INTRODUCTION intercultural negotiation outcomes
Chapter 1 introduces this dissertation on the positive effects of international
experience on intercultural negotiation outcomes through developing negotiators’
intercultural competence, psychological capital and global identity. First, it presents the
research background and motivations. Then, it states the research objectives and
questions. Next, it explains the main propositions of the theoretical model and the
empirical study that has been conducted to test the hypotheses proposed in this
dissertation. Subsequently, it highlights the theoretical contributions and implications for
practice. Finally, it outlines the structure of this dissertation.
Research Background and Motivations
Being effective in conducting intercultural negotiations is becoming more and
more critical with the internationalization of work and study. However, intercultural
negotiations are more difficult than intracultural negotiations because the intercultural
context adds a layer of complexity and creates more uncertainty and anxiety for
negotiators (Adler, 1997; Gudykunst, 1995). This is evidenced by research findings
showing that negotiation outcomes tend to be lower in intercultural negotiations
compared to intracultural negotiations (Liu et al., 2010).
Although biographic anecdotes of master negotiators often feature their
international experience, for instance, statesman Henry Kissinger was born in Germany,
grew up and went to schools in the US, and also traveled widely around the world (Liu &
Adair, 2017), surprisingly little has been investigated in the context of intercultural
negotiations with regard to the effects of negotiators’ international experience on their
negotiation outcomes. To the best of my knowledge, there are only three empirical studies
so far. Their results indicate that international experience is significantly positively
associated with negotiators’ creativity (Maddux & Galinsky, 2009) and subjective value
and economic gains (Liu et al., 2013) in both intra- and intercultural settings, but not with
negotiators’ sequencing of integrative information behaviors and cooperative relationship
management behaviors in intercultural negotiations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010). These
somewhat conflicting results are likely due to the differences in the outcomes examined
and/or the way international experience is conceptualized and measured. Liu et al. (2013)
found that depth of multicultural experience has a significant positive relationship with
intercultural negotiation outcomes and this relationship is mediated by the negotiators’
global identity. They conceptualized depth of multicultural experience as encompassing
extended immersion in certain cultures for life functions of work, live, or study in the
local language. It is measured with three indices: (i) difference between birth and
passport countries, (ii) proficiency of foreign languages, and (iii) length of stay in a
foreign country for more than 3 months. Although it was not the focus of their study, Imai
and Gelfand (2010) found a significant positive correlation between negotiators’ length of
living abroad experience and their level of Cultural Intelligence (CQ), both overall CQ
and behavioral CQ, in intercultural negotiations. Interestingly, Maddux and Galinsky
(2009) examined the effects of living abroad versus traveling abroad separately and found
that living abroad but not traveling abroad has a significant positive influence on
negotiators’ creativity. Their results indicate that it is the experience of deeply immersing
in foreign countries while living abroad that enhances one’s creativity. Merely traveling
abroad does not yield such a benefit. Thus, the type/domain of the international
experience matters.
Overall, these three studies indicate that the impact of negotiators’ international
experience in negotiations is complex and more research is warranted to further tease out
when and how international experience influences which negotiation processes and
outcomes, for example, by investigating potential mediators and moderators of the
international experience-negotiation outcomes relationship which Liu et al.’s (2013)
study has illuminated. Moreover, Imai and Gelfand (2010) point out that the intercultural
context not only brings about intercultural communication challenges due to cultural
differences between the negotiators which compromise the performance of intercultural
negotiators compared to intracultural negotiators, the intercultural context also makes it
difficult for negotiators to sustain epistemic motivation (low need for closure) and social
motivation (cooperative motives) which are two necessary conditions for negotiators to
engage in effective integrative negotiation processes that lead to higher joint gains. First,
negotiators in intercultural negotiations tend to experience higher levels of anxiety and
uncertainty because of the cultural diversity in intercultural negotiations (Gudykunst,
1995), resulting in heightened need for closure, i.e., low epistemic motivation (Imai &
Gelfand, 2010; Liu et al., 2012) compared to those in intracultural negotiations. The need
for closure is a form of epistemic motivation (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994) where a
person who has a high need for closure can be said to have low epistemic motivation, and
vice versa. Epistemic motivation is defined as “the desire to acquire a full and accurate
understanding of the world” (De Dreu, 2004: 122). Second, negotiators in intercultural
negotiations are less likely to have social motivation in the form of cooperative motives
compared to those in intracultural negotiations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010). This is because
of inter-group bias, resulting in people being less willing to cooperate with outgroup
members compared to ingroup members (Hewstone et al., 2002). Cooperative motives, a
type of social motivation refers to having equal and high concerns for both outcomes of
self and other (McClintock, 1977). According to the theory of cooperation and
competition (Deutsch, 1949, 1973), social motivation plays a central role in
problemsolving behavior and integrative negotiation.
Informed by the above three studies and after reviewing the literature on the
effects of international experience and the literature on negotiations, I proceeded to
develop a theoretical model to unpack the effects of international experience on
intercultural negotiation outcomes, in particular by focusing on pertinent aspects of
individuals that international experience can develop and can be expected to mitigate or
even overcome the communication barriers in intercultural negotiations and/or the
deficits in epistemic motivation (low need for closure) and social motivation (cooperative
motives) caused by the intercultural context.
In addition, the conceptualization of international experience in the three studies
reflects what has been done in the broader literature on the effects of international
experience. Most of the research takes into account the breadth and/or depth of
international experience, neglecting the cultural contexts in which the international
experiences took place (a few exceptions: e.g., Dragoni et al., 2014; Godart et al., 2015;
Takeuchi et al., 2005). Research has shown that context matters, hence it is imperative to
develop a contextualized conceptualization of international experience.
Research Objectives and Questions
The broad research objectives of this dissertation are to propose a novel and
contextualized conceptualization of international experience, and to explore the effects of
international experience on the outcomes of intercultural negotiations by developing a
comprehensive model that describes three mediators through which international
experience influences intercultural negotiation outcomes with cultural distance between
the negotiators in the dyad as a moderator of the relationships between each of the three
mediators and negotiation outcomes. Specifically, it seeks to: (1) propose a
multidimensional conceptualization of international experience that consists of four
dimensions, namely breadth, depth, cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity; (2)
explore intercultural competence, psychological capital and global identity as mediators
of the relationship between international experience and intercultural negotiation
outcomes; and (3) investigate the moderating effect of cultural distance between the
negotiators in the dyad on the relationships between each of the three mediators and
intercultural negotiation outcomes.
Hence, this dissertation seeks to answer the following research questions: (1)
How do the various dimensions of international experience ─ breadth, depth, cultural
distance and cultural heterogeneity affect intercultural negotiation outcomes? (2) How do
the various dimensions of international experience ─ breadth, depth, cultural distance and
cultural heterogeneity influence intercultural competence, psychological capital and
global identity? (3) How do intercultural competence, psychological capital and global
identity impact intercultural negotiation outcomes? (4) Do intercultural competence,
psychological capital and global identity mediate the relationship between the various
dimensions of international experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes? (5) Are
there any differences between the effects of international experience acquired through
living/working/studying (LWS) abroad versus touristic international experience for
research questions (1) to (4)? And (6) does cultural distance between the negotiators in
the dyad moderate the relationships between intercultural competence and negotiation
outcomes, between psychological capital and negotiation outcomes, as well as between
global identity and negotiation outcomes, such that higher levels of intercultural
competence and psychological capital, and a stronger global identity have more
pronounced positive effects on intercultural negotiation outcomes when cultural distance
between the negotiators is larger?
Main Propositions of Theoretical Model and Empirical Study In this
dissertation, I define international experience as the experiences individuals acquire while
they are in foreign countries as tourists or while they are living, working or studying there
(e.g., Takeuchi & Chen, 2013). I propose that international experience is a multi-
dimensional construct that encompasses four dimensions: breadth, depth, cultural
distance, and cultural heterogeneity. I argue that experiences abroad develop and
strengthen individuals’ intercultural competence, psychological capital, and global
identity, which in turn enable them to mitigate the inherent issues and challenges in
intercultural negotiations and achieve better negotiation outcomes. In other words,
intercultural competence, psychological capital, and global identity mediate the
relationship between international experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes.
The intercultural negotiation context inherently erects barriers to effective
communication and creates psychological impediments to effective integrative
negotiation, resulting in worse outcomes for those in intercultural negotiations compared
to those in intracultural negotiations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010; Liu et al., 2010). I postulate
that the extent to which negotiators fall victim to these challenges or how capable they
are in mitigating or even overcoming them and achieve better negotiation outcomes
depends on their intercultural competence, psychological capital and global identity. The
intercultural context makes it difficult for negotiators to have effective communication
because of cultural differences in communication and negotiation norms and styles
between them and their negotiation partners. It also makes it hard for intercultural
negotiators to maintain epistemic motivation (low need for closure) and social motivation
(cooperative motives) which are necessary for them to engage in effective integrative
negotiation processes that lead to higher joint gains. I suggest that in intercultural
negotiations, negotiators with a higher level of intercultural competence will have more
behavioral, cognitive and affective abilities to conduct more effective intercultural
communication which will allow them to achieve higher joint gains than dyads with a
lower level of intercultural competence; negotiators with a higher level of psychological
capital will have higher epistemic motivation (lower need for closure) and more positive
psychological resources and capacity to engage in more effective integrative negotiation
processes that will aid them in attaining better joint gains than dyads with a lower level of
psychological capital; and negotiators with a stronger global identity will have more
behavioral, cognitive and affective abilities to conduct effective intercultural
communication, as well as higher epistemic motivation (lower need for closure) and
higher social motivation (more cooperative motives) to engage in more effective
integrative negotiation processes, which will help them to get better negotiation outcomes
than dyads with weaker global identity.
I contend that it is crucial to differentiate between touristic international
experience and international experience acquired through living/working/studying (LWS)
abroad. LWS international experience can be expected to have a stronger impact on the
development of individuals’ intercultural competence, psychological capital, and global
identity than touristic international experience. In addition, since the negotiation takes
place in an intercultural context, I posit that cultural distance between the negotiators in
the dyad moderates the relationships between the mediators and intercultural negotiation
outcomes, such that the positive effects of intercultural competence, psychological capital
and global identity on intercultural negotiation outcomes are more pronounced when
cultural distance between the two negotiators is larger.
At this point in time when there seems to be a detour of globalization with a
resurgence of nationalism in many parts of the world, it is all the more crucial to explicate
the benefits of gaining international experience and provide empirical evidence for it. To
test the theoretical model, I conducted an empirical study using a negotiation simulation
based on the Ocampo-Sportsgear Endorsement Deal negotiation case (Teegen & Weiss,
2004). The sample of this study consists of 301 intercultural negotiation dyads with a
total of 602 participants. Participants were students at a large southeastern university in
the U.S. with an average age of 20.52. Each intercultural negotiation dyad consists of an
American and a non-American. The non-Americans come from 54 countries around the
world, representing a wide variety of cultures. I also collected data via survey
questionnaires.
Theoretical Contributions
This dissertation makes theoretical contributions to two streams of literature,
namely research on the effects of international experience and negotiations research in the
intercultural context. First, one main theoretical contribution of this dissertation is my
proposal of a novel and contextualized conceptualization of international experience,
which suggests that international experience is a multi-dimensional construct comprising
four dimensions: breadth, depth, cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity. Most of the
research on the effects of international experience takes into account the breadth and/or
depth of international experience, neglecting the cultural contexts in which the
international experiences took place (a few exceptions: e.g., Dragoni et al., 2014; Godart
et al., 2015; Takeuchi et al., 2005). Research has shown that context matters, hence it is
imperative to contextualize the conceptualization of international experience. I argue that
cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity are two important dimensions of international
experience that contextualize international experience in different ways. Adding cultural
distance and cultural heterogeneity to breadth and depth will enrich the conceptualization
of international experience.
Results of the empirical study support my proposed conceptualization of
international experience as a multi-dimensional construct. The four dimensions of
international experience do not necessarily have the same effect on a particular outcome
variable, e.g., a certain dimension is a significant predictor of Y, while another dimension
is not a significant predictor of the same outcome Y. Without recognizing this point, one
may be working on enhancing one’s international experience to improve Y, but on the
wrong dimension, thus achieving no results. For example, only breadth of LWS
international experience has a significant positive relationship with psychological capital,
while the other three dimensions do not. If a person acquires more LWS international
experience in terms of more depth (longer stay), larger cultural distance or greater
cultural heterogeneity, but not more breadth, i.e., no new country, he or she is unlikely to
have a significant increase in psychological capital.
One may ask why we should recognize cultural distance or cultural heterogeneity
as a dimension of international experience. It is pertinent to do so because cultural
distance or cultural heterogeneity by itself and the other dimensions (breadth and depth)
can have significantly different impact on the same outcome variable. Here, I use findings
of the empirical study regarding Clarity, one of the three dimensions of quality of
communication experience, as an illustration. For Clarity, only cultural heterogeneity of
touristic international experience has a significant positive effect on it. None of the other
dimensions of touristic international experience and not a single dimension of LWS
international experience has a significant relationship with it. Thus, by not considering
cultural heterogeneity as a dimension of international experience, one would erroneously
conclude that international experience has no effect on clarity at all.
Second, results of the empirical study of this dissertation corroborates past
research findings that the experience of individuals deeply immersing themselves in
foreign countries when they lived, worked, and/or studied abroad versus other more
cursory international experience, such as traveling abroad exerted different influence over
the outcomes they examined (e.g., Maddux & Galinsky, 2009). For instance, in the
empirical study of this dissertation, I found that intercultural negotiation dyads’ LWS
international experience (breadth, cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity) had a
significant positive impact on their joint subjective value, but their touristic international
experience did not. Conversely, another set of results indicates that touristic international
experience matters much more than LWS international experience in increasing
psychological capital. Thus, findings of this study expand the list of outcomes where
differentiating between international experience gained from living/working/studying
overseas versus traveling abroad as a tourist is crucial.
Third, this dissertation brings together the literatures on negotiations and
international experience, and contributes to the sparse theoretical and empirical research
that has been conducted at the intersection of these two streams of literature by
developing a comprehensive, yet parsimonious model on the effects of international
experience on intercultural negotiation outcomes, and testing it empirically with a
laboratory experiment using survey questionnaires and a negotiation simulation
conducted by intercultural pairs of negotiators.
Practical Implications
This dissertation offers practical implications for both individuals and
organizations. For individuals who are involved in intercultural negotiations or work
interactions, accumulating international experience is particularly valuable for them
because going abroad develops their intercultural competence, enhances their
psychological capital and strengthens their global identity, all of which enable them to be
more effective during their intercultural encounters. International experience that includes
an extended stay and deeper involvement with the locals in foreign cultures, such as
living, working or studying overseas tends to be more developmental than being a tourist
abroad. However, not everyone has the opportunity to live, work or study in foreign
countries. Thus, I recommend individuals to visit foreign countries as a tourist as much as
they can if they do not have the opportunities to acquire international experience that
involves deep immersion in foreign cultures. Touristic international experience has its
own benefits too.
For multinational companies, I recommend that they value and factor in
international experience in their personnel selection, training programs, leadership and
career development programs, and succession planning. This should be a critical
consideration for employees whose work nature frequently involves the need for them to
interact and negotiate with people from other cultures. Including international experience
opportunities such as expatriate assignments as part of the talent management program to
groom future global leaders of the company will certainly reap benefits. Company
leaders’ international experience can help them to be more effective at leading the
company as they often need to make critical decisions together with internal staff and
external stakeholders who might be from the same culture or from other cultures. The
more internationalized the company is, the more important this would be.
There is much value for business schools to incorporate opportunities for their
students to acquire international experiences within the curriculum of their various degree
programs. For instance, business schools can offer a variety of “Study Abroad”
opportunities that include short-term, faculty-led programs, as well as semester and
fullyear enrollment programs at international exchange universities. For business schools
that have already done so, they should continue to do so and expand their programs
because acquiring international experience is very beneficial for the personal and
professional development of their students.
Structure of Dissertation
Following this introduction chapter is Chapter 2 where I review the relevant
research that has been done in the areas of international experience and intercultural
negotiation. In chapter 3, I present the theoretical model. In Chapter 4, I describe the
methodology that the empirical study of this dissertation used to test the theoretical
model. In Chapter 5, I explain the data analysis that was done and present the results. In
Chapter 6, I summarize the main findings of the empirical study and discuss the
theoretical contributions and practical implications of this dissertation, limitations of the
empirical study and avenues for future research.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter 2 reviews relevant research that has been done on the topics of
international experience and intercultural negotiation.
Research on the Effects of International Experience Since this
dissertation examines the effects of international experience in intercultural negotiations
and defines international experience to include the experiences individuals acquire while
they are in foreign countries as tourists or while they are living, studying or working
there, in other words, whenever they are outside of their home country (e.g., Takeuchi &
Chen, 2013), I will start by reviewing extant research that has examined the effects of
such international experiences. Scholars have also used other terms to refer to such
experiences, including foreign experiences, living abroad, traveling abroad, multicultural
experiences, overseas experiences, etc. Regardless of the term or label used, the review
below includes the study as long as the definition, operationalization and measurement of
the experience examined in the study partially or fully include the type of experiences
defined as international experience in this dissertation.
International Experience in the Context of Negotiations
In the context of negotiations, there has been little empirical research that
specifically examined the effects of negotiators’ international experience. One of these
was conducted by Liu et al. (2013). They explored how and when multicultural
experience influences negotiation outcomes in intracultural and intercultural negotiation
contexts. Specifically, they examined the differential effects of the breadth and depth of
multicultural experience on negotiation outcomes in intracultural and intercultural
negotiation contexts, as well as the mediating role played by cultural identities in the
form of local and global identities in these relationships.
Liu et al. (2013) conceptualized depth of multicultural experience as extended
immersion in certain cultures for life functions of work, live, or study in the local
language. They measured it with three indices: (i) difference between birth and passport
countries, (ii) proficiency of foreign languages, and (iii) length of stay in a foreign
country for more than 3 months. For breadth of multicultural experience, they
conceptualized it as an accumulation of short stints to other cultures, and measured it by
counting the number of countries visited for less than 1 month with three functional
indices: a) work, b) study, c) leisure. They standardized these two composite variables
into 7-point Likert scales.
Global identity reflects a sense of belongingness to a worldwide culture and a
tendency to adopt behaviors, styles, and information related to a global culture while
local identity refers to the sense of belongingness to a local group and community
(Arnett, 2002; Erez & Gati, 2004). Individuals can have multiple identities which reflect
their sense of belongingness to these multiple groups, respectively (Stryker & Burke,
2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Thus, local and global identities can coexist and when each
of these two identities becomes salient depends on the social context (Erez et al., 2013;
Shokef & Erez, 2006). Individuals’ global and local identities can vary in strength
independently, and it is possible for individuals to have both strong global and local
identities at the same time (Shokef & Erez, 2006). Individuals’ global identity becomes
salient in a global context and enables them to adapt to their global group and be effective
in their social interactions while local identity becomes salient in the local cultural
context and enables them to function well within their local community (Erez et al., 2013;
Erez & Gati, 2004; Erez & Shokef, 2008). Such frame switching is supported by research
which found that bi-cultural individuals who develop two cultural networks and integrate
their both cultural identities well can switch effectively between different culturally
appropriate behaviors depending on the context (e.g., Friedman et al., 2012; Hong et al.,
2000). Moreover, it has been argued that individuals are guided by only one network at
any given time, thus there is no dissonance between the two identities even if under
contradictory situations (Hong et al., 2000).
Based on the results from four empirical studies, Liu et al. (2013) found that depth
of multicultural experience significantly positively influences intercultural negotiation
outcomes (both subjective and economic gains), and this effect is mediated by the
negotiators’ global identity. On the other hand, while they found a significant positive
correlation between breadth of multicultural experience and negotiators’ global identity,
global identity did not significantly mediate the relationship between breadth of
multicultural experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes. For breadth of
multicultural experience, the results of their studies show that its positive effects are on
intracultural negotiation outcomes instead, and this effect is mediated by negotiators’
local identity.
Imai and Gelfand (2010) found that except for CQ, none of the other individual
difference characteristics they examined increased complementary sequences of
integrative information behaviors and sequences of cooperative relationship management
behaviors in intercultural negotiations. International experience was one of these other
individual difference characteristics examined, among others such as cognitive ability,
emotional intelligence, openness, and extraversion. CQ is defined as a person’s capability
to successfully adapt to new cultural settings (Earley & Ang, 2003), comprising four
components: meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral. The meta-cognitive
facet of CQ refers to an individual’s level of cultural mindfulness or awareness during
intercultural interactions. Cognitive CQ refers to an individual’s acquired knowledge of
similarities and differences regarding norms, practices, and conventions of other cultures.
Motivational CQ refers to an individual’s ability to direct attention and energy toward
adapting to new cultures. Behavioral CQ refers to the extent to which individuals have a
wide repertoire of behavioral skills and are able to appropriately enact verbal and
nonverbal behaviors in new cultural settings.
The results of Imai and Gelfand’s (2010) study indicate that it is largely
motivational CQ that drove the positive effect that overall CQ had on complementary
sequences of integrative information behaviors, and it is only behavioral CQ that
increased sequences of cooperative relationship management behaviors. In addition, it is
the negotiator with the lower level of CQ rather than the negotiator with the higher level
of CQ in each dyad who determined the extent to which the dyads engaged in
complementary sequences of integrative information behaviors and sequences of
cooperative relationship management behaviors. Finally, sequences of integrative
information behaviors (reciprocal and complementary) and sequences of cooperative
relationship management behaviors are significantly positively related to joint gains.
One interesting point to note is that Imai and Gelfand (2010) reported a significant
correlation between international experience and CQ (both overall CQ and behavioral
CQ) at the individual-level, i.e., participants with more international experience tend to
have a higher level of overall CQ and behavioral CQ. In their study, international
experience was measured based on the total length of time (in weeks) participants have
spent living abroad.
In another rare study that examined the effects of international experience in
negotiations, Maddux and Galinsky (2009) found that the amount of time individuals
spent living abroad, but not traveling abroad, significantly predicted whether a deal was
reached during a negotiation in which a creative yet hidden solution was necessary to
achieve an acceptable deal, even when they controlled for a variety of important
personality and demographic factors. Their study included both intracultural and
intercultural negotiation dyads, but it did not examine whether the negotiation context
(intra-vs intercultural negotiations) made a difference to the results since that was not the
focus of their study. The focus of their study was to investigate whether there is a positive
relationship between living abroad and creativity in the context of negotiations, and they
found empirical evidence for it.
To negotiate more effectively in the global marketplace, managers are advised to
accumulate rich multicultural experiences so that they can understand better the interests
and behaviors of their counterparts (Brett, 2007), implying that individuals with more
international experience are more likely to gain better negotiation outcomes in
intercultural negotiations. However, the limited extant empirical research yielded
somewhat conflicting results. On the one hand, Liu et al. (2013) and Maddux and
Galinsky (2009) found that international experience can help negotiators to become more
effective in both intracultural and intercultural negotiations; on the other hand, Imai and
Gelfand (2010) did not find international experience to exert any influence. Although
Imai and Gelfand (2010) and Maddux and Galinsky (2009) conceptualized and measured
international experience similarly J length of time individuals spent living abroad, Imai
and Gelfand (2010) examined the effects of international experience on negotiators’
sequencing of integrative information behaviors and cooperative relationship
management behaviors, while Maddux and Galinsky (2009) looked at its effects on
negotiators’ ability to come up with a creative solution, i.e., their creativity. Liu et al.’s
(2013) conceptualization and measurement of international experience is broader than
Imai and Gelfand’s (2010). They examined how international experience influenced
negotiation outcomes (both subjective and economic gains) through negotiators’ cultural
identities in the form of global and local identities. The conflicting results found are
likely due to differences in the outcomes examined and/or the way international
experience is conceptualized and measured. Overall, findings of these three studies
indicate that the impact of negotiators’ international experience in negotiations is
complex and more research is warranted to further tease out when and how international
experience influences which negotiation processes and outcomes, for example, by
investigating potential mediators and moderators of the international
experiencenegotiation outcomes relationship which Liu et al.’s (2013) study has
illuminated. Moreover, conceptualization and measurement of international experience
should be further considered.
Although investigation of the effects of international experience in negotiations is
sparse, its influence on a wide range of outcomes has been empirically examined in other
research streams and contexts. Research findings in other streams of literature and
contexts can potentially inform research in the negotiation context and enrich it. For
instance, those outcomes that international experience has been found to have a positive
impact on may play a role in intercultural negotiations. Moreover, valuable insights can
be gained regarding how international experience has been conceptualized and measured.
This will help with determining suitable conceptualization and measurement of
international experience for the research purpose and hypotheses proposed in this
dissertation.
International Experience in the Expatriate Literature
The effects of international experience have gained most interest among scholars
doing research on the topic of expatriation. Most of the studies in this stream of research
examined the influence of international experience on cross-cultural adjustment of
expatriates (see review by Takeuchi & Chen, 2013). Cross-cultural adjustment of
expatriates refers to the degree of ease (or difficulty) employees have with various
aspects of an international assignment and comprises of three dimensions, general
adjustment, work adjustment, and interactional adjustment (e.g. Black, 1988, 1990a,
1990b; Black & Gregersen, 1991b, 1991a; Black & Stephens, 1989). General adjustment
pertains to expatriates’ psychological comfort associated with the host country’s cultural
environment such as food, living conditions, transportation, and weather. Work
adjustment refers to their psychological comfort regarding different work values,
expectations, and standards prevalent in the host country. Interactional adjustment is
about their psychological comfort related to communicating with people in the host
country.
Takeuchi and Chen (2013) note that the results of two meta-analyses conducted to
examine the impact of previous international experience on expatriate cross-cultural
adjustment are discouraging. Hechanova et al.’s (2003) meta-analysis found that prior
international experience has positive but nonsignificant relationships with general
adjustment, work adjustment, and interaction adjustment. Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al.’s
(2005) meta-analysis found previous international experience to be positively and
significantly correlated with work adjustment and interaction adjustment, but not in the
case of general adjustment. Nevertheless, prior international experience explained no
more than one percent of the variance in both work and interactional adjustment, leading
Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al. (2005) to conclude that past international experience is only
minimally helpful for expatriates’ adjustment during their current international
assignment. They reasoned that such weak findings could be due to how previous
international experience is conceptualized and measured in the studies included in the
meta-analyses.
Given the unexpected meta-analytic findings by Hechanova et al. (2003) and
Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al. (2005), and recognizing the inherent limitation of meta-analyses
since they do not take into account the qualitative differences among various studies
included in the meta-analysis, for instance, differences between different
operationalizations of the construct examined, Takeuchi and Chen (2013) set out to
review the literature regarding the effects of international experience on expatriate
crosscultural adjustment. They focused on both substantive and methodological issues to
gain additional insights that may explain the weak impact of previous international
experience on expatriate cross-cultural adjustment found in the two meta-analyses.
