International Journal of Cross

Cultural Management
http://ccm.sagepub.com

Cultural Intelligence: Domain and Assessment

David C. Thomas, Efrat Elron, Günter Stahl, Bjørn Z. Ekelund, Elizabeth C. Ravlin, Jean-Luc
Cerdin, Steven Poelmans, Richard Brislin, Andre Pekerti, Zeynep Aycan, Martha Maznevski,
Kevin Au and Mila B. Lazarova
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 2008; 8; 123
DOI: 10.1177/1470595808091787

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/2/123

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for International Journal of Cross Cultural Management can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/8/2/123

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
Articles CCM International Journal of
Cross Cultural
2008 Vol 8(2): 123–143 Management

Cultural Intelligence
Domain and Assessment

David C. Thomas Efrat Elron

Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada Tel Hai Academic College, Upper Galilee, Israel

Günter Stahl Bjørn Z. Ekelund

INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France Human Factors AS, Larvik, Norway

Elizabeth C. Ravlin Jean-Luc Cerdin

University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA ESSEC Business School, Cergy-Pontoise, France

Steven Poelmans Richard Brislin

IESE Business School, Barcelona, Spain University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Honolulu, USA

Andre Pekerti Zeynep Aycan

University of Queensland, Ipswich, Australia Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey

Martha Maznevski Kevin Au

International Institute for Management The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Development, Lausanne, Switzerland Hong Kong

Mila B. Lazarova
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada

ABSTRACT The construct of cultural intelligence, recently introduced to the management

literature, has enormous potential in helping to explain effectiveness in cross cultural
interactions. However, at present, no generally accepted definition or operationalization of
this nascent construct exists. In this article, we develop a conceptualization of cultural

© 2008 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) DOI: 10.1177/1470595808091787

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
124 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(2)

intelligence that addresses a number of important limitations of previous definitions. We

present a concise definition of cultural intelligence as a system of interacting abilities,
describe how these elements interact to produce culturally intelligent behavior, and then
identify measurement implications.
KEY WORDS • cross cultural management • cross cultural skills • cultural competence •
cultural intelligence • cultural metacognition

Over the years, many studies have alluded to A Type of Intelligence

the idea that there are certain attributes that
some individuals have that allow them to be Defining this new construct as a type of intel-
effective in cross cultural communication ligence, as opposed to intercultural compe-
(Ting-Toomey, 1999), in overseas assign- tency, global mindset or any number of other
ments (Caligiuri, 2000; Church, 1982) or similar terms, has two advantages. First, it
more generally in cross cultural interactions substitutes well-studied ideas in cognitive
(Cushner and Brislin, 1996). However, it is psychology for the more popular concepts
only recently that efforts to describe this indi- that have made their way into the interna-
vidual difference in terms of a type of intelli- tional management literature. For example
gence have emerged. Cultural intelligence has the term ‘global mindset’ is widely used in the
recently been introduced as a quantitative management literature, but there continues
continuum of individual difference along to be a good deal of confusion surrounding
which people may be arrayed according to the definition and constituent elements of this
how much of this attribute they possess construct (see Levy et al., 2007 for a discus-
(Earley, 2002; Earley and Ang, 2003; sion). Second, it segregates this individual
Thomas and Inkson, 2003). However, these difference construct from institutional and
definitions fall short of specifying the con- environmental influences on effective cross
struct as more than a loosely aggregated set of cultural behavior (see Johnson et al., 2006).
facets conceptually similar to intercultural However, categorizing it as such requires
competency, global mindset or a host of other that we first provide our perspective on the
similar terms, or as an extension of constructs meaning of intelligence. Intelligence, a funda-
such as social intelligence to a new domain. mentally scientific construct that is not physi-
In this article, we define cultural intelli- cally verifiable, has been notoriously difficult
gence based on a review of literature in the to define. In general, we adopt Sternberg’s
domains of cross cultural interactions, social (1997a) definition that identifies intelligence
cognition, and intelligence. We address funda- as the abilities necessary for adaptation to, as
mental conceptual issues in construct validity well as selection and shaping of, an environ-
(Schwab, 1980), including what is, and is not, mental context. This definition is consistent
to be included in the construct and its rela- with those of the doyennes of intelligence
tionship to effective cross cultural interactions. testing such as Binet and Simon (1916), and
In addition, we discuss the dimensionality, Wechsler (1944), in that it captures the fun-
stability, and level of analysis of cultural intel- damental idea of being able to adapt to the
ligence, which are of central importance to environment. But, as we discuss in more
both measurement and the further develop- detail ahead, it also accepts Sternberg’s (1997a)
ment of a nomological net, or theory of inter- notion that intelligence involves selecting
connections between related constructs. Each and shaping the environmental context. Our
of these issues is addressed ahead. perspective is also guided by a number of
theories of intelligence that describe it as a
multifaceted construct (e.g. Gardner, 1983;

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
 Thomas et al.: Cultural Intelligence 125

Sternberg et al., 2003). Here, we embrace (Ekman, 1982), and we have some evidence
the view that intelligence is a system of inter- that culture-specific norms exist for experi-
acting abilities (Sternberg, 1997a). These encing emotions (Eid and Diener, 2001).
factors combine to define the ability of adapt- Cultural intelligence builds on these ideas,
ing to, and enacting, a specific type of envi- but is not merely an application of existing
ronment: one that is characterized by cul- intelligence constructs to a new domain as
tural diversity and cross cultural interactions. suggested in other definitions (Earley, 2002;
That is, and in contrast to previous defini- Earley and Ang, 2003). It is a unique con-
tions, we describe cultural intelligence as a struction of interacting abilities that exists
unique construct that emerges as a result of outside the cultural boundaries in which
the interaction of its facets (see Table 1 for a these abilities were developed.
summary of definitions of cultural intelligence).
Related constructs that depart from a
purely cognitive view of intelligence should be Indicators of Cultural Intelligence
distinguished from our current focus. The
By definition, the outcome of culturally intel-
first is the ability to understand oneself and
ligent behavior is more effective intercultural
others in a social situation and thus effectively
interaction. This statement, of course, begs
interact with others – so-called social intelli-
the question of what indications suggest cul-
gence (Kihlstrom and Cantor, 2000). The
tural intelligence in action. A good general
construct that has received the most attention
description of such effectiveness might be
in recent years, however, is that of emotional
drawn from the literature on successful ad-
intelligence, the ability to perceive the emo-
justment to a foreign culture (Brislin, 1981;
tional states of others and to regulate one’s
Cushner and Brislin, 1996; Ruben and Kealey,
own emotional state in the service of im-
1979) and the expatriate adjustment litera-
proved interactions (Goleman, 1995). While
ture (e.g. Aycan, 1997). These literatures
work on emotional intelligence has been
have summarized the following characteris-
rightly criticized on a number of fronts
tics of an effective intercultural interaction as:
because of its very loose specification and
wildly extravagant claims (see Matthews et • Good personal adjustment, indicated by
al., 2002), some research, primarily by Mayer, feelings of contentment and well being.
Salovey and colleagues (e.g. Mayer et al., Individuals who are well adjusted would
1999, 2000; Mayer and Salovey, 1993, 1995, say that they feel comfortable interacting
1997; Salovey and Mayer, 1990), has provided with this culturally different person, or in
a stricter scientific treatment of this construct. this culturally different situation; and
Social and emotional intelligence share experience no greater stress than they
some attributes with cultural intelligence as would experience in a similar interaction
defined ahead, such as the idea that intelli- with a member of their own culture and
gence is inherently multidimensional. How- in their own cultural context.
ever, both of these constructs are specific to • Development and maintenance of good
the culture in which they were developed and interpersonal relationships with culturally
do not necessarily relate to cross cultural different others. It is especially important to
interactions. For example, social skills learned assess this aspect of effectiveness from
and honed in one country may be ineffective the perspective of the culturally different
or even offensive in another culture with dif- other, as relationships are inherently
ferent rules for social interaction (e.g. Ruzgis dyadic in nature and should be
and Grigorenko, 1994). We know that cul- perceived as positive at the dyadic, as
ture can influence rules of emotional display opposed to the individual, level.

