler, 1974), "mediating" persons (Bochner, 1973), and "universal" persons (Walsh, 1973). The universal communicator (Gardner, 1962) is described as someone who is fairly stable, extroverted, socialized on basis of cultural universals, intuitively sensitive, and possesses a value system which includes a value of all people (p. 248). The multicultural person, according to Adler (1974), is psychoculturally adaptive, undergoing personal transitions, and maintains indefinite boundaries of self (p. 79). Bochner (1973) suggests that the mediating person believes in the "common unity of mankind, cultural relativism of values, cognitive flexibility, membership in international and trans-national social networks, and supra-national reference groups" (p. 35). Walsh (1973) suggests the universal person possesses the following three characteristics: (a) respect-viewing aspects of a culture with which one does not necessarily agree and still respecting the people who live in that culture; (b) understanding-a desire to enter into a deeper awareness of what people in other cultures think, feel, and believe; and (c) appreciat i o n - positive valuing of another culture. One difficulty with these more personality oriented descriptions of the effective intercultural person is their inability to adequately specify the behaviors or skills needed to engage in effective intercultural interaction. A second problem arises concerning the generalizability of these personality factors, given the predominately anecdotal nature of the descriptions of intercultural effectiveness. Finally, results from those few empirically oriented studies that have been done (e.g., Stein, 1966) do not support a strong and clear-cut relationship between personality characteristics and other measures (e.g., job performance, adjustment, attitudi-

Intercultural Effectiveness

67

nal satisfaction) of sojourners' intercultural effectiveness (Benson, 1978; Stening, 1979). In an effort to overcome these difficulties, a number of writers have focused on sojourners' behavior (Brein & David, 1971) or social skills (Furnham & Bochner, 1982). This behavioral or social skills approach, according to Furnham and Bochner (1982), views intercultural effectiveness as a cultural learning phenomenon in which a sojourner (who may be culturally competent in his/her own culture), not having been socialized into the social interaction patterns of the host culture, will likely be socially unskilled upon initial arrival in the new and unfamiliar host environment. Furnham and Bochner (1982) go on to suggest that the following seven skills (originally postulated by Argyle, 1979) may be particularly important to sojourners' intercultural effectiveness: (a) perceptive skills, (b) expressive skills, (c) conversational skills, (d) assertive skills, (e) emotional expression skills, (f) anxiety management skills, (g) and affiliative skills. Ruben (1976), based on a survey of literature on communication effectiveness in the United States, also identifies seven intercultural communication skills which he feels are important to overseas effectiveness: display of respect, interaction posture, orientation to knowledge, empathy, role behavior, interaction management, and tolerance for ambiguity. Subsequent research by Ruben and Kealey (1979) found that these seven skills, when assessed during a one week predeparture training program in Canada were predictive, one year later, of Canadian sojourner's overall intercultural adjustment, degree of culture shock experienced, and vocational and interaction effectiveness. In a related study, Hawes and Kealey (1979; 1981) found that a similar set of communication skills were predictive of Canadian International Development Agency technical personnel and their families' overall satisfaction, intercultural interaction, and job performance while living in a host culture. These communication skills were: (a) flexibility towards the ideas of others; (b) respect towards others; (c) listening and accurate perceptions of the needs of others; (d) trust, friendliness, and cooperation with ethers; (e) calm and self-control when confronted by obstacles; and (f) sensitivity to cultural differences (Hawes & Kealey, 1979, p. xxi). Results from a factor analysis of 24 personal abilities thought to be important to sojourner effectiveness suggests that many of the specific skills (e.g., empathy, perceptive skills, interaction management, anxiety management skills) previously discussed may be constitutive elements of three more general behavioral skill domains (Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978). In this research, 53 United States Americans who (a) lived in a foreign culture three months or longer, (b) self-reported that they were satisfied with their stay in the host culture, and (c) felt they had

68

Mttchell R. Hammer

f u n c t i o n e d effectively in the h o s t culture, p a r t i c i p a t e d in the study.' Subjects r a t e d 24 p e r s o n a l abilities in t e r m s o f i m p o r t a n c e in facilitating their effective f u n c t i o n i n g in the p a r t i c u l a r foreign culture. Using principle factor analysis with v a r i m a x r o t a t i o n , the d a t a revealed the following three general b e h a v i o r a l d i m e n s i o n s o f i n t e r c u l t u r a l effectiveness: (a) the a b i l i t y to m a n a g e p s y c h o l o g i c a l (intercultural) stress; (b) the ability to effectively c o m m u n i c a t e ; a n d (c) the a b i l i t y to establish i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . These three factors a c c o u n t e d for 7 2 . 2 % o f the c o m m o n v a r i a n c e in the abilities d a t a . Recently, A b e a n d W i s e m a n (1983) u n d e r t o o k a r e p l i c a t i o n o f the H a m m e r et al. (1978) s t u d y using fifty-seven J a p a n e s e s t u d e n t - t o u r i s t s w h o h a d been in the U n i t e d States a p p r o x i m a t e l y two weeks. 2 In c o n t r a s t to the three factors t h a t e m e r g e d in the H a m m e r et al. (1978) study, A b e a n d W i s e m a n ' s d a t a y i e l d e d five d i m e n s i o n s o f i n t e r c u l t u r a l effectiveness: (a) the a b i l i t y to i n t e r p e r s o n a l l y c o m m u n i c a t e , (b) the ability to a d j u s t to different cultures, (c) the a b i l i t y to a d j u s t to different societal systems, (d) the a b i l i t y to establish i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a n d (e) the a b i l i t y to u n d e r s t a n d others. These factors a c c o u n t e d for 61% o f the c o m m o n variance. A b e a n d W i s e m a n (1983) interpret these differences in factor structures between H a m m e r et al. (1978) a n d their own s t u d y as indicative o f differences in p e r c e p t i o n s o f i n t e r c u l t u r a l effectiveness between A m e r i c a n a n d J a p a n e s e s o j o u r n e r s (i.e., a culture specific conclusion). In a response to this c o n c l u s i o n , G u d y k u n s t a n d H a m m e r (1984) reint e r p r e t e d A b e a n d W i s e m a n ' s (1983) d a t a a n d f o u n d s u p p o r t for the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the three d i m e n s i o n s o f i n t e r c u l t u r a l effectiveness originally o b t a i n e d by H a m m e r et al. (1978) offer a m o r e p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a tion o f the A b e a n d W i s e m a n d a t a . A s G u d y k u n s t a n d H a m m e r (1984) state: From our analysis of the data from the two studies we see no basis for a culturespecific interpretation of intercultural effectiveness. In light of the small sample size, difference on nature of the sojourn, other differences in the subjects and the high, significant s values among the factors of the two studies, we believe the data from the two studies support a culture-general interpretation. (p.7) 3 'In fact, 83% of the respondents indicated they were qmte satisfied with thetr stay m a foreign culture (response= 1 or 2, where 1 =very satisfied and 6=very dissatisfied) while 72%0 indicated they funcUoned quite well m the host culture (response= 1 or 2; where 1 = functioned very well and 6 = functioned not at all well). 2Simdar to the sample characteristics of the Hammer et al. (1978) study, 88% of the Japanese subjects indicated they were satisfied with their stay (response = 1, 2, or 3, where 1 = very satisfied and 6 = very dissatisfied) while 86% reported they got along well with Americans during their two week visit to the United States (response= 1, 2 or 3; where 1 = getting along well with Americans and 6 = not getting along at all with Americans).