Takeuchi and Chen (2013) highlight several substantive issues. First, there is an
implicit assumption in the extant literature that the relationship between previous
international experience and expatriate cross-cultural adjustment is a linear, positive one.
They suggest that this may not be the case for two reasons. There could be diminishing
marginal returns of the benefits of prior international experience on adjustment. Thus, the
relationship could be a curvilinear one instead of a linear one where the slope becomes
flatter as international experience increases (adjustment will then level off). In addition,
time on the current international assignment influences the level of adjustment as
expatriates go through four stages of cross-cultural adjustment J honeymoon stage,
culture shock stage, adjustment stage and mastery stage, known as the U-curve
adjustment (Black & Mendenhall, 1991). Prior international experience may alter the
trajectory of adjustment (Black & Mendenhall, 1991) and result in a J-curve adjustment
instead for those with rich prior international experience as shown in some studies (e.g.,
Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Torbiörn, 1982). The relationship between previous international
experience and adjustment may vary across different periods of the current international
assignment. It may be negative in the first few months, neutral in the following months,
and positive after 6 months. Given these dynamics at play, Takeuchi et al. (2005) argue
that prior international experience is a moderator on the relationship between current
assignment tenure and adjustment rather than as an antecedent of adjustment, and their
study found support for it. Takeuchi and Chen (2013) suggest that the potential non-linear
relationship between previous international experience and expatriate cross-cultural
adjustment may account for the non-significant results found in past studies regarding the
relationship between prior international experience and expatriate cross-cultural
adjustment since they examined the relationship based on the zero-order correlation or
first-order linear regression coefficient. Thus, they urge future research to investigate the
possibility of a non-linear relationship to gain a more accurate and time-sensitive
understanding of the link between prior international experience and adjustment.
Second, Takeuchi and Chen (2013) highlight that timing, context, and quality of
prior international experience may potentially impact expatriate cross-cultural adjustment
differently. They argue that international experience acquired during childhood or
adolescence may have the strongest impact on cross-cultural adjustment later in life
because people’s values, attitudes, beliefs, and norms may be changed more significantly
from childhood to late adolescence. Another issue to consider is the context in which the
international experience took place due to the context-specificity of knowledge transfer.
Knowledge that individuals gained from international experience acquired in more
similar contexts as the one in which the current international assignment is located, for
instance, cultural similarity, may play a bigger role in enabling their adjustment during
the current assignment because the knowledge acquired previously tends to be more
informative and transferable (Takeuchi et al., 2005). In addition, the quality of the
international experience gained previously is likely to make a differential impact on
adjustment during the current assignment. For example, international experience that
involved deeper immersion in the host country environment, establishing meaningful
relationships with the locals, and engaging in local community activities is likely to be
much more helpful for future relocations to other cultural contexts. Having this kind of
higher quality international experience means that the person has gone through a more
thorough experience of learning the local cultural values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors
associated with the host country, and thus more able to adjust and adapt to different
cultural environments and culturally different others. Hence, Takeuchi and Chen (2013)
note that taking these differences into consideration in future research would help to
reveal a more accurate picture of the influence of past international experience on
expatriate cross-cultural adjustment.
Third, Takeuchi and Chen (2013) point out that there are few studies that have
examined the mediating mechanisms or processes through which past international
experience influences cross-cultural adjustment. They highlight several mediating
mechanisms that future research may consider. For example, prior international
experience may influence adjustment through enriching expatriates’ knowledge and skill
repertoire related to dealing with adjustment issues; enhancing their ability to understand
host country nationals’ behaviors and make correct attributions about them; increasing
their expatriation or cross-cultural self-efficacy; reducing their ethnocentrism and
intolerance; increasing their acceptance of other cultures, openness and cultural
flexibility; as well as developing a global mindset.
In terms of operationalization and measurement mode of prior international
experience, Takeuchi and Chen’s (2013) review found that they varied among the studies.
These include dichotomous measure (yes/no regarding having previous international
experience), amount-based measure (number of international assignments/travel before
current assignment), time-based measure (number of years/months previously spent in
foreign countries), and composite measures (combination of more than one indicator).
Another aspect of prior international experience conceptualization pertains to the
type/domain of previous international experience. There are studies that focused on
domain-specific ones like work, living, study, travel, while others looked at non
domainspecific general international experience (e.g., a combination of at least two
domainspecific international experience).
Takeuchi and Chen (2013) found that none of the studies using dichotomous
measure or amount-based measure of prior international work experience showed a
significant relationship between prior international experience and all three forms of
adjustments J general, work, and interaction. For time-based measure of prior
international work experience, the studies indicated positive but nonsignificant
correlation with work adjustment and interaction adjustment, and either positive or
negative, nonsignificant correlation with general adjustment. Measurement mode (i.e.,
whether a dichotomous measure, amount-based measure, or time-based measure was
used) did not seem to make a clear difference in the results of the various studies.
Takeuchi and Chen (2013) reason that it is due to the theoretical issues discussed above
that need to be resolved.
In terms of the type/domain of prior international experience, the results of the
studies show that prior international living experience and prior general international
experience (including two or more types of experience) seem to be more strongly related
to adjustment than prior international work experience. They suggest that this could be
due to the difference in the nature of the experience. Those who lived in a foreign country
as a child are more likely to be more immersed in the local life there compared to adults
who are working there because working people spend a lot of time at work.
Based on their review, Takeuchi and Chen (2013) conclude that prior international
experience should be conceptualized as a multi-dimensional construct as it comprises of
several interrelated but distinct attributes or dimensions, and exists in multiple domains.
They note that prior international experience can be conceptualized as combinations of
multiple dimensions in many ways. The dimensions to be considered include the domain
of experience (e.g., work, living, travel, study, etc.), timing of experience (during
childhood, adolescence, and early, mid, and late adulthood), context of experience
(similar to or different from host country), quantity versus quality of experience (e.g.,
amount of experience versus richness and depth of experience), etc. In addition, in terms
of the relationship between the overall construct of prior international experience and its
multiple dimensions, Takeuchi and Chen (2013) point out that prior international
experience is an aggregate model of multi-dimensional construct because it is on the
same level as its dimensions, and it is an algebraic function of its dimensions. Prior
international experience is formed by its dimensions. Takeuchi and Chen (2013) envision
building a mega-model of prior international experience by using a formula that includes
all the dimensions mentioned above simultaneously, for instance, by multiplying the
scores of each dimension and form a composite score.
Although the effects of prior international experience on expatriate cross-cultural
adjustment are dismal, various empirical studies have shown that international experience
has a significant influence on career-related outcomes. International experience has been
found to develop expatriates’ career capital (e.g., Dickmann et al., 2018; Jokinen et al.,
2008), positively impact their later objective and/or subjective career success (e.g.
Biemann & Braakmann, 2013; Schworm et al., 2017; Suutari et al., 2018), and positively
influence their degree of career internationalization (Felker & Gianecchini, 2015).
In addition, Dragoni et al.’s (2014) study highlights the developmental value of
international experience on upper level leaders’ strategic thinking competency. Strategic
thinking competency refers to the knowledge, skills, and abilities that leaders require in
formulating value-creating strategic goals and strategies (Dragoni et al., 2011). Dragoni et
al. (2014) found that the length of upper level leaders’ global work experiences is
positively and significantly related to their strategic thinking competency, particularly for
those who have had exposure to a more culturally distant country, i.e., international
experience in countries with greater cultural distance from one’s home country moderated
the positive effects length of international experience has on development of strategic
thinking competency. This is probably because the exposure to greater cultural distance
helps these upper level leaders develop more sophisticated cognitive schemas that
increase their capability to detect, digest, and integrate large amounts of complex,
culturally-laden information (e.g., Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002).
They suggest that the findings of their study provide indirect evidence that leaders’ global
mindset may be developed through exposure to greater cultural distance in their
international experience, and that leaders with a stronger global mindset are not only
more likely to be better strategic decision-makers (e.g., Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002;
Osland et al., 2006), but also are more likely to have a greater capacity to learn from key
international experiences and become more effective.
In calculating cultural distance, Dragoni et al. (2014) used procedures developed
by Kogut and Singh (1988), and relied on the “as-is cultural practices” data from the
GLOBE project on all nine dimensions (House et al., 2004). For respondents who had
exposure to multiple countries, they used the score associated with the most culturally
distant country because they argue that it is exposure to the most distinct culture that is
most significant.
International Experience in the Literature on Top Management Teams
The effects of international experience have gained much attention among
scholars who conduct research on top management team (TMT) using the upper echelon
perspective. The international experience examined here is that of the TMT as a whole
team, or that of individual TMT members, such as the CEO. In this stream of literature,
the benefits of TMT international experience are encouraging for firm-level outcomes, as
well as individual-level outcomes personal to the TMT members.
TMT’s or CEO’s international experience has been found to be positively and
significantly associated with firm performance (e.g., Carpenter et al., 2001; Daily et al.,
2000; Le & Kroll, 2017; Roth, 1995), firm innovation (Nuruzzaman et al., 2019), firm
internationalization (e.g., Athanassiou & Nigh, 2002; Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001;
Chen et al., 2017; Sambharya, 1996; Tihanyi et al., 2000), preference for full-control
entry modes (Herrmann & Datta, 2002; Nielsen & Nielsen, 2011), and corporate social
responsibility engagement or performance (Slater & Dixon-Fowler, 2009; Zhang et al.,
2018).
In terms of individual-level outcomes personal to the TMT members with
international experience, studies on the influence of international experience on CEO
selection and career advancement to the C-suite indicate that having international
experience is a significant predictor (e.g., Magnusson & Boggs, 2006). However, a few
studies have shown that one must be careful not to have too much of it because the
relationship between duration of international work experience and career advancement
to the C-suite is a curvilinear inverted U-shaped one (Georgakakis et al., 2016; Hamori &
Koyuncu, 2011; Schmid & Wurster, 2017). In terms of compensation, Schmid and
Altfeld’s (2018) study on the effects of international work experience on CFO’s
compensation shows a similar curvilinear inverted U-shaped relationship. International
work experience increases CFO’s compensation, but decreases it beyond a certain
threshold level of international work experience. Carpenter et al. (2001) found that
CEOs’ pay is positively related to their international assignment experience, but only
when the firm is highly global. In addition, a TMT member’s differentiation in terms of
international experience in various regions of the world and nationality positively
enhances that member’s centrality in providing international business advice to the team
(Athanassiou & Roth, 2006).
International experience in this stream of research is mostly measured using a
dichotomous measure (yes/no regarding previous international experience) (e.g., Nielsen
& Nielsen, 2011; Nuruzzaman et al., 2019; Reuber & Fischer, 1997), followed by a
timebased measure (e.g., Carpenter et al., 2001; Mohr & Batsakis, 2019; Roth, 1995).
Carpenter et al. (2001) found that the results they got by using the number of countries or
length of international experience by country did not provide more explanatory power in
the models that only used the simple measure of total length of international experience.
There are some studies that considered international experience as a
multidimensional construct. A few studies used a composite measure that included both
amount and time, i.e., a combination of the number of international assignments/countries
and total years in such assignments (e.g., Daily et al., 2000; Georgakakis et al., 2016)
while a few other studies expanded the conceptualization of international experience
beyond amount and length of the international experience to include cultural distance (Le
& Kroll, 2017; Magnusson & Boggs, 2006; Schmid & Wurster, 2017), psychic distance
(Maitland & Sammartino, 2015) and/or geographic distance (Schmid & Wurster, 2017)
between the home country and the country in which the international experience was
acquired. Among the studies that included cultural distance as a dimension of
international experience, they took different approaches to do so. Magnusson and Boggs
(2006) examined the effects of each dimension of international experience (total length,
number of countries, and cultural distance) separately. Schmid and Wurster (2017) also
examined the effects of total length of international experience, geographic distance and
cultural distance separately. Their measures of geographic distance and cultural distance
used a weighted average index approach that accounted for the time spent in each
country. On the other hand, Le and Kroll (2017) examined the effects of total length of
international experience, the interaction between total length of international experience
and number of countries, and the interaction between total length of international
experience and cultural distance. In calculating cultural distance, Magnusson and Boggs
(2006) based it on Ronen and Shenkar’s (1985) cultural clusters using an ordinal
measure, while Schmid and Wurster (2017) and Le and Kroll (2017) used Kogut and
Singh’s (1988) formula and Hofstede’s (2001) cultural indices on uncertainty avoidance,
individualism, masculinity, and power distance.
In terms of the type/domain of previous international experience, although most
studies in the TMT research stream only examined international experience acquired in
the work domain, some of them also included the domains of studying or living, and only
one included travel as well. A few studies used nationality of the person to capture
international experience information during their formative years (Athanassiou & Roth,
2006; Dauth et al., 2017; Hutzschenreuter & Horstkotte, 2013; Piaskowska &
Trojanowski, 2014).
International Experience and Individuals
In addition to the studies reviewed in the previous two sections, the effects of
international experience have also been investigated by researchers who are interested in
its influence on individuals. Below, I will highlight the empirical evidence this group of
scholars found regarding the impact of international experience on developing
individuals’ various types of intercultural competence, psychological capital, global
identity, creativity, and self-concept clarity, as well as its influence on individuals’
intergroup bias, generalized trust, ability to appropriately switch cultural frames, and
tendency to engage in immoral behavior acts. This wide range of outcomes indicates that
international experience undoubtedly leaves it mark on individuals in many ways.
Development of intercultural competence. Although there are many variations
of the definition of intercultural competence, Arasaratnam (2016) points out that there is
enough consensus among these variations to conclude that there is at least some
collective understanding of what intercultural competence is (e.g., Deardorff, 2006).
Deardorff (2006) found that the definition most favored by a panel of internationally
known intercultural scholars is “the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately
in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes” ”
(Deardorff, 2004:194). Effectiveness speaks to successfully achieving one’s goals in a
particular communication exchange, while appropriateness considers the communication
exchange from the other party’s point of view, i.e., whether the communicator has
communicated in a way that is contextually expected and accepted (Arasaratnam, 2016).
Deardorff (2006) also notes that other highly popular definitions focused mainly on
communication and behavior in intercultural situations. In general, her findings from the
study indicate that both intercultural scholars and higher education administrators
preferred definitions that are broader in nature and refrained from defining intercultural
competence based on the specificities that constitute intercultural knowledge, skills, and
attitudes.
Arasaratnam (2016) highlights that the definition of intercultural competence
provided by Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) is one of the most helpful ones. They
defined it as “the appropriate and effective management of interaction between people
who, to some degree or another, represent different or divergent affective, cognitive, and
behavioral orientations to the world.” (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009:7). Spitzberg and
Changnon’s (2009) definition extends Deardorff’s (2004) definition by adding that the
people involved in the intercultural interactions have different or divergent cognitive,
affective, and behavioral orientations. This means that to be interculturally competent,
one needs to attend to these three dimensions of differences effectively and appropriately.
Thus, intercultural competence can be characterized in terms of affective, cognitive and
behavioral dimensions (Arasaratnam, 2009; Cui & Van Den Berg, 1991; Sercu, 2004;
Spitzberg, 1991). Based on this, Arasaratnam, (2009) proposes that in order to
communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations, one must be able to
emotionally relate to others and feel a sense of affiliation with people from other cultures
─ affective dimension; be able to differentiate personal constructs and use them in
relating to others and interpreting their behaviors (Adams-Webber, 2001; Gudykunst &
Kim, 2003) ─ cognitive dimension; and be able to engage in behaviors reflecting
intercultural and interpersonal competence, e.g., intentionally look for opportunities to
interact with people from other cultures (Arasaratnam & Doerfel, 2005), adapt one’s
behaviors or change one’s communication patterns according to the other party (Rubin &
Martin, 1994), and cultivate friendships with people from other cultures (Arasaratnam,
2005) ─ behavioral dimension.
The similar emphasis on effectiveness and appropriateness in Deardorff’s (2004)
and Spitzberg and Changnon’s (2009) definitions also underlies other definitions of
intercultural competence (Arasaratnam, 2016). For instance, in a review of the literature
on intercultural communication in international negotiation, Liu and Adair (2017: 9) offer
a broad definition of intercultural competence: “Intercultural competence is a variable
defined as the capability to navigate and adapt to uncertain situations incurred by
cultural complexity.”. Synthesizing the numerous definitions and conceptualizations of
intercultural competence in the literature, Arasaratnam (2016: 6) points out that an
interculturally competent person can be characterized as one who is “mindful, empathetic,
motivated to interact with people of other cultures, open to new schemata, adaptable,
flexible, able to cope with complexity and ambiguity. Language skills and culture-specific
knowledge undoubtedly serve as assets to such an individual. Further, she or he is neither
ethnocentric nor defined by cultural prejudices.”
There are both culture-specific and culture-general variables that can contribute to
intercultural competence (Arasaratnam, 2016). Culture-general variables are those that
can facilitate intercultural competence across multiple cultural contexts, implying its
broader application in intercultural encounters. This suggests that even if one does not
have culture-specific knowledge, one can still communicate effectively and appropriately
in intercultural contexts. Culture-general models are more useful and most intercultural
competence models take a culture-general approach (Witteborn, 2003). For instance, with
the objective of coming up with a culture-general model of intercultural competence,
Arasaratnam and Doerfel (2005) searched for commonalities in emic descriptions of a
competent intercultural communicator by participants who represent an array of cultural
perspectives, enabling them to tease out identifiable variables in a competent intercultural
communicator that transcend cultural context and cultural identity of the perceiver. They
found that those who were identified as competent intercultural communicators (from the
other party’s point of view) had five qualities in common. They are empathy, intercultural
experience/training, motivation, global attitude/positive towards other cultures, and
ability to listen well in conversation.
There are numerous semantically similar labels/terminologies used in research on
intercultural competence, such as intercultural efficiency, cultural competence,
intercultural sensitivity, intercultural communication competence, cross-cultural
competence, and global competence, etc. (Arasaratnam, 2016; Wolff & Borzikowsky,
2018). They are often used interchangeably, most notably between intercultural
competence and intercultural communication competence (Arasaratnam, 2016; Yashima,
2010), as well as between intercultural communication competence and intercultural
communication effectiveness (Bradford et al., 2000). Thus, Arasaratnam (2016) suggests
that instead of going by the label, it is more important to look at the operationalization of
what is being studied, i.e., one can conclude that it is a study of intercultural competence
if what is being studied is effectiveness and appropriateness in intercultural
communication, regardless of the label.
The studies that empirically examined the effects of international experience on
intercultural competence reflect the wide array of definitions, conceptualizations and
indicators of intercultural competence. They examined the effects of international
experience on different sets of variables that contribute to intercultural competence based
on different definitions and conceptualizations of intercultural competence. There is a
consensus among intercultural scholars that intercultural competence can be measured in
its separate components, not necessarily holistically (Deardorff, 2006). Collectively, the
examples of studies that examined the effects of international experience on intercultural
competence presented next provide empirical evidence to show that international
experience develops individuals’ intercultural competence.
Clapp-Smith and Wernsing (2014) conducted a qualitative study using openended
survey response data from undergraduate students of a U.S. university regarding the
transformational triggers that occurred during their study abroad program to examine how
early international experience triggers a transformational learning process that contributes
to the development of intercultural competencies. Their sample consists of participants
gaining early international experience, and for many of them, it was their first
international experience. This characteristic of their sample is particularly wellsuited for
their research purpose since transformational trigger events can be more clearly identified
from people with early international experiences, compared to those with more past
international experiences as that can create “noise” and make the isolation of
transformational triggers more difficult. Moreover, early international experiences have
been recognized as being highly formative (Black, Morrison, et al., 1999; Osland, 2008).
43 percent of the participants were overseas for a semester, 3 percent for seven to nine
weeks, 39 percent for four to six weeks, and 15 percent for one to three weeks.
Participants indicated that their experience abroad was transforming, life changing,
empowering, and positive. Clapp-Smith and Wernsing (2014) identified four categories of
transformational triggers from the participants’ responses. They explain that these four
categories of transformational triggers develop some of the intercultural competencies
proposed by Bird et al. (2010).
The first transformational trigger is immersing with local customs and people. By
interacting with the locals in their local customs in the foreign country that they were in,
participants experienced a shift in frame of reference and became more curious about
learning more about the local customs, and in turn immersed more into the local customs
for continued learning. This contributes to developing the intercultural competency of
cosmopolitanism (Bird et al., 2010). The second transformational trigger is experiencing
the novelty of “normality” which represents a shift in frame of reference when
participants realized that what they expected to be “normal” or “right” are not necessarily
so while abroad where there is another set of values and expectations for normal
behavior. Experiencing this type of shift in frame of reference develops the intercultural
competency of non-judgementalness (Bird et al., 2010). The third transformational trigger
is communicating in a non-native language. It contributes to the intercultural
competencies of social flexibility, self-identity and self-confidence (Bird et al., 2010).
Communicating in the local language of the foreign country they were in gave
participants the ability and opportunities for deeper immersion into the local culture, and
also learn about the nuances of the country and culture that can only be perceived and
understood through speaking in the local language. Moreover, when participants learned
and practiced speaking the local language, they became more creative in their
communication to communicate with the locals, developing their social flexibility. This
process also developed their self-identity and self-confidence as they make sense of and
integrate the new cultural knowledge they acquired with their existing mental models
while abroad. The fourth transformational trigger is finding time for self-reflection which
develops the intercultural competency of self-awareness (Bird et al., 2010). Participants
indicated that they found more time to journal and reflect on their assumptions about
stereotypes, social roles, and attitudes toward work while abroad. By doing so, they
broadened their perspectives about cultural differences and became more self-aware of
their own culturally conditioned values and beliefs.
Yashima (2010) examined the effects of a short-term (2–3 weeks) international
volunteer work project on the development of a large group of Japanese university
students’ intercultural competence. They found that this short-term international
experience developed various aspects of participants’ intercultural competence, including
openness/ethno-relativism, international awareness, interpersonal communication skills,
and self-efficacy. After completing the international volunteer work project, participants’
level of intercultural competence was significantly higher than non-participants.
Moreover, for those participants who had intercultural experience before participating in
the project, their level of intercultural competence after the project were higher than
participants without prior intercultural experience, indicating that this additional
international experience further developed their intercultural competence.
Using two studies, Behrnd and Porzelt (2012) investigated the effects of
international experience on developing the intercultural competence of German students
who participated in study abroad programs or had internships abroad, and how they
benefit from intercultural training. The first study is based on a structural model of
intercultural competence proposed by Gertsen (1990) which classified intercultural
competencies into three aspects: cognitive, affective, and conative. The cognitive aspects
include general knowledge and consciousness of cultural differences, knowledge of a
region and its social organization, knowledge of the values, norms, conventions of the
foreign culture, as well as knowledge of communication and interaction patterns in a
culture. The affective aspects encompass motivation and interest in intercultural
encounters, a certain freedom from prejudice, a positive attitude towards the foreign
culture, realistic expectations, as well as acceptance of cultural differences and respect for
other cultures’ customs. The conative aspects refer to being conscious of and having
knowledge about different communication styles and non-verbal communication, as well
as being able to identify different communication styles and communicate effectively in
these different styles. The second study is based on three types of intercultural
competence from Bolten’s (2007) process model of intercultural competence and Stahl’s
(1998) list of intercultural successful problem solving strategies. The three types of
intercultural competence from Bolten’s (2007) model are: individual intercultural
competence (willingness to learn, flexibility, tolerance of ambiguity, and optimism),
social intercultural competence (capacity for teamwork, empathy and tolerance, and
ability for meta-communication and adaptability), and strategic intercultural competence
(organization, problem-solving and decision making abilities, and knowledge
management).
Collectively, the findings of both studies indicate that participants became more
interculturally competent after their study abroad programs or internships overseas only if
they had stayed abroad long enough. Thus, the length of time overseas is more crucial
than just being abroad or not in the development of their intercultural competence.
However, the findings were not consistent regarding the positive impact of international
experience on the various aspects and sub-domains of intercultural competence. The
results show that having been overseas enhanced intercultural competence in interaction
with the length of stay on the students’ cognitive intercultural competence (Study 1), and
problem-solving, as well as individual and social intercultural competence (Study 2). In
addition, those with higher scores in affective intercultural competence were abroad for at
least 10 months, while those with higher scores in strategic intercultural competence were
overseas for at least 6 months. Moreover, subsequent intercultural training was more
beneficial for students with this international experience (Study 2). One unexpected
finding is that the number of countries visited, the number of foreign languages spoken,
and the number of private stays abroad were not significantly correlated to the various
aspects and sub-domains of intercultural competence in both studies.
A recent study by Wolff and Borzikowsky (2018) examined whether international
experience in the form of educational stays abroad led to an increase in intercultural
competence after three months. The educational stays abroad included student exchange
program, internship, au pair stay, voluntary service, and work-and-travel turn.
Participants of the study included both students and non-students who are mostly
Germans. Wolff and Borzikowsky (2018) investigated whether participants of their study
had an increase in their overall intercultural competence and the six intercultural
competence facets of the onion model of intercultural competence (Schnabel et al., 2014)
after three months of their educational stay abroad. The first intercultural competence
facet is sensitivity in communication. It refers to putting oneself in the position of another
person during communication to understand him or her better; and having high sensibility
for verbal and nonverbal communication. The second facet, information seeking, is about
the purposeful collection of information about a foreign country or another culture. The
third facet is socializing, i.e., establishing and maintaining contact with people from other
cultures quickly and easily. The four facet is goal setting which pertains to having clear
goals and being able to implement them consistently. Mediation of interests is the fifth
facet. It refers to mediating between parties to achieve the best possible benefit from
different approaches. Finally, the sixth facet is cultural identity reflection which is
intensively and constantly reflecting upon one’s own cultural character. The findings of
their study provide empirical evidence that educational stays abroad resulted in a
significant increase in intercultural competence after three months. The development of
the participants’ overall intercultural competence stemmed from increases in the
intercultural competence facets of sensitivity in communication, socializing, and cultural
identity reflection, but not from information seeking, goal setting, and mediation of
interests. Moreover, the greatest impact of the international experience was developing
participants’ cultural identity reflection.
CQ is considered as a type of intercultural competence (Liu & Adair, 2017).
Matsumoto and Hwang (2013) found that the Cultural Intelligence Scale (Van Dyne et al.,
2015) is one of the three most promising tests when they examined the reliability and
validity of 10 tests to measure culture-general intercultural competence. In addition, the
Cultural Intelligence Scale was identified as one that focused exclusively on malleable
abilities while other instruments that measured intercultural competence are as considered
as trait-based, attitude-based, capability based or a mixture of them (K. Leung et al.,
2014; Schnabel, 2015). By focusing only on malleable abilities, it means that a person’s
CQ is not static and can be developed through experiences and training.