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
126 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(2)

Table 1 Definitions and applications of cultural intelligence

Definition of Constituent
Source cultural intelligence elements Outcomes/applications

Earley, 2002; ‘. . . a person’s capability to adapt Cognitive Global assignment

Earley & effectively to new cultural contexts.’ (Including success
Ang, 2003 metacognitive) Diversity assignments
Motivational Training methods
Behavioral
Thomas & ‘. . . involves understanding the Knowledge Cross-cultural
Inkson, 2003 fundamentals of intercultural Mindfulness decision making
interaction, developing a mindful Behavioral Cross cultural
approach to intercultural Skills communication
interactions, and finally building Cross cultural
adaptive skills and a repertoire of leadership;
behavior so that one is effective in Multicultural teams
different intercultural situations.’ International careers
Earley & ‘. . . a seemingly natural ability to Cognitive Appropriate behavior
Mosakowski, interpret someone’s unfamiliar and Physical in new cultures
2004 ambiguous gestures in just the way Emotional/
that person’s compatriots and motivational
colleagues would, even to mirror
them.’
Earley & ‘. . . reflects a person’s capability to Metacognitive/ Intercultural training
Peterson, gather, interpret, and act upon these Cognitive (e.g., Multinational teams
2004 radically different cues to function learning strategies
effectively across cultural settings or and cultural sense
in a multicultural situation.’ making)
Motivation (e.g.,
cultural empathy
and self-efficacy)
Behavior (e.g.,
acceptable behavior
in culture and
mimicry)
Earley, Ang ‘. . . a person’s capability for Cultural strategic Diversity assignments
& Tan, 2006 successful adaptation to new cultural thinking Global work
settings, that is for unfamiliar settings Motivation assignments
attributable to cultural context.’ Behavior Global teams
Global leadership
Thomas, ‘. . . the ability to interact effectively Knowledge Development
2006 with people who are culturally Mindfulness Assessment
different.’ Behavior
Ang et al., ‘. . . an individual’s capability to Cognition Cultural judgment and
2007 function and manage effectively in Metacognition decision making
culturally diverse settings.’ Motivation Cultural adaptation
Behavior and performance
This article ‘. . . a system of interacting knowledge Cultural Knowledge Effective intercultural
and skills, linked by cultural Cross-Cultural Skills interactions (personal
metacognition, that allows people to Cultural adjustment, interpersonal
adapt to, select, and shape the cultural Metacognition relationship development,
aspects of their environment.’ task performance)

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
 Thomas et al.: Cultural Intelligence 127

• The effective completion of task-related goals. cultural metacognition, that allows people
While the goals may differ from person to adapt to, select, and shape the cultural
to person and situation to situation, goal aspects of their environment. This definition
accomplishment is always a candidate as puts the construct in the domain of multi-
an indicator of an effective interaction, faceted conceptualizations of intelligence.
in this case, in a cross cultural setting. Thus, not only does cultural intelligence
include multiple types of knowledge (under-
Based on these dimensions of self, rela-
standing of a body of information) and skills
tional, and task effectiveness outcomes, we
(mastery of an application of knowledge), it
would thus expect cultural intelligence to be
involves both cognitive and metacognitive
positively related to expatriate adjustment,
(knowledge of and control over one’s think-
task completion by culturally diverse groups,
ing and learning) dimensions. In our concep-
effective decision making in a multicultural
tualization, it is important that we differenti-
context, leadership of culturally different
ate between intelligence and intelligent
others and a host of other cross cultural
behavior. That is, what constitutes intelligent
interactions. However, these distal outcomes
behavior (behavior demonstrating appropri-
might also be related to a variety of factors
ate knowledge and skills) may differ from one
that have little to do with cultural intelli-
cultural environment to another (e.g. Cole et
gence. For example, although specifying a
al., 1971; Johnson et al., 2006). However,
motivational facet of (cultural) intelligence
because the same mental processes may give
(e.g. Ackerman, 1996; Ceci, 1990) is prob-
rise to different behaviors in different cultural
lematic (i.e. motivation and intelligence may
contexts, it is essential that cultural intelli-
have a limited recursive relationship, but are
gence captures that aspect of intelligence that
not components of each other), the motiva-
is common across cultures as opposed to
tion to interact effectively with culturally dif-
what varies between them.
ferent others certainly contributes to these
Thus we conceive of cultural intelligence
positive outcomes. However, while cultural
as knowledge and skills that are developed in
intelligence is presented here in positive
a specific cultural (cross cultural) context, but
terms that suggest respect for other cultures,
the effectiveness of which in the production
the definition does not preclude highly
of culturally intelligent behavior is dependent
culturally intelligent individuals from being
on a culture general process element called
otherwise motivated, for example, for indi-
cultural metacognition. Cultural intelligence, like
vidual gain at a partner’s expense. As with
other domains of research that address a
impression management (see Gardner and
complex outcome (e.g. Hanisch et al., 1998)
Martinko, 1988), some people with high cul-
is a multidimensional construct that has com-
tural intelligence could use this capability for
pensatory qualities in its effects on its out-
less than noble purposes. Our view thus con-
come of culturally intelligent behavior. While
trasts with Earley and colleagues’ (e.g. Earley
the component elements of cultural intelli-
and Ang, 2003) definition that suggests that
gence in our definition are somewhat similar
the motivation to act positively toward cul-
to those presented in other conceptualiza-
turally different others is a central facet of
tions (see Table 1), the definition of cultural
cultural intelligence.
intelligence as a system of interacting abilities
is unique, as is the linking function of cultural
metacognition. A graphic representation of
Cultural Intelligence Defined
the domain of cultural intelligence is pres-
We define cultural intelligence as a system of ented in Figure 1.
interacting knowledge and skills, linked by In the following, we develop the logic for

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
128 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(2)

Cultural Intelligence

Cultural Knowledge Cultural Culturally

Cultural Skills Metacognition Intelligent
Behavior

Figure 1 Domain of cultural intelligence

the inclusion of each of the elements of oneself onto the terrain of the new culture.
knowledge, skills and cultural metacognition The implication here, of course, is that
in our model of cultural intelligence. We also knowledge of self and one’s own culture are
describe the nature of the interaction among also important components of cultural intelli-
these three elements that results in the emer- gence. Knowledge of cultural identities,
gence of cultural intelligence as a unique values, attitudes, and practices makes for
construct. greater predictability in social interaction,
more accurate attributions, and ultimately
Cultural Knowledge more effective intercultural behavior.
The cultural knowledge component of cul- As culture specific content knowledge is
tural intelligence includes what Chi (1978) acquired, it is categorized in order to cope
calls ‘declarative knowledge’, but what we with the complexity of the environment
refer to as the content component of cultural (Rosch, 1975). With the acquisition of more
knowledge, because it refers to content and more knowledge, the number of cate-
knowledge in a specific domain – here the gories increases, and the organization of the
cultural domain. Specific content knowledge categories in memory improves (Taylor,
of cultures is the foundation of cultural intel- 1981). That is, these antecedent knowledge
ligence because it forms the basis for com- structures become increasingly complex and
prehending and decoding the behavior of accessible. Studies in a number of different
others and ourselves. Recognizing the exist- performance domains support the impor-
ence of other cultures and defining the nature tance of the level of development of
of differences between them are indicative of antecedent knowledge, although we believe,
the mental processes that are at the core as discussed ahead, that conditions must be
of systems definitions of intelligence (see met to fully realize the benefits of complex
Sternberg, 1997a). This knowledge allows a content knowledge. Knowledge about a par-
better grasp of the internal logic and modal ticular domain has clearly been shown to
behavior of another culture, which can serve have a substantive influence on performance
as a first best guess (Adler, 1997) about that in that domain (e.g. Anderson, 1982). The
behavior. This type of knowledge allows for literature on novices versus experts is instruc-
mapping (DiStefano and Maznevski, 2000) tive in this regard. For example, experts in

