Approbation Of The Expanded Scale Of Cultural Intelligence In Russia

Abstract

The paper presents the results of approbation of the Expanded Cultural Intelligence Scale in Russia. Due to the growing intercultural interaction in a modern global society, it becomes important to study suchpersonal characteristics, that ensure success during intercultural communication. Cultural intelligence is the capability of an individual to act and communicate effectively in culturally diverse settings. According to the concept of C. Earley and S. Ang, cultural intelligence consists of 4 factors: metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral. Differentiated structure of each factor of cultural intelligence, proposed later, enabled a more detailed study of this phenomenon. 1545 subjects completed the Russian version ofthe E-CQS. According to the results of our approbation, the E-CQScan be considered as a reliable and valid psychodiagnostic tool in Russia. Research on a representative Russian sample revealed good consistency and test-retest reliability of the E-CQS. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a factor structure, which is generally consistent with the original English version. Results on convergent and discriminant validity are in line with published data about the correlation of the main scales of the E-CQS with other types of intelligence and personal traits measured by the Big Five. Also, new data were obtained on the relationship between cultural intelligence and intercultural sensitivity and tolerance. In the absence of a suitable tool in Russian, approbation of the Russian version of the E-CQS provides deeper understanding of the factors and capacities of the effectiveness in intercultural interactions.

Keywords: Сultural intelligenceintercultural communicationintercultural competencepsychodiagnosticsexpanded scale of cultural intelligence

Introduction

The accelerating cultural globalization with its contradictory but actively interacting processes of global and local trends clearly identified cultural diversity as one of the most important characteristics of the modern world. Differences between races, peoples, cultures, religions and subcultures do not disappear, but remain convex and visible on all countries. Intercultural competence is becoming an important condition for effective interaction in a wide range of spheres. In spite of high necessity, studies on individual capabilities for intercultural effectiveness remain sparse and unsystematic forming a gap in our understanding of why some individuals are more effective in culturally diverse situations. Therefore, Earley and Ang (2003) developed the construct of cultural intelligence (CQ) based on contemporary theories of intelligence (Sternberg, 1986). CQ is defined as an individual’s capability to function and manage effectively in culturally diverse settings. CQ is a multidimensional construct comprising four factors: (1) metacognitive CQ (the mental capability to acquire and understand cultural knowledge) (2) cognitive CQ (knowledge about cultures, their similarities and differences) (3) motivational CQ (interest and confidence in functioning effectively in intercultural contexts) and (4) behavioral CQ (the capability to flex behaviors in intercultural interactions).

A significant stage in the CQ research was the development and validation of the 20-item Cultural Intelligence Scale (Van Dyne et al., 2008). The validated scale has greatly increased the empirical capacity of CQ and has inspired much research in the past ten years. Nevertheless, with the accumulation of empirical data, new tasks have arisen for a deeper understanding of cultural intelligence.

Thus, S. Ang and L. Van Dine with colleagues proposed a refined theoretical conceptualization of cultural intelligence and developed 37-item ExpandedCultural IntelligenceScale (E-CQS) (Van Dyne et al., 2012). Authors drew on existing research of intelligence and intercultural communication to identify sub-dimensions for each of the four primary factors of cultural intelligence.

Particularly, the researchers based on contemporary motivational perspectives (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Bandura, 2002) to identify intrinsic interest (valuing culturally diverse experience in and of itself because it is inherently satisfying), extrinsic interest (valuing the tangible, personal benefits that can be derived from culturally diverse experiences) and self-efficacy (having task-specific confidence in culturally diverse situations) as sub-dimensions of motivational CQ.For cognitive CQ, they differentiated culture-general knowledge (knowledge of the universal elements that constitute a cultural environment) from context specific knowledge defined as declarative knowledge about manifestations of cultural universals in a specific sphere and procedural knowledge of how to be effective in that sphere (Cushner & Brislin, 1996; Murdock, 1987; Triandis, 1994).

More than that, referring specifically to research on metacognition (O’Neil &Abedi, 1996; Pintrich& De Groot, 1990) authors delineated planning (strategizing before a culturally diverse encounter), awareness (knowing about cultural thinking and specific of cultural identity) and checking (reviewing assumptions and adjusting mental maps when actual experiences differ from expectations) as sub-dimensions of metacognitive CQFinally, they identify flexibility in verbal behavior (flexibility in vocalization) and non-verbal behavior (flexibility in communication that is conveyed via gestures, facial expressions, and body language); as well as speech acts (flexibility in communicating specific types of messages such as requests, invitations, apologies, gratitude, disagreement in appropriate local standard) as key sub-dimensions of behavioral CQ (Hall, 1959; Spencer-Oatey, 2008).

Problem Statement

In the absence of a suitable tool for assessing intercultural competence in Russian, approbation of the Russian version of the Expanded Cultural Intelligence Scale provides for deeper understanding of the factors and capacities of the effectiveness in intercultural interactions.The aim of our work is to validate the psychodiagnostic tool for measuring cultural intelligence as the central element of intercultural competence.

Research Questions

The main research aim is to find empirical evidence supporting the proposed sub-dimensions of CQ and the psychometric properties of the Expanded Cultural Intelligence Scale (E-CQS)on the Russian-language sample.

Purpose of the Study

The main goal of the study is to validate the Expanded Cultural Intelligence Scaleon Russian sample.

Research Methods

In Study 1, in addition to the E-CQS, respondents completed the following methods: 1) Big Five by R. McCrae and P. Costa in A. Khromov's adaptation; 2) Tolerance Index by G. Soldatova and etc.; 3) Scale of Intercultural Sensitivity by O. Khukhlaeva, M. Chibisova M.Y., Y. Logashenko based on Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity of M. Bennet (N=1545). In Study 2 we measured cultural intelligence with the E-CQS, the cognitive ability with the Wonderlik Personal Test and emotional intelligence with EQ questionnaire by D.V. Lucina (N=50).

Findings

We obtained the following results.

Conclusion

The results demonstrate that the Russian version of the E-CQS is a reliable and valid psychodiagnostic scale.

Finally, we emphasize the importance of this method for expanding the research field of intercultural communication in the Russian-speaking environment.

References

1. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in a cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 269-290.
2. Cushner, K., &Brislin, R.W. (1996). Intercultural Relations: A Practical Guide (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.doi:
3. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.
4. Earley, P.S., &Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
5. Hall, E.T. (1959). The Silent Language. New York: Anchor Books.
6. Murdock, G.P. (1987). Outline of Cultural Materials (5th rev. edn). New Haven, CT: HRAF.
7. O’Neil, H.E., &Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: Potential for alternative assessment. The Journal of Educational Research. 1996. № 89, 234-245.
8. Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
9. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness, and rapport. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication, and Politeness Theory (pp. 11-47). London: Continuum.
10. Sternberg, R.J., &Detterman D.K. (1986). What is Intelligence? Contemporary Viewpoints on its Nature and Definition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
11. Triandis, H.C. (1994). Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., &Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS / In S. Ang, L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 16-38). NY: M.E. Sharpe.
13. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K.-Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M.L., &Koh, C. (2012). Sub-dimensions of the four factor model of cultural intelligence: Expanding the conceptualization and measurement of cultural intelligence (CQ). Social and Personal Psychology: Compass, 6(4), 295-313.
14. Van, Dyne L., Ang, S., & Tan, M.-L. (2017). Cultural Intelligence. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.