Reichard et al. (2015) defined cross-culturally competent individuals as those who
possess a broadened perspective which is reflected by a high level of CQ (Ang et al.,
2006), i.e., the ability to adapt to new cultural contexts (Black, Gregerson, et al., 1999),
and being not ethnocentric, i.e., having positive attitudes towards other cultures. Based on
the assumption that international experience is the best teacher of cross-cultural
competence and that individuals can also be trained to develop it, they conducted two
studies. The first study thematically analyzed undergraduate students’ international
experience (internship or study) to distill the characteristics of and the mechanisms by
which international experience develops cross-cultural competence. Based on the results
of their qualitative analysis, Reichard et al. (2015) developed a preliminary theoretical
model of cross-cultural competence development. It proposes that a cross-cultural trigger
event develops individuals’ cultural competence which is reflected by a broadened
perspective through their level of engagement in the event. A cross-cultural trigger event
is a situation that is culturally novel or displays radically different cultural norms
compared to the individuals’ own cultural norms. Their level of engagement in the event
is determined by the availability of cognitive and social resources. People with more
cognitive and social resources are more likely to engage at a higher level of intensity with
the event, and thus increase their cross-cultural competence or broadened perspective to a
larger extent. Moreover, development of cultural competence is a cyclical, reinforcing
process. The increase in cultural competence feeds back into the individual’s resources,
and thus enables them to engage in future cross-cultural trigger events at higher levels of
engagement, which further increases their cultural competence. And then the cycle
repeats itself again.
In the second study, Reichard et al. (2015) designed and tested an intercultural
competence development training intervention consisting of a series of cross-cultural
trigger events based on the findings from the first study and activities to build
participants’ psychological capital and social resources. They found that the training
participants received resulted in an increase in their CQ and a decrease in ethnocentrism.
They also found that participants’ prior international experience and openness to
experience were correlated with cultural competence. This is consistent with their
theoretical model that the development of cultural competence is a cyclical, reinforcing
process. Yashima’s (2010) finding that additional international experience further
developed the intercultural competence of those participants who had prior international
experience highlighted earlier supports this contention of their theoretical model as well.
Researchers who specifically examined the effects of international experience on
CQ found that international experience is significantly positively related to CQ (Crowne,
2013; Engle & Crowne, 2014; Wood & St. Peters, 2014). Engle and Crowne (2014) and
Wood and St. Peters (2014) examined the impact of a short-term international experience
in the form of a one to two weeks study abroad program on each of the four facets of CQ.
Engle and Crowne (2014) found that it enhanced all four facets of participants’ CQ while
Wood and St. Peters (2014) found that it increased participants’ metacognitive CQ,
cognitive CQ and motivational CQ, but not behavioral CQ.
In addition, the findings of Crowne’s (2013) study which used an expanded
conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of international experience
corroborated the overall results of the two studies above. Crowne (2013) found that
international experience, whether in the form of a dichotomous measure (been abroad or
not), a breadth measure in terms of the number of countries, or a depth measure that
captures a variety of experiences, reflecting a person’s level of immersion in the local
culture and life abroad, has a significant positive impact on developing CQ. The depth
measure encompassed the domain of previous international experience (work, study,
travel, missionary work, or other purpose), as well as information on how often
participants visited local shops, local food markets, local restaurants, and local residents
(using a five-point Likert-type scale ─ never, rarely, sometimes, very often, and always).
It is also worth mentioning here that as highlighted in a previous section, while it is not
the intent of their study to investigate the relationship between international experience
and CQ, Imai and Gelfand (2010) reported a significant correlation between international
experience (total length of time lived abroad) and CQ (both overall CQ and behavioral
CQ). As can be seen from the results of these various studies, international experience
plays a pertinent role in developing individuals’ CQ.
Cognitive complexity has also been identified with intercultural competence
(Gudykunst & Kim, 2003). Cognitive complexity refers to possessing cognitive structures
that are both broad and well-integrated (Crockett, 1965). According to
anxiety/uncertainty theory (Gudykunst, 1995), cognitive complexity is directly associated
with effective management of uncertainty and anxiety in intercultural communication,
which in turn leads to intercultural competence (Arasaratnam, 2016). In addition,
Arasaratnam (2009) points out that there is substantial evidence showing that people who
have higher levels of cognitive complexity tend to possess persuasive and integrative
communication skills that are associated with competence (Kline et al., 1990; Leichty &
Applegate, 1991; O’keefe & Shepherd, 1987) and a bit of evidence indicating that in
intercultural encounters, high levels of cognitive complexity is related to one’s ability to
relate to the other party and to construct messages to meet the needs of the other party
(Chen, 1996).
Using a longitudinal study research design, Fee et al. (2013) examined the
influence of international experience on the development of cognitive complexity among
a group of expatriates who were international aid workers from Australia and New
Zealand sent to work in another country. The results indicate that these expatriates
experienced a significant increase in cognitive complexity during the 12-month study
period. Their level of cognitive complexity was measured at pre-departure and then 12
months later to capture the change. Also, those who interacted most frequently with host
culture nationals outside work and at work benefited most from this international
experience in terms of developing their cognitive complexity.
A number of the studies reviewed above used university students as their
sample and investigated the effects of different types of international experience,
including work internships, volunteer work service, and study abroad programs such as
educational tours, and student exchange programs, etc. Using young people as their
sample allowed these researchers to examine the effects of early international experiences
on the development of individuals’ intercultural competence and they found a significant
positive impact. This confirms assertions by some scholars (e.g., Black, Morrison, et al.,
1999; Osland, 2008) that such early international experiences are highly formative.
In addition, the overseas stays were of varying lengths, some as short as one to
two weeks, some were a few months, and others were longer. It is notable that
participants had a significant increase in the level of their intercultural competence even
after being overseas for a short period of time. This is in line with other studies that found
that even short stays abroad can have a significant developmental effect on individuals,
such as their intercultural sensitivity and awareness (e.g., Baruch et al., 2013). Moreover,
international experiences acquired at different times have a cumulative effect, i.e.,
additional international experience can further enhance individuals’ intercultural
competence that was developed during previous international experience (e.g., Yashima,
2010).
Although the studies found empirical evidence supporting the developmental
effect of international experience on individuals’ intercultural competence generally,
some studies did not find a significant effect on certain aspects or sub-domains of the
intercultural competence models that they used. Also, there are instances where
one(some) study(ies) was(were) able to detect a significant effect of international
experience on a certain aspect of intercultural competence whereas another(other)
study(ies) was(were) unable to do so for that particular or similar aspect of intercultural
competence. These inconsistent results may be due to differences in the conceptualization
and/or measurement of international experience, and/or research design of the studies.
For instance, length of the overseas experience is likely to be a factor. The length of time
overseas is a crucial factor in determining the development of intercultural competence
and different aspects of intercultural competence have been found to take different
amounts of time to be developed (Behrnd & Porzelt, 2012).
Development of psychological capital. Basinska (2017) examined the
relationship between psychological capital and prior international experience, along with
a few other individual and professional resources such as functional language, age and
job tenure. According to Luthans et al. (2007), psychological capital is an individual’s
positive psychological state, consisting of four components: Self-efficacy (possession of
self-confidence and the belief in one’s own ability to cope with difficult tasks); Optimism
(having expectations of positive outcomes and positive events in the future); Hope
(focusing on goals and having the perseverance to pursue them, as well as redefining the
ways to achieve the goals when necessary); and Resilience (having the positive
psychological capacity to cope with uncertainty and conflict at work).
Here, I will focus on Basinska’s (2017) arguments and findings regarding the
relationship between psychological capital and prior international experience, as well as
the conceptualization and measurement of prior international experience in her study.
Basinska (2017) argues that having prior international experience in both private and
professional life can broaden individuals’ psychological capital because prior
international experience facilitates individuals’ positive psychological adjustment in a
multinational work environment, particularly in their intercultural interactions with
coworkers and clients, thus building their psychological capital. Moreover, similar to
Reichard et al.’s (2015) assertion, Basinska (2017) argues that the relationship between
international experience and psychological capital can be reciprocal.
Basinska (2017) conceptualized international experiences as the variety of
experiences (in different time and frequency) that a person gained while working, living,
studying or traveling abroad (Takeuchi & Chen, 2013), and measured it using a sevenitem
index. The seven items are: (1) working in a multinational corporation in the past, (2)
working abroad, (3) living abroad, (4) studying abroad, (5) private and business travel
abroad, and (6) having a close family member of another nationality. Respondents
evaluated their experiences on a bimodal scale (no=0 yes=1) for each item. Higher scores
(maximum 7) indicate higher prior international experience in both private and working
life.
Using a sample of Polish employees in MNCs, Basinska (2017) assessed the
relationship between psychological capital and prior international experience based on
the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient and Cohen’s-d effect size. The results
indicate that psychological capital was significantly positively correlated with prior
international experience (0.22; p = 0.012), albeit a small effect size. Cohen’s-d and a
correlation coefficient higher than 0.50 are viewed as a large, between 0.30 and 0.50 as
moderate, and less than 0.30 as a small effect size (Cohen, 1988). The results also
indicate that among the components of international experience, business trips abroad
accounted for this correlation substantially, suggesting that the work context is more
conducive for the development of psychological capital. This study provides some
preliminary evidence that international experience is positively associated with the
development of individuals’ psychological capital since no other empirical study has
examined this specific relationship. It supports Reichard et al.’s (2015) suggestion that
people who have interacted with others who are culturally different or have traveled or
lived abroad are likely to have higher levels of psychological capital.
Development of global identity. There are a few studies that provide empirical
evidence indicating the positive relationship between international experience and global
identity. As reviewed in a previous section, Liu et al.’s (2013) study proposed and found
empirical evidence that individuals’ multicultural experience contributes to the
development of their global identity. Their findings indicate that there is a significant
positive correlation between multicultural experience and global identity. Similarly, citing
prior research (Cohavi et al., 2007) which found that global identity is associated with
living in more than one country for more than 2 years, Erez et al. (2013) argue that
international experience positively influences the development of global identity.
In addition, Schworm et al.’s (2017) study found that international experience has
a significant positive impact on global identity (although this relationship is not the focus
of their study). International experience in Schworm et al.’s (2017) study is defined as
living in one or more foreign countries for study abroad purposes for at least six months
and/or for professional purposes for at least one year. One point to note here is that
Schworm et al.’s (2017) measurement of international experience with regard to the
component of study abroad purposes did not necessarily capture all study abroad
experiences the participants had. The participants were the alumni of a European business
school, and the years of study abroad in the measure was based solely on the time spent
abroad during their study program at this business school.
Given the limited empirical studies, Liu et al. (2018) highlight that the antecedents
of global identity is under researched and call for more research to examine the effects of
multicultural experience or motivation for foreign cultural exploration on the
development of global identity.
Appropriate cultural frame switching. Cultural frame switching is when people
move between different cultural meaning systems in response to situational cues
(Friedman et al., 2012). People can possess multiple cultural identities and have access to
multiple cultural meaning systems associated with them, and can switch between
different culturally appropriate behaviors depending on the context (Hong et al., 2000).
Friedman et al. (2012) examined whether and when overseas experience leads to
appropriate cultural frame switching. Based on two studies, they found empirical
evidence showing that Taiwanese managers who had lived or worked in the West and
then returned to work in Taiwan can switch their cultural frames appropriately in
response to Chinese or Western cultural priming, but only when they are high in
bicultural identity integration, i.e., they have a high level of integration between their
Eastern and Western identities.
Increase in self-concept clarity. Adam et al. (2018) explored whether living
abroad changes individuals’ self-concept clarity. Self-concept clarity refers to the extent
to which the contents of an individual’s self-concept are “clearly and confidently defined,
internally consistent, and temporally stable” (Campbell et al., 1996: 141). Based on the
results of six studies, Adam et al. (2018) found that living overseas leads to an increase in
self-concept clarity. This clearer sense of the self stems from the living abroad
experiences prompting participants to engage in a higher level of self-discerning
reflections on whether parts of their identity truly define who they are or are just a mere
reflection of their cultural upbringing. In addition, it is the depth of living abroad
experiences (i.e., the length of time lived abroad) that increases self-concept clarity, and
not the breadth (i.e., the number of foreign countries lived in). Moreover, depth of living
abroad experiences positively predicts career decision-making clarity through an increase
in self-concept clarity.
Reduction of intergroup bias. Research by Tadmor and colleagues (Tadmor et
al., 2018; Tadmor, Hong, et al., 2012) shows that multicultural experiences can lead to a
reduction in intergroup bias (stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination). They define
multicultural experiences as “all direct and indirect experiences of encountering or
interacting with the elements and/or members of foreign cultures” (A. K.-Y. Leung et al.,
2008: 169). In their studies, multicultural experience was either experimentally
manipulated or measured. For those studies that measured multicultural experience, they
used the Multicultural Experience Survey (A. K.-Y. Leung & Chiu, 2010b). This measure
comprises of various forms of direct and indirect multicultural experiences, including
living abroad experiences, exposure to foreign cultures, number of foreign languages
spoken, parents’ places of birth, and the nationality of five favorite cuisines, friends, and
musicians.
The results of six studies conducted by Tadmor, Hong, et al. (2012) collectively
indicate that multicultural experience leads to a reduction in intergroup bias, including
reductions in stereotype endorsement, symbolic racism, and discriminatory hiring
decisions. Moreover, experimental exposure to multicultural experience caused a
decrease in participants’ need for cognitive closure, and the relationship between
multicultural experience and intergroup bias is fully mediated by lower levels of need for
cognitive closure.
Extending Tadmor, Hong, et al.’s (2012) study, Tadmor et al. (2018) proposed that
the need for cognitive closure mediated relationship between multicultural experience
and intergroup bias is moderated by perceived mental resources, such that this mediated
relationship is only valid among individuals with high levels of perceived mental
resources. The results of their six studies corroborate Tadmor, Hong, et al.’s (2012)
findings and also support their own contention that multicultural experience leads to
reductions in intergroup bias only when people perceive that they have sufficient mental
resources.
In a similar vein, Sparkman et al. (2016) conducted two studies and found
empirical evidence to support their prediction that multicultural experience reduces
intercultural prejudice. In addition, this relationship is mediated by participants’ openness
to experience, which is one of the Big-Five personality traits (John & Srivastava, 1999).
Their two studies indicate that whether measuring multicultural experience or
manipulating a multicultural experience, exposure to cultural members and elements of
multiple foreign cultures increased participants’ openness to experience, which in turn led
to reductions in their intercultural prejudice. Sparkman et al.’s (2016) definition of
multicultural experience is the same as that used by Tadmor et al. (2018) and Tadmor,
Hong, et al. (2012). The items in their measure of multicultural experience which they
adapted from previous research (A. K.-Y. Leung et al., 2008; Narvaez & Hill, 2010)
included participants’ foreign travel and contact with members of different countries,
such as frequency and length of foreign travel, immersion in different cultural norms,
number of current contacts with individuals living in different countries, and number of
friends and family from different cultures, as well as exposure to the subjective elements
of different cultures, including social norms, art, music, film, and food.
Fostering of creativity. The effects of international experience and exposure to
different cultures on individuals’ level of creativity have gained interest among some
scholars. Overall, their empirical studies found a significant positive relationship between
such experiences and creativity. They also investigated potential mediators and
moderators of this relationship.
The collective results of five studies conducted by Maddux and Galinsky (2009)
indicate that participants’ length of time spent living abroad positively predicted their
creativity levels, and this relationship is mediated by the degree to which they had
adapted to the different cultures while living abroad. They did not find such an effect for
the international experience participants gained through traveling abroad.
Defining multicultural experience as including all direct and indirect experiences
of encountering or interacting with the elements and/or members of foreign cultures, A.
K.-Y. Leung & Chiu’s (2008, 2010b) research found a positive link between multicultural
experience and creativity through a series of studies. Moreover, they found that this
relationship is moderated by their participants’ openness to experience (A. K.-Y.
Leung & Chiu, 2008), need for cognitive closure (a need for firm answers) and existential
terror (mortality concerns) (A. K.-Y. Leung & Chiu, 2010b). Specifically, the influence of
multicultural experience on creativity is stronger when participants are those who adapt
and are open to experiencing and being exposed to different cultures, and when the
creative context does not require the need for firm answers or highlight mortality
concerns to them. In their series of studies, multicultural experience was either
experimentally manipulated or measured using the Multicultural Experience Survey (A.
K.-Y. Leung & Chiu, 2010b) that they developed and validated. This measure
encompasses various forms of direct and indirect multicultural experiences, including
living abroad experiences, exposure to foreign cultures, number of foreign languages
spoken, parents’ places of birth, and the nationality of five favorite cuisines, friends, and
musicians.
Extending this stream of research, Tadmor, Satterstrom, et al. (2012) explored the
effects of multicultural experience on collective creativity to see if the benefits of
multicultural experience are synergistic in the context of culturally diverse teams, i.e., if
they can be more than a simple summation of increased individual creativity. The
findings of their study indicate that multicultural experience has a superadditive effect on
dyadic creativity, even after controlling for individual creativity. The dyads that exhibited
the best performance on a creative task are those where both dyad partners have high
levels of multicultural experience. They measured multicultural experience of the
participants with the Multicultural Experience Survey (A. K.-Y. Leung & Chiu, 2010b).
There are also a few studies that examined whether specific types and/episodes of
international experience such as an expatriate assignment or study abroad experience
fostered individuals’ creative thinking abilities. Fee and Gray (2012) used the
Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (Goff, 2002) to measure the level of
creativethinking abilities of a group of expatriates before their expatriate assignment and
12 months after they have been on it. They found that these expatriates exhibited a
significant increase in their overall creative-thinking abilities over this 12-month period,
controlling for their previous international experience. This increase in overall
creativethinking abilities is driven mainly by the increase in cognitive flexibility. On the
other hand, the control group did not show any significant changes in the level of their
creativethinking abilities.
In terms of the effects of study abroad programs on participants’ creative-thinking
abilities, a couple of studies have confirmed a significant positive relationship. In
addition to doing the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (Goff, 2002) which assesses
domain general creative thinking, the participants in C. S. Lee et al.’s (2012) study also
did the Cultural Creativity Task (C. S. Lee et al., 2011) which assesses culture specific
creative thinking. The results of this study show that participants who had studied abroad
possess higher levels of both domain general and culture specific creative thinking
abilities (indicated by their higher quality creative responses on both tests) compared to
participants who did not have any study abroad experience. Cho and Morris (2015) also
found that the length of study abroad experience is significantly positively related to
problem-solving unconventionality, after controlling for international work experience.
The effect of length of work abroad on problem-solving unconventionality was only
marginally significant.
Godart et al. (2015) furthered this stream of research by exploring the relationship
between individuals’ international work experience and organizational creativity, thereby
taking a multilevel approach in their study. Specifically, they explored whether the
international work experience of creative directors of fashion houses predicted their
firm’s creative innovations measured by the creativity ratings of their collections
published by the renowned French trade magazine, Journal du Textile which is the only
industry-validated measure available (Barkey & Godart, 2013; Crane, 1997). Godart et al.
(2015) conceptualized international work experience of the creative directors as a
threedimensional construct consisting of breadth (the total number of foreign countries
worked in), depth (the total number of years worked abroad), and cultural distance (the
cultural distance between the home country and the foreign countries worked in).
Godart et al. (2015) found that each of the three dimensions of international work
experience has a curvilinear relationship with the firm’s creative innovations.
Specifically, breadth and cultural distance have an inverted U-shaped relationship with
the firm’s creative innovations, i.e., the firm produced the highest levels of creative
innovations at moderate levels of breadth and cultural distance, while depth has a
decreasing positive effect that never turned negative. Thus, their findings indicate that the
highest level of creative innovations is achieved when the creative directors’ international
work experience is characterized by high depth, moderate breadth, and moderate cultural
distance. They also found a significant three-way interaction effect among the three
dimensions that showed that breadth and cultural distance are important when depth is
low, but not when it is high. The results also indicate that although more breadth and
larger cultural distance are useful when depth is low, having more of one or the other is
enough because the combination of both did not seem to provide additional benefits. As
such, depth is the most important dimension of international work experience for coming
up with creative innovations.
To calculate cultural distance, Godart et al. (2015) relied on Hofstede’s cultural
indices (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et al., 2010) and used Kandogan’s (2012) approach,
which is Kogut and Singh’s (1988) formula plus taking into account the possible bias
resulting from positive or negative correlations between the pairs of cultural value
dimensions. In cases where the creative director has worked in more than one foreign
country, Godart et al. (2015) added up the absolute values of the cultural distances
between each of the foreign countries and the home country of the creative director. They
decided to use the sum of the cultural distances because it reflects the entire requisite
variety to which a person has been exposed to.
Effects on generalized trust. Cao et al. (2014) explored the effects of breadth
(i.e., the number of countries traveled to) and depth (the length of time spent traveling
abroad) of foreign experiences on generalized trust. Generalized trust refers to the belief
in the benevolence of human nature (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994). Although
generalized trust can be expected to be difficult to establish in foreign or unfamiliar
environments, Cao et al. (2014) propose that the breadth of foreign experiences may be
crucial for facilitating generalized trust because breadth provides the variety and diversity
of experiences that are necessary to produce generalizations and learning. Based on the
collective results of five studies, they found that the breadth of foreign travel experiences
increases generalized trust, but not the depth of foreign experiences.
Effects on immoral behavior acts. Noting that research on the effects of
international experience has generally focused on its positive effects, Lu et al. (2017)
explored when and why foreign experiences can lead to immoral behavior acts by
conducting a series of eight studies. They define immoral behavior acts as “either illegal
or morally unacceptable to the larger community” (Jones, 1991: 367), and used lying and
cheating, which are deemed as morally unacceptable to the larger community as the
behavioral measures of immorality in their studies. The results of their eight studies
collectively provide empirical evidence to show that breadth of foreign experiences (i.e.,
the number of countries lived in or visited) is a stronger predictor of immoral behavior
than the depth of foreign experiences (i.e., the length of time lived or spent traveling
abroad), and that the breadth of foreign experiences positively predicts moral relativism,
which in turn increases immoral behavior. On the other hand, the depth of foreign
experiences is not a reliable predictor of moral relativism. It seems that individuals’
willingness to engage in immoral behavior acts increases because their moral standards
become more relative than absolute after being exposed to a variety of different moral
codes through their living in or visiting of more countries.
Relevant Insights from the Literature Review of International Experience Effects
The literature review above provides several insights that are useful for
consideration when developing and empirically testing a model of how international
experience can develop individuals in pertinent ways that enable them to be more
effective in intercultural negotiations. I will discuss these below.
Conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of international
experience. Researchers examining the effects of international experience have
conceptualized, operationalized and measured international experience in different ways.
First, there is variation in terms of the domains/types of international experience being
considered. Popular domains of international experience include living, working,
studying and traveling abroad. There are studies that focused on only one type, such as
international work experience (e.g., Dragoni et al., 2014) or one particular international
experience episode to operationalize international experience (e.g., Fee & Gray, 2012).
Others looked at non domain-specific general international experience, i.e., a
combination of at least two domain-specific international experience (e.g., Basinska,
2017). The effects of living abroad (including working and/or studying) versus traveling
abroad have also been investigated separately. Empirical research indicates that the
experience of individuals deeply immersing themselves in foreign countries when they
lived, worked, and/or studied abroad versus other more cursory international experience,
such as traveling abroad exerted differential influence over the outcomes they examined
(e.g., Maddux & Galinsky, 2009).
Hence, it is important to consider the research question and the outcome variable
and decide how best to operationalize international experience. For instance, if different
levels of immersion in the foreign country could potentially have a different impact on
the outcome variable, then it would be useful to examine travel abroad and those that
encompass deep immersion (living, working, studying) separately. In the context of
negotiations, there is evidence to show that this is the case. Maddux and Galinsky (2009)
found that living abroad but not traveling abroad has a significant positive influence on
negotiators’ creativity. Thus, future research about the effects of international experience
in negotiations should take this into consideration when conceptualizing, operationalizing
and measuring international experience.
Second, international experience has been conceptualized as a single or a
multidimensional construct by different researchers. When international experience is
conceptualized as a multi-dimensional construct, it is mostly conceptualized as having
two dimensions – breadth and depth. Breadth is usually measured in terms of the total
number of foreign countries while depth is mostly measured by the total length of time
abroad (e.g., Adam et al., 2018; Cao et al., 2014) and sometimes based on a measure that
captures a variety of experiences that reflects an individual’s level of immersion in the
local culture and life abroad (e.g., Crowne, 2013). Several scholars conceptualized
international experience with cultural distance as one of its dimensions (e.g., Dragoni et
al., 2014; Godart et al., 2015; Le & Kroll, 2017). They argue that foreign countries vary
in how culturally different they are from the person’s home country. This influences
people’s experiences in the foreign countries. For instance, their adaptation and learning
are likely to be different in foreign countries with higher cultural distances from their
home country compared to those with lower cultural distances.
Cultural distance is an important and interesting dimension to include in the
conceptualization of individuals’ international experience because it can have differing
effects, depending on the outcomes examined. For example, prior international
experience in culturally similar countries is more helpful for expatriate adjustment
(Takeuchi et al., 2005) while previous international experience in culturally distant
countries is better for developing upper level leaders’ strategic thinking competency
(Dragoni et al., 2014), and creative directors’ past international experience that is
characterized by a moderate level of cultural distance is most conducive for their firms to
come up with creative innovations than low or high levels of cultural distance (Godart et
al., 2015). The findings of these studies show that the cultural distance dimension of
international experience can have a significant influence on the outcomes examined and
different levels of cultural distance are better for different outcomes. Including more
dimensions of international experience in its conceptualization can enable researchers to
have a more nuanced understanding of the effects of international experience on different
outcomes, especially by examining the effects of the different dimensions separately and
also the interactions among them (e.g., Dragoni et al., 2014; Godart et al., 2015).
So far, research investigating the effects of international experience in
intercultural negotiations has included breadth and depth in their conceptualization of
international experience but not cultural distance. Since cultural distance as an additional
dimension has yielded significant and interesting results in other contexts, it would be
fruitful for new research in the intercultural negotiations context to include cultural
distance as an additional dimension of international experience to investigate its effects.
Third, international experience has been measured in different ways. The choice
of measures used by various researchers is related to their research question(s),
conceptualization and operationalization of international experience, as well as
availability of more detailed data on subjects’ international experience. Researchers
should consider carefully all these factors together when designing their research studies.
