- Email: [email protected]
Testing the construct validity of intercultural effectiveness
InrernofionslJournol Printed in the USA.
of Intercultural Relarions, All rights reserved.
Vol.
15, pp. 221-241,
1991 Copyright
0147.1767/91 $3.00 f .oO 0 1991 Pergamon Press plc
TESTING THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF INTERCULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS
GlWG CU1 and SJEF V’iV DEN .BERG The University of Connecticut ABSTRACT. Intercultural effectiveness is a theoretical construct that includes a set of factors that predict effective intercultural communication and adaptation. The construct validity of intercultural effectiveness must be established before it can be used for theory development. This study considers inter~~tural effectiveness a theoreti~ai construct that has cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects and tests the factorial structure model in which intercultural effectiveness is a second-order factor indicated by three first-order factors: communication competence, cultural empathy, and communication behavior. The construct validity is tested by examining the factorial validity using confirmatory factor analysis with LISREL Vi. The overall fit of the model is satisfactory, indicated by adequate factor loadings and correlations and goodness of fit. The present findings provide some support for the ronstruct validity of intercultural effectiveness. However, more research should be done on intercultural effectiveness in areas such as its discriminant and convergent validity before using the construct for model building and theory development.
A considerable amount of research has been carried out to explore the dimensions that predict cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 1988; Church, 1982). A number of factors have been found to influence effective adaptation, such as fluency in the host language, interpersonal skills, cultural empathy, social interaction, and personality traits (e.g., Kealey & Ruben, 1983; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Ruben, 1976; Brein & David, 1971; Byrnes, 1965; Cleveland, Mangone, & Adams, 1960). These studies, using a diversity of methods, produced inconsistent results as to what abilities and personal attributes are important in predicting cross-cultural adaptation. Integration is called for at the conceptual level to better understand the complicated process of cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 1986). The elaboration of intercultural effectiveness as a more general and comprehensive theoretical construct is one of the steps in consolidating previous findings by identifying the key factors that influence cross-cultural adaptation (e.g., Cui, 1989; Hammer et al, 1978). Yet the construct validity of intercultural effectiveReprint requests should be sent to Geng Cui, Department of Communication The University of Connecticut, P.O. Box U-85, Storrs, CT 06268.
227
Sciences,
228
G. Cui and S. van den Berg
tress has to be established before it can be applied in model building and theory development. Some researchers attempted to determine empirically what the best indicators of intercultural effectiveness are (e.g., Koester & Olebe, 1986; Hawes & Kealey, 1981; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Stoner, Aram, & Rubin, 1972). They assessed the effects of tolerance for ambiguity, display of respect, role behavior, interaction posture, and other behavioral aspects in evaluating sojourners’ cross-cultural adaptation and developed measurement scales for behavioral assessment (Koester & Olebe, 1986; Ruben & Kealey, 1979). Another of group of researchers focused on identifying the underlying dimensions of intercultural effectiveness (Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Gudykunst, Wiseman & Hammer, 1977). They investigated both personal characteristics and communication competence and behavior, and tried to establish intercultural effectiveness as a major construct in studying crosscultural communication and adaptation. Hammer et al. (1978) developed a questionnaire which consisted of 24 “personal abilities” in intercultural effectiveness. Their factor analysis yielded three dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: the abilities (a) to deal with psychological stress, (b) to communicate effectively, and (c) to establish interperson~ relationships. A replication study using the same research design produced different factors, and this difference was attributed to the cultural-specific nature of intercultural experience, since the latter was conducted on a subject group of different national origin (Abe & Wiseman, 1983). The studies to date in this area have been concerned primarily with searching for typologies of factors that contribute to cross-cultural adaptation. While the key dimensions have been identified and measurement scales have been constructed and tested, the theoretical aspect of intercultural effectiveness has not been as extensively discussed. Cui (1989) defined intercultural effectiveness as the general assessment of a sojourner’s ability for effective intercultural communication. He proposed an integrative approach to intercultural effectiveness by combining the existing perspectives -interpersonal skills, social interaction, cultural empathy, and personality traits-and the above dimensions were reproduced in his factor analysis. But he did not provide a theoretical framework that can incorporate these dimensions coherently. In these studies (e.g., Cui, 1989; Hammer et al., 1978), factor analysis was used to identify the relevant dimensions of the construct and to discover a more parsimonious representation of abilities deemed important to effective intercultural functioning. Compared to other theoretical concepts proposed in previous studies such as host communication competence (Kim, 1988), intercultural effectiveness is more general and comprehensive, since it consists of several first-order factors such as interpersonal abilities, cultural empathy, and social interaction. But the exploratory
Intercultural Effectiveness
229
nature of these factor analyses did not evolve from any sound theoretical reasoning, nor did the researchers specify the interrelations~ps between its composite factors. The research findings are fragmented and in relative isolation from one another. Not enough effort has been dedicated to consolidating the results and interrelating them in a meaningful fashion. This is not conducive to theory development and knowledge generation in this area (Kim, 1986; Benson, 1978). Integration at the conceptual level and more theory-driven studies are encouraged for theory development and more systematic investigation of the subject. Empirically validated constructs are needed for theory development and testing. Thus, this study will test the construct validity of intercultural effectiveness. CONSTRUCT INTERCULTURAL
VALIDITY OF EFFECTIVENESS
Since it is impossible to incorporate directly all the variables relevant to cross-cultural adaptation, it becomes imperative to reduce the large number of variables to a few theoretically meaningful constructs and to treat others as situational or intervening variables. These constructs can be used for model building and theory development. Researchers who have built instruments to study cross-cultural adaptation have demonstrated that intercultural effectiveness can be reduced to a few factors (e.g., Hammer et al., 1978). Exploratory factor analysis can be used to recognize such a latent variable or construct. This procedure is primarily used for data reduction or dimensional analysis (Fink & Monge, 1985). It often happens, however, that a more abstract and general construct is needed to study complicated phenomena. Such a general latent construct, which may be in~uenced by other latent variables, need not have direct effect on the observed indicators. Validation of a latent construct should begin with theoretical explication of the construct and the relationships among its first-order factors, followed by empirical testing of these relationships. Such a higher-order factor analysis is especially useful to validate an abstract and general concept (Bollen, 1989). Intercultural effectiveness has been identified as such a latent construct in previous factor analyses (e.g. Hammer et al, 1978) and, it is defined as the general assessment of sojourner’s ability to communicate effectively across cultures (Cui, 1989). Intercultural effectiveness should include a sojourner’s cognitive, affective and behavioral competence (e.g., Kim, 1988; Gudykunst & Rim, 1984; Kealey & Ruben, 1983). The cognitive dimension of intercultural effectiveness includes the knowledge of language, nonverbal behavior, and communication rules of the host country. The affective dimension of intercultural effectiveness requires a set of perceptions toward the host culture that enable cultural strangers to “position themselves in a psychological orientation” that is “favor-
230
G. Cui and S. van den Berg
able” or “compatible” with that of the host culture (Kim, 1988). The affective quality is the ability to acknowledge cultural differences, to empathize with the host country’s cultural norms and working styles, etc. The third component is the behavioral dimension, which requires a sojourner to demonstrate his or her cognitive and affective qualities in social interaction with the host people. The cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions are the integral and indispensable parts of intercultural effectiveness. They are interdependent to each other. Thus, to be interculturally effective, one needs to be competent in all three areas. One dimension cannot function without the other two. Cognitive competence, such as in language and interpersonal skills, provides the tools for intercultural communication. However, without affective components of competence, such as empathy and tolerance, one may not be able to establish positive and meaningful intercourse with the host people. One’s cognitive and affective competence should be exhibited in his or her social interaction with the host people. There is substantial agreement among researchers that the cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions are the essential aspects of an individual sojourner’s ability to adapt (Kim, 1988). It is the integration of the cognitive, affective, and behavioral subprocesses that enables sojourners to become fully “engaged” in their encounters with the host people (Kim, 1988). Therefore, a theoretical model of intercultural effectiveness should include all three of these dimensions. Like all constructs, intercultural effectiveness is not amenable to direct observation and, therefore, has to be identified through a series of measurable variables. Intercultural effectiveness can be viewed as a secondorder factor as indicated by the following factors: communication competence, cultural empathy, and communication behavior as well as an additional factor: personality traits. These factors well represent the cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. These first-order factors can be assessed by observable or measurable indicators. The relationships between the latent construct, latent variables, and their indicators may well be expressed by a higher-order factorial structure model (Figure I). Communication competence has been extensively studied in crosscultural adaptation. Since cross-cultural adaptation occurs in and through communication, communication competence is a vital component of intercultural effectiveness (Kim, 1988). Language ability (A?,) is perhaps the most critical element of communication competence (e.g., Brein & David, 1971). Interpersonal skills, including the abilities to initiate conversation (X,), to establish a meaningful relationship (X3), and to maintain such a relationship (A’,) have also been selected as important indicators of communication competence (Hammer et al, 1978). Personality traits constitute sojourners’ predisposition or adaptive po-
231
Intercultural Effectiveness Intercultural
Factor 1 Corn munication Competence (,~~
X1 X2
X3
Factor 2 Personality r(
X4
X5
X6
Effectiveness
Factor 4 Communication Be/(or
Factor 3 Cultural g[h
X7
X8
FIGURE 1. A factorial structure model of intercultural
X9
X10
x11
x12
effectiveness.