Intercultural Effecttveness

69

In spite o f their differing interpretations, however, both Gudykunst and H a m m e r (1984) and Wiseman and Abe (1984) in their response to Gudykunst and H a m m e r (1984), caution that any interpretation of either the H a m m e r et al. (1978) or the Abe and Wiseman (1983) studies' factor structures should be considered tentative: "since both studies are based upon small sample sizes, future research should seek to confirm these dimensions with large samples in order to stabilize the loadings" (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1984, p. 8). It is the purpose of the present study, then, to further test the degree of fit of the three factor model (Hammer et al., 1978) and Abe and Wiseman's five factor model to data obtained from a large sample of North American sojotirners. In the present study, the questionnaire originally used by Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) was administered to 210 North American sojourners. In order to directly compare the degree of fit and the three factor model obtained by Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) and the five factor solution found by Abe and Wiseman (1983) to the present data, confirmatory rather than exploratory factor analysis seemed appropriate and was employed.

METHODS Subjects Data were obtained from 210 white North American students at a moderate sized university in the United States. Subjects were included in the sample if they met three criteria specified in the H a m m e r et al. (1978) study, namely: (a) if they lived in a foreign culture three months or longer; (b) reported they were satisfied with their stay in the foreign culture; and (c) felt they functioned well in the host culture.'

Questionnaire The questionnaire used in this study was the same as that employed in the H a m m e r et al. (1978) study and consisted of 24 personal ability items (generated from a review of literature on intercultural effectiveness) along 3It should be noted that Wiseman and Abe (1984) offer a well written rejoinder to Gudykunst and Hammer's (1984) reinterpretation of the Abe and W~seman (1983) data. This rejoinder essentially defends Abe and Wiseman's (1983) conclusions. aln the original Hammer et al. (1983) study, a fourth criterion was used to select subjects: If a doctoral student of intercultural communicatmns at the Umversltyof Minnesota would recommend that person as someone who, in the graduate student's estimation, would hkely have funcUonedeffectivelyin a foreign culture. This criterion was not used m the Abe and Wlseman (1983) study nor was it practical to employ as a criterion for the selection of subjects for the present study

70

Mttchell R. Hammer

with two additional questions designed to ascertain: (a) how satisfied the subjects were with their stay jn the foreign culture, and (b) how well they felt they functioned while living in the host culture. The 24 personal ability items are presented in Table 1 along with their mean and standard deviation values. Subjects responded to the 24 ability items by indicating on a six point scale how important each ability was in facilitating their effective functioning in the host culture (1 =very important, 6=very unimportant).

Data Analysis LISREL VI (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1983), a statistical program which allows confirmatory factor analysis, was used to test the degree of fit of the three factor model developed by Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978), and the five factor model obtained by Abe and Wiseman (1983), to the current data. Figures 1 and 2 present a graphic depiction, along with the parameter TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Abilities Items Item

Mean

sd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. 19 20 21, 22, 23, 24,

1 97 2 41 1 53 1 59 2 21 3 18 3 08 2 81 3 33 2 13 1 95 2 18 2 59 2 45 2 02 2 35 2 57 2.11 2 33 2 97 2 41 2 12 2 33 1 82

1 17 1 33 85 93 1 19 1 44 1 65 1 55 1 66 1 45 1 05 1 11 1 34 1 03 1 16 1 29 1 36 1 29 1 25 1 56 1 20 1 04 1 21 1 08

To effectively deal with frustration To effectively deal with interpersonal confhct To effectwely deal with unfamlhar situations To effectively deal with changes in life style To effectively deal with stress To effectively deal with the pressure to conform To effectively deal with financial difficulties To effectively deal with social ahenatlon To effectively deal with different pohtlcal systems To effectively communicate =n the language of the host culture To effectively deal with different social customs To effectively deal with unforeseen problems To initiate interaction w~h a stranger To enter into meaningful dialogue with others To effectively deal with communication misunderstandings To develop satisfying interpersonal relationships with others To effectively deal with anxiety To accurately understand another's point of wew To deal with different commumcatlon styles To deal with different educational systems To maintain interpersonal satisfying relationships with others To accurately understand the feehngs of others To empathize with another person To effectwely work with other people

Dm

W”

-4

\-

--

71

1

£

2

E 3

£ 4

E 5

£ 6

.