Studies that measure international experience beyond a dichotomous measure
which reflects whether subjects have previous international experience or not (yes or no),
tend to be more informative (Sommer, 2012; Takeuchi & Chen, 2013). The findings of
some studies indicate that different types of measures, for example, a time-based (depth)
versus an amount-based (breadth) measure, can yield different results (e.g., Adam et al.,
2018; Cao et al., 2014). On the other hand, Carpenter et al. (2001) found that the results
they got by using the number of countries or length of international experience by
country did not provide more explanatory power in the models that only used the simple
measure of total length of international experience. International experience with a
multidimensional conceptualization can be measured by a composite index to encompass
the multiple dimensions (i.e., a combination of more than one indicator) (e.g., Daily et al.,
2000; Georgakakis et al., 2016) or by having separate measures for each of the
dimensions. If it makes theoretical sense that the different dimensions of international
experience can potentially yield differential results or have interactional effects among
them, using a stand-alone measure for each dimension is better than using a composite
index.
Studies that use primary data have the advantage of being able to obtain more
detailed data of subjects’ international experience than those that use secondary data.
Research in the negotiation context tend to use negotiation simulations in their studies
and solicit information regarding participants’ international experience through survey
questionnaires. Negotiations researchers should take the opportunity to conceptualize,
operationalize and measure international experience in such a way that enables them to
answer their research questions more meaningfully and hypothesize interesting
relationships between international experience and the outcomes of interest as long as it
makes theoretical sense. This will help to advance the research frontier on the effects of
international experience in intercultural negotiations.
Fourth, while most studies operationalize international experience based on actual
experiences in foreign countries, there are some studies that include both actual and
indirect experiences. The studies that include both actual and indirect experiences usually
term the construct as ‘multicultural experience’ and assess it using the Multicultural
Experience Survey (MES; A. K.-Y. Leung & Chiu, 2010b) (e.g., Tadmor et al., 2018). It
is important to note that being exposed to other cultures in one’s home country where one
is still surrounded by one’s own culture in general is very different from being overseas
where one has to function within the foreign culture almost, if not all the time. Being
exposed to a foreign culture while in one’s home country involves shorter periods of time
and the dominant culture is still the home country’s culture. The adaptation and learning
through actual experiences are more intense and impactful than indirect experiences.
Including both actual and indirect experiences may give a fuller picture of one’s exposure
to foreign cultures. However, the impact of adding indirect experiences to the
operationalization of international experience may or may not be significant. It depends
on how substantial one’s actual experiences are, and the cultural distance and
heterogeneity of one’s actual experiences in foreign cultures. The operationalization
chosen should be in line with the research question(s) and purpose of the study.
Nature of the relationship between international experience and outcomes.
Most studies in the various streams of research that investigated the effects of
international experience assume that the relationship between international experience
and the outcomes examined is linear. The findings of some studies reveal that
international experience has a curvilinear (inverted-U shape) relationship with creative
innovations of companies (Godart et al., 2015), career advancement to the C-suite
(Georgakakis et al., 2016; Hamori & Koyuncu, 2011; Schmid & Wurster, 2017), and
CFO’s compensation (Schmid & Altfeld, 2018). Takeuchi and Chen (2013) suggest that
this could potentially be the case for expatriate cross-cultural adjustment as well and
could explain why past studies regarding the relationship between prior international
experience and expatriate cross-cultural adjustment tend to yield non-significant results.
Future research should consider the research context, outcomes of interest and
sample characteristics carefully in hypothesizing whether this relationship is likely to be a
linear or curvilinear one. Moreover, post-hoc analysis is recommended to investigate the
alternative if the results do not support the hypothesized relationship. This will illuminate
whether the relationship is truly non-significant or that the wrong type of relationship was
postulated. One caveat could be the age of the subjects in the study. If the mode or
median age of the subjects is younger, the relationship may still be linear instead of
curvilinear because younger people may not have the opportunities or time to accumulate
enough international experience for the curvilinear relationship to emerge. It would be
interesting to investigate if the diminishing marginal returns of the benefits of
international experience happens and at what threshold level of international experience.
Appropriateness of sample. The extant literature has shown that depending on
the research question and purpose, there is value to use young individuals such as
university student populations as the sample. For instance, when one is examining the
effects of early international experience (e.g., Clapp-Smith & Wernsing, 2014),
undergraduate student populations are appropriate. When the focus is on investigating the
developmental impact of international experience on individuals, university student
populations is appropriate because international experience acquired during childhood or
adolescence have been recognized as being highly formative (Black, Morrison, et al.,
1999; Osland, 2008). When the sample consists of older people, the study should take
their international experience in their younger days into account.
Effects of international experience in intercultural negotiations
underresearched. The effects of international experience have been examined in various
streams of research. Overall, the findings indicate that international experience has a
significant impact on individuals in various ways and contexts. However, it is
underresearched in the context of intercultural negotiations. Extant research reveals that
international experience can develop and influence various aspects of individuals. Some
of these aspects of individuals can potentially play a significant role in helping them to
become more effective in intercultural negotiations, for instance intercultural
competence, psychological capital, and global identity. Theorizing and empirically testing
how international experience develops these aspects of individuals and how these aspects
enable them to achieve better outcomes in intercultural negotiations will enrich this
stream of literature.
Intercultural Negotiation
Negotiation is the social process by which two or more interdependent parties
make decisions, allocate resources, or resolve disputes (Brett, 2014). The negotiation
context can be intracultural or intercultural. Intracultural or same-cultural negotiation
refers to negotiation where all the parties involved are from the same culture, while
intercultural negotiation consists of negotiators from different cultures. Intercultural
negotiation tends to be more challenging than intracultural negotiation because of cultural
differences between the negotiating parties which adds an additional layer of complexity.
As a result, intercultural negotiation outcomes tend to be lower than intracultural
negotiation outcomes (Liu et al., 2010).
Negotiation Strategies and Outcomes
The overall objective of the negotiators is to try and find a mutual agreement
regarding the negotiation issues while protecting and advancing their interests (Brett et
al., 2017). This negotiated agreement results in outcomes for each negotiator. The
outcomes in negotiation can be computed in two ways, on an individual negotiator basis
or on a joint basis between the pair of negotiators, i.e., the sum of the individual gains of
both parties in the dyad. Joint gains reflects the total value created which is then divided
among the negotiators according to what is stipulated in the negotiated agreement (Brett
et al., 2017). They are considered an important metric to determine negotiation
effectiveness because negotiated agreements that feature high joint gains usually provide
both parties with good economic outcomes, are associated with higher satisfaction, better
relationships and easier agreement implementation (Brett, 2014; Brett et al., 2017).
On the other hand, individual gains are each negotiator’s share of the joint gains.
This is another kind of negotiation effectiveness in that while joint gains represent value
creation, individual gains represent value claiming. If a negotiator generates high joint
gains with his/her counterpart but has substantially lower individual gains than his/her
counterpart, it means that this negotiator fails to claim much value from the value he/she
helped to create. This does not reflect well on his/her negotiation effectiveness. One point
to note is that individual gains is a function of joint gains. The higher the joint gains, the
more potential for individual gains to be higher. Value must be created first, before it can
be claimed.
In negotiation theory (Walton & McKersie, 1991), there are two types of strategy:
distributive and integrative. The goal of negotiators using a distributive strategy is to
claim value for themselves. Here, negotiators rely on behaviors such as making offers and
substantiating offers. Those who focus on claiming value, i.e., maximizing their
individual gain, tend to use distributive strategy a lot. For negotiators using an integrative
strategy, their goal is to create value both for themselves and their counterparts,
maximizing the joint gains, and then claim enough of it for themselves. Behaviors
associated with integrative strategy include asking questions and sharing information
about each other’s interests and priorities as well as finding potential trade-offs
(logrolling). This strategy is used a lot by negotiators who want to create value, i.e.
generate high joint gains.
Negotiation outcomes can be classified into two types, namely economic and
subjective value outcomes. Economic outcome refers to the payoffs negotiators get based
on the negotiated agreement, i.e., it is an objective value outcome. On the other hand,
subjective value negotiation outcomes pertain to the social psychological outcomes that
people value in negotiations. These include: (1) feelings about instrumental outcomes,
e.g., outcome satisfaction and distributional fairness, (2) feelings about the self, e.g.,
saving face and living up to one’s own standards, (3) feelings about the negotiation
process, e.g., fairness and voice, and (4) feelings about the relationship, e.g., trust and a
good foundation for the future as perceived by negotiators (Curhan et al., 2006). Besides
objective value negotiation outcomes, negotiation effectiveness can also be evaluated
based on subjective value negotiation outcomes because “subjective value can serve as a
good in itself, as a negotiator’s intuition about objective outcomes, and as a predictor of
future objective value” (Curhan et al., 2006: 8).
Issues and Challenges in Intercultural Negotiations with Adverse Effects on
Negotiation Outcomes
Intercultural negotiations are often plagued by communication problems due to
differences in cultural values, language, nonverbal behaviors, and thought patterns (Adler
& Graham, 1989). On each side, negotiators go to the negotiation table with their own
culturally influenced communication styles and negotiation scripts, as well as
culturespecific schemas and approaches that are likely to be incompatible with the other
party’s (e.g., Imai & Gelfand, 2010; Liu et al., 2010; Tinsley et al., 1999). Moreover,
compared to those in same-cultural negotiations, negotiators in intercultural negotiations
experience higher levels of anxiety and uncertainty due to the cultural diversity
(Gudykunst, 1995). Thus, they are more prone to misinterpreting and misunderstanding
each other, have more difficulties in synchronizing, reciprocating and coordinating with
each other in their communication and moves, and tend to feel less comfortable when
they are involved in intercultural negotiations (Liu et al., 2010). All these make
intercultural negotiations particularly challenging and frustrating for those involved in it
(Adair et al., 2001), often resulting in decreased trust, lack of interpersonal attractiveness,
reduced willingness to cooperate (K. Lee et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2010), premature closure
of the search for alternatives and inefficient information sharing (Brett & Okumura,
1998). Hence, negotiation outcomes tend to be lower in intercultural negotiations
compared to intracultural negotiations (Liu et al., 2010).
CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL MODEL
Chapter 3 presents the theoretical model of this dissertation and states the
proposed hypotheses. To develop a theoretical model on the effects of international
experience in intercultural negotiations, this dissertation builds upon and extends existing
research by proposing a novel and contextualized conceptualization of international
experience, synthesizing the inherent issues and challenges in intercultural negotiations,
and identifying aspects of individuals that can be developed by international experience
and can potentially alleviate the challenges inherent in intercultural negotiations to
achieve better negotiation outcomes.
I propose that international experience is a multi-dimensional construct that
encompasses four dimensions: breadth, depth, cultural distance, and cultural
heterogeneity. I argue that experiences abroad develop and strengthen individuals’
intercultural competence, psychological capital, and global identity, which in turn enable
them to mitigate the inherent issues and challenges in intercultural negotiations and
achieve better negotiation outcomes. In other words, intercultural competence,
psychological capital, and global identity mediate the relationship between international
experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes.
The intercultural negotiation context inherently erects barriers to effective
communication and creates psychological impediments to effective integrative
negotiation, resulting in worse outcomes for those in intercultural negotiations compared
to those in intracultural negotiations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010; Liu et al., 2010). I postulate
that the extent to which negotiators fall victim to these challenges or how capable they
are in mitigating or even overcoming them and achieve better negotiation outcomes
depends on their intercultural competence, psychological capital and global identity. The
intercultural context makes it difficult for negotiators to have effective communication
because of cultural differences in communication and negotiation norms and styles
between them and their negotiation partners. It also makes it hard for intercultural
negotiators to maintain epistemic motivation (low need for closure) and social motivation
(cooperative motives) which are necessary for them to engage in effective integrative
negotiation processes that lead to higher joint gains. I suggest that in intercultural
negotiations, negotiators with a higher level of intercultural competence will have more
behavioral, cognitive and affective abilities to conduct more effective intercultural
communication which will allow them to achieve higher joint gains than dyads with a
lower level of intercultural competence; negotiators with a higher level of psychological
capital will have higher epistemic motivation (lower need for closure) and more positive
psychological resources and capacity to engage in more effective integrative negotiation
processes that will aid them in attaining better joint gains than dyads with a lower level of
psychological capital; and negotiators with a stronger global identity will have more
behavioral, cognitive and affective abilities to conduct effective intercultural
communication, as well as higher epistemic motivation (lower need for closure) and
higher social motivation (more cooperative motives) to engage in more effective
integrative negotiation processes, which will help them to get better negotiation outcomes
than dyads with weaker global identity.
I contend that it is crucial to differentiate between touristic international
experience and international experience acquired through living/working/studying (LWS)
abroad. LWS international experience can be expected to have a stronger impact on the
development of individuals’ intercultural competence, psychological capital, and global
identity than touristic international experience. In addition, since the negotiation takes
place in an intercultural context, I posit that cultural distance between the negotiators in
the dyad moderates the relationships between the mediators and intercultural negotiation
outcomes, such that the positive effects of intercultural competence, psychological capital
and global identity on intercultural negotiation outcomes are more pronounced when
cultural distance between the two negotiators is larger.
Figure 3.1 presents the theoretical model summarized above and discussed in
detail below.
Dependent Variable: Intercultural Negotiation Outcomes
This dissertation focuses on the intercultural negotiation context and a two-person
negotiation. Intercultural negotiation refers to negotiation where the negotiators are from
different cultures. In line with the literature, I look at negotiation outcomes based on both
economic and subjective values in the form of joint gains and individual gain. These
negotiation outcomes reflect negotiators’ performance in different ways.
Economic outcome refers to the payoffs negotiators get based on the negotiated
agreement, i.e., it is an objective value outcome. On the other hand, subjective value
negotiation outcomes pertain to the social psychological outcomes that people value in
negotiations. These include: (1) feelings about instrumental outcomes, e.g., outcome
satisfaction and distributional fairness, (2) feelings about the self, e.g., saving face and
Figure 3.1 Effects of international experience in intercultural negotiations
Intercultural
Negotiation Outcomes
•Economic Value
- Joint gains
- Indi vidual gain
•Subjective Value
- Joint gains
- Individual gain
Intercultural Competence
Psychological Capital
Global Identity
Cultural Distance
between Negotiators
International Experience - Liv ing/Work/Study
•Breadth
•Depth
•Cultural Distance
•Cultural Heterogeneity
International Experience - Touristic
•Breadth
•Depth
•Cultural Distance
•Cultural Heterogeneity
71
living up to one’s own standards, (3) feelings about the negotiation process, e.g., fairness
and voice, and (4) feelings about the relationship, e.g., trust and a good foundation for the
future as perceived by negotiators (Curhan et al., 2006). I compute both economic and
subjective value negotiation outcomes in two ways, on an individual negotiator basis and
on a joint basis between the pair of negotiators.
Individual gain refers to what each individual negotiator gets. Joint gain is the
sum of the individual gains of both parties in the dyad. Joint gain reflects the total value
created while individual gain represents value claimed by each negotiator (Brett et al.,
2017). Value must be created first before it can be claimed. Thus, the higher the joint
gain, the higher the potential for bigger individual gains.
Independent Variable: International Experience
I define international experience as the experiences individuals acquire while they
are in foreign countries as tourists or while they are living, studying or working there
(e.g., Takeuchi & Chen, 2013). I classify these domains/types of international experience
into two categories: (1) traveling as a tourist, and (2) living, studying and working abroad
(e.g., Maddux & Galinsky, 2009). I conceptualize international experience as a
multidimensional construct, consisting of breadth, depth, cultural distance and cultural
heterogeneity.
LWS International Experience versus Touristic International Experience
I argue that it is necessary to classify the various types/domains of international
experience into two categories, LWS international experience versus touristic
international experience in the theoretical model and to empirically test the effects of both
categories separately. This is because there are differences in the nature of the experience
73
and depth of knowledge of foreign countries acquired by those who travel overseas as
tourists versus those who live, study and/or work abroad. Due to these differences, the
two categories of international experience are likely to have different impact on
individuals. For instance, it has been shown that living abroad but not traveling abroad
has a significant positive influence on negotiators’ creativity (Maddux & Galinsky, 2009).
Both categories of international experience may potentially influence individuals’
intercultural competence, psychological capital and global identity in different ways or to
a different extent.
For people who are living, working and/or studying in foreign countries, their
experiences largely differ from those who are there as tourists. Their activities and
interactions with the local community, as well as the issues and challenges they face are
different. Those who live, work or study overseas have to interact with the locals at a
deeper level, usually in the local language, and over a broader range of activities and
interactions that cut across professional, academic, social and daily life spheres. It is
imperative for them to learn and adapt to the local culture and environment in order to
overcome the issues and challenges they face locally. There is a critical need for them to
function well enough, if not effectively in the foreign country so that they can succeed in
their jobs and/or school and manage their day-to-day living. If they are unable to
overcome the initial culture shock that they experience, they will not be able to adjust to
living, studying and/or working in the foreign country that they are in. This will likely
result in sub-par performance at work or school, and negatively affect the psychological
well-being of the individuals concerned. They are likely to return to their home country
prematurely, and less likely to be offered and/or accept another international assignment.
74
On the other hand, for tourists, the range of their exposure and interactions with
the locals of the foreign country they are visiting, and the issues and challenges they
might face there are lesser, limiting the scope of their learning and adaptation to the local
culture and environment. For those who are more interested in other countries and
cultures, they may learn more about the local culture and environment, and even learn
how to speak some local language, and engage in meaningful interactions with the locals,
but it will not be to the same extent as those who live, work or study there. In general,
tourists tend to have a basic understanding of the foreign country since their experiences
there are more cursory than deep immersion. If they did not like a particular country that
they visited, it does not necessarily turn them off from visiting other countries. They are
likely to think that their unpleasant experience and discomfort during that trip is
country/culture-specific rather than being a tourist by itself.
Knowledge can be differentiated into surface-level and deep-level knowledge (De
Jong & Ferguson-Hessler, 1996). Surface-level knowledge covers the basic facts and
answers the question of “what” but not “why”. On the other hand, deep-level knowledge
addresses the questions of “why”, “how” and “when” with the details. Traveling abroad
as a tourist provides individuals with surface level knowledge of the foreign country they
are visiting. For those who deeply immerse themselves in the foreign country where they
lived, studied and/or worked in, they gain deep-level knowledge. This difference in depth
of knowledge can lead individuals to make different interpretations, attributions and
conclusions regarding what they see and experience while abroad. Those who gained
deep-level knowledge tend to be more accurate compared to those who acquired only
surface-level knowledge.
75
Conceptualization of International Experience as a Multi-dimensional Construct
I conceptualize international experience as a multi-dimensional construct,
consisting of breadth, depth, cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity. Breadth and
depth reflect the quantity and quality of the international experience, respectively, and
cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity provide the context of the experience (e.g.,
Takeuchi & Chen, 2013). Breadth refers to the total number of foreign countries where
the international experience was acquired, while depth is about the total length of stay
overseas (e.g., Adam et al., 2018; Cao et al., 2014; Godart et al., 2015). Cultural
distance captures the cultural distance between the home country and the foreign country
where the international experience was acquired (e.g., Dragoni et al., 2014; Godart et al.,
2015). Cultural heterogeneity pertains to the degree of dispersion of international
experience gained from different cultural clusters across the world.
I contend that it is imperative to contextualize the conceptualization of
international experience by adding cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity to breadth
and depth. Most of the research on the effects of international experience takes into
account the breadth and/or depth of international experience, neglecting the cultural
contexts in which the international experiences took place (a few exceptions: e.g.,
Dragoni et al., 2014; Godart et al., 2015; Takeuchi et al., 2005). Adding both cultural
distance and cultural heterogeneity enriches the conceptualization of international
experience because they contextualize international experience in different ways.
Cultural distance reflects the extent of cultural differences between foreign and
home country. When the cultural distance between foreign and home country is larger,
there are more jarring cultural differences and individuals will experience a higher level
of cultural cognitive dissonance between their experience in that foreign country and their
76
existing knowledge structures (Rickley, 2019), as well as encounter more challenging
situations (Dragoni et al., 2011). The few studies that included cultural distance as a
dimension of international experience found that cultural distance matters (e.g., Dragoni
et al., 2011; Godart et al., 2015; Takeuchi et al., 2005). It can have a significant influence
on the outcomes examined and different levels of cultural distance are better for different
outcomes. For example, prior international experience in culturally similar countries is
more helpful for expatriate adjustment (Takeuchi et al., 2005) while previous
international experience in culturally distant countries is better for developing upper level
leaders’ strategic thinking competency (Dragoni et al., 2014), and creative directors’ past
international experience that is characterized by a moderate level of cultural distance is
most conducive for their firms to come up with creative innovations than low or high
levels of cultural distance (Godart et al., 2015). Hence, it is important to include cultural
distance as one of the dimensions of international experience and examine its effects on
the outcomes of our research interest.
Cultural heterogeneity captures how culturally differentiated the individual’s
overall international experience is. I propose operationalizing cultural heterogeneity as
the extent to which individuals have acquired international experience in the 10 clusters
of culturally similar countries identified by the GLOBE study ─ Southern Asia, Latin
America, Nordic Europe, Anglo, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa,
Eastern Europe, Middle East, and Confucian Asia (House et al., 2004; Mensah & Chen,
2014). Having international experience in more cultural clusters indicates that the
individual’s international experience is more culturally heterogeneous or diverse. For
example, consider two individuals from the U.S., John and Jack. John’s international
experience was acquired in Japan, China and Singapore (all in the Confucian Asia
77
cluster) while Jack’s was gained in Sweden (Nordic Europe cluster), Austria (Germanic
Europe cluster) and Spain (Latin Europe cluster). Although John went to more culturally
distant countries, all three are culturally similar. On the other hand, although Jack went to
less culturally distant countries, each of them is from a different cultural cluster, thereby
providing him with a more culturally heterogeneous set of international experience.
Therefore, the cultural distance of John’s international experience is higher than Jack’s
while cultural heterogeneity is lower. If John had gone to Japan (Confucian Asia cluster),
Russia (Eastern Europe cluster) and Egypt (Middle East cluster) instead, the cultural
distance is still higher than Jack’s, but cultural heterogeneity is now as high as Jack’s.
This hypothetical scenario illustrates that cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity are
two different dimensions of international experience. There is value to add both cultural
distance and cultural heterogeneity to breadth and depth in conceptualizing international
experience because it will allow a richer analysis of the effects of international
experience.
International Experience and Intercultural Negotiation Outcomes
I propose that international experience is positively related to intercultural
negotiation outcomes, i.e., negotiators with international experience (living, studying,
working and touristic travels abroad) that is broader (more foreign countries), deeper
(longer in total length of overseas stays), and higher in cultural distance (between foreign
and home country) and cultural heterogeneity are more likely to achieve better economic
and subjective value outcomes in intercultural negotiations. Biographic anecdotes of
master negotiators often feature their international experience, for instance, statesman
Henry Kissinger was born in Germany, grew up and went to schools in the US, and also
traveled widely around the world (Liu & Adair, 2017). Moreover, although research on
78
the effects of international experience in intercultural negotiations is still in its nascent
stage with very limited empirical studies, there is some evidence that having international
experience is beneficial for individuals involved in intercultural negotiations (Liu et al.,
2013; Maddux & Galinsky, 2009). Findings of the following two studies provide general
support for my contention that international experience is positively associated with
intercultural negotiation outcomes. First, Maddux and Galinsky (2009) found that length
of negotiators’ living abroad is positively associated with the negotiation dyads’
probability of reaching an agreement using a creative approach. The ability to find
creative solutions in negotiations is valuable because creative solutions are usually those
that create more value, resulting in higher joint gains. Second, Liu et al. (2013) found that
depth of international experience significantly positively influences intercultural
negotiation outcomes (both subjective and economic gains), and this effect is mediated by
negotiators’ global identity. They defined depth as consisting of extended immersion in
certain cultures for life functions of work, live, or study in the local language, and
measured it with three indices: (i) difference between birth and passport countries, (ii)
proficiency of foreign languages, and (iii) length of stay in a foreign country for more
than 3 months. Hence, I propose the following hypotheses:
H1: LWS international experience is positively related to intercultural negotiation
outcomes. Specifically,
H1a: Breadth of LWS international experience is positively related to intercultural
negotiation outcomes.
H1b: Depth of LWS international experience is positively related to intercultural
negotiation outcomes.
79
H1c: Cultural distance of LWS international experience is positively related
to intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H1d: Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience is positively related
to intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H2: Touristic international experience is positively related to intercultural
negotiation outcomes. Specifically,
H2a: Breadth of touristic international experience is positively related to
intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H2b: Depth of touristic international experience is positively related to
intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H2c: Cultural distance of touristic international experience is positively
related to intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H2d: Cultural heterogeneity of touristic international experience is
positively related to intercultural negotiation outcomes.
Mediators of the Relationship between International Experience and Intercultural
Negotiation Outcomes
International experience can be considered as a transformational experience for
people (Clapp-Smith & Wernsing, 2014; Fee & Gray, 2012; Mendenhall, 2001). When
people are abroad, they often face new, meaningful, critical, and/or contradictory
behaviors and experiences that they are unable to understand based on their existing
schemata and frame of reference, leading them to experience cognitive dissonance
(Endicott et al., 2003; Le & Kroll, 2017; Piaget, 1955) which creates a sense of arousal,
80
uncertainty, stress, and emotional ambivalence in them (Le & Kroll, 2017). Thus, they
are motivated to make sense of the new culture they are in and learn how to operate and
communicate appropriately in that culture in order reduce the cognitive dissonance and
adapt to the new culture (DeRue & Wellman, 2009; D. A. Kolb, 1984; Le & Kroll, 2017;
Piaget, 1955). As they reconcile the incongruence between what they are used to thinking
and doing, etc. and those that are appropriate in the new culture, and make the necessary
adjustments to the new environment, they undergo changes in various aspects of
themselves. The more engaged they are in interacting with the locals and in adapting to
the ways of the new culture, the more changes they experience (Reichard et al., 2015).
Research has shown that these aspects of individuals include their intercultural
competence (Behrnd & Porzelt, 2012; Engle & Crowne, 2014; Wolff & Borzikowsky,
2018; Yashima, 2010), frame of reference (assumptions, perspectives, mental maps and
mindsets) (Clapp-Smith & Wernsing, 2014; Mezirow, 2000), schemata (knowledge,
beliefs, and other memories) and cognitive structures (Le & Kroll, 2017; Piaget, 1955),
self-narratives related to their personal identities (McAdams & Pals, 2006), local and
global identities (Liu et al., 2013; Schworm et al., 2017), self-concept clarity (Adam et
al., 2018), perceptions of their self-efficacy and confidence (Clapp-Smith & Wernsing,
2014; Yashima, 2010), psychological capital (Basinska, 2017; Reichard et al., 2015), and
motivational and structural ways of processing information (Benet-Martínez et al., 2006;
Tadmor, Satterstrom, et al., 2012), etc. Hence, it is not the international experiences
accumulated by individuals per se that directly lead to better intercultural negotiation
outcomes. The positive effects of international experience on intercultural negotiation
outcomes work through its developmental effects on aspects of individuals that make
81
them more predisposed and able to deal with the issues and challenges in intercultural
negotiations.