tential (Kim, 1988). Despite of the negating arguments about personality effects from some scholars, certain personality traits have been found to be consistently influential in determining cross-cultural adaptation: patience (X,) and flexibility (X6). Cultural empathy is the mental capacity to be flexible in dealing with ambiguity and unfamiliarity (Kim, 1988). It includes tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity (X,), empathy for cultural norms (X,), empathy for different working styles (X,), and awareness of cultural differences (X1,). Cultural empathy is the affective dimension of intercultural effectiveness. Communication behavior includes a variety of behavioral patterns in the intercultural communication process: role behavior, social interaction, etc. (Ruben & Kealy, 1979). Appropriateness of social behavior (X,,) and display of respect (X,,) are considered the most important. This is the behavioral component of intercultural effectiveness. Intercultural effectiveness is a potentially useful construct for theory development. Yet the conceptual and empirical validity of such a construct has to be established before it can be submitted for rigorous theory testing. Construct validity is to “assess whether a measure relates to other observed variables in a way that is consistent with theoretically derived predictions” (Bollen, 1989, p. 188). If empirical association between a measure of one factor (variable) and other measures indicating other factors (variables) is observed to parallel the theoretically specified relationship, construct validity exists. In terms of intercultural effectiveness, these interrelationships have not been explicitly specified, but the conceptual validity - theoretical meaningfulness and internal consistency were implied. Since intercultural effectiveness is a construct in the form of a second-order factor, it is important at this point to test the factorial validity of the construct. Factorial validity is one type of construct valid-
G. Cui and S. van den Berg
232
x5
X6
tt
Corn m unication Corn petence
Personality Traits
+ j.
x7
X8
X9
Xl0
Xl1
x12
FiGURE 2. The relationships between the factors of intercultural effectiveness.
ity. Thus testing the fit of the factorial structure model should help validate the construct, Explicit specifications of the factorial structure are the necessary conditions for developing a valid construct. As for cultural strangers, the coordination and integration of cognitive, affective, and behaviorai abilities is essential for effective communication. These dimensions have a tendency to reinforce each other. Therefore, these three factors plus personality traits are all assumed to contribute positively to the construct , and they collectively and interactively influence intercultural effectiveness and facilitate cross-cultural adaptation. Thus these four factors should also be positively correlated with one another. For instance, Kim (1988) posited that communication competence and communication behavior (social interaction) are associated with each other and mutually influencing. Logically, if communication competence and communication behavior are both positive indicators of intercultural effectiveness, the relationship between communication competence and communication behavior should also be positive. The relationships between other factors should exhibit the same pattern. The factorial structure of intercuhural effectiveness can be expressed by Figure 2. A statistical procedure that can confirm the correlations between these factors would be said to indicate factorial validity.
Intercultural Effectiveness
233
METHOD Although exploratory factor analysis is appropriate in the developing stage of a construct, confirmatory factor analysis is considered more adequate when assessing the validity of the developed construct. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is primarily used for dimensional analysis or data reduction (Cui, 1989; Hammer et al., 1978), but it has been shown to have several limitations. First, an explicit model relating the latent to observed variables is not specified in advance in EFA. Second, no unique solution exists for EFA because the technique is basically indeterminate. Alternative rotation solutions can produce an infinite number of factorial structures. Problems also arise from EFA’s reliance on an arbitrary statistical criterion (i.e., eigenvalue > 1) to determine the number of factors (Bollen, 1989). Consequently, it is difficult if not impossible to test hypotheses about the parsimony of the hypothesized data structure (Fink & Monge, 1985; Kenny, 1979). Third, the EFA procedure does not allow correlated measurement errors (Bollen, 1989). In contrast, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is superior in testing the fit of a factorial structure model. CFA procedures require the specification of a formal, a priori model so that it provides unique estimates of factor loadings and correlations. CFA also permits correlated measurement errors and provides straightforward statistical tests of the adequacy of the obtained results (fit of the factorial structure model) as well as a standard basis for drawing inferences about a population on the basis of a sample (see Fink & Monge, 1985, for a brief review of CFA). Given the theoretical framework delineated above, the adequacy of the intercultural effectiveness factorial structure should be tested through confirmatory factor analysis. A matrix of correlations and covariances is needed to carry out confirmatory factor analysis (see Table 1). The data required for this procedure were obtained from Cui’s (1989) study, which provides a correlation matrix for cross-cultural adaptation and the standard deviations of variables. The study is based on a survey of American business people on assignments in China. In the original study, a questionnaire was developed to assess the respondents’ subjective ratings of related items to determine the important factors of cross-cultural adaptation. The questionnaire consisted of 20 questions on 5-point scale, which require selfrating on these dimensions of intercultural effectiveness (see page 231). Subjective rating of one’s satisfaction with life experience in the host country is used as a measure of cross-cultural adaptation. The questionnaire was pretested with 14 American business people who had worked in China. With the help of U.S. Foreign Service Offices in China, two waves of self-administered questionnaires (total 257) were sent to American business people in Beijing and Shanghai in early 1988.