17. 7

IS 8

E 9

86

Five Factor Oblique

a n d Correlations a m o n g the Factors.

£ 11

£ 12

13

E

~4

14

relationships

114 = interpersonal

s6

,64 ,57

Model for Intercultural

Effectiveness

16

17

15 = Work wdh others (24)

T~5 = understand others

15

~._

~ 1 6 = Empathizewdh others (23) 17 = Understand feelings nf others (22)

83

with Item-Factor Loadings

~10 = Financial ~r/13 = Maintain ddt~u flies (7) relat=onshlps (21) ~'11 = Political systems (9) ~Ifl 4 = Develop ~12 = Soctal alenat~on (8) relationships (16)

systems

113 = social

E lO

v

61

I * ITEM FROM QUESTIONNAIRE 'I E --- ERRORS IN MEASUREMENT~ = ERRORS IN PREDICTION J

~ 7 = Unfamdlar s~uat=ons(3) ~ 8 = Pressure to conform (6) "~ 9 = Stress (5)

~ 6 = Ldestyles (4)

1~2 = adjust

F I G U R E 2. T h e H y p o t h e s i z e d

5 = Unforeseen problems(12)

~/2 = Educallonal systems (20) 3 = Misunderstand=rigs(15) ~i" 4 = Mean=ngtuldialogue (14)

1 = Communcation styles (19)*

interpersonally

1~ 1 = communicate

£

7s~

66

Intercultural Effectiveness

73

estimates and the correlations among the factors o f oblique confirmatory factor analysis of the three factor model and the five factor model, respectively? Each model was examined using the (a) significance level of ~ , (b) x~/ df ratio, and (c) goodness of fit index. However, because the significance level of x 2 can be influenced by sample size (Bentler & Bonnett, 1980; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1982), each model was considered a fairly good fit to the data if the x : / d f ratio was below five (Wheaton, Muthen, Alwin, & Summers, 1977). The goodness of fit index assesses the degree to which the variances and covariances are accounted for by the model tested. Overall, the nearer the goodness of fit index is to 1.0, the closer the model fits the data. An examination of the residuals was also completed in order to further determine the degree o f fit o f each model to the data. Generally, residuals less t h a n . 10 suggest a reasonably good fit o f the model to the data (Lomax, 1982). It should be noted that the sample size of 210 subjects used in the present study meets both the criteria of 200 as specified by Bearden, Sharma, and Teel (1982) and the criteria of 50 plus the number of degrees o f freedom as stated by Bagozzi (1981). RESULTS

Sample Characteristics All subjects ( N = 210) indicated that they lived in a foreign culture at least three months, with the average length of stay lasting approximately eight and one-half months. Forty-five percent ( N = 94) of the subjects were male and 55°70 ( N = 116) were female. The respondents' age ranged from 19 to 57, with a mean age o f 30 years old. Overall, 98070 of the subjects indicated they were satisfied with their stay in the host country (response = 1, 2, or 3; where 1 = very satisfied and 6 = very dissatisfied; X = 1.84, s.d. = .80). Further, 9607o of the respondents stated they functioned well in the host culture (response = 1, 2, or 3; where 1 = functioned very well and 6 = functioned not at all well; X = 1.70, s.d. = .96).

~Both Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) and Abe and Wiseman (1983) used orthogonal rotation to develop their respectwe factor solutions. As exploratory studies, orthogonal rotation can be useful for reveahng major dlmensmns However,for subsequent analyses, more theoretically based declsmns concerning the assumpUonof correlated versus uncorrelated factors should be made. With this in mind, ~t can be argued that the ~dentified factors m both studies should be related. For instance, the abihty to effectivelycommunicate (factor 2 m Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman and factor 1 m Abe & Wlseman) and the ability to establish meaningful relationships (factor 3 in Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman and factor 4 m Abe & Wlseman) should be correlated with one another in the respective studies because commumcat~on~sclearly necessaryin developing relationships.

74

Mitchell R. Hammer

From this information, it may be concluded that the respondents of the present study met the sample criteria proposed by Hammer et al. (1978) in terms of: (a) length of stay in a foreign culture; (b) attitudinal satisfaction with their stay in the host culture; and (c) reported degree of effective functioning in the host country.

A Test o f the Three Factor M o d e l The covariance matrix among the eighteen observed variables comprising the three factor model are presented in Table 2. The parameter estimates are found in Figure 1 along with the correlations among the three factors. In reviewing the parameter estimates for the three factors presented in Figure 1, it appears that the parameter estimates are reasonably high as would be predicted by the model. For factor 1, these estimates range from .57 for Y1 (the ability to deal with frustration) to .98 for Y3 (to effectively deal with anxiety). For factor 2, the parameter estimates range from .61 for Y9 (to enter into meaningful dialogue with others) to .81 for Y11 (to effectively deal with communication misunderstandings). Parameter estimates range from .49 for Y18 (to effectively deal with different social customs) to .85 for YI5 (to maintain satisfying interpersonal relationships with others) for the third proposed factor. Similarly, substantial correlations were found among the three factors in testing this model. The correlation between factor 1 and factor 2 was .66. The correlations between factors 1 and 3 and factors 2 and 3 were .70 and .72, respectively. These fairly substantial correlations among the three factors confirm the necessity for assuming correlated factors in testing this model. The overall x 2 was 276.35 with 132 degrees of freedom (significant at the p ___.05, indicating the model departs significantly from an exact fit to the data). However, the x2/df ratio was quite small (2.09), well below the criterion value of 5 suggested by Wheaton et al. (1977). The adjusted goodness of fit index was .84; the fitted residuals were generally at or below. 10; and the root square mean was. 108; indicating a fairly good fit of the model to the data.

