Cognitive flexibility and cultural intelligence: Exploring the cognitive aspects of effective functioning in culturally diverse contexts

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 66 (2018) 12–21

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Cognitive flexibility and cultural intelligence: Exploring the cognitive aspects of effective functioning in culturally diverse contexts

T

⁎

Allan B.I. Bernardoa, , Alfred Presbiterob a b

University of Macau, Macau Deakin University, Australia

A R T IC LE I N F O

ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Cultural intelligence Cognitive flexibility Executive functions

Cultural intelligence or CQ is an important construct that is associated with effective functioning in culturally diverse contexts. More recently, research has attempted to identify factors that might relate to the strengthening or development of CQ. In this study, we examine cognitive flexibility as a possible psychological process that relates to CQ. In two studies, participants (total N = 694) completed different self-report measures of cognitive flexibility, need for cognitive closure, and a CQ scale. In study 1, CQ was associated with the subscale of cognitive flexibility which is related to tendency to consider multiple perspectives and generate multiple approaches to problem solving (R2 = .24). In study 2, CQ was related to the executive function of shifting (R2 = .04). The different effect sizes suggest that CQ might be more reflective of the cognitive preferences and tendencies that flexibly integrate various specific cognitive functions, instead of fundamental executive functions. The results add to the emerging literature on factors that might be associated with the development of CQ, and point to possible entry points for developing or training CQ in individuals.

Introduction Cultural intelligence (also referred to as CQ) is an important construct in intergroup relations in culturally diverse contexts. It has been studied mostly in multicultural work settings (see Ang & Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2008) but is conceptualized as an individual difference factor that could apply to effective functioning in all types of culturally diverse environments (Earley & Ang, 2003). Much work has been done showing the positive outcomes of CQ in such environments (e.g., Huff, Song, & Gresch, 2014; Lee, Veasna, & Wu, 2013), and some studies have inquired into factors that contribute to the development of CQ (e.g., MacNab, Brislin, & Worthley, 2012; Reichard et al., 2015). In this study, we explore whether cognitive flexibility is a possible basic psychological process that might be associated with the interrelated capacities in CQ. Cultural intelligence: dimensions, outcomes, and antecedents CQ has been conceptualized as the capability of an individual to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity (Earley & Ang, 2003). The conceptualization of CQ is anchored on Sternberg (1985) triarchic intelligence theory that

⁎ Corresponding author to: Department of Psychology, E21-3060 Humanities and Social Sciences Building, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.B.I. Bernardo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.06.001 Received 16 March 2017; Received in revised form 31 May 2018; Accepted 1 June 2018 0147-1767/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 66 (2018) 12–21