234
G. Cui and S. van den Berg TABLE 1 Correlation Matrices for Cross-cultural Adaptation and Job Performance and Standard Deviations (N = 70)
Variable
X,
X,
X,
X.,
X,
X,
X,
X,
X,
Xl0
X,,
X1*
-
.47 35 .42 - .07 - .07 -.ll .03 .Ol .23 .20 .28
.47 .48 .27 .12 .20 .26 .13 .23 .05 .26
58 .30 .33 .25 .ll .ll .15 .lO .12
.16 .09 .19 .lO .13 .29 .15 .19
.55 .22 .26 .27 .Ol .lO .ll
.33 .36 .15 .ll .oo .06
.30 .26 .14 .09 .18
.54 .47 .15 .28
.27 .19 -.04
.08 .21
.33
-
1.03
.98
.84
.94
.85
.79
.92
.84
1.07
.76
.85
.80
Of 74 questionnaires that were returned, 70 were found usable. The respondents came from a variety of professional backgrounds and were well representative of business expatriates to other cultures. On average, they had been in China for 5 years. So most of them stayed in the host country long enough to experience some degree of adaptation to the cultural environment there. For details of the sampling and data collection procedures and descriptive statistics, please refer to Cui (1989). THE ANALYSIS
PROCEDURES
AND RESULTS
The correlations and standard deviations in Table 1 were input for the analysis of correlation and covariance matrices. Confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL VI procedure with maximum likelihood estimation was used to test the fit of the factorial structure model of intercultural effectiveness. LISREL VI is a computer program designed for confirmatory factor analysis and causal modeling with latent variables (Bollen, 1989; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1981). The fitting function estimated by the procedure provides a standardized solution of factor loadings, factor correlations, and a chi-square statistic that is a function of the difference between the specified model and a saturated model (with a perfect fit) consisting of all possible sources of variances and covariances among the variables. Assessment of model adequacy in this study is provided by three statistics: (a) a chi-square test, (b) the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio, and (c) goodness of fit indices (Joreskog & S&born, 1981; Tucker & Lewis, 1973). Confirmatory factor analysis is useful to examine the conceptual valid-
InterculturalEffectiveness
235
ity of a theoretical construct through analyzing the correlation and covariance matrices. First, a four-factor model-Model 1 -including communication competence, personality traits, cultural empathy and communication behavior is tested. The results of confirmatory factor analysis of intercultural effectiveness are summarized in Table 2. The findings indicate that all the factor loadings are healthy and significant, ranging from 0.34 to 0.75. Communication competence is the best scale with all the factor loadings above 0.57, followed by personality traits, cultural empathy, and communication behavior. The model also shows moderate and significant correlations between factors, which range from .32 to .47, indicating some coherence of the construct (Table 3). Since extremely high correlations between two factors suggest that they may be measuring the same factor and low correlations among factors indicate lack of coherence in the construct, moderate correlations are preferred in assessing the factorial validity of a construct. The exception is the correlation between personality traits and communication behavior, which is low (r = .104) and insignificant. Overall, the model only achieved moderate fit, with a x2s0 = 70.08, p = .032, which is still significant at .05 level. The Joreskog & Sorbom Goodness of Fit Index for this model is .862, and the Tucker & Lewis (1973) GFI is .849. Both GFIs are lower than .90, which is a common criterion for adequate fit. The x2/df ratio for the model is 1.40, much higher than 1.00, which
TABLE 2 The Results of Confirmatory
Factor Analysis Factor Loadings First-Order
Factors and Indicators Factor 1. Communication Competence X, : language X, : ability to initiate conversation X, : ability to establish relationship X, : Ability to maintain relationship
0.573 0.676 0.606 0.702
Factor 2. Personality X, : patience X, : flexibility
0.615 0.601
Second-Order 0.466
0.600
Traits
Factor 3. Cultural Empathy X, : tolerance X8 : empathy for culture X, : empathy for working style XlO: awareness of cultural differences
0.335 0.752 0.634 0.391
0.710
Factor 4. Communication Behavior X,,: appropriate social behavior X,,: display of respect
0.365 0.563
0.519
G. Cui and S. van den Berg
236
TABLE 3 of Intercultural
Factor Correlations
Factors Communication Competence Personality Traits Cultural Empathy Communication Behavior
Effectiveness
Communication Competence
Personality Traits
Cultural Empathy
Communication Behavior
1.000 0.415 0.315 0.381
1.000 0.473 0.104
1.000 0.440
1.000
indicates a perfect fit. Thus, the four-factor model lacks adequate fit to provide support for the validity of the construct. The next step is to respecify the model to improve its fit. Since the dimension of personality traits is the only factor that lacks theoretical coherence with the cognitive-affective-behavioral framework, it is eliminated from subsequent analysis. Model 2, which includes only communication competence, empathy, and communication behavior is tested (see Figure 3). The three-factor model provides a significant increment in fit over the Null Model, as indicated by the insignificant chi-square (x23* = 39.69, p = .132) and x2/df ratio = 1.240, actually approaching the optimal one. In terms of the second-order factor analysis, communication behavior has the highest loading on intercultural effectiveness (.790), followed by communication competence (.505) and cultural empathy (.495). Overall, this final model shows healthy factor loadings (see Table 4) and provides adequate fit of the data (see Table 5). The Jiireskog & S&born Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) for this model is .902, and the Tucker & Lewis (1973) Index is .919. Both are higher than .90. These inferential statistics furnish evidence for the construct validity of intercultural effectiveness. Intercultural
111 Factor 1 Corn m unication Competence (1~~
Xl
x2
x3
Effectiveness
Factor 3 Corn munication B’il
Factor 2 Cultural i”[h
x4
FIGURE 3. A three-factor
x7
X8
x9
model of intercultural
x10 effectiveness.
x11
x12
237
Intercultural Effectiveness
TABLE The Results
4
of the Three-Factor
Model Factor Loadings
Factors and Indicators
First-Order
Second-Order 0.505
Factor 1. Communication Competence X, : language X, : ability to initiate conversation X, : ability to establish relationship X, : Ability to maintain relationship
0.601 0.680 0.587 0.704
Factor 2. Cultural Empathy X, : tolerance X8 : empathy for culture X, : empathy for working style X,,: awareness of cultural differences
0.317 0.764 0.625 0.393
Factor 3. Communication Behavior X,,: appropriate social behavior X,2: display of respect
0.382 0.588
0.495
0.790
DISCUSSION The present findings have some implications for using intercultural effectiveness to study cross-cultural adaptation. The results of confirmatory factor analysis suggest that intercultural effectiveness has the overall construct validity and the coherence among its measures as specified by the factorial structure model. The confirmatory factor analysis also shows that its three factors, communication competence, cultural empathy, and communication behavior, are basically good indicators of intercultural effectiveness. But better measures should be developed for
Measures of Fit of the Intercultural Model Model 1-the four-factor Md’ Null Model” MI Model 2-the
three-factor
Md’ Null Model’ M2
TABLE 5 Effectiveness
Factorial
Structure
Model
X2
elf
P
X%f
J&S GFI
241.86 70.08
66 50
.ooo .032
3.665 1.402
.662
178.12 39.69
45 32
.ooo .165
3.958 1.240
.902
model
model
Note. The confirmatory factor analysis was done using marker variable strategy by fixing the loading of the first indicator of each factor at 1 .OO. This starting value strategy was designed to help program convergence in LISREL VI (Bollen, 1989; Fink & Monge, i 985). ‘A null model represents the worst case of a factorial model in which each indicator loads on one factor and the factors are not correlated with one another.