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
 Thomas et al.: Cultural Intelligence 129

bridge (Charness, 1979), physics (Chi et al., shape behavior by influencing preferences
1981), and politics (Fiske, 1982) all have been for specific modes of behavior and outcomes
shown to have more complex cognitive struc- (process knowledge). One may also know the
tures in a specific domain, which in turn posi- extent to which his/her own values and
tively influences their performance. More motives are similar to or different from
complex cognitive structures also result in Chinese people (content). This knowledge
less extreme, and hence more accurate, helps the individual interpret and more accu-
evaluations of others (Linville, 1982). More rately attribute the behavior that he/she
specific to cultural knowledge, Wade-Benzoni observes in Chinese people (process). How-
et al. (2002) provide evidence suggesting that ever, using this knowledge to exhibit cultur-
cultural knowledge is positively related to ally intelligent behavior and ultimately shape
understanding the perspective of another cul- cross cultural interactions requires other fac-
ture. Additionally, consistent with our con- tors, such as skills and metacognition dis-
ceptualization of cultural intelligence, Porter cussed ahead. Thus specific knowledge in the
and Inks (2000) show that more elaborated, cultural domain is positively related to effec-
cognitively complex knowledge structures tive intercultural interactions, but it is only
are also related to adaptive behavior. one of a set of interacting elements that con-
Cultural knowledge refers not only to a stitutes cultural intelligence.
declarative or content component (e.g. know-
ledge about cultures, social interactions, Skills
personal history), but also to stored processes The literature on cultural adjustment and
(i.e. culture general processes directed to the related outcomes of interaction with cultural-
solution of specific problems). Process or pro- ly different others or in foreign environments
cedural knowledge includes knowledge of is replete with individual difference con-
the effect of culture on one’s own nature or structs that purport to explain or predict
the nature of another as a cognitive proces- effectiveness. They range from attitudes such
sor, knowledge that involves cross cultural as world-mindedness (Sampson and Smith,
encounter or problem-solving, its demands, 1957) and personality characteristics (Costa
and how those demands can be met under and McRae, 1992) such as openness (Caligiuri,
varying conditions. The creation of this cul- 2000), to skills in a variety of domains, such
ture general knowledge involves learning as communication skills (Ting-Toomey,
from specific experience with culturally dif- 1999). Some stable characteristics of individ-
ferent others and is the result of reflective uals may contribute to the acquisition of
observation, analysis, and abstract conceptu- cultural intelligence; that is, traits may pre-
alization, which can create new mental cate- dispose individuals to learn information that
gories and re-categorize others in a more fits their profile. However, the exact nature of
sophisticated cognitive system. Ultimately, any relationship between personality and
knowledge gained from specific experience is intelligence is far beyond the scope of this
recoded into broader principles (see for article (see Sternberg and Ruzgis, 1994 for
example, Chi and VanLehn, 1991). This further discussion). Moreover, we suspect
activity requires the involvement of higher that cultural intelligence is related to, yet dis-
order cognitive processes, which we describe tinct from, personality in much the same way
ahead under cultural metacognition.1 as is emotional intelligence (Law et al., 2004).
Thus, for example, one might know that Here, because of the dynamic and develop-
Chinese people hold collectivist value orien- mental nature of cultural intelligence, we
tations (content knowledge), and might also have focused on those individual differences
know that cultural value orientations help that can be developed and used as a lever for

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
130 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(2)

improvement; hence, our use of the term oneself and others. This implies the impor-
‘skill’. Despite limiting ourselves to this term, tance of what we have labeled perceptual skills.
there is still no shortage of contenders for skill Candidates for inclusion here are constructs
elements that might contribute to cultural such as open-mindedness, tolerance of uncer-
intelligence. tainty, and non-judgmentalness. Also, learn-
Just as with general intelligence (see ing from social interaction with culturally
Gottfredson, 2002), the construct of cultural different others and/or in foreign cultural
intelligence is so broad that the skills compo- contexts requires relational skills such as flexi-
nents might be categorized and measured in bility, sociability, empathy and so on. While
a number of ways. Our review of the litera- both of these skill dimensions are important,
ture revealed dozens of inventories of indi- the skill that perhaps most clearly distin-
vidual differences that might be relevant. The guishes cultural intelligence from other related
number of factors into which elements were ideas is the ability to generate appropriate
categorized varied. However, both empirical behavior in a new cultural setting.
and conceptual methods have tended to settle This adaptive skill involves being able to
on between three and five factors. Recent exhibit behavior that is chosen from a well-
examples include the five aspects of the inter- developed repertoire or is quickly developed
cultural sensitivity scale (Chen and Starosta, during the course of an intercultural interac-
2000) and the three factors of cognitive per- tion. Candidates for subordinate dimensions
ceptual management, relationship manage- of this skill include self-monitoring, behav-
ment, and self-management of the Global ioral flexibility and self-regulation. Rather
Competencies Inventory (Bird et al., 2007), than being simply adaptive toward behavior
an extension of the perceptual, other and that is typical of a target culture, this skill
self orientations of expatriate acculturation manifests itself in generating new behavior
(Mendenhall and Oddou, 1985). While the that is appropriate to the cross cultural inter-
focus of these inventories has varied some- action context. This is an important differ-
what, two factors seem to appear consistently. ence in the conceptualization of cultural
These factors have to do with information intelligence presented here versus other con-
gathering or perceptual skills, and interper- ceptualizations (e.g. Ang et al., 2007; Earley,
sonal or relationship skills. Recent reviews 2002; Earley and Ang, 2003), and includes
(for example, Yamazaki and Kayes, 2004) the possibility that in some situations the best
have also focused on action skills and analyti- option is not to adapt behavior at all.
cal skills. Our categorization of the skills com- A body of evidence suggests that the
ponent of cultural intelligence builds on this adoption of behavior more like that of the
literature to derive three skill sets (perceptual, other culture participant (also called mimicry
relational, and adaptive), with the fourth in Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley and Peter-
(analytical skills) conceptually similar to cul- son, 2004) in an intercultural interaction is a
tural metacognition described ahead. double-edged sword (Francis, 1991; Giles
In order to specify the skills elements of and Smith, 1979; Thomas and Ravlin, 1995).
cultural intelligence, it is important to recog- While unconscious mimicry might have posi-
nize the dynamic nature of cultural intelli- tive results in some situations (such as when a
gence. That is, it is not static, but involves minimal perception of similarity leads to posi-
continuous learning from social interactions. tive attitudes, e.g. Byrne, 1971), this effect
Development of cultural intelligence by learn- can be illusory. High levels of mimicry are
ing from social experience means paying very likely to be attributed to something
attention to and appreciating critical differ- other than the actor’s character and per-
ences in culture and background between ceived as insincere or even devious (see

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
 Thomas et al.: Cultural Intelligence 131

Thomas and Ravlin, 1995). Therefore, as ponents (Allen and Armour-Thomas, 1991).
opposed to chameleon-like mimicry (as in Thus metacognitive thoughts are deliber-
Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley and Peterson, ate, planful, intentional, goal-directed, and
2004), cultural intelligence requires skill in future-oriented mental behaviors that can be
adapting one’s behavior. At its zenith, this used to accomplish cognitive tasks (Flavell,
skill may be seen as fostering a positive learn- 1979). While not all researchers agree on all
ing environment and projecting respect for aspects of metacognition, there does seem to
other cultures in order to influence the cross be a general consensus that metacognition
cultural interaction context. That is, cultural- involves (1) the ability to consciously and
ly intelligent individuals can shape the con- deliberately monitor one’s knowledge pro-
text of the interaction to create a unique cesses and cognitive and affective states
environment, as opposed to merely adjusting (sometimes called metacognitive experiences),
to it. They do this by facilitating positive atti- and (2) to regulate these processes and states
tudes and behavior of the culturally different in relation to an objective (also called meta-
other(s) with whom they interact. High levels cognitive strategies). Flavell (1979) describes
of adaptive skills may be positively related to this process as ‘the active monitoring and conse-
effective cross cultural interactions. How- quent regulation [italics added] and orchestra-
ever, for this adaptive skill to demonstrate tion of these [cognitive] processes in relation
cultural intelligence, it must be based on the to the cognitive objects or data on which they
knowledge of culture and on cultural meta- bear, usually in service to some concrete goal
cognition, which allows specific knowledge to or objective’ (p. 907). It is this notion of active
be translated into behavior appropriate to a monitoring and regulation of mental process-
new intercultural interaction. es that guides our description of cultural
metacognition. Cultural metacognition is
Cultural Metacognition thus metcognition in a specific domain, that
The construct of cultural metacognition is of cultural experiences and strategies.
based on the more general idea of metacogni- Consistent with Flavell (1979), we define
tion, and is related to the analytic skills men- cultural metacognitive monitoring as attention to
tioned previously. Metacognition is defined conscious cognitive experience, as well as to
as knowledge of and control over one’s think- affective and personal-motivational states
ing and learning activities (Flavel, 1979; with regard to the cultural milieu that deter-
Swanson, 1990). It is this aspect of cultural mines the course of a strategy in intercultural
intelligence that most clearly stands outside interaction. This involves maintaining height-
the cultural context in which it was formed. ened awareness of, and enhanced attention
For example, Sternberg (1985) suggested to, the current cultural experience or present
several core mental processes that transcend reality, including awareness of the assump-
environmental context. These are (1) recog- tions, emotions, motivations, intentions,
nizing the existence of a problem, (2) defining behaviors, and skills of oneself and culturally
the nature of the problem, (3) constructing a different others.
strategy to solve the problem, (4) mentally Cultural metacognitive regulation involves pro-
representing information about the problem, cesses that are used to self-regulate and con-
(5) allocating mental resources to solve the trol cognitive activities and to ensure that a
problem, (6) monitoring one’s solution to the cognitive goal (e.g. effective handling of a
problem, and (7) evaluating one’s solution to cross cultural situation) has been met. Self-
the problem. Empirically, a construct valida- questioning is a common metacognitive
tion of metacognition in problem solving strategy to ensure that the goal is achieved.
suggested similar context independent com- This control of cognitive processing involves