I propose that international experience positively influences intercultural
negotiation outcomes by developing three pertinent aspects of individuals, namely
intercultural competence, psychological capital and global identity, which in turn help
them to mitigate the inherent issues and challenges in intercultural negotiations and
achieve better negotiation outcomes. In other words, intercultural competence,
psychological capital and global identity mediate the relationship between international
experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes. In line with my suggestion, research
has shown that these three aspects of individuals are not static, all of them can be
developed and strengthened through experiences and/or training (Luthans &
YoussefMorgan, 2017; Reichard et al., 2015; Schworm et al., 2017). In this dissertation, I
focus on the developmental effects of international experience on them and their effects
in intercultural negotiations.
Intercultural Competence
I propose that intercultural competence mediates the relationship between
international experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes. I argue that international
experience develops individuals’ intercultural competence (e.g., Behrnd & Porzelt, 2012;
Engle & Crowne, 2014; Wolff & Borzikowsky, 2018; Yashima, 2010) and this higher
level of intercultural competence in turn enables them to mitigate the barriers to effective
communication inherent in intercultural negotiations so that they can achieve better
negotiation outcomes (Liu et al., 2010). Intercultural competence refers to “the
appropriate and effective management of interaction between people who, to some degree
or another, represent different or divergent affective, cognitive, and behavioral
82
orientations to the world.” (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009: 7). Effectiveness speaks to
successfully achieving one’s goals in a particular communication exchange, while
appropriateness considers the communication exchange from the other party’s point of
view, i.e., whether the communicator has communicated in a way that is contextually
expected and accepted (Arasaratnam, 2016). Intercultural competence consists of three
dimensions: cognitive, behavioral and affective (Arasaratnam, 2009; Cui & Van Den
Berg, 1991; Sercu, 2004; Spitzberg, 1991; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). This suggests
that intercultural competence is about a person’s cognitive, behavioral and affective
abilities that enable him/her to interact effectively and appropriately across cultures
(Arasaratnam, 2016). In intercultural negotiations, the ability to do so is particularly
crucial (Liu & Adair, 2017). There are more barriers to effective communication in
intercultural than intracultural negotiations due to the cultural differences between the
two negotiators (Adler, 1997; Imai & Gelfand, 2010). At the same time, the rewards for
effective communication are bigger in intercultural negotiations than in intracultural
negotiations (Liu et al., 2010).
International experience has been touted as the best teacher of intercultural
competence (Reichard et al., 2015). It can be viewed as a learning experience for
individuals and is thus developmental in nature. International experience fosters
individuals’ cognitive, behavioral and affective abilities that they need in order to interact
effectively and appropriately across cultures through their learning and adaptation to the
foreign countries during their stays abroad when they engage with the local people in
those foreign countries. When people are abroad, they often face new, meaningful,
critical, and/or contradictory behaviors and experiences that they are unable to understand
based on their existing schemata and frame of reference, leading them to experience
83
cognitive dissonance (Endicott et al., 2003; Le & Kroll, 2017; Piaget, 1955). This creates
a sense of arousal, uncertainty, stress and emotional ambivalence in them (Le & Kroll,
2017). Hence, they are motivated to make sense of the new culture they are in and learn
how to operate and communicate appropriately in that culture in order to reduce cognitive
dissonance and adapt to the new culture (DeRue & Wellman, 2009; D. A. Kolb, 1984; Le
& Kroll, 2017; Piaget, 1955). According to experiential learning theory, learning is a
holistic process of adaptation that integrates experience, cognition, perception, behavior
and feeling (A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005; D. A. Kolb, 1984; D. A. Kolb et al., 2001).
According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), individuals learn and develop
through their engagements with their surroundings. In the development of intercultural
competence, an international experience is a concrete experience and serves as the basis
of observation and reflection (D. A. Kolb, 1984). Through observation and reflection,
individuals learn how to operate and communicate appropriately in the new culture as
they adapt to the new environment when they are abroad. This process expands their
frame of reference and schemata, fundamentally changing their cognitive structures, and
also improves their behavioral and affective abilities to interact more effectively across
cultures, i.e., acquire a higher level of intercultural competence. Individuals learn more
and increase their intercultural competence more when they are more engaged in
interacting with the locals (Bandura, 1977; Fee et al., 2013; Reichard et al., 2015). The
results of a number of studies corroborate this. They found that international experience
significantly contributes to the development of a multitude of indicators/types of
intercultural competence proposed by various intercultural scholars. These
indicators/types of intercultural competence include cosmopolitanism,
nonjudgementalness, social flexibility, self-identity, self-confidence and self-awareness
84
proposed by Bird et al. (2010) (Clapp-Smith & Wernsing, 2014);
openness/ethnorelativism, international awareness, interpersonal communication skills,
and self-efficacy proposed by Yashima (2010); willingness to learn, flexibility, tolerance
of ambiguity, and optimism (individual intercultural competence), capacity for teamwork,
empathy and tolerance, and ability for meta-communication and adaptability (social
intercultural competence), organization, problem-solving and decision making abilities,
and knowledge management (strategic intercultural competence) proposed by Bolten
(2007) (Behrnd & Porzelt, 2012); sensitivity in communication, socializing, and cultural
identity reflection proposed by Schnabel et al. (2014) (Wolff & Borzikowsky, 2018); CQ
proposed by Earley and Ang (2003) (Crowne, 2013; Engle & Crowne, 2014; Reichard et
al., 2015; Wood & St. Peters, 2014); and cognitive complexity (Fee et al., 2013).
In this dissertation, I conceptualize international experience as a multidimensional
construct, consisting of breadth, depth, cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity. I
contend that each of these dimensions of international experience is positively related to
the development of individuals’ intercultural competence. First, breadth of international
experience, which refers to the total number of foreign countries where international
experience was acquired, can be expected to contribute to the development of individuals’
intercultural competence. The more countries people go to, the more variety of cultures
they come into contact with. Whenever they go to a new country, they acquire specific
knowledge of the new country in order to adapt to that new environment. They also
develop their general skills in interacting across cultures. With each international
experience, individuals expand their schemata, frame of reference, and repertoire of
behaviors and communications skills by learning and adapting to the new culture and
environment, and engaging with the local people, thereby strengthening their intercultural
85
competence (Le & Kroll, 2017). For instance, Crowne (2013) found that breadth of
international experience has a significant positive impact on developing CQ. They found
that the more foreign countries study participants had been to, the higher their CQ tends
to be. This is likely to be the case for other intercultural competence indicators as well.
Research has also shown that international experiences acquired at different times have a
cumulative effect, i.e., additional international experience can further enhance
individuals’ intercultural competence that was developed during previous international
experience (Reichard et al., 2015; Yashima, 2010). A higher number of countries means
additional international experiences at different times. Each of these international
experiences has an additive effect on individuals’ level of intercultural competence.
Hence, breadth of international experience is likely to be positively related to the level of
intercultural competence.
Second, depth of international experience, measured by the total length of stay
abroad, can also be expected to positively correlate with the level of intercultural
competence. Various studies have shown that time spent in foreign cultures is a crucial
factor in determining the development of intercultural competence (e.g., Behrnd &
Porzelt, 2012). Spending more time in a foreign culture enables one to have the
opportunity to be exposed to more aspects of the culture and have a longer exposure
period. A considerable amount of time and exposure to a foreign culture are needed to
uncover the culture’s deeper layers and for learning and adaptation to take place so that
one can function more effectively in that culture and improve one’s intercultural
competence (Le & Kroll, 2017). Different aspects/indicators/types of intercultural
competence may also take different amounts of time to be developed (Behrnd & Porzelt,
2012). For example, the findings of Behrnd and Porzelt’s (2012) study show that for
86
strategic intercultural competence to be developed to a certain high degree, their study
participants who were overseas on study abroad programs or internships needed at least 6
months, while affective intercultural competence took them longer and required at least
10 months.
Third, cultural distance between an individual’s home country and the foreign
country is likely to influence his/her experiences in the foreign country and the
development of his/her intercultural competence. Cultural distance refers to the extent of
novelty or differences between a person’s home country culture and the cultures of other
countries he/she has been to (e.g., Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991). Foreign countries
differ in how culturally distant they are from a person’s home country. International
experience that is characterized by larger cultural distances tends to play a stronger role in
developing intercultural competence. For instance, when one is in a foreign country that
has a high cultural distance from one’s home country compared to other people who are
in foreign countries with low cultural distance from their home country, one experiences
a much bigger culture shock, and more stress, anxiety, uncertainty and cognitive
dissonance than the others. At the same time, one could also be intrigued by the novelty
of the foreign culture because it is very different from one’s home country culture. When
cultural distance is larger, one has more to learn and more to adapt in order to reduce the
additional cognitive dissonance one experiences and to be able to function effectively in
the foreign culture. This larger cultural distance facilitates the development of more
sophisticated cognitive schemas given the bigger contrast between one’s home country
culture and the foreign culture (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002). The more one learns and
develops more sophisticated cognitive schemas, and adapts to the foreign culture, one’s
communication and interactions with the locals become more effective and appropriate,
87
i.e., one’s level of intercultural competence increases. International experience in more
culturally distant countries stretches one’s ability and capacity to navigate through the
challenges posed by large cultural differences. More culturally distant countries provide
very fertile learning grounds and fodder to hone one’s intercultural competence. On the
other hand, for people with international experiences in countries that have a low cultural
distance from their home country, they do not have the opportunity nor the need to
develop their intercultural competence as much while abroad. The need and opportunities
to do so increase as cultural distance between the foreign and home country becomes
larger. Hence, those with international experiences in more culturally distant countries are
more likely to have developed a higher level of intercultural competence.
Fourth, I propose that cultural heterogeneity is another important dimension of
international experience that plays a positive role in developing individuals’ intercultural
competence. While cultural distance of international experience captures the extent of
cultural differences that an individual had experienced compared to his/her home country
culture, cultural heterogeneity of international experience reflects the degree of cultural
diversity in his/her overall international experience, i.e., the range of cultures he/she has
been exposed to. For example, out of the 10 clusters of culturally similar countries
identified by the GLOBE study ─ Southern Asia, Latin America, Nordic Europe, Anglo,
Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East, and
Confucian Asia (House et al., 2004; Mensah & Chen, 2014), the more clusters he/she has
had experience in, the more culturally heterogeneous his/her international experience is
along the nine cultural dimensions which the GLOBE study used as the basis for the
clustering. A more culturally heterogeneous set of international experiences provides
much more fodder for developing a person’s intercultural competence than one that is
88
more culturally homogenous. The learning is both broad and nuanced with regard to
one’s understanding of the cultural differences. Cultural heterogeneity of international
experience provides differentiated content to enrich one’s cultural toolkit that one relies
on when interacting with people from other cultures. In addition, the more a person’s
international experience spans across these cultural clusters, the more likely he/she is able
to see certain sets of similarities and differences among the various cultures such that
he/she is able to discern cultural patterns among them. As such, he/she becomes more apt
at applying discriminative cultural knowledge in different cultural contexts (A. K.-Y.
Leung & Chiu, 2010a). For instance, when individual A whose overall international
experience has a high level of cultural heterogeneity interacts with individual B who is
from a country which falls into a particular cultural cluster where individual A had
acquired international experience but not in individual B’s home country, individual A
would know that he should draw upon the knowledge he had gained from his
international experiences in that particular cultural cluster and appropriately apply it to
his interactions and communication with individual B. Hence, people whose international
experience is more culturally heterogeneous are more likely to have a higher level of
intercultural competence.
International experience can be acquired through different ways. I argue that LWS
international experience has a stronger influence on the development of intercultural
competence than touristic international experience. This is because these two
categories of international experience differ in the degree of immersion in the foreign
country and the type of knowledge people gain from these international experiences.
Although different forms of international experience can be expected to develop and
strengthen individuals’ intercultural competence, it is the kind that involves deep
89
immersion in foreign cultures and acquisition of deep-level knowledge of foreign cultures
that has a greater impact on intercultural competence development. LWS international
experience belongs to this category of international experiences. Studies that examine the
effects of international experience on intercultural competence development tend to use
this category of international experiences in their research design. The type of
international experiences of their study participants included living abroad (Imai &
Gelfand, 2010), work internships (e.g., Behrnd & Porzelt, 2012), volunteer work service
(e.g., Fee et al., 2013; Yashima, 2010), and study abroad programs such as educational
tours (e.g., Wood & Peters, 2014) and student exchange programs (Clapp-Smith &
Wernsing, 2014). The findings of these studies provide empirical evidence that
international experiences in the form of living, work and study play a critical role in
developing and strengthening individuals’ intercultural competence.
For those who live, work or study overseas, their international experience is
characterized by meaningful deep immersion in the foreign culture. They interact with the
people from there at a deeper level, usually in the local language, and over a wider range
of activities and interactions that cut across professional, academic, social and daily life
spheres. With their prolonged exposure to the foreign culture at a meaningful deep level,
and their learning and adaptation to the local culture and environment, they gain deep-
level knowledge about the culture. This kind of knowledge addresses the questions of
“why”, “how” and “when” with the details about the foreign culture they are in. It also
enables them to engage in a deliberate reappraisal of the cultural differences between
their home and host cultures (Pettigrew, 1998). All these experiences help them to
90
develop the behavioral, cognitive and affective abilities to interact effectively and
appropriately with people from other cultures.
Although the duration of LWS international experiences are usually of a longer
period of time in terms of months or years, there are instances of short ones such as
educational tours that last from one to two weeks (e.g., Wood & Peters, 2014) and it was
found that participants of these educational tours had a significant increase in the level of
their intercultural competence even after being overseas for such a short period of time.
This is in line with other studies that found that even short stays abroad can have a
significant developmental effect on individuals, such as their intercultural sensitivity and
awareness (e.g., Baruch, Dickmann, Altman, & Bournois, 2013).
On the other hand, the experiences of tourists in foreign countries tend to be rather
cursory and fleeting. Their exposure to the foreign culture, their interactions with the
people from that culture, their opportunities for learning, the scope of their learning and
the need for adaptation to the foreign culture are usually rather limited. As such, the
knowledge they gain about the culture of these foreign countries is more of the
surfacelevel kind which includes the basic facts of the culture, and answers the question
of “what” the culture is like, but not “why” the culture is like that. This is why LWS
international experience can be expected to play a greater role in developing individuals’
intercultural competence than the touristic type.
Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the impact of international experiences
as a tourist. Such experiences are still consequential in the development of intercultural
competence, especially for people who do not have the opportunities to live, work or
study overseas. There is a significant material difference between having zero
international experience and having the experience of being abroad even for a short
91
period of time and engaging in a limited scope of activities as a tourist. Nothing can
substitute experiencing a foreign culture first hand. It is usually during their touristic trips
abroad that they come into contact with people from other cultures and being in foreign
countries where familiar signs and cues in the environment are not present. They have to
make sense of the foreign environment and navigate within it while they are there. For
those tourists who are more interested in other countries and cultures, they may learn
more about the culture and environment, and even learn how to speak some local
language, and engage in meaningful interactions with the locals. However, it still would
not be to the same extent as what those who live, work or study overseas do.
To support my contention that intercultural competence mediates the relationship
between international experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes, I put forth my
arguments and highlighted research findings showing that international experience
develops individuals’ intercultural competence in the discussion above. Next, I explain
how this higher level of intercultural competence in turn enables individuals to break
down the barriers to effective communication inherent in intercultural negotiations so that
they can achieve better negotiation outcomes.
Research has shown that intercultural negotiations are often plagued by
communication problems due to differences in cultural values, language, nonverbal
behaviors, and thought patterns (Adler & Graham, 1989). On each side, negotiators go to
the negotiation table with their own culturally influenced communication styles and
negotiation scripts, as well as culture-specific schemas and approaches that are likely to
be incompatible with the other party’s (Imai & Gelfand, 2010; Liu et al., 2010; Tinsley et
al., 1999). Negotiators are more prone to misinterpreting and misunderstanding each
other, have more difficulties in synchronizing, reciprocating and coordinating with each
92
other in their communication and moves, and tend to feel less comfortable when they are
in intercultural negotiations than intracultural ones (Liu et al., 2010). All these
communication problems make intercultural negotiations particularly challenging and
frustrating for those involved in it (Adair et al., 2001), often resulting in decreased trust,
lack of interpersonal attractiveness, reduced willingness to cooperate (e.g., (K. Lee et al.,
2006; Liu et al., 2010), premature closure of the search for alternatives and inefficient
information sharing (Brett & Okumura, 1998). If negotiators do not have a high enough
level of intercultural competence, they are more likely to fall victim to these
communication pitfalls in intercultural negotiations and miss the chance of cooperating
with each other to come up with a more optimal agreement, thus leaving value on the
negotiation table.
On the other hand, those with a higher level of intercultural competence honed
through their international experiences have more sophisticated cognitive schema and a
richer cultural toolkit to draw upon. They are aware that there can be cultural differences
in communication and negotiation norms and styles between them and their negotiation
partners. They also have the knowledge, experience and motivation to adapt to their
negotiation counterparts to facilitate their communication and the negotiation process in
order to maximize their chances of achieving better negotiation outcomes.
Research has shown that quality of communication experience, which is the
degree of clarity, responsiveness, and comfort that negotiators experience during the
negotiation, has significant positive effects on their negotiation outcomes, and that this
effect is more pronounced in intercultural than in intracultural negotiations (Liu et al.,
2010). Having a higher level of intercultural competence indicates that one has more
cognitive, behavioral and affective abilities to interact and communicate more effectively
93
and appropriately across cultures (Arasaratnam, 2016; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). As
such, negotiators with a higher level of intercultural competence would experience a
better quality of communication with their counterparts. With a better quality of
communication experience, they are more likely to achieve better negotiation outcomes.
For instance, negotiators with a higher level of intercultural competence are more capable
of communicating verbally and non-verbally with their negotiation counterpart in such a
way that their counterpart can understand the meaning of their message accurately, and
vice versa. This helps both parties to understand each other’s position, interests,
preferences, priorities, resources, and capabilities correctly, thereby maximizing their
chances of finding common ground and achieving better negotiation outcomes. They are
also more likely to be willing and able to synchronize, reciprocate and coordinate with
their counterpart in their communication and overtures, paving the way for more
cooperative moves and timely exchange of information, which leads to more efficient
negotiations. In addition, they tend to feel comfortable interacting with people from other
cultures and also able to make the other party feel comfortable with their interaction. As
such, the other party is more likely to be motivated to spend the time and effort to share
information and search for more integrative solutions that offer better outcomes.
In the above discussion, I suggest that the relationship between intercultural
competence and intercultural negotiation outcomes is a positive one. I further argue that
the strength of this relationship depends on the cultural distance between the two
negotiators. High cultural distance indicates more cultural differences and impediments to
effective communication during the negotiation which thwarts negotiators’ motivation
and ability to engage in integrative behaviors to maximize joint gains. Here, intercultural
competence can be expected to play a greater role in mitigating the communication
94
challenges and pave the way for the negotiators to achieve better outcomes. On the other
hand, when cultural distance is low, the hurdles to effective communication are lower.
Increases in the level of intercultural competence are likely to have a smaller positive
impact on negotiators’ outcomes. The payoff for increases in the level of intercultural
competence is bigger when cultural distance is high than when it is low. In other words, I
suggest that cultural distance between the negotiators moderates the relationship between
intercultural competence and intercultural negotiation outcomes such that this
relationship is stronger when cultural distance is larger.
Based on the explanations and arguments I presented above, my main contentions
are: (1) International experience is a multi-dimensional construct comprising of breadth,
depth, cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity; (2) intercultural competence mediates
the relationship between international experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes;
(3) LWS international experience has a stronger influence on the development of
intercultural competence than touristic international experience; and (4) cultural distance
between the negotiators moderates the relationship between intercultural competence and
intercultural negotiation outcomes such that this relationship is stronger when cultural
distance is larger. In line with these contentions, I propose the following hypotheses:
H3: Intercultural competence mediates the positive effect that LWS international
experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
Specifically,
H3a: Intercultural competence mediates the positive effect that breadth of
LWS international experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H3b: Intercultural competence mediates the positive effect that depth of LWS
international experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
95
H3c: Intercultural competence mediates the positive effect that cultural
distance of LWS international experience has on intercultural negotiation
outcomes.
H3d: Intercultural competence mediates the positive effect that cultural
heterogeneity of LWS international experience has on intercultural
negotiation outcomes.
H4: Intercultural competence mediates the positive effect that touristic
international experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
Specifically,
H4a: Intercultural competence mediates the positive effect that breadth of
touristic international experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H4b: Intercultural competence mediates the positive effect that depth of touristic
international experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H4c: Intercultural competence mediates the positive effect that cultural distance
of touristic international experience has on intercultural negotiation
outcomes.
H4d: Intercultural competence mediates the positive effect that cultural
heterogeneity of touristic international experience has on
intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H5: LWS international experience has a stronger influence on intercultural
competence than touristic international experience. Specifically,
96
H5a: Breadth of LWS international experience has a stronger influence on
intercultural competence than breadth of touristic international
experience.
H5b: Depth of LWS international experience has a stronger influence on
intercultural competence than depth of touristic international
experience.
H5c: Cultural distance of LWS international experience has a stronger
influence on intercultural competence than cultural distance of touristic
international experience.
H5d: Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience has a stronger
influence on intercultural competence than cultural heterogeneity of
touristic international experience.
H6: Cultural distance between the negotiators moderates the relationship
between intercultural competence and intercultural negotiation
outcomes such that this relationship is stronger when cultural
distance is larger.
Psychological Capital
I propose that psychological capital mediates the relationship between
international experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes. I contend that
international experience develops individuals’ psychological capital (Basinska, 2017;
Reichard et al., 2015) and this higher level of psychological capital in turn enables them
to mitigate or even overcome some of the psychological impediments to effective
integrative negotiation that are inherently found in intercultural negotiations, thereby
97
maximizing their chances of attaining better negotiation outcomes. Psychological capital
is defined as “an individual’s positive psychological state of development that is
characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary
effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about
succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary,
redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems
and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain
success.” (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007: 3). This implies that psychological capital
is about a person’s positive psychological resources that help him/her to maintain an
internalized sense of control and intentionality while pursuing and accomplishing his/her
goals (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017). Compared to those in intracultural
negotiations, negotiators in intercultural negotiations experience higher levels of anxiety
and uncertainty due to the cultural diversity (Gudykunst, 1995), thus they face certain
psychological impediments to effective negotiation that the intercultural context bestows.
In such circumstances, the psychological capital that they had gained through their
international experiences can be expected to aid them in mitigating or overcoming these
psychological impediments to effective negotiation.
Although research on the relationship between international experience and
psychological capital is sparse, the findings support my contention that international
experience plays a significant role in developing individuals’ psychological capital
(Basinska, 2017). In terms of the individual components of psychological capital,
research shows that international experience plays a significant role in developing
individuals’ self-efficacy (Clapp-Smith & Wernsing, 2014; Takeuchi & Chen, 2013;
Yashima, 2010) and optimism (Behrnd & Porzelt, 2012).
98
In addition, I posit that only LWS international experience can be expected to
develop a person’s psychological capital. There is evidence indicating that it is
international experience in the work context, in particular international business trips, that
is more conducive for the development of psychological capital (Basinska, 2017).
Touristic international experience is unlikely able to have such an influence. This is
because tourists’ exposure to the foreign culture, their interactions with the people and the
scope of their activities in the foreign culture are usually rather limited. Situations that are
challenging enough to influence individuals’ psychological capital tend to be encountered
when people are living, studying or working overseas rather than traveling abroad as a
tourist. In general, the situations or issues that tourists encounter are not impactful enough
to influence them psychologically to the extent that would develop or diminish their
psychological capital.
I propose that all four dimensions of international experience, breadth, depth,
cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity, are positively related to the development of
individuals’ psychological capital. First, I suggest that breadth of international
experience has a positive relationship with psychological capital. The more countries
people live/study/work in, the more times they would face new sets of challenges because
every time they relocate to a new country, they need to start all over again with their
learning of the new culture and adaptation to the new culture and environment. A higher
number of countries is likely to indicate that their previous stays abroad were all
successful. Thus, every time they successfully overcome the challenges and issues that
they faced in each of those countries, their level of psychological capital would increase
(Reichard et al., 2015). On the other hand, if they had failed to overcome the challenges
of living, studying or working overseas and failed to accomplish the objectives of that
99
stay abroad, especially if it is their first time, it is likely that they would return home
prematurely and/or it is unlikely that they would pursue another such type or similar
types of international experience in the future (Takeuchi & Chen, 2013; Tung, 1988). This
kind of negative experiences is likely to negatively impact their psychological capital,
such as a loss of self-efficacy (Takeuchi & Chen, 2013; Tung, 1988).
Second, depth of international experience can be expected to play a positive
role in developing individuals’ psychological capital. Similar to the development of
intercultural competence, the development of psychological capital also requires
substantial amount of time spent in the foreign countries. The longer one lives, studies or
works overseas, the higher the likelihood that he/she would face challenging situations in
terms of a higher number of times as well as higher degrees of difficulty. The more times
he/she overcomes the challenges encountered and the more difficult those situations were,
the more psychological capital he/she would accumulate. Supporting my suggestion that
more challenging situations in terms of higher degrees of difficulty would lead to the
development of psychological capital, research has shown that task complexity is a
significant predictor of psychological capital (Avey, 2014). Challenges that are of higher
degrees of difficulty are likely to be more complex to solve.
Third, cultural distance between an individual’s home country and the foreign
country is likely to influence his/her experiences in the foreign country and the
development of his/her psychological capital. I suggest that cultural distance is positively
associated with the level of psychological capital, i.e., the larger the cultural distance, the
higher the level of psychological capital. The larger the cultural distance, the more likely
that one faces challenging situations in terms of a higher number of times as well as
higher degrees of difficulty. The more times the challenges encountered are overcome and
100
the more difficult those situations were, the more psychological capital would be
developed.
Fourth, I propose that cultural heterogeneity of international experience
positively correlates with the level of psychological capital. A more culturally
heterogeneous set of international experiences provides individuals with a more culturally
diverse set of challenges that is harder to deal with and requires more of their effort than a
set of international experiences that is more culturally homogenous. This is because
higher cultural heterogeneity in their international experience means that whenever they
relocate to a new country, they do not have a vast set of prior international experiences in
culturally similar countries to draw upon. When individuals successfully overcome the
harder to deal with challenges that are associated with more culturally heterogeneous
international experience, their level of psychological capital would increase.
To support my contention that psychological capital mediates the relationship
between international experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes, I put forth my
arguments and highlighted research findings showing that international experience
develops individuals’ psychological capital (Basinska, 2017; Behrnd & Porzelt, 2012;
Clapp-Smith & Wernsing, 2014; Takeuchi & Chen, 2013; Yashima, 2010) in the
discussion above. Next, I explain how this higher level of psychological capital in turn
enables them to alleviate or even overcome some of the psychological impediments to
effective integrative negotiation that are inherently found in intercultural negotiations,
thereby maximizing their chances of attaining better negotiation outcomes.