238
G. Cui and S. van den Berg
communication behavior by adding more items that are reliable and theoretically related to one another. With further refinement of the instrument, researchers can use intercultural effectiveness as a central construct in modeling cross-cultural adaptation. The results of the study indicate that intercultural effectiveness is basically an appropriate construct for studying such a complex process as cross-cultural adaptation, and that the cognitive-affective-behaviors framework is plausible to interrelate the relevant dimensions of intercultural effectiveness (Kim, 1988). Even though the personality traits factor has a significant loading on intercultural effectiveness (.60), it did not fit into this framework, probably for several reasons. First, the factor of personality traits does not have a meaningful conceptualization. It is composed of “personality traits” that may be independent of each other. Second, the effect of the personality traits factor on intercultural communication may be exhibited through its influence on other factors of intercultural effectiveness. Actually, the personality traits factor has adequate correlations with the other two indicators of intercultural effectiveness: communication competence (r = .415) and cultural empathy (r = .473). A possible solution is to develop a conceptual definition of a certain type of personality composed of several traits and then assess the effects of this type of personality on intercultural effectiveness through its influence on communication competence and empathy. The study is based on a relatively small sample, which may cause instability in factor coefficients. The data are derived from a survey of a specific group of sojourners. But a homogeneous sample may help reduce variances due to extrinsic factors and increase the vigor of theory testing. Future studies validating the construct of intercultur~ effectiveness should improve measurement scales, use larger samples, and test models against data collected from other types of sojourners (Kim, 1988). Since empirical validity is a necessary condition for model building, the results of empirical validation will help researchers choose appropriate constructs in modeling cross-cultural adaptation. Other aspects of empirical validity, such as discriminant and convergent validity, should also be examined using multitrait and multimethod technique (MTMM). The alleged confounding of cross-cultural adaptation with overseas job performance should also be investigated (Benson, 1978). Continuous efforts to cross-validate the construct would provide a valid instrument in modeling cross-cultural adaptation. Bollen (1989) has best summarized the process of construct validation: No one empirical test determines construct validity. Establishing construct validity is a long process, with each test providing information and suggesting revisions that can aid the next empirical test. The major steps in the process begin with postulating theoretical relations between constructs. Then the associations
Intercultural Effectiveness
239
between measures of the construct or concepts are estimated. Based on these associations, the measures, the constructs, and the postulated associations are reexamined. (p. 189) Future studies are also encouraged to specify and test the causal relationships between the individual components of intercultural effectiveness and their effects on cross-cultural adaptation. Such efforts might begin with developing a theoretical framework that explicates the underlying assumptions of cross-cultural adaptation and explicitly specifies the interrelations between the causal factors and the dependent variable. Structural equation models (SEM) using the LISREL procedure or others can be adopted because they have the advantage of evaluating simultaneously both the factorial structure and the causal relationships between the latent constructs. Such an investigation would assess the adaptation process as a whole and provide more complete insights into intercultural effectiveness. REFERENCES ABE, H., & WISEMAN, R. L. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 53-61. BENSON, P. G. (1978). Measuring cross-cultural adjustment: The problem of criteria. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2.21-37. BOLLEN, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. BREIN, M., & DAVID, K. H. (1971). Intercultural communication and the adjustment of the sojourner. Psychological Bulletin, 76,215-230. BYRNES, F. C. (1965). Americans in technical assistance: A study of attitudes and responses to their role abroad. New York: Praeger. CHURCH, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin. 91,540512. CLEVELAND, H., MANGONE, G. J., & ADAMS, J. C. (1960). The overseas Americans-A report on Americans abroad. New York: McGraw-Hill. CUI, G. (1989). Intercultural effectiveness: An integrative approach. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. FINK, E. L., & MONGE, P. R. (1985). An exploration of confirmatory factor analysis. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences Vol. 6. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corp. GUDYKUNST, W. B., & KIM, Y. Y. (1984). Communication withstrangers: An approach to intercultural communication. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. GUDYKUNST, W. B., WISEMAN, L. R., &HAMMER, M. R. (1977). Determinants of a sojourner’s attitudinal satisfaction: A path model. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook: Vol. 1. New York: Pergamon. HAMMER, M. R., GUDYKUNST, W. B.. & WISEMAN, L. R. (1978). Dimen-
240
G. Cui and S. van den Berg
sions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. Znternationaf Journal of Inter~ltural Relations, 2, 383-393. HAWES, F., & KEALEY, D. J. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian technical assistance: Adaptation and effectiveness on overseas assignments. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 5, 239-258. JGRESKOG, K. G., & SGRBOM, D. (1981). LZSREL: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. User’s Guide, Version 6. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc. KEALEY, D. J., & RUBEN, B. D. (1983). Cross-cultural personnel selection criteria, issues and methods. In D. Landis & R. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook for Intercultural training: Vol. 1. Issues in theory and design. New York: Pergamon. KENNY, D. L. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley. KIM, Y. Y. (1988). communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. KIM, Y. Y. (1986). Cross-cuhural adaptation: An critical assessment of the field. Paper presented to the 32th Annual Conference of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL. KOESTER, J., & OLEBE, M. (1986). The measurement of intercultural communication effectiveness: An extension of Ruben’s behavioral assessment scales. Paper presented to the International and Intercultural Division, Speech Communication Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. RUBEN, B. D. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group and Organization Studies, 1, 334-354. RUBEN, B. D., & KEALEY, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-47. STONER, J. F., ARAM, J. D., & RUBIN, I. M. (1972). Factors associated with effective performance in overseas work assignments. Personnel Psychology, 25,303-318. TUCKER, L. R., & LEWIS, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, l-10.
ABSTRACT
TRANSLATIONS
L’CfficacitC interculturelle est un concept theorique ~omprena~t une s6rie de facteurs qui determinent l’efficacite de communication et d’adaptation interculturelle. La validite de concept d%fficacitC interculturelle doit Ctre Ctabliee avant que celui-ci puisse Ctre applique & tout dheloppement theorique. Cette Ctude considkre 1’6fficacit6 interculturelle comme un concept thborique qui a des aspects cognitifs, affectifs et comportementaux, et bprouve le modkle de structure factorielle bu l’efficacite interculturelle est un facteur d’ordre-secondaire, indique par trois facteurs d’ordre-premier: la comp&ence communicative, la comprehension culturelle et le comportement communicatif. La validite de concept d’efficaciti interculturelle est v&ifiCe par l’examen de la validitt factorielle, utilisant l’analyse confirmatif de facteur avec LISREL VI. Le modCle est
Intercultural Effectiveness
241
en g&r&ale satisfaisant, ce qui est indique par d’adequats parametres et correlations des facteurs et l’adequation du modele. Les decouvertes presentes fournisent un certain soutien a la validit de concept d’efficacit6 interculturelle. Cependant, plus de recherche doit Ctre Cffectute, par exemple, dans la validite discriminante et convergente avant d’appliquer l’tfficacite interculturelle a la construction de modeles et au dheloppement thtorique. (author-supplied abstract)
Efectividad intercultural es una construction teorica formada por un grupo de factores que predicen la comunicacion y adaptation intercultural efectiva. La validez de1 modelo de efectividad intercultural debe ser establecida antes de que pueda ser utilizado para el desarrollo de teoria. Este estudio considera la efectividad intercultural coma una construccion teorica que encierra aspectos cognitivos y de comportamiento, y somete a comprobacion la estructura factorial de1 modelo, en el cual la efectividad intercultural es un factor de Segundo orden establecido a partir de tres factores de primeer orden: capacidad comunicativa, empatia cultural y comportamiento comunicativo. La validez de1 modelo es sometida a comprobacion a traves de1 examen de la validez factorial utilizando analisis factorial confirmatorio con LISREL VI. El ajuste general de1 modelo es satisfactorio, segtin lo indican adecuados parametros factoriales, correlaciones y bondad de ajuste. Los presentes hallazgos proveen apoyo a la validez de1 modelo de efectividad intercultural. Sin embargo, es necesaria la investigation adicional sobre efectividad intercultural, sobre su validez discriminante y convergente, antes de que este modelo pueda ser utilizado para el desarrolo y la elaboration de teoria. (author-supplied abstract)
of Intercultural Relarions, All rights reserved.