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
132 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(2)

bringing to mind knowledge relevant to the process. Examples differentiating these vari-
focus of attention (cultural interaction), ous components of cultural intelligence are
inhibiting the tendency to act automatically, presented in Table 2.
evaluating possible responses with reference
to motives and goals (including not respond- Linking Function of Cultural
ing), and withholding judgment of others.
Metacognition2
There continues to be substantial debate
in the literature regarding the extent to which Cultural metacognition occupies a central
metacognitive processes operate at a purely position in our conceptualization of cultural
conscious level (e.g. Glaser and Kihlstrom, intelligence. The term metacognition (also
2005; Marks, 1999). Some researchers sug- called metacognitive knowledge in Earley
gest that thinking about one’s thinking, and Ang, 2003) has been used in other con-
through repeated use or overlearning, may ceptualizations, but its role as a linking mech-
become automatized and consequently non- anism here is substantially different. It is the
conscious. Others note that conscious moni- element that allows the emergence of cultural
toring of means, goals, and variables may intelligence from the interaction of its con-
actually diminish as effective storage and stituent elements. It is much like the broth in
retrieval behaviors become progressively the chicken soup that many of our parents
automatized and quasi-reflective through made. That is, it is distinctive from the bits of
repeated use and overlearning. Thus the need chicken, onion, carrot, celery (or whatever
for metacognition to be clearly conscious may goes into chicken soup in your culture) and so
well diminish as the behaviors it once medi- on, but it wouldn’t be chicken soup without
ated become more self-starting. it. Also, like the stock in chicken soup, cul-
Whether the term metacognitive should tural metacognition is what makes cultural
be used to describe thoughts that were once intelligence dynamic. The flavor of the soup
metacognitive but have since become non- becomes richer and more complex over time,
conscious and automatic, remains a debat- just as we anticipate that cultural intelligence
able issue. Certainly, the nonconscious and is further enhanced through the processes of
automatic nature of these thoughts contrasts cultural metacognition, including cognitive
sharply with other, more prominent, features self-regulation, abstraction of specific know-
of metacognition; namely, the extent to ledge, focus of cognitive resources, and com-
which metacognitive processes involve an pensatory effects as described ahead.
awareness of oneself as ‘an actor in his/her
environment’ and a ‘deliberate storer and Cognitive Self-Regulation
retriever of information’. It seems reason- Cultural metacognition regulates cognition
able, therefore, to adopt the convention that in that it refers to an understanding of one’s
the term metacognitive be reserved for ‘con- own cognitive behavior in the planning and
scious’ and ‘deliberate’ thoughts that have as monitoring of performance and in the use of
their object other thoughts. As they are con- cognitive strategies in a particular domain
scious and deliberate, culturally metacogni- (see Perfect and Schwartz, 2002). Cultural
tive thoughts are not only potentially control- metacogniton focuses attention on the know-
lable by the person experiencing them, but ledge of culture, skills for intercultural inter-
they are potentially reportable and therefore action, and the processes of cultural influ-
accessible to the researcher. Nonconscious ence, as well as on an individual’s motives,
reflection on one’s thinking may actually goals, emotions, and external stimuli relevant
represent the implementation of an adaptive to the situation. By so doing it controls cog-
skill, as opposed to the actual metacognitive nitive processing and response by (1) bringing

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
 Thomas et al.: Cultural Intelligence 133

Table 2 Cultural intelligence manifested in cultural knowledge, skills, and cultural

metacognition

Dimension Example

Cultural knowledge
Content I know that in general, Americans enjoy and Chinese dislike adversarial
debate
Process I know that my attitudes and those of others toward specific behaviors are
influenced by cultural norms and values

Cultural skills I can adapt my behavior (suppress my tendency, as an American, to

Perceptual debate when in a culture that considers it to be negative)
Relational
Adaptive

Cultural metacognition I actively reflect on available knowledge and skills regarding debate, how
Monitoring these relate to desired outcomes, in a cross-cultural setting to formulate
Regulation alternative courses of action

to mind knowledge relevant to the focus of requires the application of previously acquired
attention, (2) choosing not to respond auto- knowledge (see Gick and Holyoak, 1987). It
matically, (3) inhibiting undesirable responses, is affected by the initial appropriateness of
and (4) editing responses to be consistent with the encoding and structuring of knowledge.
motives and goals (see Logan, 1989). Theories The metacognitive component of cultural
of self-regulation suggest that the kind of meta- intelligence focuses attention on appropriate
cognitive monitoring and control described information and influences the categoriza-
here is valuable in facilitating the choice of tion of knowledge and the structure of mem-
behaviors that are consistent with one’s needs ory. Transfer also requires that prior know-
and values (Deci and Ryan, 1980; Ryan et ledge be retrieved. As discussed previously,
al., 1997). In contrast, automatic cognitive cultural metacognition acts to facilitate con-
processing precludes the active consideration scious retrieval and application of appropri-
of these options. Thus one way in which cul- ate knowledge as opposed to incidental or
tural metacognition operates is by establish- automatic retrieval.
ing the opportunity to consider a range of Automatic retrieval is problematic in this
behavioral options based on knowledge of context because of the complexity of inter-
how cultures vary and how culture affects action processes in cross cultural interactions.
behavior and the skills of the individual. As regards specific expertise in narrow
domains (e.g. our bridge players mentioned
Abstraction of Specific previously), greater knowledge is unquestion-
Knowledge ably effective. However, as situations become
Cultural metacognition also involves the abil- more complex and require flexibility or the
ity to transfer knowledge gained from a spe- creation of new response patterns, greater
cific experience to broader principles that knowledge may actually be constraining
can be used in future interactions in other (Mednick, 1962; Simonton, 1983; Sternberg
settings (abstraction). Transfer of learning and Lubart, 1991). Prior research has shown

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
134 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(2)

that depending on their level of development, cognitive resources, allowing the opportunity
cognitive schemas may initially help indi- for the knowledge of culture, knowledge of
viduals learn related social material (early self, and an individual’s skills to be applied to
development helps individuals focus on the cross cultural interactions. In conjunction
appropriate information and strategies for with these processes, the focus of resources
learning). As schemas become further devel- via metacognition allows for increased goal
oped, they interfere with related learning persistence and directedness in the face of
(they are being used automatically; Fiske and these many competing claims to attention
Dyer, 1985). Furthermore, automatic retrieval (Gollwitzer and Schaal, 1998).
requires the transfer situation to be very
similar to the situation in which knowledge Compensatory Effects
was learned (a narrow domain), if it is to be Finally, cultural metacognition also functions
used successfully. In contrast, cultural meta- to compensate for individual disadvantages
cognition facilitates the abstraction or retrieval in cultural knowledge or skills. This process is
of more general principles because of the consistent with the view of metacognition as
active creation of new categories and consid- distinct from general aptitude in its effect on
eration of new perspectives associated with performance (Swanson, 1990). It is also dis-
this categorization of knowledge. Said other- tinct from a view that the effect of meta-
wise, knowledge encoded in memory in this cognition is simply one of several separable
way is more generalizable, and less bound to facets of cultural intelligence as suggested in
the specific experience that created it. Ang et al. (2007) and in Johnson et al. (2006).
For example, much of the literature regard-
Focus of Cognitive Resources ing the performance of experts versus novices
Cultural metacognition also functions to has assumed that experts have access to more
overcome the effects of the normal distrac- knowledge or more complex knowledge rou-
tions presented by multiple tasks or compet- tines (e.g. Chi et al., 1988). However Swan-
ing concerns such as the need for closure son (1990) has shown that high metacogni-
(Chiu et al., 2000). For example, the litera- tive/low aptitude individuals performed sig-
ture on cognitive busyness suggests that cog- nificantly better than low metacognitive/
nitively busy individuals have fewer resources high aptitude individuals, thus demonstrating
to apply to mental tasks. Thus they are less the distinctiveness of metacognition from
accurate in their perceptions and more likely general aptitude and its compensatory effect.
to rely on well-learned routines or simple Subsequent research has been largely sup-
cognitive representations, such as cultural portive of this compensatory effect (Howard
stereotypes (Gilbert and Hixson, 1991; et al., 2000, 2001). Here we extend this idea
Pendry and MacRae, 1999). Also, cognitive to the cultural domain by suggesting that
busyness interferes with the ability of individ- cultural metacognition will have a compen-
uals to adjust (correct automatic behavior; satory relationship with cultural knowledge
Foster et al., 1998) and to engage in chal- and skills in overall cultural intelligence. For
lenging (non-congruent) self-presentations example, someone visiting a country for the
(Pontari and Schlenker, 1999). That is, cog- first time might have very limited specific cul-
nitive loads steal needed resources from the tural knowledge, but high cultural metacog-
task at hand, such as adapting behavior, and nition would make them sensitive to this and
thus force a reliance on automatic cognitive cause them to attend more acutely to the
processing, which is relatively fast and effort- cultural context and not to behave in a reac-
less. Cultural metacognition controls these tive or scripted manner. That is, we antici-
lower order cognitive processes and focuses pate that cultural metacognition plays a cen-