A.B.I. Bernardo, A. Presbitero

emphasizes the role of motivational, cognitive, and behavioral capabilities in how an individual functions in different experiential contexts. CQ specifically refers to individual functioning in intercultural social contexts or contexts where there are people from diverse cultural backgrounds. As an intercultural capability, CQ has been operationalized and measured using four factors: motivational, cognitive, metacognitive and behavioral (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). Motivational CQ refers to the drive of an individual to engage in cross-cultural interactions despite the challenges brought about by cultural differences. Cognitive CQ refers to the collection of knowledge about various cultures including knowledge of cultural values, norms, conventions and practices. Metacognitive CQ refers to higher-order thinking capabilities, mainly the ability to take perspective and develop mental schemas that can guide cross-cultural interactions. Behavioral CQ refers to the ability to adjust both verbal and non-verbal actions to suit the requirements of various cultural contexts (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). CQ has attracted the attention of many scholars as it yields various positive outcomes. As an intercultural capability, CQ has been found to impact cross-cultural adjustment and adaptation (Chen, Wu, & Bian, 2014; Huff et al., 2014; Lee, Veasna, & Sukoco, 2014; Lin, Chen, & Song, 2012). Moreover, CQ has been demonstrated to impact cross-cultural performance and effectiveness (Chen, Lin, & Sawangpattanakul, 2011; Lee et al., 2013; Korzilius, Bücker, & Beerlage, 2017; Presbitero, 2017). CQ has also been found to be relevant in cross-cultural leadership (Deng & Gibson, 2009; Rocksthul, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne, & Annen, 2011), adaptation of international students (Presbitero, 2016a; Shu, McAbee, & Ayman, 2017) and sojourners (Kong, 2017), life satisfaction of migrant workers (Le, Jiang, & Nielsen, 2016) and virtual cross-cultural interactions (Presbitero, 2016b). Beyond understanding the outcomes of CQ in different domains, recent research has began exploring factors that might influence CQ. The interest in these factors relates to the broader objective of understanding how CQ might be developed or enhanced in individuals; factors found to be related to CQ are candidates for interventions or points of intermediation to enhance CQ. Some factors have been identified in the literature and these has been classified into two categories (Fang, Schei, & Selart, 2018): (a) intercultural experiences, and (b) traits and abilities. A number of factors relate to international experience and cultural exposure (Ang & Van Dyne et al., 2008). Crowne (2013) demonstrated that the number of countries visited predicted levels of CQ. However, she revealed that the type or depth of cultural exposure makes a significant difference with work/study abroad bringing about higher CQ compared to vacations/holidays abroad. Another factor that can influence CQ is cross-cultural training and formal education. Studies show that participation in experiential training programs can increase levels of CQ (MacNab, 2012; MacNab et al., 2012; Presbitero & Toledano, 2017). Cultural simulations that are experiential can increase the likelihood of developing CQ (Reichard et al., 2015). Individual difference factors like traits and abilities also related to CQ. General self-efficacy (MacNab & Worthley, 2012) and belief in the intergroup ideology of polyculturalism are both associated with CQ (Bernardo & Presbitero, 2017). Personality factors particularly extraversion and openness to experience (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006; Harrison, 2012; Li, Mobley, & Kelly, 2016; Presbitero, 2016b) are also related to CQ. Personality, cognitive flexibility and cultural intelligence To better understand how these personality traits are associated with CQ, we refer to the motivational, cognitive, and neurological dimensions of the personality traits. Research has shown that the two factors of extraversion and openness to change form a higher order factor of personality or a metatrait labeled as plasticity (DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2002). The plasticity metatrait represents an overarching basic need or motivation in human being to be able to incorporate novel information that may come from within (e.g., from growth and development) and from outside the person (from the environment). Thus, both extraversion and openness to change reflect a motivation to explore and to actively engage with novelty (DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005), and both seem to be associated with the dopaminergic systems in the brain that are associated with the encounter of novelty and experience of reward (DeYoung et al., 2002; Panksepp, 1998). But extraversion reflects exploring this tendency in concrete behavioral ways, while openness reflects this tendency in abstract cognitive ways (DeYoung et al., 2002). Thus, the personality factors that relate to CQ could be characterized as motivated cognitive and behavioral flexibility. Looking deeper into the cognitive sources of the personality correlates of CQ, we could note that the personality factor of openness to change is actually also called intellect (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1992), and others prefer to use the label openness/intellect (DeYoung et al., 2005; Saucier, 2003); these labels reflect the assumption that openness to change is the personality trait most closely associated with cognitive characteristics (Pytlig Zillig, Hemenover, & Dienstbier, 2002), and in particular, with cognitive flexibility (DeYoung et al., 2005), which is commonly defined as the ability to change thoughts and actions in response to demands of the problem or situation (Lezak, 2004). In this study, we consider whether cognitive flexibility is a cognitive attribute that might be associated with CQ. Cognitive flexibility has been conceptualized and operationalized in various ways in the research literature. It is considered as one of the components of the group of higher order cognitive abilities labeled as executive functioning that is important in problem solving, goal pursuit and achievement (Anderson, 2002; Lezak, 2004) and involves the ability to change cognitive sets or perspectives in response to changing goals or changes in the environment. The change in cognitive sets may involve switching facets of one’s thoughts or behaviors, but also involves a range of cognitive functions such as attention, perception of task parameters, monitoring of task demands, among others (Ionescu, 2012). This ability to adapt cognitive processes to different types of problems typically involves two facets; first, the ability to perceive different elements and perspectives of the problem situation, and second, the ability to judge the appropriateness of different cognitive strategies to the situation (Diamond, 2013; Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1988). The opposite of cognitive flexible thinking may be characterized as rigid thinking, where the individual is inclined to consistently apply cognitive and behavioral sets and not to switch or explore alternative cognitive approaches even if the task or environment demands it, or even to explore. Others describe the opposite of cognitive flexibility as cognitive inertia – an overreliance on preexisting mental 13