Vol.
15, pp. 221-241,
1991 Copyright
0147.1767/91 $3.00 f .oO 0 1991 Pergamon Press plc
TESTING THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF INTERCULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS
GlWG CU1 and SJEF V’iV DEN .BERG The University of Connecticut ABSTRACT. Intercultural effectiveness is a theoretical construct that includes a set of factors that predict effective intercultural communication and adaptation. The construct validity of intercultural effectiveness must be established before it can be used for theory development. This study considers inter~~tural effectiveness a theoreti~ai construct that has cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects and tests the factorial structure model in which intercultural effectiveness is a second-order factor indicated by three first-order factors: communication competence, cultural empathy, and communication behavior. The construct validity is tested by examining the factorial validity using confirmatory factor analysis with LISREL Vi. The overall fit of the model is satisfactory, indicated by adequate factor loadings and correlations and goodness of fit. The present findings provide some support for the ronstruct validity of intercultural effectiveness. However, more research should be done on intercultural effectiveness in areas such as its discriminant and convergent validity before using the construct for model building and theory development.
A considerable amount of research has been carried out to explore the dimensions that predict cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 1988; Church, 1982). A number of factors have been found to influence effective adaptation, such as fluency in the host language, interpersonal skills, cultural empathy, social interaction, and personality traits (e.g., Kealey & Ruben, 1983; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Ruben, 1976; Brein & David, 1971; Byrnes, 1965; Cleveland, Mangone, & Adams, 1960). These studies, using a diversity of methods, produced inconsistent results as to what abilities and personal attributes are important in predicting cross-cultural adaptation. Integration is called for at the conceptual level to better understand the complicated process of cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 1986). The elaboration of intercultural effectiveness as a more general and comprehensive theoretical construct is one of the steps in consolidating previous findings by identifying the key factors that influence cross-cultural adaptation (e.g., Cui, 1989; Hammer et al, 1978). Yet the construct validity of intercultural effectiveReprint requests should be sent to Geng Cui, Department of Communication The University of Connecticut, P.O. Box U-85, Storrs, CT 06268.
227
Sciences,
228
G. Cui and S. van den Berg
tress has to be established before it can be applied in model building and theory development. Some researchers attempted to determine empirically what the best indicators of intercultural effectiveness are (e.g., Koester & Olebe, 1986; Hawes & Kealey, 1981; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Stoner, Aram, & Rubin, 1972). They assessed the effects of tolerance for ambiguity, display of respect, role behavior, interaction posture, and other behavioral aspects in evaluating sojourners’ cross-cultural adaptation and developed measurement scales for behavioral assessment (Koester & Olebe, 1986; Ruben & Kealey, 1979). Another of group of researchers focused on identifying the underlying dimensions of intercultural effectiveness (Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Gudykunst, Wiseman & Hammer, 1977). They investigated both personal characteristics and communication competence and behavior, and tried to establish intercultural effectiveness as a major construct in studying crosscultural communication and adaptation. Hammer et al. (1978) developed a questionnaire which consisted of 24 “personal abilities” in intercultural effectiveness. Their factor analysis yielded three dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: the abilities (a) to deal with psychological stress, (b) to communicate effectively, and (c) to establish interperson~ relationships. A replication study using the same research design produced different factors, and this difference was attributed to the cultural-specific nature of intercultural experience, since the latter was conducted on a subject group of different national origin (Abe & Wiseman, 1983). The studies to date in this area have been concerned primarily with searching for typologies of factors that contribute to cross-cultural adaptation. While the key dimensions have been identified and measurement scales have been constructed and tested, the theoretical aspect of intercultural effectiveness has not been as extensively discussed. Cui (1989) defined intercultural effectiveness as the general assessment of a sojourner’s ability for effective intercultural communication. He proposed an integrative approach to intercultural effectiveness by combining the existing perspectives -interpersonal skills, social interaction, cultural empathy, and personality traits-and the above dimensions were reproduced in his factor analysis. But he did not provide a theoretical framework that can incorporate these dimensions coherently. In these studies (e.g., Cui, 1989; Hammer et al., 1978), factor analysis was used to identify the relevant dimensions of the construct and to discover a more parsimonious representation of abilities deemed important to effective intercultural functioning. Compared to other theoretical concepts proposed in previous studies such as host communication competence (Kim, 1988), intercultural effectiveness is more general and comprehensive, since it consists of several first-order factors such as interpersonal abilities, cultural empathy, and social interaction. But the exploratory
Intercultural Effectiveness
229
nature of these factor analyses did not evolve from any sound theoretical reasoning, nor did the researchers specify the interrelations~ps between its composite factors. The research findings are fragmented and in relative isolation from one another. Not enough effort has been dedicated to consolidating the results and interrelating them in a meaningful fashion. This is not conducive to theory development and knowledge generation in this area (Kim, 1986; Benson, 1978). Integration at the conceptual level and more theory-driven studies are encouraged for theory development and more systematic investigation of the subject. Empirically validated constructs are needed for theory development and testing. Thus, this study will test the construct validity of intercultural effectiveness. CONSTRUCT INTERCULTURAL
VALIDITY OF EFFECTIVENESS
Since it is impossible to incorporate directly all the variables relevant to cross-cultural adaptation, it becomes imperative to reduce the large number of variables to a few theoretically meaningful constructs and to treat others as situational or intervening variables. These constructs can be used for model building and theory development. Researchers who have built instruments to study cross-cultural adaptation have demonstrated that intercultural effectiveness can be reduced to a few factors (e.g., Hammer et al., 1978). Exploratory factor analysis can be used to recognize such a latent variable or construct. This procedure is primarily used for data reduction or dimensional analysis (Fink & Monge, 1985). It often happens, however, that a more abstract and general construct is needed to study complicated phenomena. Such a general latent construct, which may be in~uenced by other latent variables, need not have direct effect on the observed indicators. Validation of a latent construct should begin with theoretical explication of the construct and the relationships among its first-order factors, followed by empirical testing of these relationships. Such a higher-order factor analysis is especially useful to validate an abstract and general concept (Bollen, 1989). Intercultural effectiveness has been identified as such a latent construct in previous factor analyses (e.g. Hammer et al, 1978) and, it is defined as the general assessment of sojourner’s ability to communicate effectively across cultures (Cui, 1989). Intercultural effectiveness should include a sojourner’s cognitive, affective and behavioral competence (e.g., Kim, 1988; Gudykunst & Rim, 1984; Kealey & Ruben, 1983). The cognitive dimension of intercultural effectiveness includes the knowledge of language, nonverbal behavior, and communication rules of the host country. The affective dimension of intercultural effectiveness requires a set of perceptions toward the host culture that enable cultural strangers to “position themselves in a psychological orientation” that is “favor-
230
G. Cui and S. van den Berg
able” or “compatible” with that of the host culture (Kim, 1988). The affective quality is the ability to acknowledge cultural differences, to empathize with the host country’s cultural norms and working styles, etc. The third component is the behavioral dimension, which requires a sojourner to demonstrate his or her cognitive and affective qualities in social interaction with the host people. The cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions are the integral and indispensable parts of intercultural effectiveness. They are interdependent to each other. Thus, to be interculturally effective, one needs to be competent in all three areas. One dimension cannot function without the other two. Cognitive competence, such as in language and interpersonal skills, provides the tools for intercultural communication. However, without affective components of competence, such as empathy and tolerance, one may not be able to establish positive and meaningful intercourse with the host people. One’s cognitive and affective competence should be exhibited in his or her social interaction with the host people. There is substantial agreement among researchers that the cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions are the essential aspects of an individual sojourner’s ability to adapt (Kim, 1988). It is the integration of the cognitive, affective, and behavioral subprocesses that enables sojourners to become fully “engaged” in their encounters with the host people (Kim, 1988). Therefore, a theoretical model of intercultural effectiveness should include all three of these dimensions. Like all constructs, intercultural effectiveness is not amenable to direct observation and, therefore, has to be identified through a series of measurable variables. Intercultural effectiveness can be viewed as a secondorder factor as indicated by the following factors: communication competence, cultural empathy, and communication behavior as well as an additional factor: personality traits. These factors well represent the cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. These first-order factors can be assessed by observable or measurable indicators. The relationships between the latent construct, latent variables, and their indicators may well be expressed by a higher-order factorial structure model (Figure I). Communication competence has been extensively studied in crosscultural adaptation. Since cross-cultural adaptation occurs in and through communication, communication competence is a vital component of intercultural effectiveness (Kim, 1988). Language ability (A?,) is perhaps the most critical element of communication competence (e.g., Brein & David, 1971). Interpersonal skills, including the abilities to initiate conversation (X,), to establish a meaningful relationship (X3), and to maintain such a relationship (A’,) have also been selected as important indicators of communication competence (Hammer et al, 1978). Personality traits constitute sojourners’ predisposition or adaptive po-
231
Intercultural Effectiveness Intercultural
Factor 1 Corn munication Competence (,~~
X1 X2
X3
Factor 2 Personality r(
X4
X5
X6
Effectiveness
Factor 4 Communication Be/(or
Factor 3 Cultural g[h
X7
X8
FIGURE 1. A factorial structure model of intercultural
X9
X10
x11
x12
effectiveness.