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
 Thomas et al.: Cultural Intelligence 135

Cultural
Metacognition
Effective
(e.g., reflection on
new knowledge/ Cross-Cultural
skills) Interaction
Domain (e.g., choice to
Knowledge/Skills avoid debate)
(e.g., what happens
when we debate)

Cross-Cultural Cross-Cultural
Interaction (e.g., Interaction (e.g.,
debate) and Results opportunity for
debate)

Cultural Metacognition
(e.g., reflection on available
knowledge/skills about
debate)

Figure adapted from Govindarajan & Gupta (2001); Thomas & Inkson (2003).

Figure 2 Episodic view of the interactive dimensions of cultural intelligence

tral role, in that without attention to process, knowledge structures should adequately, and
behavior in complex settings is unlikely to be possibly more efficiently, provide an appro-
consistently successful. Said otherwise, cultur- priate response. However, in complex or
al knowledge and skills are unlikely to gener- novel situations high levels of knowledge or
alize to new cultural settings on a consistent skills may be inadequate without the activat-
basis in the absence of cultural metacogni- ing effect of cultural metacognition.
tion. Figure 2 presents an episodic view of the
As noted previously, relative effects of relationship between cultural metacognition
more specific knowledge and skills may and the dimensions of cultural knowledge
vary based on the extent of complexity of the and skills. For expository purposes, we depict
cross cultural interaction, or the degree to a linear progression, with arbitrary beginning
which creativity is required in formulating a and ending points. In actuality, we anticipate
response (Simonton, 1983). This may help to that these processes occur simultaneously
explain the distinctive effects of metacogni- and sequentially, and in virtually any order.
tion found by Swanson and others (Howard In this example, we depict an individual
et al., 2000, 2001; Swanson, 1990). That is, experiencing a cross cultural encounter
cultural metacognition should play a much involving debate; the result might be with-
more important role in effective cross cultural drawal on the part of the other-culture par-
interactions when the situation calls for the ticipant (1). This event causes reflection on
generation of a new response, or for changing extant domain knowledge and cultural skills
the interaction environment. In situations on the part of the individual (2), resulting in
that can be appropriately addressed with pre- gains in domain knowledge and skills as this
viously learned responses, well-developed new experience is incorporated in memory

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
136 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(2)

(3). Based on these experiences, the next cross to, to select, and to shape the cultural aspects
cultural interaction (4) generates a reflection of their environment, then behavioral assess-
on the actor’s new knowledge and skills (5), ments are certainly called for at some level of
resulting in effective behavior (6), in our measurement. A number of self-report
example, avoidance of debate to improve the instruments that assess individuals’ percep-
relationship with the other-culture partici- tions about their ability to behave effectively
pant. in cross cultural interactions (see e.g. Ang et
al., 2007) have been presented. However, the
Implications for Measurement epitome of the evaluation of behavioral indi-
In this article we have defined cultural intel- cators must certainly be the assessment cen-
ligence as a set of interacting elements con- ter. Assessment center approaches usually
sisting of knowledge, skills and cultural revolve around situational exercises and crit-
metacognition. This definition differs from ical incidents so that an individual’s actual
those previously presented in the literature, behavior becomes observable. Also, behav-
both in terms of the constituent elements (see ioral indicators for many of the elements of
Table 1) and in the manner in which these cultural intelligence, as specified here, can be
facets interact. For this nascent construct to identified (see Stahl, 2001). However, just as
be useful, it is important that in addition to in broader outcome indicators such as effec-
the clear definition that we hope we have tive cultural adjustment, it is always possible
developed in the preceding, we must opera- that appropriate behavior is serendipitous
tionalize it in a reliable and valid manner. and/or attributable to other than the indi-
The complete development of a measure vidual difference construct of cultural intelli-
of cultural intelligence remains a work in gence. Therefore, while actual behavioral
progress. However, based on the domain indicators are highly desirable, it seems clear
described here, it is possible to identify some that multiple methods will be required to
critical issues in its assessment. develop an accurate picture of cultural intel-
A number of assessment instruments that ligence, including measures more proximal
might relate to one or more components of to the construct.
cultural intelligence have been suggested Measuring the knowledge component clear-
(Ang et al., 2007; Lee and Templer, 2003). ly seems a candidate for survey/test or inter-
While these suggestions are based on some view assessment approaches. The critical
different assumptions regarding the domain question with regard to this component
of the construct, they still draw our attention may be the extent to which an instrument
to the multiplicity of methods available to us. captures general aspects of knowledge that
That is, conventional testing methods such as are applicable to the cultural domain, but not
surveys, interviews, observations, computer so specific to one culture as to be useless in
simulations, critical incidents, and verbal another culture. For example, I may know
protocols may all be profitably employed to (1) that Japanese businessmen typically ex-
measure one or more aspects of cultural change business cards, or (2) that Japanese
intelligence. We suggest that any single businessmen exchange business cards to estab-
approach to measurement of this complex lish status relationships, or (3) that Japanese
construct is likely to be inadequate. Briefly culture is high power distance and the
we discuss methodological issues with regard exchange of business cards is an indication of
to the domain of cultural intelligence as we this as it helps to establish status relation-
define it. ships. Clearly, type 1 and type 2 knowledge
Given that cultural intelligence is defined indicate a more sophisticated categorization
as resulting in an individual’s ability to adapt scheme and possibly superior transferability

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
 Thomas et al.: Cultural Intelligence 137

to another cultural context. However, when these techniques. Verbal protocols assume
viewed in combination with appropriate skill that the way participants search for informa-
dimensions and a metacognitive strategy, tion, evaluate alternatives, choose courses of
type 1 knowledge may be sufficient. In fact it action and so on can be registered through
is possible to argue that high (perceptual, their verbalization. The procedure used to
relational, and adaptive) skills coupled with a elicit verbal protocols varies. A central dis-
high ability in cultural metacognition make tinction is whether the verbalization is col-
domain specific knowledge less important to lected during (concurrent with) the cognitive
the production of culturally appropriate processing or afterward (retrospective). While,
behavior (see Swanson, 1990), although this in general, concurrent protocols outperform
may vary with the complexity or novelty of retrospective ones, the latter may have some
the situation. Thus the level of importance of advantages in providing information about
domain specific knowledge to cultural intelli- the final choice of a course of action (Kuusela
gence is a question awaiting empirical verifi- and Paul, 2000). In addition to direct assess-
cation. ments of cultural metacognition, the domain
As indicated previously, the number of of the construct also suggests indirect indica-
possible candidates for inclusion as important tors. That is, both the speed of cognitive pro-
skills components of cultural intelligence is cessing and the ability to convert specific
massive. The challenge with regard to opera- information into general guidelines for cross
tionalization in this case is not so much cultural interaction would be indicators of
method, since most of the elements are metacognitive activity as defined here.
reflected in existing psychometric instruments, In previous sections we raised issues with
as in which skills to measure. Essentially the regard to the assessment of the behavioral
goal is to construct what one of our col- outcomes of cultural intelligence and its three
leagues called an ‘orthogonal greatest hits’; interacting components. However, the defini-
that is, a small collection of the most impor- tion of cultural intelligence as a system of
tant and mostly uncorrelated skills contribut- interacting knowledge, skills and metacogni-
ing to cultural intelligence. tion presents another challenge. That is, the
The challenges associated with the opera- developmental nature or instability of cul-
tionalization of cultural metacognition are consis- tural intelligence suggests the possible applic-
tent with those of measuring metacognition ability of dynamic types of tests (Sternberg,
generally. The ability of individuals to pro- 1997b). Dynamic tests of intelligence assess
vide any true introspection into their own the participant’s ability to profit from feed-
cognitive processes has long been questioned back, which gives an indication of the differ-
(Nisbett and Wilson, 1977). However, much ence between his/her latent capacity and
of the literature on metacognition relies observed ability; also called the zone of
on retrospective self-reports as a vehicle for proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). The
tapping into this construct (e.g. Mokhtari and Swanson Cognitive Processing Test (Swan-
Reichard, 2002; Schraw and Dennison, son, 1996) is an example of such a dynamic
1994). Recently, some attempts at measuring measure in which examinees receive a prob-
cultural aspects of metacognition (Ang et al., lem, then, if they answer correctly, they move
2007) have adopted this approach. On the on; however, if not, they are given guided
other hand, building on the recommenda- feedback in a succession of steps to help them
tions of Ericsson and Simon (1993), some solve the problem. This approach may be
researchers have investigated metacognition particularly appropriate for assessing cultural
using process tracing techniques. Verbal pro- intelligence in that it taps into participants’
tocol analysis is probably the most widely of ability to use cultural metacognition to draw