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 66 (2018) 12–21

A.B.I. Bernardo, A. Presbitero

models that undercut the ability to adapt alternative cognitive approaches to changing task demands (Hodgkinson & Wright, 2002). There are converging lines of research to indicate a possible link between cognitive flexibility and CQ. The first is the research thread we discussed in the preceding paragraphs linking cognitive flexibility with the personality factors associated with CQ. The second thread of research implicates cognitive flexibility in adaptive decision making and effectiveness in group contexts (Furr, Cavarretta, & Garg, 2012; Laureiro-Martínez & Brusoni, 2018; Raes, Heijltjes, Glunk, & Roe, 2011), though not necessarily intergroup or intercultural contexts. The role cognitive flexibility plays is associated with the ability to creatively generate alternative courses of action to adapt to novel task demands, shifting from tried and tested ways of solving problems. This form of adaptive thinking seems to reflect the cognitive and metacognitive facets of CQ described earlier. The third and probably the most interesting thread of research is related to adaptive thought processes in culturally diverse contexts. For example, research in cross-cultural management suggests that working in several countries requires cognitive flexibility to match cognitive processes and work strategies to diverse situational demands in different cultures (Shaffer, Kraimer, Chen, & Bolino, 2012). More specifically, some studies show that people exposed to different cultures and who are able to internalize different cultural knowledge can use their knowledge of different cultural patterns to generate more creative solutions to solving complex problems (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008; Tadmor, Chao, Hong, & Polzer, 2013). Some studies suggest that the intercultural experiences bring out a range of positive outcomes by way of epistemic unfreezing (Tadmor, Hong, Chao, Wiruchnipawan, & Wang, 2012). But there are other studies that suggest that intercultural experiences evoke the motivation to defend one’s own culture, and lead to the tendency to exaggerate differences among cultures (Chiu, Mallorie, Keh, & Law, 2009) and to more rigidity in thinking about the cultural differences (Chao, Kung, & Yao, 2015), including essentializing cultural groups (Bernardo et al., 2016; Chao & Kung, 2015). Need for cognitive closure, a cognitive attribute that relates to this rigid thinking, has also been associated with different forms of acculturative adjustment (Chao, Zhang, & Chiu, 2010; Kashima & Loh, 2006). To address the cognitive rigidity sometimes found in intercultural experiences, procedures aiming to counter stereotypes and prejudice (e.g., thinking of counter-stereotypes, intergroup contact) have been shown to result in more flexible thinking (Gocłowska, Crisp, & Labuschagne, 2013; Vasiljevic & Crisp, 2013). This thread of diverse research studies related to intercultural experiences point to how thinking could be either flexible or rigid within these experiences and suggest that cognitive flexibility might be a cognitive function that is associated with adaptive functioning in intercultural contexts. Studying the possible relationship between cognitive flexibility and CQ has theoretical and practical significance. At the theoretical level, it would not only add to the range of factors that might lead to CQ development, but it might actually clarify why the other individual difference factors predict CQ (e.g., cognitive flexibility might explain why openness to change relates to CQ). At the practical level, cognitive flexibility might be a factor that can be targetted to enhance CQ in individuals. There is research that shows how cognitive flexibility can be trained or boosted (e.g., Peretz et al., 2011; Slegers, Boxtel, & Jolles, 2009), and as such is a possible area for CQ development. The current study We explore the relationship between cognitive flexibility and CQ in two studies using different self-report measures of cognitive flexibility: Cognitive Flexibility Inventory and Need for Cognitive Closure Scale in Study 1, and Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Function in Study 2. As we describe in the methods section below, there are different dimensions of cognitive flexibility assessed in each of these scales; but the different measures of cognitive flexibility we used in the study are all conceptualized and operationalized without any reference to cultural diversity in the environment. Instead, they are basic and generalized tendencies, processes, and behaviors that may be used in a variety of situations. We wish to briefly note that there are empirical issues about how to best measure cognitive flexibility. For example, cognitive flexibility may be measured using performance tasks, like the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Trail-making Test, among others (see Ionescu, 2012, for a review). Self-report measures of cognitive flexibility are also used but these measures have weak correlations with the task-based measures (Johnco, Wuthrich, & Rapee, 2014), suggesting that the two approaches to assessing cognitive flexibility might be measuring different constructs. Indeed, task-based measures tap specific cognitive behavioral demonstrations of flexibility, whereas self-report measures like the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (Roth, Isquith, & Gioia, 2005) and the Cognitive Flexibility Scales (Martin & Rubin, 1995) were developed to assess a more integrated, multidimensional decision making required in real world situation (Gioia & Isquith, 2004). The cognitive flexibility that is likely to be associated with culturally diverse situations is probably more similar to those assessed in self-reports. So in this study we use self-report measures to explore the idea that cognitive flexibility is a psychological function associated with CQ. Our general hypothesis is that specific facets of cognitive flexibility are associated with effective functioning in intercultural contexts. We clarify the specific hypotheses for each measure of cognitive flexibility in the description of the two studies below. Method The relationships between the different measures of cognitive flexibility were assessed in two studies. Study 1 focused on two scales that measured three dimensions of cognitive flexibility. The first is the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI, Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010), which was designed to assess cognitive flexibility required to replace maladaptive thoughts with more adaptive or balanced thinking. The items of CFI assessed two cognitive flexibility factors: (a) Control has items that inquire on the respondents’ tendency to perceive challenging situations as controllable, and (b) Alternatives has items that measure the tendency to conceive of alternative explanations for life experiences, and to generate multiple solutions to difficult situations. The second self-report measure 14