Negotiators in intercultural negotiations tend to experience higher levels of
anxiety and uncertainty because of the cultural diversity in intercultural negotiations
(Gudykunst, 1995), resulting in heightened need for closure (Imai & Gelfand, 2010; Liu
101
et al., 2012) and lower cognitive flexibility (Baas et al., 2008) compared to those in
intracultural negotiations. The need for closure is a form of epistemic motivation
(Webster & Kruglanski, 1994) where a person who has a high need for closure can be
said to have low epistemic motivation, and vice versa. This implies that negotiators in
intercultural negotiations generally find it more difficult to sustain epistemic motivation
than those in intracultural negotiations. Epistemic motivation is defined as “the desire to
acquire a full and accurate understanding of the world” (De Dreu, 2004: 122). In order to
have a full and accurate understanding of the world, individuals with high epistemic
motivation would process new information in a deliberate, systematic and thorough way,
and less likely to rely on heuristic cues that have no true relevance to the situation (De
Dreu, 2004; Imai & Gelfand, 2010). As such, negotiators with lower epistemic motivation
are more likely to rely on heuristic cues instead of processing new information in a
systematic and thorough way during the negotiations. Supporting this, research has
shown that negotiators in intercultural negotiations with lower epistemic motivation
would freeze their mental model early during the negotiation, making it hard for them to
absorb and process new information, and build consensus with their negotiation partner
as the negotiation proceeds, thereby preventing them from seeing the opportunities for
integrative solutions that can create value and increase joint gains (Liu et al., 2012).
Moreover, the need for closure (lower epistemic motivation) heightened in intercultural
negotiations makes negotiators become more ethnocentric and adopt a negative attitude
towards those who are culturally different from them (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Liu
et al., 2012).
I propose that psychological capital helps negotiators in intercultural negotiations
to sustain their epistemic motivation (low need for closure), and also provides them with
102
positive psychological resources and capacity to engage in effective integrative
negotiation behaviors, and consequently pave the way for better negotiation outcomes. In
line with my contention that psychological capital can help negotiators in intercultural
negotiations to maintain their epistemic motivation (i.e., decreasing, neutralizing or even
reversing their heightened need for closure caused by the intercultural context), scholars
have put forth the following assertions: The more psychological capital people have, the
higher the intensity of their involvement in intercultural encounters, such as cross-cultural
trigger events (Reichard et al., 2015); people who are highly self-efficacious tend to be
more willing to engage with the unfamiliar and avoid withdrawal after facing
impediments (Earley, 2002; Earley & Peterson, 2004; Van Dyne et al., 2010); and
psychological capital facilitates individual adjustment in a multicultural environment in
their professional life through being open, tolerant, and curious about other cultures
(Rozkwitalska & Basinska, 2015).
I argue that having higher levels of psychological capital developed through
international experience, that is possessing self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience, is
particularly helpful to those involved in intercultural negotiations. For instance, there is
empirical evidence showing that psychological capital gives negotiators the confidence to
engage in effective integrative negotiation behaviors that lead to better negotiation
outcomes. It was found that negotiators with high self-efficacy would engage in open
information exchange in not only intracultural negotiations (O’Connor & Arnold, 2001),
but also intercultural negotiations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010). Moreover, psychological
capital by definition can be expected to provide negotiators in intercultural contexts with
the psychological capacity to stay on course and focused on their objectives, be motivated
to persist in continuing with negotiation and avoid pre-mature closing of the negotiation,
103
be able to see that obstacles or impasse in the negotiation can be overcome, and make the
effort to share information about their position, interests, preferences, priorities,
resources, and capabilities and spend enough time to find common ground and logrolling
opportunities, as well as engage in creative problem solving so as to come to an
agreement with a solution that maximizes their joint gains and satisfies both parties well.
In addition, I propose that the strength of the positive relationship between
psychological capital and intercultural negotiation outcomes depends on the cultural
distance between the two negotiators. Specifically, I hypothesize that cultural distance
between the negotiators moderates the relationship between psychological capital and
intercultural negotiation outcomes such that this relationship is stronger when cultural
distance is larger. A larger cultural distance represents more contrasting cultural
differences and more unfamiliar or even opposing norms, resulting in a great deal of
anxiety, uncertainty and discomfort for the negotiators. They are likely to feel much more
daunted by the cultural barriers and have very little epistemic motivation. In such a
situation, the epistemic motivation that psychological capital helps to maintain, and the
positive psychological resources and capacity that psychological capital provides can be
expected to matter even more than when cultural distance is low, i.e., psychological
capital is likely to have a greater positive effect on negotiators’ outcomes when cultural
distance between the negotiators is high than when it is low.
Based on the discussion above, I propose the following hypotheses:
H7: Psychological capital mediates the positive effect that LWS international
experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
Specifically,
104
H7a: Psychological capital mediates the positive effect that breadth of LWS
international experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H7b: Psychological capital mediates the positive effect that depth of LWS
international experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H7c: Psychological capital mediates the positive effect that cultural distance
of LWS international experience has on intercultural negotiation
outcomes.
H7d: Psychological capital mediates the positive effect that cultural heterogeneity
of LWS international experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H8: LWS international experience positively influences psychological capital
while touristic international experience does not have any influence.
Specifically,
H8a: Breadth of LWS international experience positively influences
psychological capital while breadth of touristic international
experience does not have any influence.
H8b: Depth of LWS international experience positively influences
psychological capital while depth of touristic international
experience does not have any influence.
H8c: Cultural distance of LWS international experience positively influences
psychological capital while cultural distance of touristic international
experience does not have any influence.
105
H8d: Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience positively
influences psychological capital while cultural heterogeneity of
touristic international experience does not have any influence.
H9: Cultural distance between the negotiators moderates the relationship
between psychological capital and intercultural negotiation outcomes
such that this relationship is stronger when cultural distance is larger.
Global Identity
I propose that global identity mediates the relationship between international
experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes. Specifically, I suggest that
international experience develops individuals’ global identity (Cohavi et al., 2007; Erez et
al., 2013; Liu et al., 2013; Schworm et al., 2017) and this stronger global identity in turn
enables them to mitigate the barriers to effective communication as well as the
psychological impediments to effective integrative negotiation processes that are
inherently found in intercultural negotiations, thereby maximizing their chances of
attaining better negotiation outcomes. In the global context, individuals who operate
across cultural boundaries need to answer the question “Who am I?” through their
membership in either their home culture or the global culture (Berry, 1997). Global
identity captures the degree to which individuals see themselves as belonging to a
worldwide society, aids adoption of behaviors, styles, and information related to a global
culture (Arnett, 2002; Erez & Gati, 2004), demonstrates intergroup helping and empathy
(Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013), and facilitates more open communication and
cooperation with culturally different others (Buchan et al., 2011; Hinds & Mortensen,
2005).
106
Although research on the relationship between international experience and global
identity is in its nascent stage (Liu et al., 2018), the findings of a few studies support my
contention that international experience plays a significant role in developing individuals’
global identity. For example, Liu et al. (2013) and Schworm et al. (2017) found empirical
evidence that individuals’ global identity can be developed through their multicultural
experience. I propose that all four dimensions of international experience, breadth, depth,
cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity, are positively related to the development of
individuals’ global identity. First, I suggest that breadth of international experience has
a positive relationship with global identity. Global identity captures the identity
development process at a specific point in time with regard to a feeling of belonging to
the global context (Schworm et al., 2017). Thus, when people go to more countries and
come into contact with more people from different cultures, they are likely to feel more
connected to people from other countries, thereby strengthening their global identity.
Because of the high exposure rate to foreign cultures and interactions with foreigners,
they view themselves as part of the worldwide society. Also, given that their frequency of
going abroad is high, they would view going to another country as something that is
easily done, and not very different from going to another town in their own country. To
them, country boundaries is something that is easy to cross. In fact, this ease of crossing
country boundaries is likely to enhance their feeling of connectedness to the rest of the
world, increasing their global identity. People who are able to go abroad very often are
likely to be those who have passports that allow them to travel to many countries without
visa and thus they do not face the hassle and time spent applying for visas and the
trepidations that their application may not be approved.
107
Second, I argue that depth of international experience is likely to be positively
correlated with the strength of global identity. Providing empirical evidence to support
my suggestion, one study found that global identity is associated with living in more than
one country for more than 2 years (Cohavi et al., 2007). The longer individuals are
exposed to other cultures, the more they will understand their own culture and other
cultures with much more open-mindedness. Lengthier international experience works
towards helping individuals to reduce their own culture’s stereotypes or unquestioned
assumptions (Shaules, 2007). Once these assumptions, unquestioned in their own
cultures, are re-examined after deep exposure to other cultures, these individuals are more
likely to embrace other cultures’ merits and global values. Longer stays abroad also
provide individuals with the time to build affections towards (Gaertner et al., 1999), and
make positive evaluations of culturally different others (Eller & Abrams, 2004), leading
to a higher level of interaction and cooperation for common goals (Gaertner, Dovidio,
Guerra, Hehman, & Saguy, 2016). As a result, depth of international experience is likely
to be play a significant positive role in the development individuals’ global identity.
Third, cultural distance between an individual’s home country and the foreign
country is likely to influence his/her experiences in the foreign country and the
development of his/her global identity. When people are in culturally distant countries,
they can see and feel the differences and yet the fact that they are living, studying or
working there, deeply immersed in the culture and environment of the foreign country
and able to function well after the initial adjustment period, have friends and/or
colleagues whom they socialize with, they are likely to feel that cultural differences are
not insurmountable. They would begin to see themselves as being able to adapt to vastly
108
different cultures and identify themselves as citizens of the world, thereby strengthening
their global identity.
Fourth, I suggest that cultural heterogeneity of international experience plays a
positive role in developing individuals’ global identity. When individuals have more
culturally diverse international experience in countries from more cultural clusters, they
will begin to see patterns of similarities among and differences between the countries
across the various cultural clusters. When people go to other countries, cultural
differences are often expected. However, it is the pleasant surprise they get when they
discover similarities with people from other countries or similarities between their home
country culture. Since it is unexpected, these similarities leave them with a deeper
impression and make the similarities more salient to them despite the fact that the cultural
differences that they expected do exist. Thus, they feel that they are not so different after
all, and everyone is part of the global village. As a result, their global identity gets
strengthened.
In terms of the impact of the type of international experience, I propose that LWS
international experience has a stronger influence on the development of global identity
than touristic international experience. It is possible for a person’s identification with a
certain group to form rather quickly after exposure to the group, however, strengthening
that identity beyond a certain threshold would require deep immersions in that group like
those provided by LWS international experience in order to gain a deeper understanding
of the group and build stronger ties and identification with the group. Thus, although
touristic international experience may develop individuals’ global identity as they jet-set
around the world, I postulate that it cannot be strengthened beyond a certain threshold
level. Touristic international experience is likely to have a positive relationship with the
109
strength of global identity, but the influence of this type of international experience on
global identity development will taper off after a certain threshold level.
To support my assertion that global identity mediates the relationship between
international experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes, I explained and
highlighted research findings showing that international experience develops individuals’
global identity (Cohavi et al., 2007; Erez et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2013; Schworm et al.,
2017) in the discussion above. Next, I consider how a stronger global identity would in
turn enable them to alleviate the barriers to effective communication and the
psychological impediments to effective integrative negotiation processes that are inherent
in intercultural negotiations, thereby maximizing their chances of achieving better
negotiation outcomes.
Besides the barriers to effective communication and the heightened need for
closure (Imai & Gelfand, 2010; Liu et al., 2012) caused by higher levels of anxiety and
uncertainty due to the cultural diversity in intercultural negotiations (Gudykunst, 1995),
negotiators in intercultural negotiations are also less likely to have social motivation in
the form of cooperative motives compared to those in intracultural negotiations (Imai &
Gelfand, 2010). This is because of inter-group bias, resulting in people being less willing
to cooperate with outgroup members compared to ingroup members (Hewstone et al.,
2002). Cooperative motives, a type of social motivation is having equal and high
concerns for both the outcomes of self and other (McClintock, 1977). According to the
theory of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1949, 1973), social motivation plays a
central role in problem-solving behavior and integrative negotiation. Prosocial
individuals develop trust, positive attitudes, and perceptions. They engage in constructive
exchange of information. They also listen and seek to understand one another’s
110
perspective. Hence, prosocially motivated negotiators are more likely to engage in
effective integrative negotiation processes which lead them to uncover possibilities for
trade-off and to realize integrative potential (Deutsch, 1973; Tjosvold, 1998). As can be
seen, the intercultural negotiation context inherently erects barriers to effective
communication and creates deficits in epistemic motivation (low need for closure) and
social motivation (cooperative motives), thereby diminishing the probability of
intercultural negotiators engaging in effective integrative negotiation processes that lead
to more superior negotiation outcomes.
I propose that in intercultural negotiations, negotiators with a stronger global
identity will have more behavioral, cognitive and affective abilities to conduct effective
intercultural communication, as well as higher epistemic motivation (lower need for
closure) and higher social motivation (more cooperative motives) to engage in more
effective integrative negotiation processes. All these will help them to obtain better
negotiation outcomes than dyads with weaker global identity.
Research has shown that the context of intracultural versus intercultural
negotiation activates different norms of negotiation behaviors. In intercultural
negotiations, negotiators on both sides of the table come with different cultural profiles
and orientations where the differences may range from small ones to those that stand in
stark contrast to each other. The presence of a partner from a different culture, or a
foreigner, activates awareness and knowledge about the uncertain context (Gudykunst,
2005). This knowledge helps negotiators from both sides to activate their knowledge
about the intercultural situation, shape their behaviors towards international approaches,
and remind themselves to behave, as the international negotiations require (Gudykunst,
2005; Kim, 1988, 2008; Ting-Toomey, 1999).
111
For those with a stronger global identity, they view themselves as citizens of the
world, and they are more seasoned in interacting with foreigners and can behave more
skillfully in these contexts (Erez & Gati, 2004). They are unlikely to be fazed about the
intercultural context. In fact, they are probably excited about the intercultural interaction.
Moreover, since they have a stronger global identity, their inter-group bias would not
surface because they would not view people from other countries as out-group members.
In fact, they would view them as in-group members. Hence, negotiators with a stronger
global identity would have both epistemic and social motivations that prompt them to
engage in effective integrative negotiations processes.
Negotiators with a stronger global identity are more able to mitigate or overcome
the intercultural communication problems that are typically found in intercultural
negotiations, such as negotiators adhering to different and incompatible negotiation
scripts (Adair & Brett, 2005; Tinsley et al., 1999), and negotiators bringing different
culture-specific schemas to the negotiation table (Imai & Gelfand, 2010). Moreover, the
counterpart of the negotiator with the stronger global identity is likely to appreciate the
understanding and adaptation to his/her cultural ways. All these would motivate the
stronger global identity negotiator’s partner to be more collaborative in exchanging
pertinent information to discover common interest issues and explore integrative
solutions or be less contentious on distributive issues. This would enable the negotiators
to avoid the typical pitfalls of intercultural negotiations which tend to be plagued with
problems of premature closure of the search for alternatives and inefficient information
sharing (Brett & Okumura, 1998). As a result, negotiators’ stronger global identity
developed by their international experience enables them to attain better negotiation
outcomes in the intercultural context.
112
Despite the limited number of empirical studies conducted so far, there is
promising evidence that supports my contention that global identity mediates the
relationship between international experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes. Liu
et al. (2013) found that depth of multicultural experience significantly positively
influences intercultural negotiation outcomes (both subjective and economic gains), and
this effect is mediated by the negotiators’ global identity. However, although they found a
significant positive correlation between breadth of multicultural experience and
negotiators’ global identity, global identity did not significantly mediate the relationship
between breadth of multicultural experience and intercultural negotiation outcomes. More
empirical studies are needed in this stream of research so that we can have a clearer
understanding of these relationships.
Finally, I propose that the strength of the positive relationship between global
identity and intercultural negotiation outcomes depends on the cultural distance between
the two negotiators. Specifically, I hypothesize that cultural distance between the
negotiators moderates the relationship between global identity and intercultural
negotiation outcomes such that this relationship is stronger when cultural distance is
larger. A larger cultural distance represents more contrasting cultural differences and
more unfamiliar or even opposing norms, resulting in not only more potential for
intercultural communication problems and negotiators experiencing a great deal of
anxiety, uncertainty and discomfort, but also a bigger in-group versus out-group chasm
between them. When the cultural distance is larger, the epistemic and social motivations
that a stronger global identity helps to maintain, as well as the ability of the negotiators
with a stronger global identity to follow norms that are more widely accepted in the
business world—not only in their own culture, but also in their negotiation partners’
113
cultures in their communication and interactions with their negotiation partner can be
expected to matter even more than when cultural distance is low, i.e., a stronger global
identity is likely to have a greater positive effect on negotiation outcomes when cultural
distance between the negotiators is high than when it is low.
Based on the discussion above, I propose the following hypotheses:
H10: Global identity mediates the positive effect that LWS international
experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes. Specifically,
H10a: Global identity mediates the positive effect that breadth of LWS
international experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H10b: Global identity mediates the positive effect that depth of LWS international
experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H10c: Global identity mediates the positive effect that cultural distance of
LWS international experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H10d: Global identity mediates the positive effect that cultural heterogeneity
of LWS international experience has on intercultural negotiation
outcomes.
H11: Global identity mediates the positive effect that touristic international
experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
Specifically,
H11a: Global identity mediates the positive effect that breadth of touristic
international experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
114
H11b: Global identity mediates the positive effect that depth of touristic
international experience has on intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H11c: Global identity mediates the positive effect that cultural distance of
touristic international experience has on intercultural negotiation
outcomes.
H11d: Global identity mediates the positive effect that cultural
heterogeneity of touristic international experience has on
intercultural negotiation outcomes.
H12: LWS international experience has a stronger influence on global identity
than touristic international experience. Specifically,
H12a: Breadth of LWS international experience has a stronger influence on
global identity than breadth of touristic international experience.
H12b: Depth of LWS international experience has a stronger influence on global
identity than depth of touristic international experience.
H12c: Cultural distance of LWS international experience has a stronger
influence on global identity than cultural distance of touristic international
experience.
H12d: Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience has a stronger
influence on global identity than cultural heterogeneity of touristic
international experience.
115
H13: Cultural distance between the negotiators moderates the relationship
between global identity and intercultural negotiation outcomes such that
this relationship is stronger when cultural distance is larger.
116
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
Chapter 4 describes the methodology for empirically testing the theoretical model
and set of hypotheses proposed in the previous chapter. The theoretical model postulates
how international experience influences the outcomes of intercultural negotiations,
including both individual and joint negotiation outcomes. In this dissertation, I focus on
testing the theoretical model and the set of hypotheses proposed in chapter 3 at the
dyadlevel, i.e., I choose the negotiation dyad as the unit of analysis and examine how
negotiation dyads’ international experience influences their joint negotiation outcomes.
Negotiation dyads’ joint negotiation outcomes refers to their economic joint gain and
joint subjective value in the negotiation.
Since the unit of analysis of this empirical study is the negotiation dyad and the
focus is on the dyad’s joint negotiation outcomes, consisting of economic joint gain and
joint subjective value in the negotiation (and not individual outcomes), the empirical
study will answer the set of research questions stated in Chapter 1 with more specificity,
i.e., (1) How do the various dimensions of intercultural negotiation dyads’ international
experience ─ breadth, depth, cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity affect their
economic joint gain and joint subjective value in the negotiation.? (2) How do the various
dimensions of intercultural negotiation dyads’ international experience ─ breadth, depth,
cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity influence their intercultural competence,
psychological capital, and global identity? (3) How do intercultural negotiation dyads’
intercultural competence, psychological capital, and global identity impact their
economic joint gain and joint subjective value in the negotiation? (4) Do the intercultural
negotiation dyads’ intercultural competence, psychological capital, and global identity
117
mediate the relationship between the various dimensions of their international experience
(breadth, depth, cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity) and their joint negotiation
outcomes (economic joint gain and joint subjective value in the negotiation)? (5) Are
there any differences between the effects of intercultural negotiation dyad’s LWS
international experience versus the effects of their touristic international experience for
research questions (1) to (4)? (6) Does cultural distance between the two negotiators in
intercultural negotiation dyads moderate the relationship between intercultural
negotiation dyads’ intercultural competence and joint negotiation outcomes (economic
joint gain and joint subjective value in the negotiation), such that the positive effect of
intercultural negotiation dyads’ intercultural competence on their joint negotiation
outcomes (economic joint gain and joint subjective value in the negotiation) is more
pronounced for intercultural negotiation dyads with a larger cultural distance between the
two negotiators in the dyad than dyads with a smaller cultural distance between the two
negotiators in the dyad? Does cultural distance between the two negotiators in
intercultural negotiation dyads moderate the relationship between intercultural
negotiation dyads’ psychological capital and joint negotiation outcomes (economic joint
gain and joint subjective value in the negotiation), such that the positive effect of
intercultural negotiation dyads’ psychological capital on their joint negotiation outcomes
(economic joint gain and joint subjective value in the negotiation) is more pronounced for
intercultural negotiation dyads with a larger cultural distance between the two negotiators
in the dyad than dyads with a smaller cultural distance between the two negotiators in the
dyad? Does cultural distance between the two negotiators in intercultural negotiation
dyads moderate the relationship between intercultural negotiation dyads’ global identity
and joint negotiation outcomes (economic joint gain and joint subjective value in the
118
negotiation), such that the positive effect of intercultural negotiation dyads’ global
identity on their joint negotiation outcomes (economic joint gain and joint subjective
value in the negotiation) is more pronounced for intercultural negotiation dyads with a
larger cultural distance between the two negotiators in the dyad than dyads with a smaller
cultural distance between the two negotiators in the dyad?
Accordingly, the set of hypotheses proposed in Chapter 3 will be tested by the
empirical study of this dissertation with more specificity reflecting the negotiation dyad
as the unit of analysis and the dyad’s economic joint gain and joint subjective value in the
negotiation (not individual negotiation outcomes) as the outcome variables.
Sample and procedure
The sample of this study consists of 301 intercultural negotiation dyads with a
total of 602 participants. Participants were students at a large southeastern university in
the U.S. Their average age is 20.52 with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 46. 80% of
them are between the age of 19 and 21. 54.6% of them are male and 45.4% are female.
65.4% of them have working experience. The average amount of working experience is 1
year 5 months. The minimum is 5 days and the maximum is 25 years. Each intercultural
negotiation dyad consists of an American and a non-American. The non-Americans come
from a wide range of countries/cities/territories around the world (see Table 4.1 for the
full list of participants’ home country/city/territory). 55 countries/cities/territories are
represented in this sample. 52.8% of the negotiation dyads are cross-gender dyads while
28.2% are male only dyads and 19% are female only dyads.
For the negotiation, I used the Ocampo-Sportsgear Endorsement Deal negotiation
case (Teegen & Weiss, 2004). It involves an endorsement deal by a world-famous
119
Mexican soccer player of a U.S. team for a leading U.S. maker of athletic shoes and
clothing. It is an 8-issue negotiation scenario that includes 3 common interest issues, 2
integrative issues, and 3 distributive issues. All role materials were in English and all
negotiations were conducted in English. Since the non-American participants were
students at an AACSB-accredited business school of a U.S. university, they could
understand the role materials and conduct the negotiation in English. This situation is
reflective of the common practice of using English as the language of communication in
international business and in many MNCs.
A few weeks before the negotiation, participants completed pre-negotiation
questionnaires designed to collect data on their demographic characteristics and basic
human values, international experience, strength of global identity and level of
psychological capital, etc. On negotiation day, participants were given the same
maximum amount of time to read their role materials and conduct the negotiation. All
negotiation dyads submitted their signed contract detailing the terms that they agreed on
and their scores immediately after they finished their negotiation. Then, they completed
the post-negotiation questionnaire designed to collect data on their quality of
communication experience during the negotiation and their subjective value of their Table
4.1 Participants’ home country/city/territory
Country/City/Territory
1. Argentina 2. Honduras 3. Russia
4. Australia 5. Hong Kong 6. Saudi Arabia
7. Austria 8. India 9. Singapore
10. Bangladesh 11. Indonesia 12. South Korea
120
13. Belgium 14. Italy 15. Spain
16. Bolivia 17. Jamaica 18. Sweden
19. Brazil 20. Japan 21. Switzerland
22. Cameroon 23. Kenya 24. Taiwan
25. Canada 26. Kuwait 27. Tortola, British Virgin
Islands
28. China 29. Lebanon 30. Trinidad and Tobago
31. Colombia 32. Mexico 33. Tunisia
34. Cuba 35. Morocco 36. Turkey
37. Dominican Republic 38. Nepal 39. Ukraine
40. Ecuador 41. Panama 42. United States of America
43. El Salvador 44. Paraguay 45. Venezuela
46. England 47. Pakistan
48. Ethiopia 49. Philippines
50. France 51. Poland
52. Germany 53. Puerto Rico
54. Guatemala 55. Romania
negotiation. Since this dissertation is part of a larger research program, there are
questions in the three questionnaires administered to the participants to collect other sets
of data (see Appendix A for the three questionnaires).
Measures
Dependent variables
Economic joint gains. Negotiators’ economic gain is based on the payoff
structure embedded in the Ocampo-Sportsgear Endorsement Deal negotiation case
121
(Teegen & Weiss, 2004). Economic joint gains of each negotiation dyad is the sum of
both negotiators’ scores calculated as a percentage of the maximum possible payoff
points that each dyad can potentially score. This percentage value is divided by 100 and
then logit-transformed. Logit transformation is recommended for variables with bounded
outcome scores so that the transformed variable may be considered to have a normal
distribution (Johnson, 1949).
Joint subjective value. Each negotiation dyad’s joint subjective value in the
negotiation is the average of the individual subjective values of both negotiators in the
dyad. Each negotiator’s subjective value of the negotiation is measured using Curhan et
al.’s (2006) Subjective Value Inventory. It encompasses four factors to represent
subjective negotiation outcomes, including instrumental, self, process, and relational
values as perceived by the negotiators. There are altogether 16 items (see Table 4.2 for
the items). Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert-type response scale.
Table 4.2 Items of the Subjective Value Inventory (Curhan et al., 2006)
Items
1 How satisfied are you with your own outcome — i.e., the extent to which the
terms of your agreement (or lack of agreement) benefit you?
2 How satisfied are you with the balance between your own outcome and your
counterpart(s)’s outcome(s)?