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
138 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(2)

on knowledge and skills to learn to make facet of cultural intelligence and define the
better choices about appropriate behavior in adaptive skills component in a manner that
a new cultural setting. does not suggest mimicry, but is consistent
This discussion suggests that no single with the existing literature on effective cross
method will assess cultural intelligence as cultural interactions, and allows for the
defined in this article. Clearly, the retrospec- generation of unique responses and influence
tive self-reports of cognitive processes pro- on the immediate interaction context. We
posed elsewhere (e.g. Ang et al., 2007; Earley believe we have presented a parsimonious
and Mosakowski, 2004) seem inadequate to definition of cultural intelligence that cap-
make accurate assessments. Rather, a matrix tures the construct in such a way that it will
of assessment approaches, perhaps contained explain variance in effective cross cultural
in a single delivery vehicle, will be required to interactions not accounted for by existing
tap this new construct. Regardless of the constructs such as intercultural competence
methods, the psychometric context that or global mindset or by other definitions.
defines the operationalization(s) and mea- Its utility awaits the development of a valid
surement of cultural intelligence must be measure.
established. It is important to define the
assessment of the construct in such a way that
Notes
cultural bias is not introduced. Lack of cross
cultural equivalence is a common problem in This research was supported by a grant from the
most western intelligence tests (e.g. Sternberg, Social Science and Humanities Research Council
of Canada. Authors are members of the Cultural
1985, 2000), and cultural intelligence is an Intelligence Project and are listed in reverse
inherently multicultural construct. alphabetical order. We thank our colleague
Duncan Jackson for his contribution at earlier
stages of this project, and we are grateful to
Conclusion Stacey Fitzsimmons for research assistance in the
preparation of this manuscript.
Defining intelligence of any sort has been
challenging, and cultural intelligence pre- 1 While we have presented it here for
sents at least as many issues. However, pre- conceptual clarity, in practice it may
dicting and explaining the effectiveness of sometimes be difficult to differentiate
individuals in intercultural interactions con- procedural knowledge from the
metacognitive component of cultural
tinues to be a significant challenge for a num- intelligence.
ber of different fields of study. The concept of 2 This discussion draws heavily on the linking
cultural intelligence, as a continuum of capa- function of the construct of mindfulness, a
bility explaining why some individuals are subordinate element of cultural
more effective in this regard than others, has metacognition as described in Thomas (2006)
and Ting-Toomey (1999).
the potential to be a significant development
with regard to understanding cross cultural
interactions. In this article we have presented References
a conceptualization that defines cultural Ackerman, P.L. (1996) ‘A Theory of Adult
intelligence as a system of interacting abili- Intellectual Development: Process,
ties. In so doing we build on the systems view Personality, Interests, and Knowledge’,
of intelligence and provide a clear description Intelligence 22: 227–57.
of the interactive effect of cultural metacog- Adler, N.J. (1997) International Dimensions of
Organizational Behavior, 3rd edn. Cincinnati,
nition that allows for the emergence of cul- OH: South-Western.
tural intelligence. Additionally, we avoid the Allen, B.A. and Armour-Thomas, E. (1991)
unnecessary complication of a motivational ‘Construct Validation of Metacognition’, The

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
 Thomas et al.: Cultural Intelligence 139

Journal of Psychology 127(1): 203–11. Nature of Expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Anderson, J.R. (1982) ‘Acquisition of Cognitive Erlbaum Associates.
Skill’, Psychological Review 89: 369–406. Chi, M.T.H. and VanLehn, K.A. (1991) ‘The
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K.Y., Content of Physics Self-explanations’, The
Templar, K.J., Tay, C. et al. (2007) ‘Cultural Journal of the Learning Sciences 1(1): 69–105.
Intelligence: Its Measurement and Effects on Chiu, C., Morris, M.W., Menon, T. and Hong,
Cultural Judgement and Decision Making, Y. (2000) ‘Motivated Cultural Cognition: The
Cultural Adaptation and Task Performance’, Impact of Implicit Cultural Theories on
Management and Organization Review 3(03): Dispositional Attribution Varies as a Function
335–71. of Need for Closure’, Journal of Personality and
Aycan, Z. (1997) ‘Acculturation of Expatriate Social Psychology 78: 247–59.
Managers: A Process Model of Adjustment Church, A.T. (1982) ‘Sojourner Adjustment’,
and Performance’, in Z. Aycan (ed.) New Psychological Bulletin 91(3): 540–72.
Approaches to Employee Management, Vol. 4: Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J. and Sharp, D. (1971)
Expatriate Management: Theory and Research, The Cultural Context of Learning and Thinking.
pp. 1–40. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. New York: Basic Books.
Binet, A. and Simon, T. (1916) ‘The Costa, P.T., Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992) Revised
Development of Intelligence in the Child’ NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PR-R and NEO
(L’Année Psych., 1908, pp. 1–90), in E.S. Kite Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional
(trans.) The Development of Intelligence in Children Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
(The Binet-Simon Scale), pp. 182–273. Resources.
Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins. Cushner, K. and Brislin, R.W. (1996) Intercultural
Bird, A., Stevens, M.J., Mendenhall, M.E. and Interactions: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks,
Oddou, G. (2007) The Global Competencies CA: Sage.
Inventory, version 3.0. St Louis, MO: The Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1980) ‘Self-
Kozai Group. determination Theory: When Mind Mediates
Brislin, R. (1981) Cross-cultural Encounters: Face-to- Behavior’, The Journal of Mind and Behavior 1:
face Interaction. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. 33–43.
Byrne, D. (1971) The Attraction Paradigm. New DiStefano, J.J. and Maznevski, M.L. (2000)
York: Academic Press. ‘Creating Value with Diverse Teams in
Caligiuri, P.M. (2000) ‘The Big Five Personality Global Management’, Organizational Dynamics
Characteristics as Predictors of Expatriates’ 29: 45–63.
Desire to Terminate the Assignment and Earley, P.C. (2002) ‘Redefining Interactions
Supervisor-rated Performance’, Personnel across Cultures and Organizations: Moving
Psychology 53: 67–88. Forward with Cultural Intelligence’, Research
Ceci, S.J. (1990) On Intelligence . . . More or Less: A in Organizational Behavior 24: 271–99.
Biological Treatise on Intellectual Development. Earley, P.C. and Ang, S. (2003) Cultural
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Intelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures.
Charness, N. (1979) ‘Components of Skill in Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bridge’, Canadian Journal of Psychology 33: Earley, P.C., Ang, S. and Tan, J.S. (2006)
1–16. Developing Cultural Intelligence at Work. Stanford,
Chen, G.-M. and Starosta, W.J. (2000) ‘The CA: Stanford University Press.
Development and Validation of the Earley, P.C. and Mosakowski, E. (2004) ‘Cultural
Intercultural Sensitivity Scale’, paper Intelligence’, Harvard Business Review 82(10):
presented at the annual meeting of the 139–46.
National Communication Association, Earley, P.C. and Peterson, R.S. (2004) ‘The
Seattle, November 2000. Elusive Cultural Chameleon: Cultural
Chi, M.T.H. (1978) ‘Knowledge Structures and Intelligence as a New Approach to
Memory Development’, in R.S. Siegler (ed.) Intercultural Training for the Global
Children’s Thinking: What Develops?, pp. 73–96. Manager’, Academy of Management Learning and
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Education 3(1): 100–15.
Chi, M.T H., Feltovich, P.J. and Glaser, R. Eid, M. and Diener, E. (2001) ‘Norms for
(1981) ‘Categorization and Representation of Experiencing Emotions in Different Cultures:
Physics Problems by Experts and Novices’, Inter- and Intranational Differences’, Journal
Cognitive Science 5: 121–52. of Personality and Social Psychology 81: 869–85.
Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R. and Farr, M. (1988) The Ekman, P.W. (1982) Emotion in the Human Face,