A Test o f the Five Factor M o d e l The covariance matrix among the seventeen observed varmbles constituting the five factor model is presented in Table 3. Parameter estimates and the correlations among the five factors are presented in Figure 2. Overall, the parameter estimates for the five factor model are generally high as would be predicted by the model. For factor 1, the parameter estimates range from .60 for Y4 (to enter into meaningful dialogue with

y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

y7

y8

y9

ylO

yll

y12

y13

y14

y15

y16

y17

y18

yl 1 392 y2 598 1 423 y3 502 824 1 863 y4 223 335 809 2 778 y5 311 544 793 579 2 075 y6 465 709 802 1 041 .976 2 407 y7 236 509 666 628 650 833 2.725 y8 785 .781 836 477 553 693 765 1 776 y9 188 357 458 313 346 393 178 302 1.081 ylO 182 323 316 419 162 442 440 182 569 1 803 yll 288 381 .548 660 253 627 404 428 547 485 1.358 y12 152 324 600 676 659 664 499 .350 449 .364 641 1 564 y13 132 336 .438 306 431 497 243 266 382 287 475 .396 1 098 y14 267 .460 .831 619 331 686 268 517 538 274 430 373 .557 1 665 y15 278 .292 .712 362 558 559 .315 436 446 278 471 .532 .644 832 1 460 y16 .278 420 .472 .368 434 548 373 512 .351 236 311 331 496 520 455 1 167 y17 .305 579 641 467 469 .558 427 549 293 305 .383 336 727 624 687 .526 1.467 y18 229 191 .202 521 348 370 286 310 330 298 494 .584 .336 393 367 280 388 1 113

yl

TABLE 2 Covariance Matrix Used to Test the Three Factor Model

y5

738 234 190 191 308 256 190 140 174 131 127

y4

yl 1 584 y2 .611 2 444 y3 .641 .388 1 358 y4 .449 .360 547 1 081 y5 527 416 540 324 1.240 y6 439 .373 318 174 265 874 y7 286 156 319 219 304 396 y8 659 588 253 346 248 .367 y9 324 .311 381 357 349 212 ylO 499 461 .404 178 459 .253 yll 676 534 660 313 561 461 y12 664 612 627 393 535 390 y13 .532 431 471 .446 287 261 y14 373 525 430 538 323 .196 y15 331 .182 311 .351 165 189 y16 .336 439 383 293 265 188 y17 396 .458 475 382 158 205

y3

y7

y2

y6

yl

y9

ylO

yll

y12

y13

y14

y15

y16

y17

2 075 544 1.423 650 .509 2 725 579 335 628 2 778 976 709 833 1041 2 407 558 292 315 362 559 1.460 331 460 268 619 686 832 1 665 434 420 .373 368 548 455 520 1.167 469 579 .427 467 558 687 624 526 1 467 .431 336 243 306 497 .644 557 496 .727 1 098

y8

TABLE 3 Covariance Matrix Used to Test the Five Factor Model

Intercultural Effecnveness

77

others) to .83 for Y1 (to deal with different communication styles). Parameter estimates for factor 2 range from .40 for Y7 (to effectively deal with unfamiliar situations) to .80 for Y8 (to effectively deal with pressure to conform). Factor 3 parameter estimates range from .73 for Y10 (to effectively deal with financial difficulties) to .92 for Y11 (to effectively deal with different political systems)? Parameter estimates for the fourth factor range from .89 for Y14 (to develop satisfying interpersonal relationships with others) to .93 for Y13 (to maintain satisfying interpersonal relationships with others) while estimates for factor 5 range from .63 for Y15 (to effectively work with other people) to .88 for Y16 (to empathize with another person). Correlations among the five factors range from .56 for factors 3 and 4 to .81 for factors 1 and 2, confirming the necessity for assuming correlated factors in testing this model. The x 2 was 186.89 with 109 degrees o f freedom (significant at the p < .05, indicating the model significantly departs from an exact fit to the data). However, the x2/df ratio of 1.71 was well below the criterion value of 5. With an adjusted goodness fit index of .86, fitted residuals generally at or below. 10, and the root mean square residual at .083; the five factor model provides a reasonably good fit to the data. DISCUSSION The results from the present study suggest that the three factor model developed by Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) provides a reasonable fit to the data. As stated earlier, this three factor model was generated from a sample of American sojourners. From a conceptual viewpoint, it is not surprising that the three factor model fits the data generated from the current larger, although essentially similar, sample of American sojourners who met the same criteria established in the earlier Hammer, Gudykunst and Wiseman study. The findings from the present study, therefore, further support the generalizability of the three factor model of intercultural effectiveness. It is somewhat surprising, however, that the five factor model proposed by Abe and Wiseman (1983) also fit the current data reasonably well. According to Abe and Wiseman, their five factor model, developed from a sample of Japanese tourists visiting the United States, possesses two additional distinct factors not found in the data generated from the American sojourner sample in the original Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) study. Abe and Wiseman argue that the differences be6The parameter estimates for YI2 (the ability to deal with social alienanon) m factor 3 is 1.12 One would expect this estimate to be less than 1.0 This estimate may have been greater than 1.0 due to sampling error.