tential (Kim, 1988). Despite of the negating arguments about personality effects from some scholars, certain personality traits have been found to be consistently influential in determining cross-cultural adaptation: patience (X,) and flexibility (X6). Cultural empathy is the mental capacity to be flexible in dealing with ambiguity and unfamiliarity (Kim, 1988). It includes tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity (X,), empathy for cultural norms (X,), empathy for different working styles (X,), and awareness of cultural differences (X1,). Cultural empathy is the affective dimension of intercultural effectiveness. Communication behavior includes a variety of behavioral patterns in the intercultural communication process: role behavior, social interaction, etc. (Ruben & Kealy, 1979). Appropriateness of social behavior (X,,) and display of respect (X,,) are considered the most important. This is the behavioral component of intercultural effectiveness. Intercultural effectiveness is a potentially useful construct for theory development. Yet the conceptual and empirical validity of such a construct has to be established before it can be submitted for rigorous theory testing. Construct validity is to “assess whether a measure relates to other observed variables in a way that is consistent with theoretically derived predictions” (Bollen, 1989, p. 188). If empirical association between a measure of one factor (variable) and other measures indicating other factors (variables) is observed to parallel the theoretically specified relationship, construct validity exists. In terms of intercultural effectiveness, these interrelationships have not been explicitly specified, but the conceptual validity - theoretical meaningfulness and internal consistency were implied. Since intercultural effectiveness is a construct in the form of a second-order factor, it is important at this point to test the factorial validity of the construct. Factorial validity is one type of construct valid-
G. Cui and S. van den Berg
232
x5
X6
tt
Corn m unication Corn petence
Personality Traits
+ j.
x7
X8
X9
Xl0
Xl1
x12
FiGURE 2. The relationships between the factors of intercultural effectiveness.
ity. Thus testing the fit of the factorial structure model should help validate the construct, Explicit specifications of the factorial structure are the necessary conditions for developing a valid construct. As for cultural strangers, the coordination and integration of cognitive, affective, and behaviorai abilities is essential for effective communication. These dimensions have a tendency to reinforce each other. Therefore, these three factors plus personality traits are all assumed to contribute positively to the construct , and they collectively and interactively influence intercultural effectiveness and facilitate cross-cultural adaptation. Thus these four factors should also be positively correlated with one another. For instance, Kim (1988) posited that communication competence and communication behavior (social interaction) are associated with each other and mutually influencing. Logically, if communication competence and communication behavior are both positive indicators of intercultural effectiveness, the relationship between communication competence and communication behavior should also be positive. The relationships between other factors should exhibit the same pattern. The factorial structure of intercuhural effectiveness can be expressed by Figure 2. A statistical procedure that can confirm the correlations between these factors would be said to indicate factorial validity.
Intercultural Effectiveness
233
METHOD Although exploratory factor analysis is appropriate in the developing stage of a construct, confirmatory factor analysis is considered more adequate when assessing the validity of the developed construct. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is primarily used for dimensional analysis or data reduction (Cui, 1989; Hammer et al., 1978), but it has been shown to have several limitations. First, an explicit model relating the latent to observed variables is not specified in advance in EFA. Second, no unique solution exists for EFA because the technique is basically indeterminate. Alternative rotation solutions can produce an infinite number of factorial structures. Problems also arise from EFA’s reliance on an arbitrary statistical criterion (i.e., eigenvalue > 1) to determine the number of factors (Bollen, 1989). Consequently, it is difficult if not impossible to test hypotheses about the parsimony of the hypothesized data structure (Fink & Monge, 1985; Kenny, 1979). Third, the EFA procedure does not allow correlated measurement errors (Bollen, 1989). In contrast, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is superior in testing the fit of a factorial structure model. CFA procedures require the specification of a formal, a priori model so that it provides unique estimates of factor loadings and correlations. CFA also permits correlated measurement errors and provides straightforward statistical tests of the adequacy of the obtained results (fit of the factorial structure model) as well as a standard basis for drawing inferences about a population on the basis of a sample (see Fink & Monge, 1985, for a brief review of CFA). Given the theoretical framework delineated above, the adequacy of the intercultural effectiveness factorial structure should be tested through confirmatory factor analysis. A matrix of correlations and covariances is needed to carry out confirmatory factor analysis (see Table 1). The data required for this procedure were obtained from Cui’s (1989) study, which provides a correlation matrix for cross-cultural adaptation and the standard deviations of variables. The study is based on a survey of American business people on assignments in China. In the original study, a questionnaire was developed to assess the respondents’ subjective ratings of related items to determine the important factors of cross-cultural adaptation. The questionnaire consisted of 20 questions on 5-point scale, which require selfrating on these dimensions of intercultural effectiveness (see page 231). Subjective rating of one’s satisfaction with life experience in the host country is used as a measure of cross-cultural adaptation. The questionnaire was pretested with 14 American business people who had worked in China. With the help of U.S. Foreign Service Offices in China, two waves of self-administered questionnaires (total 257) were sent to American business people in Beijing and Shanghai in early 1988.