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
140 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(2)

2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University ‘Metacognition in Action: The Importance of

Press. Implementation Intentions’, Personality and
Ericsson, A.K. and Simon, H.A. (1993) Protocol Social Psychology Review 2(2): 124–36.
Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. London: MIT Gottfredson, L. (2002) ‘g: Highly General and
Press. Highly Practical’, in R.J. Sternberg and E.L.
Fiske, S.T. (1982) ‘Schema Triggered Affect: Grigorenko (eds) The General Factor of
Applications to Social Perception’, in M.S. Intelligence: How General Is It?, pp. 331–80.
Clarke and S.T. Fiske (eds) Affect and Cognition: Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Govindarajan, V. and Gupta, A.K. (2001) The
pp. 55–78. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Quest for Global Dominance. San Francisco:
Associates. Jossey-Bass.
Fiske, S.T. and Dyer, L.M. (1985) ‘Structure and Hanisch, K.A., Hulin, C.L. and Roznowski, M.
Development of Social Schemata: Evidence (1998) ‘The Importance of Individuals’
from Positive and Negative Transfer Effects’, Repertoire of Behaviors: The Scientific
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48: Appropriateness of Studying Multiple
839–52. Behaviors and General Attitudes’, Journal of
Flavell, J.H. (1979) ‘Metacognition and Cognitive Organizational Behavior 19: 463–80.
Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive- Howard, B.C., McGee, S., Hong, N.S. and Shia,
developmental Inquiry’, American Psychologist R. (2000) ‘The Influence of Metacognitive
34: 906–11. Self-regulation on Problem-solving in
Foster, C.A., Witcher, B.S., Campbell, W.K. and Computer-based Science Inquiry’, paper
Green, J.D. (1998) ‘Arousal and Attraction: presented to the American Educational
Evidence for Automatic and Controlled Research Association, New Orleans.
Processing’, Journal of Personality and Social Howard, B.C., McGee, S., Shia, R. and Hong,
Psychology 74: 86–101. N.S. (2001) ‘The Influence of Metacognitive
Francis, J.N.P. (1991) ‘When in Rome? The Self-regulation and Ability Levels on
Effects of Cultural Adaptation on Problem-solving’, paper presented to the
Intercultural Business Negotiations’, Journal of American Educational Research Association,
International Business Studies 22(3): 403–28. Seattle.
Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Johnson, J.P., Lenartowicz, T. and Apud, S.
Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books. (2006) ‘Cross-cultural Competence in
Gardner, W.L. and Martinko, M.J. (1988) International Business: Toward a Definition
‘Impression Management in Organizations’, and a Model’, Journal of International Business
Journal of Management 14: 321–38. Studies 37: 525–43.
Gick, M.L. and Holyoak, K.J. (1987) ‘The Kihlstrom, J.F. and Cantor, N. (2000) Social
Cognitive Basis of Knowledge Transfer’, in Intelligence. New York: Cambridge University
S.M. Cormier and J.D. Hagman (eds) Transfer Press.
of Learning: Contemporary Research and Applications. Kuusela, H. and Paul, P. (2000) ‘A Comparison
San Diego, CA: Academic Press. of Concurrent and Retrospective Verbal
Gilbert, D.T. and Hixson, J.G. (1991) ‘The Protocol Analysis’, The American Journal of
Trouble of Thinking: Activation and Psychology 113: 387–404.
Application of Stereotypic Beliefs’, Journal of Law, K.S., Wong, C.-S. and Song, L.J. (2004)
Personality and Social Psychology 60: 509–17. ‘The Construct and Criterion Validity of
Giles, H. and Smith, P. (1979) ‘Accommodation Emotional Intelligence and Its Potential for
Theory: Optimal Levels of Convergence’, in Management Studies’, Journal of Applied
H. Giles and R.N. St. Clair (eds) Language and Psychology 89: 483–96.
Social Psychology, pp. 45–63. Baltimore, MD: Lee, C.H. and Templer, K.J. (2003) ‘Cultural
University Park Press. Intelligence Assessment and Measurement’, in
Glaser, J. and Kihlstrom, J.F. (2005) P.C. Earley and S. Ang (eds) Cultural
‘Compensatory Automaticity Is Not an Intelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures.
Oxymoron’, in R. Hassum, J.S. Uleman and Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
J.J. Bargh (eds) The New Unconscious. New Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S. and
York: Oxford University Press. Boyacigiller, N.A. (2007) ‘What We Talk
Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional Intelligence. New About When We Talk About “Global
York: Bantam Books. Mindset”: Managerial Cognition in
Gollwitzer, P.M. and Schaal, B. (1998) Multinational Corporations’, Journal of

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
 Thomas et al.: Cultural Intelligence 141

International Business Studies 38: 231–58. Metacognition. New York: Cambridge

Linville, P.W. (1982) ‘The Complexity– University Press.
Extremity Effect and Age-based Pontari, B.A. and Schlenker, B.R. (2000) ‘The
Stereotyping’, Journal of Personality and Social Influence of Cognitive Load on Self-
Psychology 42(2): 193–211. Presentation: Can Cognitive Busyness Help as
Logan, G.D. (1989) ‘Automaticity and Cognitive Well as Harm Social Performance?’, Journal of
Control’, in J.S. Uleman and J.A. Bargh (eds) Personality and Social Psychology 78: 1092–108.
Unintended Thought, pp. 52–74. New York: Porter, S.S. and Inks, L.W. (2000) ‘Cognitive
Guilford Press. Complexity and Salesperson Adaptability: An
Marks, D.F. (1999) ‘Conscious Mental Imagery Exploratory Investigation’, Journal of Personal
and Action’, British Journal of Psychology 9(4): Selling and Sales Management 20: 15–21.
567–85. Rosch, E. (1975) ‘Universals and Cultural
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. and Roberts, R.D. Specifics in Human Categorization’, in R.
(2002) Emotional Intelligence: Science and Myth. Brislin, S. Bochner and W. Lonner (eds) Cross-
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. cultural Perspectives in Learning, pp. 177–207.
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D. and Salovey, P. (1999) New York: Sage.
‘Emotional Intelligence Meets Traditional Ruben, B.D. and Kealey, D.J. (1979) ‘Behavioral
Standards for Intelligence’, Intelligence 27: Assessment of Communication Competency
267–98. and the Prediction of Cross-cultural
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D. and Salovey, P. (2000) Adaptation’, International Journal of Intercultural
‘Electing a Measure of Emotional Relations 3: 15–47.
Intelligence: The Case of Ability Scales’, in R. Ruzgis, P. and Grigorenko, E.L. (1994) ‘Cultural
Bar-On and J.D.A. Parker (eds) The Handbook Meaning Systems, Intelligence, and
of Emotional Intelligence, pp. 320–42. San Personality’, in R.J. Sternberg and P. Ruzgis
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (eds) Personality and Intelligence. New York:
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1993) ‘The Cambridge University Press.
Intelligence of Emotional Intelligence’, Ryan, R.M., Kuhl, J. and Deci, E.L. (1997)
Intelligence 17: 433–42. ‘Nature and Autonomy: An Organizational
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1995) ‘Emotional View of Social and Neurobiological Aspects
Intelligence and the Construction and of Self-regulation in Behavior and
Regulation of Feelings’, Applied and Preventive Development’, Development and Psychopathology
Psychology 4: 197–208. 9: 701–28.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997) ‘What Is Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990) ‘Emotional
Emotional Intelligence?’, in P. Salovey and Intelligence’, Imagination, Cognition, and
D.J. Sluyter (eds) Emotional Development and Personality 9: 185–211.
Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications. Sampson, D.L. and Smith, A.R. (1957) ‘A Scale
New York: Basic Books. to Measure World-minded Attitudes’, Journal
Mednick, S.A. (1962) ‘The Associative Basis of of Social Psychology 45: 99–106.
the Creative Process’, Psychological Review 69: Schraw, G. and Dennison, R.S. (1994) ‘Assessing
220–32. Metacognitive Awareness’, Contemporary
Mendenhall, M. and Oddou, G. (1985) ‘The Educational Psychology 19: 460–75.
Dimensions of Expatriate Acculturation’, Schwab, D.P. (1980) ‘Construct Validity in
Academy of Management Review 10: 39–47. Organizational Behavior’, Research in
Mokhtari, K. and Reichard, C.A. (2002) Organizational Behavior 2: 3–43.
‘Assessing Students’ Metacognitive Awareness Simonton, D.K. (1983) ‘Formal Education,
of Reading Strategies’, Journal of Educational Eminence and Dogmatism: The Curvilinear
Psychology 94: 249–59. Relationship’, Journal of Creative Behavior 17:
Nisbett, R.E. and Wilson, T.D. (1977) ‘Telling 149–62.
More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports Stahl, G.K. (2001) ‘Using Assessment Centers as
Mental Processes’, Psychological Review 84(3): Tools for Global Leadership Development:
231–59. An Exploratory Study’, in M.E. Mendenhall,
Pendry, L.F. and MacRae, C.N. (1999) T.M. Kuhlmann and G.K. Stahl (eds)
‘Cognitive Load and Person Memory: The Developing Global Business Leaders: Policies,
Role of Perceived Group Variability’, Practices, and Innovations. Westport, CT:
European Journal of Social Psychology 29: 925–42. Quorum Books.
Perfect, T.J. and Schwartz, B.L. (2002) Applied Sternberg, R.J. (1985) Beyond IQ: A Triarchic