3 Did you feel like you forfeited or “lost” in this negotiation?
4 Do you think the terms of your agreement are consistent with principles of
legitimacy or objective criteria (e.g., common standards of fairness, precedent,
industry practice, legality, etc.)?
5 Did you “lose face” (i.e., damage your sense of pride) in the negotiation?
6 Did this negotiation make you feel more or less competent as a negotiator?
122
7 Did you behave according to your own principles and values?
8 Did this negotiation positively or negatively impact your self-image or your
impression of yourself?
9 Do you feel your counterpart(s) listened to your concerns?
10 Would you characterize the negotiation process as fair?
11 How satisfied are you with the ease (or difficulty) of reaching an agreement?
12 Did your counterpart(s) consider your wishes, opinions, or needs?
13 What kind of “overall” impression did your counterpart(s) make on you?
14 How satisfied are you with your relationship with your counterpart(s) as a
result of this negotiation?
15 Did the negotiation make you trust your counterpart(s)?
16 Did the negotiation build a good foundation for a future relationship with your
counterpart(s)?
Independent variables
Breadth of LWS international experience. Each negotiation dyad’s breadth of
LWS international experience is the average of the breadth of LWS international
experiences of both negotiators in the dyad. Each participant’s breadth of LWS
international experience is measured by the total number of foreign countries/territories in
which he/she had lived, studied or worked in. For those without any LWS international
experience, they are assigned the value of zero, reflecting zero foreign countries.
Depth of LWS international experience. Each negotiation dyad’s depth of LWS
international experience is the average of the depth of LWS international experiences of
both negotiators in the dyad. Each participant’s depth of LWS international experience is
measured by the total amount of time (in months) that he/she had spent living, studying,
123
or working overseas. For those without any LWS international experience, they are
assigned the value of zero, reflecting zero months.
Cultural distance of LWS international experience. Each negotiation dyad’s
LWS international experience cultural distance is the average of both negotiators’ LWS
international experience cultural distances. I use two ways to capture the cultural distance
dimension of international experience. The first approach is summing up all the cultural
distances of LWS international experience, i.e., the sum of the absolute values of the
cultural distances between each of the foreign countries and the home country of the
participant. The sum of the cultural distances is appropriate because it captures
participants’ entire set of experiences in foreign countries with different cultural distances
from their home country. The second approach is using the largest cultural distance the
participant had experienced in his/her LWS international experiences, i.e., the biggest
absolute value among all the absolute values of the cultural distances between each of the
foreign countries and the home country of the participant. The largest cultural distance is
also suitable because it reflects the greatest extent to which participants’ have been
culturally exposed and challenged during their LWS international experience in terms of
the furthest they have been culturally “stretched”. The ‘sum of cultural distances’ and
‘largest cultural distance’ reveal a different qualitative aspect of participants’ LWS
international experience cultural distance and can have different implications. For
instance, between Robert and Peter, Robert can have a higher score than Peter based on
the ‘sum of cultural distances’ measure and at the same time, have a much lower score
than Peter based on the ‘largest cultural distance’ measure.
124
To calculate cultural distance, I use the formula specified by Konara and Mohr
(2019). They explain that Kogut and Singh's (1988) index is incorrectly specified and
captures the squared cultural distance instead. I rely on Hofstede’s cultural indices
(Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010; Hofstede, 1980) and the values data from the
GLOBE project on all nine dimensions (House et al., 2004) to calculate cultural distance
because they complement each other (resulting in two sets of data for each measure).
Hofstede’s cultural indices encompass a wider range of countries than the Globe study −
104 countries versus 62 countries. On the other hand, Hofstede’s data for 40 of the 104
countries were collected between 1967 and 1973 while the data for the Globe study were
collected in the late 1990s. For participants without any LWS international experience,
they are assigned the value of zero, reflecting absence of LWS international experience,
thus zero cultural distance.
Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience. Each negotiation
dyad’s cultural heterogeneity of their LWS international experience is the average of the
cultural heterogeneity of both negotiators’ LWS international experience. There are two
different cultural frameworks by which countries are categorized based on cultural
differences that are suitable for calculating the cultural heterogeneity of LWS
international experience.
The first one is the 10 clusters of culturally similar countries identified by the
GLOBE study ─ Southern Asia, Latin America, Nordic Europe, Anglo, Germanic
Europe, Latin Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East, and Confucian
Asia (House et al., 2004; Mensah & Chen, 2014). To calculate cultural heterogeneity of
LWS international experience, participants are allotted a score of one if they had one
LWS international experience in a foreign country that is in the same cultural cluster as
125
their home country and they are allocated one more point for each additional country that
is not in any of the cultural clusters where they have received points for countries in those
cultural clusters. If they don’t have any LWS international experience in countries that are
in the same cultural cluster as their home country, they are allocated two points for the
first country that gets counted, and then they are allocated one more point for each
additional country that is not in any of the cultural clusters where they have received
points for countries in those cultural clusters. For participants without any LWS
international experience, they are assigned the value of zero, reflecting absence of LWS
international experience. A higher total score indicates a higher level of cultural
heterogeneity in the participant’s LWS international experience. For this measure.
participants’ scores can range from zero to ten.
The second one is A. K.-Y. Leung and Cohen’s (2011) dignity, face, and honor
cultural types framework. Recent research in negotiations have proposed theoretically
and empirically shown that cultural differences delineated along the lines of these three
cultural types can help explain national cultural differences in the use of negotiation
strategy and their impact on negotiation outcomes (e.g., Aslani et al., 2013, 2016; Yao et
al., 2017). As such, it is apt to calculate the heterogeneity of participants’ international
experience based on these three cultural types.
To calculate cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience based on the
dignity, face, and honor cultural types framework, participants are allotted a score of one
if they had one LWS international experience in a foreign country that is in the same
cultural type category as their home country and they are allocated one more point for
each additional country that is not of the same cultural type as the countries that they
have already received points for. If they don’t have any LWS international experience in
126
countries that are of the same cultural type as their home country, they are allocated two
points for the first country that gets counted, and then they are allocated one more point
for each additional country that is not of the same cultural type as the countries that they
have already received points for. Participants are assigned the value of zero if they do not
have any LWS international experience, reflecting absence of LWS international
experience. A higher total score indicates a higher level of cultural heterogeneity in the
participant’s LWS international experience. With this measure, participants’ score can
range from zero to three.
Breadth of touristic international experience. Each negotiation dyad’s breadth
of touristic international experience is the average of the breadth of touristic international
experiences of both negotiators in the dyad. Each participant’s breadth of touristic
international experience is measured by the total number of foreign countries/territories in
which he/she had travelled there as a tourist. For participants without any touristic
international experience, they are assigned the value of zero, reflecting zero countries.
Depth of touristic international experience. Each negotiation dyad’s depth of
touristic international experience is the average of the depth of touristic international
experiences of both negotiators in the dyad. Each participant’s depth of touristic
international experience is measured by the total amount of time (in days) that he/she had
visited foreign countries as a tourist. For those without any touristic international
experience, they are assigned the value of zero, reflecting zero days.
Cultural heterogeneity of touristic international experience. Each negotiation
dyad’s cultural heterogeneity of their touristic international experience is the average of
the cultural heterogeneity of both negotiators’ touristic international experience. To
calculate participants’ cultural heterogeneity of touristic international experience, I used
127
the same procedure for calculating cultural heterogeneity of LWS international
experience except that the relevant international experiences for this measure are those
where participants had travelled overseas as a tourist. As such, cultural heterogeneity of
touristic international experience has two measures. One uses the GLOBE study’s
cultural clusters framework and the other relies on A. K.-Y. Leung and Cohen’s (2011)
dignity, face, and honor cultural types framework to categorize countries in meaningful
ways to capture the cultural heterogeneity of participants’ touristic international
experience.
Mediators
Intercultural competence. Each negotiation dyad’s intercultural competence is
the average of both negotiators’ intercultural competence. I operationalize intercultural
competence using the construct, quality of communication experience introduced by Liu
et al. (2010). Quality of communication experience is measured using Liu et al.’s (2010)
15-item scale (see Table 4.3 for the items). Each item is measured on a 7-point Likerttype
response scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree). Each negotiation dyad’s
quality of communication experience is the average of both negotiators’ quality of
communication experience.
Liu et al. (2010) conceptualized quality of communication experience as a
threedimensional construct that includes cognitive, behavioral, and affective elements,
specifically the clarity, responsiveness, and comfort that communicators experience
during social interaction. This is consistent with Spitzberg and Changnon’s (2009)
definition of intercultural competence which is about a person’s cognitive, behavioral and
affective abilities to interact effectively and appropriately across cultures. A person’s level
of intercultural competence is manifested in the quality of communication experience that
128
he or she experiences in intercultural interactions. A higher quality of communication
experience during an intercultural negotiation indicates that the negotiator has more
cognitive, behavioral and affective abilities to communicate effectively and appropriately
with the other party, i.e., he or she has a higher level of intercultural competence.
Table 4.3 Items of the Quality of Communication Experience scale (Liu et al., 2010)
Items
1 I understood what the other side was saying.
2 I understood what was important to the other side.
3 We clarified the meaning if there was a confusion of the messages exchanged.
4 I think the other side understood me clearly.
5 The messages exchanged were easy to understand.
6 The other side responded to my questions and requests quickly during the
interaction.
7 The conversation ran smoothly without any uncomfortable silent moments or I
did not notice any uncomfortable silent moments.
8 I was willing to listen to the other side’s perspectives.
9 When the other side raised questions or concerns, I tried to address them
immediately.
10 One or both of us kept silent from time to time.
11 I was nervous talking to the other side.
12 I felt the other side trusted me.
13 I felt the other side was trustworthy.
14 I felt comfortable interacting with the other side.
15 The other side seemed comfortable talking with me.
129
Instead of using a particular model or type of intercultural competence in this
dissertation to operationalize intercultural competence, it is more practical to use quality
of communication experience to operationalize it because quality of communication
experience captures the manifestation of each negotiator’s intercultural competence
during the negotiation. It is more meaningful to do so because it truly reflects the
intercultural competence of the individuals in that specific context and occasion instead
of the negotiators’ perceptions of how interculturally competent they are. Moreover, the
conceptualization and measure of quality of communication experience were theoretically
developed, and empirically validated and tested in the context of negotiations (Liu et al.,
2010). Since this dissertation explores how negotiators’ overall intercultural competence
developed through their international experience can help them achieve better negotiation
outcomes rather than focusing on specific components, indicators, types or models of
intercultural competence, using quality of communication experience to operationalize it
has its advantages and can side-step certain issues. Quality of communication experience
makes it possible to capture the overall intercultural competence of the negotiators
without having to use a certain type or model of intercultural competence, or a certain list
of indicators that may include too many or too few of them. Moreover, instead of relying
on self-reports of negotiators’ intercultural competence, it is more proximal to use their
self-report of their quality of communication experience during the negotiation. This
avoids the issues of social desirability answers and under- or over-estimation of one’s
level of intercultural competence. Compared to more direct measures, self-appraisal tests
are susceptible to response biases, for instance social desirability or acquiescence (Barker
et al., 2005). Such response biases are less likely to occur when answering questions
130
about the quality of communication experience during the negotiation because it is less
personal, the items of the scale to measure it are about what the negotiators experienced
during their negotiation and not about their personal attributes and/or abilities.
Psychological capital. Each negotiation dyad’s psychological capital is the
average of both negotiators’ psychological capital. Participants’ psychological capital is
measured using a 16-item scale which captures all four dimensions of psychological
capital J hope, optimism, resiliency and self-efficacy (Luthans et al., 2007) (see Table
4.4 for the items). Each item is measured on a 7-point Likert-type response scale. (1 =
Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree). The scale used here is an adapted and shorter
version of the original scale. Each dimension is measured by 4 items.
Global identity. Each negotiation dyad’s global identity is the average of both
negotiators’ global identity. Participants’ global identity is measured using the
Global Identity Scale developed and validated by Erez and Shokef (Erez & Gati, 2004;
Shokef & Erez, 2006). There are 5 items in this scale (see Table 4.5 for the items). Each
item is measured on a 7-point Likert-type response scale (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very much).
Moderator
Cultural distance between both negotiators in the negotiation dyad. I used
Konara and Mohr's (2019) cultural distance formula to calculate the cultural distance
between the two negotiators in each dyad based on Hofstede’s cultural indices (Hofstede,
Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010; Hofstede, 1980) and the cultural values data from the
GLOBE project on all nine dimensions (House et al., 2004).
Table 4.4 Items of the Psychological Capital Scale
Items
1 At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my goals.
131
2 Right now, I see myself as being pretty successful.
3 I can think of many ways to reach my current goals.
4 At this time, I am meeting the goals that I have set for myself.
5 In uncertain times, I usually expect the best.
6 I always look on the bright side of things.
7 I'm always optimistic about my future.
8 Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad.
9 I quickly get over and recover from being startled.
10 I am usually able to overcome stressful situations.
11 I am able to bounce back from difficult situations.
12 I get over my anger at someone reasonably quickly.
13 When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them.
14 I am confident that I can perform effectively on many difficult tasks.
15 Compared to other people, I can do most tasks very well.
16 Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well.
Table 4.5 Items of the Global Identity Scale (Erez & Gati, 2004; Shokef & Erez, 2006)
Items
1 I see myself as part of the global international community.
2 I feel a strong attachment towards the world environment I belong to.
3 I would define myself as a citizen of the global world.
4 I relate to people from other parts of the world as if they were close
acquaintances/associates.
132
5 I feel a strong attachment towards people from all around the world.
133
CHAPTER 5
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Chapter 5 describes the data analysis of the empirical study and presents the
results.
Descriptive Statistics, Variable Names and Inter-correlations of Study Variables
Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations among dyad-level variables in
this study are reported in Table 5.1. Some of the variables names in the table have
abbreviations at the end of the name. It is to indicate the data source or framework used
in the calculation of that measure when a variable is measured in more than one way. GV
indicates that the measure uses Globe study’s cultural values indices. H indicates that the
measure uses Hofstede’s indices. GC indicates that the measure uses Globe study’s
cultural clusters classification of culturally similar countries. CT indicates that the
measures uses Leung and Cohen’s (2011) dignity, face, and honor cultural types
framework.
The dependent variables are Economic joint gains, and Joint subjective value. The
independent variables reflecting the four dimensions of LWS international experience are:
Breadth of LWS international experience, Depth of LWS international experience, Sum
of cultural distances of LWS international experience – GV, Sum of cultural distances of
LWS international experience – H, Largest cultural distance of LWS
134
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 .318** .214** .180* .182** 0.011
Table 5.1 Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations among dyad-level variables
Dyad-
level
variable
1 Breadth
of
touristic
internatio
nal
experienc
e
2 Depth of
touristic
internatio
nal
experienc
e
3 Cultural
heterogen
eity of
touristic
internatio
nal
experienc
e – GC
4 Cultural heterogeneity of touristic international experience
– CT
5 Breadth of LWS international experience
6 Depth of LWS international experience
7 Sum of cultural distances of LWS international experience
– GV
M SD
5.17 3.26 .544** .760** .384**
60.07 48.34 .544** 1 .458** .252** .149*
0.028 0.075 0.063 -0.121
3.19 1.20 .760** .458** 1 .623** .362**
.173** .211** .270** 0.021
1.94 0.47 .384** .252** .623** 1 .210**
0.097 0.106 .133* -0.007
137
Dyad -level variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.84 0.46
.318**
.149* .362** .210** 1
.618** .840** .864** .446**
28.45 28.55 .214** 0.028 .173** 0.097 .618**
1 .387** .570** .219**
2.90 1.41 .180* 0.075 .211** 0.106 .840**
.387** 1 .871** .730**
8 Sum of cultural distances
of LWS international
experience – H
2.68 1.50 .182** 0.063 .270** .133* .864** .570** .871** 1 .519**
9 Largest cultural distance
of LWS international
experience – GV
2.44 0.93 0.011 -0.121 0.021 -0.007 .446** .219** .730** .519** 1
10 Largest cultural
distance of LWS
international
experience – H
2.22 0.87 0.032 -0.038 .146* 0.070 .514** .398** .618** .723** .761**
11 Cultural
heterogeneity of
1.35 0.51 .242** 0.049 .281** .152* .774** .509** .761** .750** .744**
Dyad -level variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
LWS international
experience – GC
12 Cultural
heterogeneity of
LWS international
experience – CT
1.24 0.44 0.103 -0.057 .175** 0.112 .579** .376** .610** .591** .803**
13 Quality of
communication
experience –
overall
5.35 0.55 0.105 0.044 0.133 0.098 0.125 .133* 0.010 .142* -0.120
14 Quality of
communication
experience –
Clarity
5.83 0.68 0.107 0.071 .144* 0.119 0.071 0.086 -0.008 0.119 -0.125
138
Dyad -level variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15 Quality of
communication
experience –
Responsivenes
s
5.35 0.62 0.113 0.032 .149* 0.082 .186** .178** 0.008 .168* -0.116
16 Quality of
communication
experience –
Comfort
4.87 0.61 0.045 0.000 0.038 0.045 0.070 0.075 0.023 0.079 -0.074
17 Psychological capital –
overall
5.36 0.55 .161* .156* .186** 0.123 .119* 0.091 0.023 0.081 -0.078
18 Psychological capital –
Hope
5.40 0.75 .134* 0.143 .170** 0.125 0.018 0.046 -0.060 -0.003 -.150*
19 Psychological capital –
Optimism
5.30 0.75 0.092 0.119 0.086 -0.016 0.064 -0.012 0.019 0.038 -0.024
20 Psychological capital –
Resiliency
5.29 0.68 0.104 0.054 .138* .136* .142* 0.111 0.071 0.106 -0.011
21 Psychological capital –
Self efficacy
5.46 0.64 .174** .165* .181** .143* .160** .151* 0.046 .128* -0.057
22 Global identity 4.93 0.90 .190** .160* .243** .133* .255** .185** .146* .210** 0.097
23 Cultural distance
between both
negotiators – GV
4.69 0.58 -.275** -.326** -.230** -.185** -.200** -0.078 .156* .139* .362**
24 Cultural distance
between both
negotiators – H
5.25 0.71 -.178** -.213** -0.130 -.152* -.176** -0.108 0.073 .150* .144*
139
Dyad -level variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
.242** 0.045 .161* .134* 0.092
25 Economic joint gains 2.78 1.62 .149* -0.001 0.118 0.059 .181**
.179** .162* .156** 0.046
26 Joint subjective value 4.92 .48 0.051 -0.097 0.084 0.074 .147*
0.082 0.100 .168* 0.085
Dyad-level variable
1 Breadth of touristic 0.032 0.103 0.105 0.107
0.113
international experience
2 Depth of touristic
international experience
-0.038 0.049 -0.057 0.044 0.071 0.032 0.000 .156* 0.143 0.119
3 Cultural heterogeneity of
touristic international
experience – GC
.146* .281** .175** 0.133 .144* .149* 0.038 .186** .170** 0.086
4 Cultural heterogeneity of
touristic international
experience – CT
0.070 .152* 0.112 0.098 0.119 0.082 0.045 0.123 0.125 -0.016
5 Breadth of LWS international
experience
.514** .774** .579** 0.125 0.071 .186** 0.070 .119* 0.018 0.064
6 Depth of LWS
international experience
.398** .509** .376** .133* 0.086 .178** 0.075 0.091 0.046 -0.012
7 Sum of cultural distances of LWS international experience – H
.618** .761** .610** 0.010 -0.008 0.008 0.023 0.023 -
0.060 0.019
140
10 11 12 13 15 16
.723** .750** .591** .142* .168* 0.079
Dyad-level variable 14 17 18 19
8 Sum of cultural distances 0.119 0.081 -0.003 0.038 of LWS international experience – GV
9 Largest cultural distance of .761** .744** .803** -0.120 -0.125 -0.116 -0.074 -0.078 -.150* -
0.024
LWS international experience
– H
10 Largest cultural distance of 1 .801** .843** 0.067 0.032 0.084 0.057 -0.003 -0.039 0.014
LWS international experience
– GV
11 Cultural heterogeneity of .801** 1 .884** 0.082 0.047 0.120 0.048 0.097 0.029 0.095
LWS international experience
– GC
12 Cultural heterogeneity of .843** .884** 1 0.026 -0.016 0.066 0.019 0.055 0.008 0.081
LWS international experience
– CT
13 Quality of communication 0.067 0.082 0.026 1 .881** .874** .828** .315**
.306** .188** experience – overall
14 Quality of communication 0.032 0.047 -0.016 .881** 1 .677** .574** .305**
.315** .182** experience – Clarity
15 Quality of communication 0.084 0.120 0.066 .874** .677** 1 .587** .277**
.233** .172** experience – Responsiveness
16 Quality of communication experience – Comfort
141
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-0.003 0.097 0.055 .315** .305** .277** .218**
0.057 0.048 0.019 .828** .574** .587**
1 .218** .228** 0.121 Dyad-level
variable 17 18 19
17 Psychological capital – 1 .778** .801**
overall
18 Psychological capital – -0.039 0.029 0.008 .306** .315** .233** .228** .778** 1
.543**
Hope
19 Psychological capital – 0.014 0.095 0.081 .188** .182** .172** 0.121 .801** .543**
1
Optimism
20 Psychological capital – 0.010 0.096 0.054 .230** .191** .237** .159* .741** .319**
.450**
Resiliency
21 Psychological capital – Self 0.010 0.082 0.024 .282** .280** .246** .186** .819** .540** .477** efficacy
22 Global identity .197** .274** .225** .160* 0.098 .184** .132* .420** .353**
.341**
23 Cultural distance between .369** 0.030 .153* -.212** -.182** -.245** -0.125 -.222**
-.292** -0.058 both negotiators – H
24 Cultural distance between .278** -0.036 0.014 -0.056 -0.030 -0.074 -0.046 -0.121 -.166** 0.029 both
negotiators – GV
25 Economic joint gains 0.001 0.105 0.025 -0.002 0.004 0.002 -0.009 0.074 -0.020 0.042
142
20 21 22 23
.174** .190** -.275**
26 Joint subjective value .147* .151* 0.121 .626** .563** .509**
.549** .226** .178** .157*
Dyad-level variable 24 25 26
1 Breadth of touristic international experience 0.104 -.178** .149* 0.051
2 Depth of touristic international experience 0.054 .165* .160* -.326** -.213** -0.001 -0.097
3 Cultural heterogeneity of touristic international
experience – GC
.138* .181** .243** -.230** -0.130 0.118 0.084
4 Cultural heterogeneity of touristic international
experience – cultural types
.136* .143* .133* -.185** -.152* 0.059 0.074
5 Breadth of LWS international experience .142* .160** .255** -.200** -.176** .181** .147*
6 Depth of LWS international experience 0.111 .151* .185** -0.078 -0.108 .179** 0.082
7 Sum of cultural distances of LWS international
experience – H
0.071 0.046 .146* .156* 0.073 .162* 0.1
8 Sum of cultural distances of LWS international
experience –GV
0.106 .128* .210** .139* .150* .156** .168*
9 Largest cultural distance of LWS international
experience – H
-0.011 -0.057 0.097 .362** .144* 0.046 0.085
10 Largest cultural distance of LWS international 0.010 0.010 .197** .369** .278** 0.001 .147*
143
experience – GV
11 Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international
experience – GC
0.096 0.082 .274** 0.030 -0.036 0.105 .151*
12 Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience
– CT
0.054 0.024 .225** .153* 0.014 0.025 0.121
13 Quality of communication experience – overall .230** .282** .160* -.212** -0.056 -0.002 .626**
14 Quality of communication experience – Clarity .191** .280** 0.098 -.182** -0.030 0.004 .563**
24 25 26
15 Quality of communication
experience – -0.074 0.002 .509**
Responsiveness
16 Quality of communication experience – Comfort .159* .186** .132* -0.125 -0.046 -0.009 .549**
17 Psychological capital – overall .741** .819** .420** -.222** -0.121 0.074 .226**
18 Psychological capital – Hope .319** .540** .353** -.292** -.166** -0.02 .178**
19 Psychological capital – Optimism .450** .477** .341** -0.058 0.029 0.042 .157*
20 Psychological capital – Resiliency 1 .600** .279** -.145* -.131* .133* .182**
21 Psychological capital – Self efficacy .600** 1 .340** -.205** -0.120 0.091 .198**
22 Global identity .279** .340** 1 -.158* -.160** 0.038 .139*
23 Cultural distance between both negotiators – H -.145* -.205** -.158* 1 .732** -0.108 -.141*
24 Cultural distance between both negotiators – GV -.131* -0.120 -.160** .732** 1 -.166** -0.08
25 Economic joint gains .133* 0.091 0.038 -0.108 -.166** 1 .098
144
Dyad -level variable 20 21 22 23
.237** .246** .184** -.245**
26 Joint subjective value .182** .198** .139* -.141* -0.080 .098 1
Note. N= 178 – 301 * p < .05 (2-tailed) ** p < .01 (2-tailed)
international experience – GV, Largest cultural distance of LWS international experience
– H, Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience – GC, and Cultural
heterogeneity of LWS international experience – CT. The independent variables reflecting
the dimensions of touristic international experience are: Breadth of touristic international
experience, Depth of touristic international experience, Cultural heterogeneity of touristic
international experience – GC, and Cultural heterogeneity of touristic international
experience – CT. Cultural distance of touristic international experience is not examined in
this study.
The mediators are Quality of communication experience, Psychological capital,
and Global identity. Intercultural competence in the theoretical model presented in
Chapter 3 is operationalized by Quality of communication experience in this empirical
study. Quality of communication experience consists of three dimensions, namely Clarity,
Responsiveness, and Comfort. The study variables related to Quality of communication
experience include Quality of communication experience – overall, Quality of
communication experience – Clarity, Quality of communication experience –
Responsiveness, and Quality of communication experience – Comfort. Psychological
capital has four dimensions. The variables representing Psychological capital and its four
dimensions are Psychological capital – overall, Psychological capital – Hope,
Psychological capital – Optimism, Psychological capital – Resiliency, and Psychological
capital – Self efficacy. The moderators are Cultural distance between both negotiators –
GV, and Cultural distance between both negotiators – H.
145
Effects of LWS International Experience and Touristic International Experience on
Intercultural Negotiation Outcomes
To test hypotheses H1, H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, H2, H2a, H2b, and H2d, I conducted a
series of simple linear regression analyses with economic joint gains and joint subjective
value as dependent variables, and the four dimensions of LWS international experience and
touristic international experience as independent variables. Table 5.2 shows that
intercultural negotiation dyads’ breadth, depth and cultural distance of their LWS
international experience are significantly positively associated with their economic joint
gains. Breadth, cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity of their LWS international
experience are also significantly positively associated with their joint subjective value in
the negotiation. Taken together, these results provide support for hypotheses H1a, H1b,
H1c, H1d. In terms of the influence of touristic international experience on intercultural
negotiation outcomes, only breadth of touristic international experience is significantly
positively related to economic joint gains, supporting H2a. H2b and H2d are unsupported.