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 66 (2018) 12–21

A.B.I. Bernardo, A. Presbitero

we considered assesses the cognitive factor that is opposed to cognitive flexibility, need for cognitive closure. Need for closure is an individual difference factor that reflects the tendency to seize on and maintain closure as quickly as possible (Kruglanski, 1990). The opposite of need for cognitive closure is characterized as being cognitively open and flexible, and indicates a facet of cognitive flexibility distinct from Control and Alternative measured in the CFI. For Study 1, we hypothesized that both Control and Alternatives are positively associated with CQ, and need for cognitive closure is negatively associated with CQ. Study 2 measured cognitive flexibility using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-A; Roth et al., 2005), specifically the scales that form the Behavioral Regulation Index. Among all the self-report measures used, the BRIEF-A scales most closely attempt to measure the specific regulatory components typically assessed in performance task-based measures: Inhibit, Shifting, Emotional control, and Self-monitoring. Although the labels used for the constructs are similar to those in task-based measures, these self-report measures are tapping aspects of cognitive flexibility that are empirically distinct from (or at best, weakly associated with) the task-based measures (McAuley, Chen, Goos, Schachar, & Crosbie, 2010; Vriezen & Pigott, 2002). For example, Inhibit refers to being able to control impulses and to appropriately stop behavior at the proper time. This cognitive ability would play a role in CQ as higher CQ levels require the individual has to be able stop the more automatized behaviors appropriate in one’s own cultural group when interacting in contexts where there are people from diverse cultures. Shifting refers to being able move freely from one situation to another or from one problem solution to another. This ability would also be reflected in higher CQ levels as the individual has to effectively adjust from approach from one style or behavior to another depending on the needs of the diverse actors in an intercultural context. So we hypothesize that these two scales of BRIEF – Inhibit and Shifting – are positively associated with CQ. The other two scales may not be as important in CQ. For example, Emotional Control refers to being able to regulate emotional responses appropriate to the situation, whereas Self-Monitoring refers to aspects of social and personal awareness. Although both are important skills in any social situation, the skills do not seem to have very identifiable advantages related to dealing specifically with individuals in intercultural contexts. To summarize, for Study 2, we hypothesized that the two facets of cognitive flexibility related to cognitive regulation, Inhibit and Shifting would be positively associated with CQ; but the two facets that are more related to affect and behavior regulation, Emotional Control and Self-Monitoring would not. [The different measures of CQ were studied separately because completing the BRIEF-A required a very long time period and we wanted to avoid having participants answer one lengthy survey.] CQ is typically studied with populations that have intercultural experiences (e.g., workers in multinational companies), and as such, it was vital to ensure that the students who participated in our study have intercultural experience. In the case of the university students in our sample, they were living in Macau, which is a territory that has a sizable foreign population. According to the 2016 census (Documentation & Information Centre of the Statistics & Census Service, 2017), 17.5% of the territory’s 650,834 population are foreigners and 59.3% are foreign born. Thus, typical university students in Macau would have regular experiences with non-local individuals and groups, not to mention foreign tourists (e.g., 30.95 million in 2016). In addition, we inquired about whether the students had travelled to foreign countries and we include this information in the analyses. Study 1 Participants and procedures. Participants were 326 university students in Macau. All were ethnic Chinese, 61.3% were female, and the average age was 19.51 years (SD = 1.68). Exactly 85% of the participants indicated that they have travelled to a foreign country, and 19.9% reported that they have visited at least 6 foreign countries. The participants were recruited from a research participants’ pool and were invited to participate in an online survey for credits towards a class requirement. The contents and procedures for administering the online survey were approved by the research ethics review committee. Participants were first given information about the study’s general purposes and assured that there was no harm or stress involved, and that all their responses would be kept confidential. Only participants who gave their informed consent to participate were allowed to proceed to answer the questionnaire. Instruments. All the self-report measures used in the study were originally written in English. For the present study, a ChineseEnglish bilingual psychology student was oriented on the nature and scope of the scales and then asked to translate the scales into Chinese using traditional orthography. A second Chinese-English bilingual psychology student was asked to translate the Chinese items into English. The two translators compared the various translations and conferred to resolve any discrepancies or issues with the translations. Cultural Intelligence Scale. We used a 20-item scale (Van Dyne et al., 2008) that has been shown to have good psychometric properties in previous studies with university students (Bernardo & Presbitero, 2017; Presbitero & Quita, 2017). The scale measures the four dimensions of CQ discussed earlier. Samples items are: “I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures” and “I change my non-verbal behaviors when a cross-cultural interaction requires it”. Participants indicated the strength of their agreement with each statement using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cognitive Flexibility Inventory. The 20-item scale developed and validated by Dennis and Vander Wal (2010) was used, and the scale measured two dimensions of cognitive flexibility: Alternatives (13 items, sample: “I consider multiple options before making a decision) and Control (7 items, sample: “When I encounter difficult situations, I just don’t know what to do” [reverse coded]). Participants indicated their agreement with each statement using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Need for Closure Scale. We used the brief 15-item version developed and validated by Roets and Van Hiel (2011) from the full 42item scale (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). Sample items are: “I find that a well ordered life with regular hours suits my temperament” and “I dislike questions which could be answered in many different ways.” The original full scale measured five dimensions of need for closure, but for the brief version, we only computed the total score. Participants indicated their agreement with each statement using a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Higher scores indicated higher need for closure, and therefore, lower 15

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 66 (2018) 12–21

A.B.I. Bernardo, A. Presbitero

cognitive flexibility. Study 2 Participants and procedure. Participants were 368 university students in Macau. All were ethnic Chinese, 66.8% were female, and the average age was 19.10 years (SD = 1.65). Some 86.7% of the participants indicated that they have travelled to a foreign country, and 19.8% reported that they have visited at least 6 foreign countries. The participants were recruited and participated in the study following the same details as Study 1. Instruments. The same CQ scale used in Study 1 was used. In addition the Chinese translation of the Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A; Roth et al., 2005) was used. The BRIEF-A has 75 items within nine non-overlapping clinical scales that form two broad indexes: Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI) and Metacognition Index (MI) (described earlier). [There were also three validity scales: Negativity, Infrequency, and Inconsistency. Following the procedures specified in Roth et al., 2005, participants who scored elevated negativity, infrequent, and inconsistent scores were excluded from the sample; the sample size reported earlier reflects the exclusions.] The Chinese translation of BRIEF-A was developed by Zaroff (2016) using standard forward-backward translation procedures. A bilingual Chinese-English speaking research assistant translated the English items into Chinese using traditional orthography. A second bilingual Chinese-English research assistant independently back-translated the Chinese translations into English. A committee that comprised of the two translators and two other researchers compared, reviewed, and revised the translations. The entire BRIEF-A was administered and scored, but as mentioned earlier, we focused only on four clinical scales: Inhibit (8 items; sample: “I have problems waiting my turn”), Shifting (6 items; “I have trouble changing from one activity or task to another”), Emotional Control (10 items; “I overreact to small problems”), and Self-Monitoring (6 items; “I say things without thinking”). Participants responded using only three options: Never, Sometimes, or, Often. For purposes of the quantitative analysis, the three response anchors were scored 1, 2, and 3, respectively. For each clinical scale, the score is the sum of all the items; with higher scores indicating poorer executive functions. Results Study 1 The descriptive statistics for CQ and the psychological and cognitive flexibility measures are summarized in Table 1. Consistent with the general hypotheses, CQ was positively correlated with most measures with the exception of Control subscale of the CFI. To better test the hypothesized relationships between CQ and the cognitive flexibility measures, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis. In the first step of regression analysis, CQ was regressed to the control variables. Age and sex were included as controls in the regression model as was done in previous studies on CQ (e.g., Templer, Tay, & Chandrasekar, 2006; Ward, Fischer, Zaid Lam, & Hall, 2009). Because number of countries visited is correlated with CQ levels (Crowne, 2013), we created two dummy variables to control for this factor: (a) travel to foreign lands was coded to indicate whether the individual has travelled abroad regardless of number of countries visited, and (b) numerous travels to foreign lands was coded to indicate whether the individual has travelled to foreign lands at least six times. The two dummy variables were also entered as control variables in the first step of the regression analysis. In the second step, need for cognitive closure and the cognitive flexibility subscales were added to the model. As shown in Table 2, only Alternatives was significantly associated with CQ; the hypothesized relationships with need for cognitive closure and with Control subscale of cognitive flexibility were not observed. Study 2 The descriptive statistics for CQ, the four BRIEF-A clinical scales are summarized in Table 3. Again, we note that consistent with Table 1 Summary of descriptive statistics for key variables in Study 1. Correlations (r) Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Cultural intelligence Travel to foreign landsa Numerous travels to foreign landsb Cognitive flexibility: Alternatives Cognitive flexibility: Control Need for cognitive closure