78

Mitchell R. Hammer

tween their five factor model and the three factor model obtained by Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman support a culture specific interpretation of intercultural effectiveness. That is, Abe and Wiseman suggest that perceptions of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness may be specific to the culture(s) studied (i.e., varies across cultures). Accepting the culture specific argument advanced by Abe and Wiseman to explain the additional two factors found in their study but not found in the Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman study, one would expect a poor fit of the five factor model to the present American sojourner data set. Yet, clearly this was not the case. Rather, the five factor model appears to be equally generalizable along with the three factor model developed by Hammer, Gudykunst and Wiseman to this larger sample of American sojourners. One plausible explanation for the similarity in fit of the Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) three factor model and what Abe and Wiseman (1983) view as their culture specific five factor model to the current data is presented by Gudykunst and Hammer (1984). Essentially, Gudykunst and Hammer (1984) offer a reinterpretation of the Abe and Wiseman data, suggesting there exists a "high level of similarity between: (a) Hammer et al.'s Factor 1 and Abe and Wiseman's Factors 2 and 3, (b) Hammer et al.'s Factor 2 and Abe and Wiseman's Factor 1, and (c) Hammer et al.'s Factor 3 and Abe and Wiseman's Factors 4 and 5" (p. 4). Table 4 presents Gudykunst and Hammer's (1984) comparison of the rotated factor loadings from the Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) and the Abe and Wiseman (1984) studies. Gudykunst and Hammer (1984) argue that the additional two factors found in Abe and Wiseman's study are highly related to the three factors obtained in the original Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman study. Gudykunst and Hammer (1984) conclude by suggesting that the similarity in factor loading from both studies present evidence for the existence of the three dimensions of intercultural effectiveness originally found by Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978). In a general comparison of the three factor model and the five factor model to the current data, the x V d f ratio for the five factor model (1.72) was a slightly better fit to the data than the three factor model (2.09). It can be argued however, that a difference of only .37 in the x V d f ratios between the fit of the two models is negligible, with both models appearing to fit the data equally well. Given the plausibility of this argument, parsimony would recommend tentative adaption of the simpler three factor model proposed by Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978). However, this is only one kind of comparison that can be made concerning the relative fit of the three and five factor models to the current data. In order to more rigorously examine the similarity between the five factor model and the three factor model, confirmatory factor analysis, using LISREL VI (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1983) was employed.

Intercultural Effectiveness

79

TABLE 4" A Comparison of Related Factor Codings from the Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) and the Abe and Wiseman (1983) Studies Factor Loadings

Personal Ablhty Items 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8. 9 17

Frustration Interpersonal Conflict Unfamiliar Situattons Lifestyles Stress Pressureto Conform Fmanctal Diff=culhes Soctal Ahenatlon Political Systems Anxtety

12 13. 14 15 19. 20

Unforeseen problems Interactions wtth strangers Meanmgful D~alogue Misunderstandings Communication styles Educattonal Systems

11. 16 21 22 23 24.

Soc=al Customs Develop Relationsh0ps Maintain Relationships Understand others Empathize with others Work wtth other people

H,G,&W A&W A&W H,G,&W A&W H,G,&W A&W A&W 1 2 3 2 1 3 4 5 .72 .40 --66 .49 .45 48 .56 60

.42 49 .73 83 .55 05 05 .01 17 20

.35 48 .01 12 39 - 03 .83 52 55 .30

-68 .78 62 49

54 09 56 65 69 68 52 69 68 60 54 57

- 13 53 90 44 21 - 05

07 07 03 54 56 62

Note H,G,&W = Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wlseman Study; A&W = Abe & Wlseman Study aRepnnted from Gudykunst and Hammer (1984) p 4.

Direct c o m p a r i s o n s o f the three a n d five factor models to the data using c o n f i r m a t o r y factor analysis d e m a n d that b o t h models be based u p o n a c o m m o n set o f items. 7 Figures 3a a n d 3b present a graphic illust r a t i o n o f the five factor m o d e l a n d the three factor m o d e l based u p o n this c o m m o n set o f items. Also presented in Figures 3a a n d 3b, respectively, are the p a r a m e t e r estimates a n d the correlations a m o n g the factors 7The specific items selected were: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24. In selecting these ~tems, five items that helped define the three factor model in the original Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) study were not included (items 1, 2, 11, 13, and 17) and four items that helped define the five factors in the Abe and Wiseman (1983) study were not included (items 3, 4, 12, and 20)

co

1

£ 2

3

E

68

68

(a)

3 = Commsncatlon styles (19)

2 = Mzsunderstandtngs(15)

11 1 = communicate interpersonally 1 = Meaningfuld,alogue (14)°

£

~

64

£

£ 5

~5 =Pressure to conform (6)

~4 =Stress (5)

112 = a d j u s t

4

7

9

£

10

~10 = Maintain relatzonsh~ps(21)

~*)'7 = SoQal ahenat*on (8) 1P'8= Polzticalsystems (9)

1] 4 = interpersonal relationships

£

~ 9 = Develop relat*onshlps (16)

8

55

,56

~1/6= Fmanaal drlfx:ultles (7)

113 = social systems

6

w

i

1

1 • ITEM FROM QUESTIONNAIRE l E = ERRORS IN MEASUREMENT = ERRORS IN PREDICTION

93

60

~12

E13

~!/12 = Empathzzew~th others (23) ~J 13 = Work w=thothers (24)

"~1/11 = Understand feehngs o! others (22)

others

I ] 5 = understand

~-'11

£ 2

£ 3

70

70

~2

~lJ4 =Stress (5) ~ff5 =Pressure Io conform (6)

5

E7

E8

E10

£11

+

£12

£13

11/12 = Empathlzewdh others(23)

~10 = Maintain relationships (21)

"* THESEVALUESWERE SET TO 1 0 IN ORDERTO MAKE THESE TWO SETS OF FACTORSIDENTICAL

~/13 = Work wdh others (24)

~11 = Understand feelings of others (22)

115 = understand others

'°"

~/9 = Develop relatfonships (16)

1"] 4 = Interpersonal relationships

~9

++

o f t h e F i v e a n d T h r e e F a c t o r M o d e l s . (a) F i v e

~8 = Poldcal systems (9)

• 6 = F=nancaal d~icuthes (7) ~ 7 = Social aSenatlon(8)

113 = social systems

E6

t t t

F I G U R E 3. P a r a m o r p h i c O b l i q u e F a c t o r M o d e l s f o r C o m p a r i s o n s F a c t o r M o d e l ; (b) T h r e e F a c t o r M o d e l .