234
G. Cui and S. van den Berg TABLE 1 Correlation Matrices for Cross-cultural Adaptation and Job Performance and Standard Deviations (N = 70)
Variable
X,
X,
X,
X.,
X,
X,
X,
X,
X,
Xl0
X,,
X1*
-
.47 35 .42 - .07 - .07 -.ll .03 .Ol .23 .20 .28
.47 .48 .27 .12 .20 .26 .13 .23 .05 .26
58 .30 .33 .25 .ll .ll .15 .lO .12
.16 .09 .19 .lO .13 .29 .15 .19
.55 .22 .26 .27 .Ol .lO .ll
.33 .36 .15 .ll .oo .06
.30 .26 .14 .09 .18
.54 .47 .15 .28
.27 .19 -.04
.08 .21
.33
-
1.03
.98
.84
.94
.85
.79
.92
.84
1.07
.76
.85
.80
Of 74 questionnaires that were returned, 70 were found usable. The respondents came from a variety of professional backgrounds and were well representative of business expatriates to other cultures. On average, they had been in China for 5 years. So most of them stayed in the host country long enough to experience some degree of adaptation to the cultural environment there. For details of the sampling and data collection procedures and descriptive statistics, please refer to Cui (1989). THE ANALYSIS
PROCEDURES
AND RESULTS
The correlations and standard deviations in Table 1 were input for the analysis of correlation and covariance matrices. Confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL VI procedure with maximum likelihood estimation was used to test the fit of the factorial structure model of intercultural effectiveness. LISREL VI is a computer program designed for confirmatory factor analysis and causal modeling with latent variables (Bollen, 1989; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1981). The fitting function estimated by the procedure provides a standardized solution of factor loadings, factor correlations, and a chi-square statistic that is a function of the difference between the specified model and a saturated model (with a perfect fit) consisting of all possible sources of variances and covariances among the variables. Assessment of model adequacy in this study is provided by three statistics: (a) a chi-square test, (b) the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio, and (c) goodness of fit indices (Joreskog & S&born, 1981; Tucker & Lewis, 1973). Confirmatory factor analysis is useful to examine the conceptual valid-
InterculturalEffectiveness
235
ity of a theoretical construct through analyzing the correlation and covariance matrices. First, a four-factor model-Model 1 -including communication competence, personality traits, cultural empathy and communication behavior is tested. The results of confirmatory factor analysis of intercultural effectiveness are summarized in Table 2. The findings indicate that all the factor loadings are healthy and significant, ranging from 0.34 to 0.75. Communication competence is the best scale with all the factor loadings above 0.57, followed by personality traits, cultural empathy, and communication behavior. The model also shows moderate and significant correlations between factors, which range from .32 to .47, indicating some coherence of the construct (Table 3). Since extremely high correlations between two factors suggest that they may be measuring the same factor and low correlations among factors indicate lack of coherence in the construct, moderate correlations are preferred in assessing the factorial validity of a construct. The exception is the correlation between personality traits and communication behavior, which is low (r = .104) and insignificant. Overall, the model only achieved moderate fit, with a x2s0 = 70.08, p = .032, which is still significant at .05 level. The Joreskog & Sorbom Goodness of Fit Index for this model is .862, and the Tucker & Lewis (1973) GFI is .849. Both GFIs are lower than .90, which is a common criterion for adequate fit. The x2/df ratio for the model is 1.40, much higher than 1.00, which
TABLE 2 The Results of Confirmatory
Factor Analysis Factor Loadings First-Order
Factors and Indicators Factor 1. Communication Competence X, : language X, : ability to initiate conversation X, : ability to establish relationship X, : Ability to maintain relationship
0.573 0.676 0.606 0.702
Factor 2. Personality X, : patience X, : flexibility
0.615 0.601
Second-Order 0.466
0.600
Traits
Factor 3. Cultural Empathy X, : tolerance X8 : empathy for culture X, : empathy for working style XlO: awareness of cultural differences
0.335 0.752 0.634 0.391
0.710
Factor 4. Communication Behavior X,,: appropriate social behavior X,,: display of respect
0.365 0.563
0.519
G. Cui and S. van den Berg
236
TABLE 3 of Intercultural
Factor Correlations
Factors Communication Competence Personality Traits Cultural Empathy Communication Behavior
Effectiveness
Communication Competence
Personality Traits
Cultural Empathy
Communication Behavior
1.000 0.415 0.315 0.381
1.000 0.473 0.104
1.000 0.440
1.000
indicates a perfect fit. Thus, the four-factor model lacks adequate fit to provide support for the validity of the construct. The next step is to respecify the model to improve its fit. Since the dimension of personality traits is the only factor that lacks theoretical coherence with the cognitive-affective-behavioral framework, it is eliminated from subsequent analysis. Model 2, which includes only communication competence, empathy, and communication behavior is tested (see Figure 3). The three-factor model provides a significant increment in fit over the Null Model, as indicated by the insignificant chi-square (x23* = 39.69, p = .132) and x2/df ratio = 1.240, actually approaching the optimal one. In terms of the second-order factor analysis, communication behavior has the highest loading on intercultural effectiveness (.790), followed by communication competence (.505) and cultural empathy (.495). Overall, this final model shows healthy factor loadings (see Table 4) and provides adequate fit of the data (see Table 5). The Jiireskog & S&born Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) for this model is .902, and the Tucker & Lewis (1973) Index is .919. Both are higher than .90. These inferential statistics furnish evidence for the construct validity of intercultural effectiveness. Intercultural
111 Factor 1 Corn m unication Competence (1~~
Xl
x2
x3
Effectiveness
Factor 3 Corn munication B’il
Factor 2 Cultural i”[h
x4
FIGURE 3. A three-factor
x7
X8
x9
model of intercultural
x10 effectiveness.
x11
x12
237
Intercultural Effectiveness
TABLE The Results
4
of the Three-Factor
Model Factor Loadings
Factors and Indicators
First-Order
Second-Order 0.505
Factor 1. Communication Competence X, : language X, : ability to initiate conversation X, : ability to establish relationship X, : Ability to maintain relationship
0.601 0.680 0.587 0.704
Factor 2. Cultural Empathy X, : tolerance X8 : empathy for culture X, : empathy for working style X,,: awareness of cultural differences
0.317 0.764 0.625 0.393
Factor 3. Communication Behavior X,,: appropriate social behavior X,2: display of respect
0.382 0.588
0.495
0.790
DISCUSSION The present findings have some implications for using intercultural effectiveness to study cross-cultural adaptation. The results of confirmatory factor analysis suggest that intercultural effectiveness has the overall construct validity and the coherence among its measures as specified by the factorial structure model. The confirmatory factor analysis also shows that its three factors, communication competence, cultural empathy, and communication behavior, are basically good indicators of intercultural effectiveness. But better measures should be developed for
Measures of Fit of the Intercultural Model Model 1-the four-factor Md’ Null Model” MI Model 2-the
three-factor
Md’ Null Model’ M2
TABLE 5 Effectiveness
Factorial
Structure
Model
X2
elf
P
X%f
J&S GFI
241.86 70.08
66 50
.ooo .032
3.665 1.402
.662
178.12 39.69
45 32
.ooo .165
3.958 1.240
.902
model
model
Note. The confirmatory factor analysis was done using marker variable strategy by fixing the loading of the first indicator of each factor at 1 .OO. This starting value strategy was designed to help program convergence in LISREL VI (Bollen, 1989; Fink & Monge, i 985). ‘A null model represents the worst case of a factorial model in which each indicator loads on one factor and the factors are not correlated with one another.