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
142 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(2)

Theory of Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Wade-Benzoni, K.A., Okumura, T., Brett, J.M.,
Cambridge University Press. Moore, D.A., Tenbrunsel, A.E. and
Sternberg, R.J. (1997a) ‘The Concept of Bazerman, M.H. (2002) ‘Cognitions and
Intelligence and Its Role in Lifelong Behavior in Asymmetric Social Dilemmas: A
Learning’, American Psychologist 52: 1030–7. Comparison of Two Cultures’, Journal of
Sternberg, R.J. (1997b) ‘Intelligence and Lifelong Applied Psychology 87: 87–95.
Learning: What’s New and How Can We Wechsler, D. (1944) The Measurement of Adult
Use It?’, American Psychologist 52: 1134–9. Intelligence, 3rd edn. Oxford: Williams and
Sternberg, R.J. (2000) ‘The Concept of Wilkin.
Intelligence’, in R.J. Sternberg (ed.) Handbook Yamazaki, Y. and Kayes, D.C. (2004) ‘An
of Intelligence, pp. 3–15. New York: Cambridge Experiential Learning Approach to Cross-
University Press. cultural Learning: A Review and Integration
Sternberg, R.J., Lautry, J. and Lubart, T.I. of Competencies for Successful Expatriate
(2003) ‘Where Are We in the Field of Adaptation’, Academy of Management Learning
Intelligence, How Did We Get Here, and and Education 3: 362–79.
Where Are We Going?’, in R.J. Sternberg, J.
Lautrey and T.I. Lubart (eds) Models of
Intelligence, pp. 3–26. Washington, DC: DAVID C. THOMAS is Professor of Inter-
American Psychological Association. national Management, Segal Graduate School of
Sternberg, R.J. and Lubart, T.I. (1991) ‘An Business, Simon Fraser University, 500 Granville
Investment Theory of Creativity and Its Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 1W6.
Development’, Human Development 34: 1–31. [email: [email protected]]
Sternberg, R.J. and Ruzgis, P. (eds) (1994)
Personality and Intelligence. New York: GÜNTER STAHL is based at INSEAD,
Cambridge University Press. Boulevard de Constance, 11305, Fontainebleau,
Swanson, H.L. (1990) ‘Influence of France.
Metacognitive Knowledge and Aptitude on [email: [email protected]]
Problem Solving’, Journal of Educational
ELIZABETH C. RAVLIN is at the Moore
Psychology 82(2): 306–14.
School of Business, University of South Carolina,
Swanson, H.L. (1996) Swanson Cognitive Processing
Columbia, South Carolina 29208, USA.
Test: Examiner’s Manual. Austin, TX: PRO-
[email: [email protected]]
ED, Inc.
Taylor, S. (1981) ‘A Categorization Approach to STEVEN A.Y. POELMANS is at the IESE
Stereotyping’, in D. Hamilton (ed.) Cognitive Business School, University of Navarra, Avenida
Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior, Pearson 21, Barcelona, 08034, Spain.
pp. 83–114. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum [email: [email protected]]
Associates.
Thomas, D.C. (2006) ‘Domain and Development ANDRE PEKERTI is at the University of
of Cultural Intelligence: The Importance of Queensland, Ipswich, Queensland 4305,
Mindfulness’, Group and Organization Australia.
Management 31(1): 78–99. [email: [email protected]]
Thomas, D.C. and Inkson, K. (2003) Cultural
Intelligence: People Skills for Global Business. San MARTHA MAZNEVSKI is at the International
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Institute for Management Development (IMD),
Thomas, D.C. and Ravlin, E.C. (1995) Chemin de Bellerive 23, P.O. Box 915,
‘Responses of Employees to Cultural Lausanne, CH-1001, Switzerland.
Adaptation By a Foreign Manager’, Journal of [email: [email protected]]
Applied Psychology 80: 133–46.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999) Communicating Across MILA B. LAZAROVA is at Simon Fraser
Cultures. New York: Guilford Press. University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby,
Vygotsky, L. (1978) ‘Interaction between British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6.
Learning and Development’, in M. Cole, V. [email: [email protected]]
John-Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman
(eds and trans) Mind in Society: The Development EFRAT ELRON is at the Tel Hai Academic
of Higher Psychological Processes, pp. 79–91. College, Upper Galilee, Israel.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [email: [email protected]]

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009
 Thomas et al.: Cultural Intelligence 143

BJØRN Z. EKELUND is based at Human ZEYNEP AYCAN is in the Department of

Factors AS, Skrenten 3, 3258 Larvik, Norway. Psychology, Koc University, Rumelifeneri Yolu,
[email: [email protected]] 34450 Sariyer, Istanbul, Turkey.
[email: [email protected]]
JEAN-LUC CERDIN is at ESSEC Business
School, Avenue Bernard Hirsch, BP 50105, KEVIN AU is at the Department of
Cergy-Pontoise Cedex, F-95021, France. Management, LG17 KKL Building, Chinese
[email: [email protected]] University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New
Territories Hong Kong.
RICHARD BRISLIN is at the University of [email: [email protected]]
Hawai’i at Manoa, 2444 Dole Street, Honolulu,
Hawai’i, 96822, USA. Please address correspondence to David C.
[email: [email protected]] Thomas.

Résumé
Intelligence culturelle : domaine et évaluation (David C Thomas, Günter
Stahl, Elizabeth C. Ravlin, Steven Poelmans, Andre Pekerti, Martha
Maznevski, Mila B. Lazarova, Efrat Elron, Bjørn Z. Ekelund, Jean-Luc Cerdin,
Richard Brislin, Zeynep Aycan and Kevin Au)
Le concept d’intelligence culturelle, récemment introduit dans la littérature de gestion, a le
potentiel d’expliquer l’efficacité des interactions interculturelles. Il n’y a à ce jour aucune
définition ou opérationnalisation acceptées de ce concept naissant. Nous développons dans
cet article une conceptualisation de l’intelligence culturelle qui répond à un certain nombre
de limitations importantes des définitions antérieures. Nous présentons une définition concise
de l’intelligence culturelle comme système d’aptitudes en interaction ; nous décrivons
comment ces éléments interagissent pour produire des comportements culturellement
intelligents et identifions enfin quelles sont les implications en termes de mesure.

David C Thomas, Günter Stahl, Elizabeth C. Ravlin, Steven Poelmans, Andre Pekerti,
Martha Maznevski, Mila B. Lazarova, Efrat Elron, Bjørn Z. Ekelund, Jean-Luc Cerdin,
Richard Brislin, Zeynep Aycan and Kevin Au

Downloaded from http://ccm.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on January 14, 2009