α .89 – – .88 .76 .84

M 3.54 – – 4.33 3.70 4.79

SD 0.45 – – 0.57 0.68 0.71

a

2 .03

3

4 **

.16 .21**

**

.45 −.06 .11

0 = never travelled to foreign lands, 1 = has travelled to foreign land at least once. 0 = never travelled to foreign land or travelled 5 times or fewer, 1 = travelled to foreign land at least 6 times. ** p < .01.

b

16

5

6

−.01 −.04 −.04 .07

.21** −.01 .03 .41** .37**

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 66 (2018) 12–21

A.B.I. Bernardo, A. Presbitero

Table 2 Summary of regression analysis with cognitive flexibility scales as predictors. Predictors

Model 1 (β)

Model 1 (β)

Age Sexa Travel to foreign landsb Numerous travels to foreign landsc Need for cognitive closure Cognitive flexibility: Alternatives Cognitive flexibility: Control R2 F df ΔR2 ΔF Df

−.16** −.12* .01 .16**

−.12* −.09 .04 .10* .04 .41* −.05 .24 14.40** 7, 317 .17 24.06** 3, 317

.07 5.88** 4, 320

a

0 = female, 1 = male. 0 = never travelled to foreign lands, 1 = has travelled to foreign land at least once. c 0 = never travelled to foreign land or travelled 5 times or fewer, 1 = travelled to foreign land at least 6 times. * p < .05. ** p < .01. b

Table 3 Summary of descriptive statistics for key variables in Study 2. Correlations (r) Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Cultural intelligence Travel to foreign landsa Numerous travels to foreign landsb Inhibit Shift Emotional control Self monitoring

M 3.52 – – 14.12 11.42 16.38 9.97

SD

2

3

0.44 – – 2.57 1.99 3.59 2.36

−.15**

−.04 .20**

4

5

6

7

.18** −.02 .00

−.19** −.08 −.06 .66**

−.12 −.09 .03 .68** .66**

*

−.11* −.06 −.00 .69** .54** .56**

a

0 = never travelled to foreign lands, 1 = has travelled to foreign land at least once. 0 = never travelled to foreign land or travelled 5 times or fewer, 1 = travelled to foreign land at least 5 times. * p < .05, **p < .01.

b

the general hypotheses, CQ was positively correlated with all the BRI clinical scales. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a regression analysis similar to that in Study 1, however, because of the significant correlations among the predictors, the scores were standardized before including them in the regression analysis. The results are summarized in Table 4, and we should mention that the overall regression model, although significant, had a very small effect size (R2 = .04). But the results provide partial support for the hypothesis; Shifting was a significant predictor of CQ, but Inhibit and the other two scales were not. Discussion Two studies were conducted to investigate the general hypothesis that mental flexibility is a psychological function or attribute that relates to CQ. The results of the studies provide support for the general hypothesis; in particular, one dimension of cognitive flexibility (Alternatives) and one specific executive function (Shifting) were associated with CQ in our samples of Chinese university students. Facets of cognitive flexibility and CQ We note that the effect sizes vary across the different measures of flexibility, with the measures associated with the broader selfreport measures of cognitive flexibility having the bigger effect size (R2 = .24) and the most precise measures of executive function having the smaller effect size (R2 = .04). The effect sizes might indicate the degree to which these facets of cognitive flexibility are proximal to the actual processes involved in CQ. Thus, CQ might not be strongly related to the specific executive functions of the brain that are supposed to be assessed in the BRIEF-A. Instead they might be more reflective of the cognitive preferences and tendencies that integrate various specific functions that are shaped by explicit and implicit forms of learning in social and 17

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 66 (2018) 12–21

A.B.I. Bernardo, A. Presbitero

Table 4 Summary of regression analysis with behavioral regulation subscales as predictors. Predictors

Model 1 (β)

Model 1 (β)

Age Sexa Travel to foreign landsb Numerous travels to foreign landsc Inhibit Shift Emotional control Self monitoring R2 F df ΔR2 ΔF df