238
G. Cui and S. van den Berg
communication behavior by adding more items that are reliable and theoretically related to one another. With further refinement of the instrument, researchers can use intercultural effectiveness as a central construct in modeling cross-cultural adaptation. The results of the study indicate that intercultural effectiveness is basically an appropriate construct for studying such a complex process as cross-cultural adaptation, and that the cognitive-affective-behaviors framework is plausible to interrelate the relevant dimensions of intercultural effectiveness (Kim, 1988). Even though the personality traits factor has a significant loading on intercultural effectiveness (.60), it did not fit into this framework, probably for several reasons. First, the factor of personality traits does not have a meaningful conceptualization. It is composed of “personality traits” that may be independent of each other. Second, the effect of the personality traits factor on intercultural communication may be exhibited through its influence on other factors of intercultural effectiveness. Actually, the personality traits factor has adequate correlations with the other two indicators of intercultural effectiveness: communication competence (r = .415) and cultural empathy (r = .473). A possible solution is to develop a conceptual definition of a certain type of personality composed of several traits and then assess the effects of this type of personality on intercultural effectiveness through its influence on communication competence and empathy. The study is based on a relatively small sample, which may cause instability in factor coefficients. The data are derived from a survey of a specific group of sojourners. But a homogeneous sample may help reduce variances due to extrinsic factors and increase the vigor of theory testing. Future studies validating the construct of intercultur~ effectiveness should improve measurement scales, use larger samples, and test models against data collected from other types of sojourners (Kim, 1988). Since empirical validity is a necessary condition for model building, the results of empirical validation will help researchers choose appropriate constructs in modeling cross-cultural adaptation. Other aspects of empirical validity, such as discriminant and convergent validity, should also be examined using multitrait and multimethod technique (MTMM). The alleged confounding of cross-cultural adaptation with overseas job performance should also be investigated (Benson, 1978). Continuous efforts to cross-validate the construct would provide a valid instrument in modeling cross-cultural adaptation. Bollen (1989) has best summarized the process of construct validation: No one empirical test determines construct validity. Establishing construct validity is a long process, with each test providing information and suggesting revisions that can aid the next empirical test. The major steps in the process begin with postulating theoretical relations between constructs. Then the associations
Intercultural Effectiveness
239
between measures of the construct or concepts are estimated. Based on these associations, the measures, the constructs, and the postulated associations are reexamined. (p. 189) Future studies are also encouraged to specify and test the causal relationships between the individual components of intercultural effectiveness and their effects on cross-cultural adaptation. Such efforts might begin with developing a theoretical framework that explicates the underlying assumptions of cross-cultural adaptation and explicitly specifies the interrelations between the causal factors and the dependent variable. Structural equation models (SEM) using the LISREL procedure or others can be adopted because they have the advantage of evaluating simultaneously both the factorial structure and the causal relationships between the latent constructs. Such an investigation would assess the adaptation process as a whole and provide more complete insights into intercultural effectiveness. REFERENCES ABE, H., & WISEMAN, R. L. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 53-61. BENSON, P. G. (1978). Measuring cross-cultural adjustment: The problem of criteria. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2.21-37. BOLLEN, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. BREIN, M., & DAVID, K. H. (1971). Intercultural communication and the adjustment of the sojourner. Psychological Bulletin, 76,215-230. BYRNES, F. C. (1965). Americans in technical assistance: A study of attitudes and responses to their role abroad. New York: Praeger. CHURCH, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin. 91,540512. CLEVELAND, H., MANGONE, G. J., & ADAMS, J. C. (1960). The overseas Americans-A report on Americans abroad. New York: McGraw-Hill. CUI, G. (1989). Intercultural effectiveness: An integrative approach. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. FINK, E. L., & MONGE, P. R. (1985). An exploration of confirmatory factor analysis. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences Vol. 6. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corp. GUDYKUNST, W. B., & KIM, Y. Y. (1984). Communication withstrangers: An approach to intercultural communication. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. GUDYKUNST, W. B., WISEMAN, L. R., &HAMMER, M. R. (1977). Determinants of a sojourner’s attitudinal satisfaction: A path model. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook: Vol. 1. New York: Pergamon. HAMMER, M. R., GUDYKUNST, W. B.. & WISEMAN, L. R. (1978). Dimen-
240
G. Cui and S. van den Berg
sions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. Znternationaf Journal of Inter~ltural Relations, 2, 383-393. HAWES, F., & KEALEY, D. J. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian technical assistance: Adaptation and effectiveness on overseas assignments. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 5, 239-258. JGRESKOG, K. G., & SGRBOM, D. (1981). LZSREL: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. User’s Guide, Version 6. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc. KEALEY, D. J., & RUBEN, B. D. (1983). Cross-cultural personnel selection criteria, issues and methods. In D. Landis & R. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook for Intercultural training: Vol. 1. Issues in theory and design. New York: Pergamon. KENNY, D. L. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley. KIM, Y. Y. (1988). communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. KIM, Y. Y. (1986). Cross-cuhural adaptation: An critical assessment of the field. Paper presented to the 32th Annual Conference of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL. KOESTER, J., & OLEBE, M. (1986). The measurement of intercultural communication effectiveness: An extension of Ruben’s behavioral assessment scales. Paper presented to the International and Intercultural Division, Speech Communication Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. RUBEN, B. D. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group and Organization Studies, 1, 334-354. RUBEN, B. D., & KEALEY, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-47. STONER, J. F., ARAM, J. D., & RUBIN, I. M. (1972). Factors associated with effective performance in overseas work assignments. Personnel Psychology, 25,303-318. TUCKER, L. R., & LEWIS, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, l-10.
ABSTRACT
TRANSLATIONS
L’CfficacitC interculturelle est un concept theorique ~omprena~t une s6rie de facteurs qui determinent l’efficacite de communication et d’adaptation interculturelle. La validite de concept d%fficacitC interculturelle doit Ctre Ctabliee avant que celui-ci puisse Ctre applique & tout dheloppement theorique. Cette Ctude considkre 1’6fficacit6 interculturelle comme un concept thborique qui a des aspects cognitifs, affectifs et comportementaux, et bprouve le modkle de structure factorielle bu l’efficacite interculturelle est un facteur d’ordre-secondaire, indique par trois facteurs d’ordre-premier: la comp&ence communicative, la comprehension culturelle et le comportement communicatif. La validite de concept d’efficaciti interculturelle est v&ifiCe par l’examen de la validitt factorielle, utilisant l’analyse confirmatif de facteur avec LISREL VI. Le modCle est
Intercultural Effectiveness
241
en g&r&ale satisfaisant, ce qui est indique par d’adequats parametres et correlations des facteurs et l’adequation du modele. Les decouvertes presentes fournisent un certain soutien a la validit de concept d’efficacit6 interculturelle. Cependant, plus de recherche doit Ctre Cffectute, par exemple, dans la validite discriminante et convergente avant d’appliquer l’tfficacite interculturelle a la construction de modeles et au dheloppement thtorique. (author-supplied abstract)
Efectividad intercultural es una construction teorica formada por un grupo de factores que predicen la comunicacion y adaptation intercultural efectiva. La validez de1 modelo de efectividad intercultural debe ser establecida antes de que pueda ser utilizado para el desarrollo de teoria. Este estudio considera la efectividad intercultural coma una construccion teorica que encierra aspectos cognitivos y de comportamiento, y somete a comprobacion la estructura factorial de1 modelo, en el cual la efectividad intercultural es un factor de Segundo orden establecido a partir de tres factores de primeer orden: capacidad comunicativa, empatia cultural y comportamiento comunicativo. La validez de1 modelo es sometida a comprobacion a traves de1 examen de la validez factorial utilizando analisis factorial confirmatorio con LISREL VI. El ajuste general de1 modelo es satisfactorio, segtin lo indican adecuados parametros factoriales, correlaciones y bondad de ajuste. Los presentes hallazgos proveen apoyo a la validez de1 modelo de efectividad intercultural. Sin embargo, es necesaria la investigation adicional sobre efectividad intercultural, sobre su validez discriminante y convergente, antes de que este modelo pueda ser utilizado para el desarrolo y la elaboration de teoria. (author-supplied abstract)