(b)

4

~-

~5

112 = adjust

b9

* ITEM FROM QUESTIONNAIRE ¢= ERRORS IN MEASUREMENT 4 = ERRORS IN PREDICTION

~/2 = Misunderstandings (15) ~ 3 = Cornrnuncatlon styles (19)

~/1 = Meaningful d=alogue(14)*

11 1 = communicate interpersonally

£ 1

70

82

Mitchell R. Hammer

of the oblique confirmatory factor analysis of the five factor model and the three factor model. Table 5 presents the covariance matrix for the paramorphic oblique factor models for comparisons of the five and three factor models. Following the logic presented by Gudykunst and Hammer (1984), the three factor model was developed by combining together Abe and Wiseman's factors 2 and 3 and their factors 4 and 5 (see Figure 3b and Table 4). The parameter estimates for the five factor model (Figure 3a) are reasonably high, ranging from .64 to Y1 (to enter into meaningful dialogue) and Y13 (to effectively work with other people) to .93 for Y10 (to maintain satisfying interpersonal relationships with others)." Fairly high factor correlations were found among all five factors (see Figure 3a) with particularly high correlations occurring between factors 2 and 3 (.93) and factors 4 and 5 (.83). For the five factor model, the x 2 was 94.62 with 55 degrees of freedom (significant at the p_< .05, indicating the model departs significantly from an exact fit to the data). The xZ/df ratio was 1.72, considerably below the criterion value of 5. The adjusted goodness of fit index was .90. The fitted residuals were generally less than .10 and the root mean square residual was .081. Overall, the five factor model is a good fit to the data. The parameter estimates for the three factor model were fairly high, (see Figure 3b), varying from .64 for Y1 (to enter into meaningful dialogue with others) to .85 for Y10 (to maintain satisfying interpersonal relationships with o t h e r s ) : Factor correlations among the three factors range from .65 between factors 2 and 3 and .70 between factors 1 and 2. For the three factor model, the x 2 was 112.31 with 62 degrees of freedom (significant at the p_< .05, indicating the model significantly departs from an exact fit to the data). The x : / d f ratio was 1.81, well below the criterion value of 5. The adjusted goodness of fit index was .90. The fitted residuals were generally below. 10 and the root mean square residual was .087. Overall, the three factor model is also a good fit to the data. In directly comparing the five and three factor models (i.e., in order to determine if the five factor model is a significantly better fit to the data compared to the three factor model), the critical value for x~ with seven degrees of freedom at the .05 and .01 levels of significance, respectively, are 14.1 and 18.5. The x 2 (with seven degrees of freedom) obtained in this study was 16.69. This suggests that the five factor model, when employ8The parameter estimate for Y7 (to effectivelydeal with social allenaUon) in factor 3 of the five factor model is 1 18 This estimate may have been greater than 1 0 due to samphng error 9The parameter estimate for Y7 (to effectivelydeal with social alienation) m factor 2 of the three factor model is 1 13. This estimate may have been greater than 1.0 due to sampling error

yl y2 y3 y4 y5 y6 y7 y8 y9 ylO yl 1 y12 y13

y2

1 358 641 381 253 404 627 660 430 471 475 383 311

yl

1 081 547 449 357 346 178 393 .313 538 446 382 293 351 1 584 324 659 499 664 676 373 532 396 336 331

y3

1 423 544 509 709 .335 460 292 336 579 420

y4

2 075 650 976 579 331 558 431 469 434

y5

2 725 833 628 268 315 243 427 373

y6

2 407 1 041 686 559 497 558 548

y7

2 778 619 362 306 467 368

y8

1 665 .832 557 624 520

y9

1 460 644 687 455

ylO

TABLE 5 Covariance Matrix for the Paramorphic Oblique Factor Models for Comparisons of the Five and Three Factors Models

1 098 727 496

yll

1 467 526

y12

1 167

y13

84

Mitchell R Hammer

ing the .05 level of significance, is a significantly better fit to the data than the three factor model. However, using the .Ol level of significance, the results indicate that the five factor model is not a significantly better fit to the data than the three factor model. Given the highly similar results of the fit of the five factor model and the three factor model to the data, parsimony would again recommend that the simpler three factor model be adapted. This recommendation is strengthened by the quite high correlations presented in Figure 3a between factors 2 and 3 (.93) and factors 4 and 5 (.83) of the five factor model. These rather large correlations suggest that the two extra factors include so little independent variance that their conceptual distinctness is questionable. Therefore, it is suggested that the three factor model proposed by Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) offers a more parsimonious model of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness compared to the five factor model developed by Abe and Wiseman (1983). CONCLUSION Overall, it would appear that the results from the present study as well as those obtained from the Hammer et al. (1978) study support the contention that three dimensions of intercultural effectiveness are viewed as important by sojourners: the ability to establish interpersonal relationships, the ability to effectively communicate, and the ability to manage psychological (intercultural) stress. These three dimensions are consistently documented in research as important to sojourners’ effective functioning in a foreign culture. The ability to establish interpersonal relationships has been shown to be important to both sojourner adjustment (e.g., Selltiz, Christ, Havel, & Cook, 1963; Klineberg & Hull, 1979) and immigrant acculturation (Kim, 1976; 1977; 1978). Further, this factor is similar to Dinges’ (1983) interpersonal relations and interactional dynamics dimensions of intercultural competence. The ability to effectively communicate has been shown to be critical in sojourner job performance, interaction effectiveness, and attitudinal satisfaction with living in a host culture (e.g., Hawes and Kealey, 1981). Also, this dimension appears as Dinges’ (1983) communication style, Harris’ (1973) cultural interaction and Ruben’s (1976) interaction posture and interaction management; factors which are seen as fundamental behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. Finally, the plethora of literature on sojourner adjustment and culture shock (see recent reviews by Benson, 1978; Bochner, 1982; Church, 1982; Gudykunst & Halsall, 1980; Stening, 1979) clearly support the contention that the ability to deal with psychological (intercultural) stress is critically important to effective functioning in a foreign culture.