H2c is not tested in this study.
Mediation Effects of Intercultural Competence, Psychological Capital and Global
Identity on the Relationship between International Experience and Intercultural
Negotiation Outcomes
Hypotheses H3, H4, H7, H10 and H11, together with all their respective
subhypotheses are about proposing intercultural competence, psychological capital and
global identity as mediators between international experience and intercultural negotiation
outcomes, in one way or another. To test whether intercultural competence
146
Table 5.2 Results of regression analysis for LWS international experience and touristic international experience predicting
intercultural negotiation outcomes
Variable Economic joint gains Joint subjective value
B β B β
LWS international experience
Breadth of LWS international experience
.640**
.181**
.149*
.147*
Depth of LWS international experience .011** .179** .001 .082
Sum of cultural distances of LWS international experience – GV .187* .162* .033 .100
Sum of cultural distances of LWS international experience – H .174** .156** .051* .168*
Largest cultural distance of LWS international experience – GV .080 .046 .043 .085
Largest cultural distance of LWS international experience – H .002 .001 .080* .147*
Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience – GC .330 .105 .138* .131*
Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience – CT .09 .025 .129 .121
Touristic international experience
Breadth of touristic international experience
.075*
.149*
.008
.051
Depth of touristic international experience -3.615E-5 -.001 -.001 -.097
Cultural heterogeneity of touristic international experience – GC .163 .118 .034 .084
Cultural heterogeneity of touristic international experience – CT .208 .059 .078 .074
Note. N= 147 – 301 *p < .05 **p < .01
Each dependent variable is regressed on each independent variable individually.
147
(operationalized by quality of communication experience during intercultural
negotiation), psychological capital and global identity are mediators, I followed Zhao et
al.'s (2010) approach in conducting mediation analysis. They argue that the one and only
requirement to establish mediation is a significant indirect effect a x b, especially using a
bootstrap test (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). To do so, I used the PROCESS macro for SPSS
(Hayes, 2018) to estimate the indirect effects of all the proposed mediation models and
relied on the bootstrapping method to determine whether there is a significant indirect
effect in each of the proposed mediation models. A significant indirect effect suggests
that there is some form of mediation. PROCESS is an observed variable OLS and logistic
regression path analysis modeling tool (Hayes, 2018).
Table 5.3 shows the results of the mediation analysis in which the indirect effects
of the mediation models are determined to be significant using a bootstrapping test. I
excluded those proposed mediation models that did not have significant indirect effects
from the table. I specified bootstrapping to do 10000 times of resampling with
replacement instead of the default 5000 times. I also included a command in the program
for a heteroscedasticity consistent standard error and covariance matrix estimator to be
used so that the data analyses are robust against violations of homocedasticity. I selected
the HC3 method which is recommended for sample sizes less than 250 (Long & Ervin,
2000; MacKinnon & White, 1985). This is important since PROCESS is based on
multiple linear regression which assumes homoscedasticity of the residuals.
Intercultural competence as a mediator
In Table 5.3, the bootstrapping test results indicate that the indirect effects of
negotiation dyads’ breadth, depth, cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity of LWS
148
Table 5.3 Results of mediation analysis for quality of communication experience as a mediator between international experience and
intercultural negotiation outcomes
M Y X Indirect effect
of X on Y
The amount
of mediation
BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI Is there a mediation
effect?
Quality of
communication
experience
Joint
subjective
value
Breadth of LWS
international
experience
.0784 .0351 .0120 .1512 Yes, small effect size but
non-trivial.
Quality of
communication
experience
Joint
subjective
value
Depth of LWS
international
experience
.0013 .0006 .0002 .0025 Yes, but the amount of
mediation is trivial
because it is less than the
small effect size
threshold.
Quality of
communication
experience
Joint
subjective
value
Sum of cultural
distances of LWS
international
experience – H
.0266 .0097 .0088 .0469 Yes, small effect size but
non-trivial.
Quality of
communication
experience
Joint
subjective
value
Cultural
heterogeneity of
LWS
international
experience – GC
.0321 .0161 .0008 .0647 Yes, small effect size but
non-trivial.
149
M Y X Indirect effect
of X on Y
The amount
of mediation
BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI Is there a mediation
effect?
Clarity Joint
subjective
value
Cultural
heterogeneity of
LWS
international
experience – GC
.0313 .0154 .0024 .0624 Yes, small effect size but
non-trivial.
Responsiveness Joint
subjective
value
Breadth of LWS
international
experience
.0939 .0317 .0332 .1577 Yes, medium effect size
Responsiveness Joint
subjective
value
Depth of LWS
international
experience
.0014 .0005 .0004 .0024 Yes, but the amount of
mediation is trivial
because it is less than the
small effect size
threshold.
Responsiveness Joint
subjective
value
Sum of cultural
distances of LWS
international
experience – H
.0255 .0090 .0083 .0436 Yes, small effect size but
non-trivial.
Responsiveness Joint
subjective
value
Cultural
heterogeneity of
LWS
international
experience – GC
.0269 .0126 .0033 .0525 Yes, small effect size but
non-trivial.
Note. N = 147 – 244
150
international experience on their joint subjective value in the negotiation through their
intercultural competence (operationalized by quality of communication experience during
intercultural negotiation) are significant. The effect size, also shown in Table 5.3,
indicates the amount of mediation by the negotiation dyads’ quality of communication
experience. According to Kenny (2018), at least 0.01 but less than 0.09 is a small effect
size, but non-trivial; at least 0.09 but less than .25 is a medium effect size; and at least
0.25 can be considered a large effect size. Hence, the indirect effects of breadth, cultural
distance and cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience on joint subjective
value which is mediated by quality of communication experience is small but non-trivial.
However, the indirect effects of depth of LWS international experience on joint
subjective value which is mediated by quality of communication experience and one of
its dimensions, responsiveness is below the small effect size threshold (Kenny, 2018), i.e.
the amount of mediation is deemed to be trivial. Both statistical significance and practical
significance are important. Therefore, H3a, H3c, H3d are supported while there is no
support for H3b.
The results also show that the mediation effects of the negotiation dyads’ quality
of communication experience is mainly driven by its responsiveness dimension. It should
be noted that the indirect effects of negotiation dyads’ breadth of LWS international
experience on their joint subjective value in the negotiation through the responsiveness
dimension of quality of communication experience is medium. This is notable
considering that all other instances of mediation by quality of communication experience
or any of its dimensions are at most a small effect size.
151
The results did not reveal any significant mediation by intercultural competence
(operationalized by quality of communication experience) in terms of the indirect effects
of negotiation dyads’ touristic international experience on their joint negotiation
outcomes. Thus, H4a, H4b, and H4d are unsupported. H4c is not tested in this study.
Psychological capital as a mediator
In terms of the set of hypotheses associated with negotiation dyads’ psychological
capital as a mediator of the indirect effects of their LWS international experience on their
intercultural negotiation outcomes, as shown in Table 5.4, the results of the bootstrapping
test indicate that the indirect effect of negotiation dyads’ cultural heterogeneity of LWS
international experience on their joint subjective value mediated through their
psychological capital and one of its dimensions, self-efficacy is significant, providing
support for H7d. For both cases, the effect size of the mediation is small but non-trivial
based on Kenny's (2018) effect size determination. H7a, H7b and H7c are unsupported.
The indirect effects of negotiation dyads’ LWS international experience on their joint
subjective value in the negotiation are also significantly mediated by certain dimensions
of psychological capital although not by the overall construct itself. First, both resiliency
and self-efficacy mediate the indirect effects of negotiation dyads’ breadth of LWS
international experience on their joint subjective value in the negotiation with a nontrivial
small effect size. Second, hope mediates the indirect effects of negotiation dyads’ cultural
distance of LWS international experience on their joint subjective value in the
negotiation, also with a non-trivial small effect size. Third, self-efficacy mediates the
indirect effects of negotiation dyads’ depth of LWS international experience on their joint
152
Table 5.4 Results of mediation analysis for psychological capital as a mediator between international experience and intercultural
negotiation outcomes
M Y X Indirect effect
of X on Y
The amount
of mediation
BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI Is there a mediation
effect?
Psychological
capital
Joint
subjective
value
Breadth of
touristic
international
experience
.0060 .0033 .0003 .0132 Yes, small effect size but
non-trivial.
Psychological
capital
Joint
subjective
value
Depth of touristic
international
experience
.0006 .0003 .0001 .0013 Yes, but the amount of
mediation is trivial
because it is less than the
small effect size threshold.
Psychological
capital
Joint
subjective
value
Cultural
heterogeneity of
LWS
international
experience – GC
.0153 .0078 .0026 .0327 Yes, small effect size but
non-trivial.
Hope Joint
subjective
value
Largest cultural
distance of LWS
international
experience – GV
-.0124 .0076 -.0303 -.0007 Yes, small effect size but
non-trivial.
Resiliency Joint
subjective
value
Breadth of LWS
international
experience
.0264 .0156 .0006 .0606 Yes, small effect size but
non-trivial.
153
M Y X Indirect effect
of X on Y
The amount
of mediation
BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI Is there a mediation
effect?
Self-efficacy Joint
subjective
value
Breadth of LWS
international
experience
.0275 .0161 .0015 .0632 Yes, small effect size but
non-trivial.
Self-efficacy Joint
subjective
value
Depth of LWS
international
experience
.0005 .0003 .0001 .0011 Yes, but the amount of
mediation is trivial
because it is less than the
small effect size threshold.
Self-efficacy Joint
subjective
value
Breadth of
touristic
international
experience
.0062 .0036 .0006 .0144 Yes, small effect size but
non-trivial.
Self-efficacy Joint
subjective
value
Depth of touristic
international
experience
.0005 .0003 .0001 .0012 Yes, but the amount of
mediation is trivial
because it is less than the
small effect size threshold.
Self-efficacy Joint
subjective
value
Cultural
heterogeneity of
LWS
international
experience – GC
.0148 .0089 .0019 .0364 Yes, small effect size but
non-trivial.
Note. N = 144 – 277
154
subjective value in the negotiation as indicated by the bootstrap test, but the effect size is
below the small effect size threshold (Kenny, 2018). Contrary to expectations,
psychological capital and one of its dimensions, self-efficacy play a significant mediating
role for the indirect effects of negotiation dyads’ breadth and depth of touristic
international experience on their joint subjective value in the negotiation as shown by the
bootstrapping results in Table 5.4. The amount of mediated indirect effects of breadth of
touristic international experience is considered small but non-trivial. However, the
mediated indirect effect of depth of touristic international experience is less than the
threshold level of a small effect size.
Global identity as a mediator
The results indicate that negotiation dyads’ global identity did not significantly
mediate any indirect effects of their LWS and touristic international experiences on any
of their intercultural negotiation outcomes. Thus, the results did not provide any support
for H10, H10a, H10b, H10d, H11, H11a, H11b, and H11d. H10c and H11c are not tested
in this study.
Relative Influence of LWS versus Touristic International Experience
Relative influence on intercultural competence
To test hypotheses H5a, H5b, and H5d, I conducted a series of regression analyses
with quality of communication experience during intercultural negotiation
(operationalization of intercultural competence) as the dependent variable and two
independent variables, one from LWS international experience and another from touristic
international experience, each of them reflecting the same dimension of international
161
experience. Standardized beta coefficients can be used to compare the relative importance
of predictors. The predictor with a bigger standardized beta coefficient is of greater
relative importance over the other predictor in the regression in predicting the outcome
variable, i.e. it has a stronger influence.
In predicting quality of communication experience during intercultural
negotiation, the standardized beta coefficient of breadth of LWS international experience
is greater than that of breadth of touristic international experience (LWS-B = .115;
Touristic-B = .063). On the other hand, the standardized beta coefficient of depth of
touristic international experience is greater than the standardized beta coefficient of depth
of LWS international experience (Touristic-D = .054; LWS-D = .052) in predicting
quality of communication experience during intercultural negotiation. The standardized
beta coefficient of cultural heterogeneity of touristic international experience is also
greater than that of cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience in predicting
quality of communication experience during intercultural negotiation. Based on Globe
cultural clusters, Touristic-CH = .118 and LWS-CH = .046. Based on Cultural Types,
Touristic-CH = .095 and LWS-CH = .021.
In summary, the results indicate that negotiation dyads’ breadth of LWS
international experience has a stronger positive influence on their intercultural
competence (operationalized by quality of communication experience during intercultural
negotiation) than their breadth of touristic international experience, supporting H5a.
Contrary to H5b and H5d, depth and cultural heterogeneity of negotiation dyads’ touristic
international experience have a stronger positive influence on their intercultural
competence than depth and cultural heterogeneity of their LWS international experience.
162
Thus, H5b and H5d are unsupported. H5c is not tested in this study.
Relative influence on psychological capital
A similar procedure as above is used to test hypotheses H8a, H8b, and H8d with
psychological capital as the dependent variable. H8c is not tested in this study. The
standardized beta coefficients of breadth, depth and cultural heterogeneity of touristic
international experience are all greater than those of LWS international experience
(Touristic-B = .146* and LWS-B = .045; Touristic-D = .174* and LWS-D = .017;
Touristic-CH = .185** and LWS-CH = .002). This means that contrary to H8a, H8b and
H8d, breadth, depth and cultural heterogeneity of intercultural negotiation dyad’s touristic
international experience not only significantly positively influence their psychological
capital, they also play a greater role in their influence on psychological capital compared
to breadth, depth and cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience. Thus, H8a,
H8b, and H8d are all unsupported.
Relative influence on global identity
To test hypotheses H12a, H12b, and H12d, I conducted the same statistical
analysis procedures as above, this time with global identity as the dependent variable.
The standardized beta coefficients of breadth, depth and cultural heterogeneity of LWS
international experience are all greater than those of touristic international experience
(LWS-B = .178** and Touristic-B = .133*; LWS-D = .221** and Touristic-D = .155*;
LWS-CH = .178** and Touristic-CH = .114). These results provide support for H12a,
H12b, and H12d indicating that negotiation dyads’ breadth, depth and cultural
heterogeneity of LWS international experience have a stronger influence on their global
163
identity than breadth, depth and cultural heterogeneity of their touristic international
experience. H8c is not tested in this study.
Moderation Effect of Cultural Distance between Negotiators in the Dyad
To test hypotheses H6, H9, and H13, I conducted hierarchical regression analysis
using mean-centered values of all predictor (quality of communication experience,
psychological capital and global identity) and moderator (cultural distance between
negotiators in each dyad) variables. In the first step, I entered the variable for cultural
distance between negotiators in each dyad (moderator), in the second step I entered the
independent variable (quality of communication experience, psychological capital or
global identity), and finally in the third step, I entered the respective interaction term
between the moderator and the independent variable of the model being tested. The
results show that cultural distance between negotiators in the dyad significantly
moderates the relationship between negotiation dyads’ global identity and their joint
subjective value in the negotiation, but not the relationship between negotiation dyads’
intercultural competence (operationalized by quality of communication experience) and
their joint negotiation outcomes, nor the relationship between negotiation dyads’
psychological capital and their joint negotiation outcomes, providing support for H13 but
not H6 and H9.
The results in Table 5.5 show that as hypothesized, cultural distance between the
negotiators in the dyad significantly moderates the relationship between negotiation
dyads’ global identity and their joint subjective value in the negotiation, such that this
relationship is stronger when cultural distance between the two negotiators in the dyad is
larger. I calculated the cultural distance between the two negotiators in the dyad using
164
both Hofstede’s cultural values indices and Globe study’s cultural values indices. The
results are consistent across both sets of cultural indices.
Table 5.5 Results of regression analysis for cultural distance between negotiators in the
dyad as a moderator of the relationship between negotiation dyads’ global identity and
their joint subjective value in the negotiation
Variable
Cultural distance is
calculated based on
Hofstede’s indices
Cultural distance is
calculated based on Globe
study’s cultural values
indices
B β B β
Step 1:
Cultural distance between
negotiators in each dyad
-.036
-.081
-.065*
-.142*
Δ R2 in Step 1
.007
.020
Step 2:
Cultural distance between
negotiators in each dyad
-.026
-.059
-.055
-.122
Global identity .070 .136 .063 .117
Δ R2 in Step 2
.018
.013
Step 3:
Cultural distance between
negotiators in each dyad
-.046
-.104
-.073*
-.161*
Global identity .073* .142* .067 .123
Cultural distance between
negotiators in each dyad x
Global identity
.077* .152* .089* .168*
Δ R2 in Step 3 .021 .027
R .213 .245
165
R2 .046 .06
Adjusted R2 .032 .046
F 3.353* 4.227**
Note. N= 215-249 * p < .05 ** p < .01
Mean-centered values are used for all predictor and moderator variables.
Graphical representation of the results makes it easier to interpret them. Figures
5.1 and 5.2 depicts the same moderation model, except that one uses Hofstede’s cultural
values indices and the other uses Globe study’s cultural values indices to calculate the
cultural distance between the negotiators in the dyad. As shown in the two figures, when
cultural distance between the negotiators in the dyad is small, the relationship between
negotiation dyad’s global identity and their subjective value of the negotiation is
negative. This means that when cultural distance between the two negotiators is small, a
higher level of negotiation dyads’ global identity results in lower subjective value of the
negotiation. When cultural distance is moderate, this relationship changes direction and
becomes positive, i.e., only when cultural distance between the two negotiators is at least
moderate, then negotiation dyads with a higher level of global identity will have higher
subjective value of the negotiation. The slope of this positive relationship becomes
steeper when cultural distance between the negotiators in the dyad is large, meaning that
the positive effect of negotiation dyads’ level of global identity on their subjective value
of the negotiation is more pronounced when cultural distance between the two negotiators
is large than when it is moderate.
Additional Data Analysis
The data analysis done above focused on testing the set of hypotheses proposed in
Chapter 3. Taking stock of the data analysis done so far, additional data analysis needs to
166
be done to address the following two research questions: (1) How do the various
dimensions of intercultural negotiation dyads’ international experience ─ breadth, depth,
cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity influence their intercultural competence,
psychological capital, and global identity? (2) How do intercultural negotiation dyads’
Figure 5.1 Moderation effect of cultural distance between negotiators in the dyad on the
relationship between negotiation dyads’ global identity and their joint subjective value in
the negotiation (based on Hofstede’s cultural values indices)
167
4.60
4.65
4.70
4.75
4.80
4.85
4.90
4.95
5.00
5.05
5.10
Low Moderate High
Subjective Value
Global Identity
Moderation Effect of Cultural Distance between
Negotiators in the Dyad (H)
Small cultural distance Moderate cultural distance Large cultural distance
Figure 5.2 Moderation effect of cultural distance between negotiators in the dyad on the
relationship between negotiation dyads’ global identity and their joint subjective value in
the negotiation (based on Globe Study cultural values indices)
intercultural competence, psychological capital, and global identity impact their
economic joint gain and joint subjective value in the negotiation? To answer the first
question, I conducted a series of simple linear regression analyses with quality of
communication experience (operationalization for intercultural competence),
psychological capital, and global identity as the dependent variables; and the different
dimensions of LWS international experience and touristic international experience as the
independent variables. In this study, four dimensions of LWS international experience are
examined (breadth, depth, cultural distance and cultural heterogeneity), while only three
dimensions of touristic international experience are included. Cultural distance of
touristic international experience is not examined in this study. Table 5.6 shows that
168
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.80
4.90
5.00
5.10
Low Moderate High
Subjective Value
Global Identity
Moderation Effect of Cultural Distance between
Negotiators in the Dyad (GV)
Small cultural distance Moderate cultural distance Large cultural distance
intercultural negotiation dyads’ depth and cultural distance of their LWS international
experience are significantly positively associated with their quality of communication
experience, i.e., intercultural competence. In terms of the dimensions of quality of
communication experience, the responsiveness dimension is significantly positively
related to breadth, depth and cultural distance of their LWS international experience, and
cultural heterogeneity of touristic international experience. Cultural heterogeneity of
touristic international experience is also significantly positively associated with Clarity.
Hence, negotiation dyads’ quality of communication experience (intercultural
competence) seems to be somewhat positively influenced by their LWS international
experience and a little positively influenced by their touristic international experience.
On the other hand, negotiation dyads’ international experience influence on their
psychological capital displays an opposite pattern from its influence on quality of
communication experience (see Table 5.7). Touristic international experience has a
169
Table 5.6 Results of regression analysis for LWS international experience and touristic international experience predicting quality of
communication experience during intercultural negotiation
Variable
Quality of communication experience
Overall Clarity Responsiveness Comfort
B β B β B β B β
LWS international experience
Breadth of LWS international experience
.146
.125
.101
.071
.245**
.186**
.091
.070
Depth of LWS international experience .02* .133* .002 .086 .004** .178** .002 .075
Sum of cultural distances of LWS international
experience – GV .004 .010 -.003 -.008 .004 .008 .010 .023
Sum of cultural distances of LWS international
experience – H .050* .142* .051 .119 .067* .168* .031 .079
Largest cultural distance of LWS international
experience – GV -.070 -.120 -.087 -.125 -.076 -.116 -.048 -.074
Largest cultural distance of LWS international
experience – H .043 .067 .025 .032 .060 .084 .041 .057
Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international
experience – GC .087 .082 .061 .047 .144 .120 .056 .048
Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international
experience – CT .031 .026 -.024 -.016 .091 .066 .026 .019
164
Variable
Quality of communication experience
Overall Clarity Responsiveness Comfort
B β B β B β B β
Touristic international experience
Breadth of touristic international experience
.019
.105
.024
.107
.023
.113
.009
.045
Depth of touristic international experience .001 .044 .001 .071 .000 .032 -4.911E-6 .000
Cultural heterogeneity of touristic international
experience – GC .058 .133 .079* .144* .075* .149* .019 .038
Cultural heterogeneity of touristic international
experience – CT .110 .098 .169 .119 .107 .082 .057 .045
Note. N = 147 – 244 * p < .05 ** p < .01
Each dependent variable is regressed on each independent variable individually.
Table 5.7 Results of regression analysis for LWS international experience and touristic international experience predicting
psychological capital
Variable
Psychological capital
Overall Hope Optimism Resiliency Self-efficacy
B β B β B β B β B β
LWS international experience
165
166
Breadth of LWS international experience .142* .119* .029 .018 .104 .064 .207 .142 .219** .160**
Depth of LWS international experience .002 .091 .001 .046 .000 -.012 .003 .111 .003* .151*
Sum of cultural distances of LWS
international experience – GV
.009 .023 -0.31 -0.60 .010 .019 .033 .071 .020 .046
Sum of cultural distances of LWS
international experience – H
.030 .081 -.001 -.003 .019 .038 .047 .106 .054* .128*
Largest cultural distance of LWS
international experience – GV
-.046 -.078 -1.21* -.150* -.018 -.024 -.008 -.011 -.039 -.057
Largest cultural distance of LWS
international experience – H
-.002 -.003 -.034 -.039 .013 .014 .008 .010 .007 .010
Cultural heterogeneity of LWS
international experience – GC
.103 .097 .042 .029 .137 .095 .125 .096 .100 .082
Cultural heterogeneity of LWS
international experience – CT
.067 .055 .014 .008 .135 .081 .081 .054 .034 .024
Variable
Psychological capital
Overall Hope Optimism Resiliency Self-efficacy
B β B β B β B β B β
Touristic international experience
Breadth of touristic international
experience
.027*
.161*
.031*
.134*
.021
.092
.021
.104
.034**
.174**
Depth of touristic international
experience
.002* .156* .002 .143 .002 .119 .001 .054 .002* .165*
Cultural heterogeneity of touristic
international experience – GC
.084** .186** .104** .170** .053 .086 .087* .138* .094** .181**
Cultural heterogeneity of touristic
international experience – CT
.142 .123 .197 .125 -.025 -.016 .199* .136* .192* .143*
Note. N= 175 – 277 * p < .05 **p < .01
Each dependent variable is regressed on each independent variable individually.
167
substantial influence on psychological capital while LWS international experience not so
much. Breadth, depth and cultural heterogeneity of their touristic international experience
are all significantly positively related to their psychological capital while only breadth of
LWS international experience is significantly positively associated with their
psychological capital. In terms of the individual dimensions of psychological capital,
negotiation dyads’ international experience has the most effect on self-efficacy.
Selfefficacy has a positive relationship with breadth, depth and cultural distance of LWS
international experience, and breadth, depth and cultural heterogeneity of touristic
international experience. Negotiation dyads’ breadth and cultural heterogeneity of
touristic international experience also positively influences the dimension of hope. On the
other hand, cultural distance of their LWS international experience is negatively related
with hope. For global identity, all dimensions of negotiation dyads’ LWS and touristic
international experiences are positively related to it (see Table 5.8).
To answer the second question, I conducted a series of simple linear regression
analyses with economic joint gains and joint subjective value as the dependent variables
and quality of communication experience (operationalization for intercultural
competence), psychological capital, and global identity as the independent variables.
Table 5.9 shows that intercultural negotiation dyads’ intercultural competence,
psychological capital, and global identity all have a positive impact on their joint
174
subjective value. However, for economic joint gains, only the resiliency dimension of
psychological capital has a positive relationship with it.
Table 5.8 Results of regression analysis for LWS international experience and touristic
international experience predicting global identity
Variable Global identity
B β
LWS international experience
Breadth of LWS international experience
.496***
.255***
Depth of LWS international experience .006** .185**
Sum of cultural distances of LWS international experience –
GV
.091* .146*
Sum of cultural distances of LWS international experience –
H
.126** .210**
Largest cultural distance of LWS international experience –
GV
.093 .097
Largest cultural distance of LWS international experience –
H
.206** .197**
Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience –
GC
.474*** .274***
Cultural heterogeneity of LWS international experience – CT .450*** .225***
Touristic international experience
Breadth of touristic international experience
.051**
.190**
Depth of touristic international experience .003* .160*
Cultural heterogeneity of touristic international experience
– GC
.177*** .243***
Cultural heterogeneity of touristic international experience
– CT
.252* .133*
Note. N= 177 – 280 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
175
Table 5.9 Results of regression analysis for quality of communication experience during
intercultural negotiation, psychological capital and global identity predicting intercultural
negotiation outcomes
Variable Economic joint Joint subjective
value gains
Quality of communication experience† -.005 -.002 .545***
Clarity .010 .004 .398*** .563***
Responsiveness .004 .002 .391*** .509***
Comfort -.024 -.009 .428*** .549***
Psychological capital .215 .175 .187** .226**
Hope -.044 -.020 .110** .178**
Optimism .090 .042 .095* .157*
Resiliency .317* .133* .127** .18**
Self-efficacy .232 .091 .144** .198**
Global identity .068 .038 .073* .139*
Note. Each dependent variable is regressed on each independent variable individually.
N = 224 – 280 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
176
B β B