−.01 −.09 −.07 .19**

−.01 −.09 −.08 .19** −.05 −.15* −.02 .03 .08 3.96** 8, 358 .03 3.29* 4, 358

.05 4.51** 4, 362

Note: Standardized scores for behavioral regulation subscales were used in the regression analysis. a 0 = female, 1 = male. b 0 = never travelled to foreign lands, 1 = has travelled to foreign land at least once. c 0 = never travelled to foreign land or travelled 5 times or fewer, 1 = travelled to foreign land at least 5 times. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

interpersonal contexts. But the results did not confirm all our hypotheses and the non-significant relationships found could be interpreted as clarifying the specific forms of flexibility that are relevant to CQ. For example, the non-relationship among CQ, need for cognitive closure and the Control subscale of CFI suggests that neither the feeling of control over complex situation or the need to quickly attain closure on such situations are relevant psychological functions associated with CQ. In other words, the development of CQ is unrelated with tendencies associated with imposing control over complex situations. This may be due to CQ requiring high levels of adjustments, both cognitively and behaviorally, that imposing control or quickly attaining closure do not associate with CQ. We also assumed that Inhibit would be a relevant function as CQ would require suppression of more established ways of thinking and acting in one’s own cultural group; but the non-significant results might suggest that CQ goes beyond inhibiting specific sets of responses. CQ was also not related to affective and behavior regulation measured by the emotional control and self-monitor scales. Indeed, the significant results suggest that what CQ is about is having a range of possible sets of responses (Alternatives), and being able to shift among these sets as needed (Shifting). The cognitive functions that seem to be related to CQ both involve being able to broaden one’s cognitive approaches and to shift among these appropriately. These results suggest that it is not cognitive flexibility in a general sense that seems to be associated with adaptive functioning in intercultural contexts; instead the results point to the specific facets of cognitive flexibility that seem to be related to CQ. We should underscore that the relationships with these two aspects of cognitive flexibility where observed with measures of travel in different lands included in the regression model. Consistent with previous research (Crowne, 2013), numerous travels to foreign places was a strong predictor of CQ in both studies; which suggests that the cognitive flexibility variables explained a significant incremental portion of the variance in CQ. The specific dimensions of cognitive flexibility identified in our study add to the emerging literature on factors that might be associated with the development of CQ (Fang et al., 2018). Previous research has pointed to possible factors that are associated with the development of CQ. Some of these factors relate to social experiences that involve intercultural contact (Rosenblatt, Worthley, & MacNab, 2013). For example, in relation to CQ in the workplace, prior international work (Takeuchi, Tesluk, Yun, & Lepak, 2005) and non-work experiences are both related to the development of CQ (Tarique & Takeuchi, 2008). Some research has also pointed to some personality factors, like openness to experience and extraversion that might be associated with CQ (Li et al., 2016; Presbitero, 2016b). To these range of factors, we can add specific facets of cognitive flexibility. The associations between specific dimensions of cognitive flexibility and CQ may suggest that these dimensions could be part of the psychological mechanisms that underlie CQ, but given the correlational nature of findings, this suggestion would have to be verified in future studies. Limitations and further research questions The plausibility of facets of cognitive flexibility as psychological functions underlying CQ should be considered with reference to the limitations of our study, like the sample comprising only of university students. Cognitive flexibility and other related executive functions are known to be associated with academic achievement (Diamond, 2013; Eigsti et al., 2006), so our sample of university student may have higher levels of cognitive flexibility that the general population. In this regard, future research should involve a more representative and diverse sample of individuals. The diversity of individuals could also consider the range of actual intercultural experiences and cross-cultural contact beyond the frequency of foreign travel, as it would be interesting to know how 18

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 66 (2018) 12–21

A.B.I. Bernardo, A. Presbitero

qualities of such experiences may interact with the more individual level variations in cognitive flexibility. Age and sex had inconsistent relationships with CQ across the two studies, but the research literature have been equivocal about how these variables relate to CQ. These and other basic personal variable might be further explored in future studies that seek to better clarify the individual difference factors related to CQ. Our study also utilized only self-report measures of cognitive flexibility. As mentioned earlier, previous research has noted that self-report measures of executive functions (e.g., shifting) do not correlate well with task-based measures of cognitive flexibility, which is a specific component of executive functions (Johnco et al., 2014). Future research should also look into more diverse measures of cognitive flexibility that include task-based measures, or other observable measures that do not depend only on selfreports. But it is worth noting that the measures of cognitive flexibility used in the study were not defined with specific reference to problems or situations that involve cultural diversity; indeed, the items in the scales did not even refer to interpersonal or intergroup situations. Yet, the relationship between these aspects of cognitive flexibility and CQ suggest that there are more fundamental psychological processes that are associated with, and perhaps contribute to the development of CQ. Conclusion Our study found specific dimensions of cognitive flexibility to be associated with CQ; in particular, the tendency to work with a range of alternative responses, and the ability to shift among these sets were associated with CQ in participants. These facets of cognitive flexibility add to the emerging literature on factors that might be associated with the development of CQ. The theoretical and practical significance of our findings could be appreciated if we state the result inversely: It seems that persons who tend to have narrow perspectives on how to approach problem and who are unable to shift appropriately when task demands or environmental factors change are more likely to have lower CQ. These cognitive tendencies are proposed to be “trainable.” Recent research has shown training programs drawn from different theoretical approaches that result in improvements on cognitive flexibility (e.g., Glass, Maddox, & Love, 2013; Moore & Malinowski, 2009), some of which involve computer-based training (Peretz et al., 2011; Slegers et al., 2009). Thus, understanding how and which specific aspects of cognitively flexibility relates to CQ could help in efforts to strengthen CQ in target populations in the hopes of fostering more effective functioning in intercultural social environments. Author notes This research was supported by a grant from the University of Macau Research and Development Administration Office (Grant No.: MYRG2014-00098-FSS) given to the first author. The authors thank Man Wai Lei, Yang Fuming, and Mao Sijie for their valuable assistance in various phases of the study. References Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8(2), 71–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/chin.8. 2.71.8724. Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications. New York, NY: ME Sharpe. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four factor model of cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31, 100–123. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601105275267. Bernardo, A. B. I., & Presbitero, A. (2017). Belief in polyculturalism and cultural intelligence: Individual- and country-level differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 307–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.006. Bernardo, A. B. I., Salanga, M. G. C., Tjipto, S., Hutape, B., Yeung, S. S., & Khan, A. (2016). Contrasting lay theories of polyculturalism and multiculturalism: Associations with essentialist beliefs of race in six Asian cultural groups. Cross-Cultural Research, 50, 231–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1069397116641895. Chao, M. M., & Kung, F. Y. (2015). An essentialism perspective on intercultural processes. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 91–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ ajsp.12089. Chao, M. M., Kung, F. Y., & Yao, D. J. (2015). Understanding the divergent effects of multicultural exposure. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 47, 78–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.032. Chao, M. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Chiu, C. Y. (2010). Adherence to perceived norms across cultural boundaries: The role of need for cognitive closure and ingroup identification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 69–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430209343115. Chen, A. S., Lin, Y., & Sawangpattanakul, A. (2011). The relationship between cultural intelligence and performance with the mediating effect of culture shock: A case from Philippine laborers in Taiwan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 246–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.005. Chen, A. S., Wu, I., & Bian, M. (2014). The moderating effects of active and agreeable conflict management styles on cultural intelligence and cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14, 270–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470595814525064. Chiu, C. Y., Mallorie, L., Keh, H. T., & Law, W. (2009). Perceptions of culture in multicultural space: Joint presentation of images from two cultures increases in-group attribution of culture-typical characteristics. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 282–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022108328912. Crowne, K. A. (2013). Cultural exposure, emotional intelligence and cultural intelligence: An exploratory study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 13, 5–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470595812452633. Deng, L., & Gibson, P. (2009). Mapping and modeling the capacities that underlie effective cross-cultural leadership. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 16, 347–365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527600911000339. Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy Research, 34, 241–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4. DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 533–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00171-4. DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Sources of openness/intellect: Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 825–858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00330.x. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41. 020190.002221. Documentation and Information Centre of the Statistics and Census Service 2017. 2016 Population by-census detailed results. Macau, DSEC.