Intercultural Effecttveness

85

Future research should begin to specify more precisely what behaviors/ skills are most critical to sojourners' establishment of interpersonal relationships, effectiveness in communication, and management of psychological (intercultural) stress. Also, more information is needed concerning how and in what contexts sojourners enact these identified skills during their sojourn experience. Consistent with the social skills approach advanced recently by Furnham and Bochner (1982), microanalyses of sojourners behavioral enactments in the specific situations they encounter in the host culture offers one viable approach for identifying more precisely the behavioral skills that facilitate sojourners effective functioning in a foreign culture. Future research should begin to delineate the interrelationships a m o n g these three general behavioral skill domains. It is possible, for example, that factor 1 (intercultural stress management skills) and factor 3 (relationship development skills) may represent "end states" with factor 2 (communication abilities) functioning as a necessary, although not sufficient means to both ends. Further, research should investigate the influence o f communication, relationship development, and intercultural stress management skills on such "outcome" measures of intercultural effectiveness as job performance, number and quality of friendships formed with host country nationals, symptoms o f culture shock, and attitudinal satisfaction with living in a foreign country. Only in this way can a comprehensive "practical" theory of intercultural effectiveness be developed and subsequently used in the training and preparation of people destined to live and work in the intercultural milieu.

REFERENCES ABE, H., & WISEMAN, R. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 53-67. ADLER, P. S. (1974). Beyond cultural identity: Reflections upon cultural and multicultural man. Topics in Culture Learmng, 2, 23-41. ARENSBERG, C. M., & NIEHOFF, A. H. (1971). Introducing soctal change: A manual for commumty development (2nd ed.). Chicago: Aldene-Atherton. ARGYLE, M. (1979). New developments in the analysis of social skills. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Non-verbal behavior. London: Academic Press. BAGOZZI, R. P. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: A comment. Journal of Marketing Research, 8,375-381. BEARDEN, W., SHARMA, S., & TEEL, J. (1982). Sample size effects on chlsquare and other statistics in evaluating causal models. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 425-430. BENSON, P. G. (1978). Measuring cross-cultural adjustment: The problem of criteria. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 21-37.

86

Mttchell R. Hammer

BENTLER, P. M., & BONNETT, D. G. (1980). Slgmficance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covanance structures. Psychologwal Bulletin, 88, 588606. BOCHNER, S. (1982). The social psychology of cross-cultural relations. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures m contact. International serws m experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 5-44). New York: Pergamon Press. BOCHNER, S. (1973). The mediating man and cultural diversity. Topws m Culture Learmng, 1, 23-27. BREIN, M., & DAVID, K. (1971). Intercultural communication and the adjustment of the sojourner. Psychologtcal Bulletin, 76, 215-230. CLEVELAND, H. G., MANGONE, G , & ADAMS, J. (1960). The overseas American. New York: McGraw-Hxll. CHURCH, A. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychologtcal Bulletm, 91, 540572 DINGES, N. (1983). Intercultural competence. In D. Landis and R. Bnslin (Eds.), Handbook o f mtercultural tralnmg, volume I: Issues m theory and destgn (pp. 176-202). New York: Pergamon Press. F U R N H A M , A., & BOCHNER, S. (1982). Social difficulty in a foreign culture: An empirical analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures m contact: In ternattonal series m experimental social psychology, volume 1 (pp. 161198). New York: Pergamon. GARDNER, G. H. (1962). Cross-cultural communication. Journal o f Social Psychology, 58,241-256. GUDYKUNST, W. B., & H A L S A L L , S. J. (1980). The application of a theory of contraculture to intercultural communication: Searching for isomorphic processes. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communtcatton Yearbook 4 (pp. 427-436). New Brunswick, N J: Transaction Press GUDYKUNST, W. B., & H A M M E R , M. R. (1984). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: Cultural specific or cultural general? International Journal of Intercultural Relatwns, 8, 1-10. GUTHRIE, G. M., & ZEKT1CK, I (1967). Predicting performance In the Peace Corps. Journal o f Soctal Psychology, 71, 11-21. H A M M E R , M. R., GUDYKUNST, W. B., & WISEMAN, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. Internatlonal Journal o f Intercultural Relattons, 2, 382-392. HARRIS, J. (1973). A science of the South Pacific: An analysis of the character structure of the Peace Corp volunteer. American Psychologist, 28,232-247. HAWES, E, & KEALEY, D. J. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian technical assistance. International Journal o f Intercultural Relations, 5 239-258 HAWES, E , & KEALEY, D. J. (1979). Canadtans in development: An empmcal study o f adaptation and effectiveness on overseas assignment. Communication Branch Briefing Center, Canadian International Development Agency, September. JORESKOG, K. G., & SORBOM, D. (1982). Recent developments in structural equation modeling. Journal o f Marketing Research, 19,404-416. JORESKOG, K. G., & SORBOM, D. (1983). LISREL VI: Supplement to the LISREL V manual. Chicago: National Educational Resources. KIM, Y. Y. (1978). A communication approach to the acculturation process: A