19

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 66 (2018) 12–21

A.B.I. Bernardo, A. Presbitero

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Eigsti, I. M., Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Ayduk, O., Dadlani, M. B., ... Casey, B. J. (2006). Predicting cognitive control from preschool to late adolescence and young adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 478–484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01732.x. Fang, F., Schei, V., & Selart, M. (2018). Hype or hope? A new look at the research on cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.04.002 Advanced online publication. Furr, N. R., Cavarretta, F., & Garg, S. (2012). Who changes course? The role of domain knowledge and novel framing in making technology changes. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(3), 236–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sej.1137. Gioia, G. A., & Isquith, P. K. (2004). Ecological assessment of executive function in traumatic brain injury. Developmental Neuropsychology, 25, 135–158. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/87565641.2004.9651925. Glass, B. D., Maddox, W. T., & Love, B. C. (2013). Real-time strategy game training: Emergence of a cognitive flexibility trait. PLoS One, 8, e70350. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0070350. Gocłowska, M. A., Crisp, R. J., & Labuschagne, K. (2013). Can counter-stereotypes boost flexible thinking? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(2), 217–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430212445076. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26. Harrison, N. (2012). Investigating the impact of personality and early life experiences on intercultural interaction in internationalized universities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 224–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.007. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Wright, G. (2002). Confronting strategic inertia in a top management team: Learning from failure. Organization Studies, 23(6), 949–977. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840602236014. Huff, K. C., Song, P., & Gresch, E. B. (2014). Cultural intelligence, personality and cross-cultural adjustment: A study of expatriates in Japan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 151–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.08.005. Ionescu, T. (2012). Exploring the nature of cognitive flexibility. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 190–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.11.001. Johnco, C., Wuthrich, V. M., & Rapee, R. M. (2014). Reliability and validity of two self-report measures of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Assessment, 26, 1381–1387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038009. Kashima, E. S., & Loh, E. (2006). International students’ acculturation: Effects of international, conational, and local ties and need for closure. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 471–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.12.003. Kong, D. T. (2017). Sojourners’ ineffective sociocultural adaptation: Paranoia as a joint function of distrust toward host nationals and neuroticism. Current Psychology, 36, 540–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9441-3. Korzilius, H., Bücker, J. J., & Beerlage, S. (2017). Multiculturalism and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 56, 13–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.11.001. Kruglanski, A. W. (1990). Lay epistemic theory in social-cognitive psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 1(3), 181–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0103_1. Laureiro-Martínez, D., & Brusoni, S. (2018). Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision‐making: Evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers. Strategic Management Journal, 39(4), 1031–1058. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2774. Le, H., Jiang, Z., & Nielsen, I. (2016). Cognitive cultural intelligence and life satisfaction of migrant workers: The roles of career engagement and social injustice. Social Indicators Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1393-3. Lee, L. Y., Veasna, S., & Wu, W. Y. (2013). The effects of social support and transformational leadership on expatriate adjustment and performance: The moderating roles of socialization experience and cultural intelligence. Career Development International, 18, 377–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-06-2012-0062. Lee, L. Y., Veasna, S., & Sukoco, B. M. (2014). The antecedents of cultural effectiveness of expatriation: Moderating effects of psychological contracts. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 52, 215–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2013.00055.x. Leung, K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63, 169–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.169. Lezak, M. D. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press. Li, M., Mobley, W. H., & Kelly, A. (2016). Linking personality to cultural intelligence: An interactive effect of openness and agreeableness. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 105–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.050. Lin, Y., Chen, A. S., & Song, Y. (2012). Does your intelligence help to survive in a foreign jungle? The effects of cultural intelligence and emotional intelligence on cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 541–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.03.001. MacNab, B. R. (2012). An experiential approach to cultural intelligence education. Journal of Management Education, 36, 66–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1052562911412587. MacNab, B. R., & Worthley, R. (2012). Individual characteristics as predictors of cultural intelligence development: The relevance of self-efficacy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 62–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.12.001. MacNab, B. R., Brislin, R., & Worthley, R. (2012). Experiential cultural intelligence development: Context and individual attributes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 1320–1341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.581636. Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623–626. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.623. McAuley, T., Chen, S., Goos, L., Schachar, R., & Crosbie, J. (2010). Is the behavior rating inventory of executive function more strongly associated with measures of impairment or executive function? Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 16, 495–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1355617710000093. Moore, A., & Malinowski, P. (2009). Meditation, mindfulness and cognitive flexibility. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 176–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog. 2008.12.008. Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 534–552. Peretz, C., Korczyn, A. D., Shatil, E., Aharonson, V., Birnboim, S., & Giladi, N. (2011). Computer-based, personalized cognitive training versus classical computer games: A randomized double-blind prospective trial of cognitive stimulation. Neuroepidemiology, 36, 91–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000323950. Presbitero, A. (2017). It’s not all about language ability: Motivational cultural intelligence matters in call center performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(11), 1547–1562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1128464. Presbitero, A. (2016a). Culture shock and reverse culture shock: The moderating role of cultural intelligence in international students’ adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 53, 28–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.05.004. Presbitero, A. (2016b). Cultural intelligence (CQ) in virtual: Cross-cultural interactions: Generalizability of measure and links to personality dimensions and task performance. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 29–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.11.001. Presbitero, A., & Quita, C. (2017). Expatriate career intentions: Links to career adaptability and cultural intelligence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 118–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.11.001. Presbitero, A., & Toledano, L. S. (2017). Global team members’ performance and the roles of cross-cultural training, cultural intelligence, and contact intensity: The case of global teams in IT offshoring sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1322118. Pytlig Zillig, L. M., Hemenover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. (2002). What do we assess when we assess a Big 5 trait? A content analysis of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes represented in Big 5 personality inventories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 847–858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167202289013. Raes, A. M., Heijltjes, M. G., Glunk, U., & Roe, R. A. (2011). The interface of the top management team and middle managers: A process model. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 102–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0088. Reichard, R. J., Serrano, S. A., Confren, M., Wilder, N., Dollwet, M., & Wang, W. (2015). Engagement in cultural trigger events in the development of cultural competence. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14, 461–481. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2013.0043. Rocksthul, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence

20

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 66 (2018) 12–21

A.B.I. Bernardo, A. Presbitero

(CQ) on cross-border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 825–840. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01730.x. Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the need for closure scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 90–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004. Rosenblatt, V., Worthley, R., & MacNab, B. (2013). From contact to development in experiential cultural intelligence education: The mediating influence of expectancy disconfirmation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12, 354–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0199. Roth, R. M., Isquith, P. K., & Gioia, G. A. (2005). BRIEF-A: Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Adult version: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Saucier, G. (2003). Factor structure of English-language personality type-nouns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 695–708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.85.4.695. Shaffer, M. A., Kraimer, M. L., Chen, Y. P., & Bolino, M. C. (2012). Choices, challenges, and career consequences of global work experiences: A review and future agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1282–1327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206312441834. Shu, F., McAbee, S. T., & Ayman, R. (2017). The HEXACO personality traits, cultural intelligence, and international student adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 21–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.024. Slegers, K., Boxtel, M., & Jolles, J. (2009). Effects of computer training and internet usage on cognitive abilities in older adults: A randomized controlled study. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 1(21), 43–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03324898. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tadmor, C. T., Chao, M. M., Hong, Y., & Polzer, J. T. (2013). Not just for stereotyping anymore: Racial essentialism reduces domain-general creativity. Psychological Science, 24, 99–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797612452570. Tadmor, C. T., Hong, Y., Chao, M. M., Wiruchnipawan, F., & Wang, W. (2012). Multicultural experiences reduce intergroup bias through epistemic unfreezing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 750–772. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029719. Takeuchi, R., Tesluk, P. E., Yun, S., & Lepak, D. P. (2005). An integrative view of international experience. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 85–100. http://dx.doi. org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993143. Tarique, I., & Takeuchi, R. (2008). Developing cultural intelligence: The roles of international non-work experiences. In S. Ang, & L. Van Dyne (Eds.). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 56–70). New York: MESharpe. Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural adjustment. Group & Organization Management, 31, 154–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601105275293. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS. In S. Ang, & L. Van Dyne (Eds.). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 16–38). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. Vasiljevic, M., & Crisp, R. J. (2013). Tolerance by surprise: Evidence for a generalized reduction in prejudice and increased egalitarianism through novel category combination. PloS One, 8(3), e57106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057106. Vriezen, E. R., & Pigott, S. E. (2002). The relationship between parental report on the BRIEF and performance-based measures of executive function in children with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Child Neuropsychology, 8(4), 296–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/chin.8.4.296.13505. Ward, C., Fischer, R., Zaid Lam, F. S., & Hall, L. (2009). The convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of scores on a self-report measure of cultural intelligence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 85–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164408322001. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062. http://dx. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049. Zaroff, C. M. (2016). Chinese translation of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-A). Unpublished translationsMacau: University of Macau.

21