Intercultural Effectiveness

87

study of Korean immigrants in Chicago. Internattonal Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2 197-223. KIM, Y. Y. (1977). Communication patterns of foreign immigrants in the process of acculturation. Human Commumcation Research, 4, (1), 66-77. KIM, Y. Y. (1976). Communwatton patterns of foreign tmmigrants in the process of acculturation: A survey among the Korean populatton m Chicago. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Illinois. KLEINJANS, E. (1972). Opening remarks on a conference on world communication held at the East West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. KLINEBERG, O., & HULL, W. E (1979). At a foreign university: An international study of adaptatwn and coping. New York: Praeger. LOMAX, R. (1982). Methods and d e s i g n s - A guide to LISREL type structural equation modehng. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 14, 1-8. MARETZKI, T. W. (1965). Transition training: A theoretical approach. Human Organization, 24, (2), 128-134. MOTTRAM, R. (Ed.). (1963). The selection of personnel for mternational service. New York: World Federation for Mental Health. RUBEN, B. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group and Organizational Studies, I, 334-354. RUBEN, B. D., ASKLING, L. R., & KEALEY, D. K. (1977). Cross-cultural effectweness. In D. S. Hoopes, P. B. Pedersen, & G. W. Renwick (Eds.). Overview of intercultural education, training and research: volume I." Theory (pp. 92-105). Washington, D.C.: Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research. RUBEN, B. D., & KEALEY, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. Internattonal Journal of Intercultural Relattons, 3, 15-48. SELLTIZ, C., CHRIST, J. R., HAVEL, J., & COOK, S. W. (1963). Attttudesand soctal relatzons of foreign students in the Umted States. Minneapolis: Umversity of Minnesota Press. STEIN, M. I. (1966). Volunteers for peace. New York: Wiley. STENING, B. W. (1979). Problems in cross-cultural contact: A literature review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 269-313. WALSH, J. (1973). Intercultural education for the community of man. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. WHEATON, B., MUTHEN, B., ALWIN, D., & SUMMERS, G. (1977). Assessing rehabihty and stability in panel models with multiple indicators. In D. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 84-136). San Francisco: JosseyBass. WlSEMAN, R. L., & ABE, H. (1984). Finding and explaining differences: A reply to Gudykunst and Hammer. lnternattonal Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 68-76.

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONS /

On a i d e n t a f x ~ dans la r e c h e r c h e a n t e r l e u r e trols d o s a l n e s g g n g r a l e s ~ l'habilitg/au p o u v o l r du c o m p a r t e z e n t que les v o y a g e u r s de l ' A m e ~ i q u e du Nord p e r ~ o l v e n t cosse i m p o r t a n t e s pour f a c 1 1 1 t e r leur e f f l c a c l t 6 entre les

88

Mttchell R. Hammer

cultures. Cos t r o i s d i m e n s i o n s sent: (I) le p o u v o l r de d l r l g e r le s t r e s s p s y c h o l o g l q u e ; (2) le p o u v o l r de c o m m u n l q u e r e f f e c t l v e m e n t ; et (3) le p o u v o l r d ° 6 t a b l l r des r e l a t i o n s e n t r e les p e r s o n n e s . C e t t e 6 t u d e - c l r e p r ~ s e n t e un e s s a l de r e p r o d u i r e les I c o n c l u s i o n s de la r e c h e r c h e a n t e r l e u r e . C ' e s t - ~ - d l r e , on a employe dans cette etude-cl 1 analyse a facteur corroboratlf f J . p o u r e x p e r i m e n t e r le d e g r e a u q u e l le m o d e l e a t r o i s f a c t e u r s m e n t l o n n ~ d l -4 d e s s u s f o u r n l t un a 3 u s t e m e n t r a l s o n n a b l e a u x d o n n 6 e s qul e t a l e n t o b t e n u e s de 2 1 0 v o y a g e u r s de l ' A m 6 r l q u e du N o r d qul ont h a b l t ~ 3 m/ o l s ou p l u s l o n g t e m p s d a n s une culture 6trang~re. Los r e s u l t a t s i n d i q u e n t que ce m o d e l e t r o l s f a c t e u r s f o u r n l t un ben a 3 u s t e m e n t a u x d o n n 6 e s et e f f o r t une c o n f l r m a t ] o n a d d l t l o n n e l l e de l ' i m p o r t a n c e p e r ~ u e d e s p o u v o l r s g 6 n 6 r a l s de d * r l g e r le s t r e s s , de c o m m u n l q u e r e f f e c t l v e m e n t , et d ' ~ t a b l l r des r e l a t i o n s e n t r e los p e r s o n n e s p o u r f a c l l l t e r le f o n c t l o n n e m e n t e f f l c a c e des v o y a g e u r s d a n s une c u l t u r e ~ t r a n g ~ r e . (Author-supplled abstract)

Prevlas lnvestigaclones ban ldentlflcado el dominie de tres cemportamlentos generales en aptltud y habllldad que resldentes temporaries de norteamerlca perc~ben que son i m p o r t a n t e s en f a c i l l t a r su e f l c a c l a i n t e r c u l t u r a l . Estas / t r e s d l m e n s l o n e s son: i) la h a b i l l d a d de m a n e j a r la t e n s i o n p s l c o l 6 g l c a ; 2) la h a b i l l d a d de c o m u n l c a r s e e f e c t l v a m e n t e y 3) la h a b l l l d a d de e s t a b l e c e r r e l a c l o n e s I n t e r p e r s o n a l e s . El p r e s e n t e e s t u d l o i n t e n t a dar r e s p u e s t a a los d e s c u b r l m l e n t o s de i n v e s t l g a c l o n e s a n t e r l o r e s . Es d e c l r , el f e s t u d l o a c t u a l u t i l l z a a n a l l s l s de f a c t o r e s c o n f x r m a t o r l o s p a r a p r o b a r el g r a d e al cual el m o d e l o de t r e s f a c t o r e s m e n c l o n a d o s a n t e r i o r m e n t e se a 3 u s t a a los d a t e s o b t e n l d o s de 2 1 0 r e s l d e n t e s t e m p o r a r l o s de n o r t e a m e r i c a q u e v l v l e r o n per t r e s m e s e s o m~s en u n a c u l t u r a e x t r a n 3 e r a . Los r e s u l t a d o s I n d l c a n q u e el m o d e l o se a j u s t a b l e n a los d a t e s y e f f e t e c o n f l r m a c i 6 n a d l c l o n a l de la i m p o r t a n c l a p e r c l b l d a de las h a b i l l d a d e s g e n e r a l e s de m a n e 3 a r la t e n s i 6 n , c o m u n i c a r s e e f e c t l v a m e n t e y e s t a b l e c e r r e l a c l o n e s i n t e r p e r s o n a l e s en f a c i l l t a r que el r e s l d e n t e t e m p o r a r l o f u n c l o n e de m a n e r a e f l c a z en u n a c u l t u r a e x t r a n j e r a . (Author-supplled abstract)