International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 151–157

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Brief report

Cultural intelligence, personality, and cross-cultural

adjustment: A study of expatriates in Japan
Kyle C. Huff ∗ , Pingping Song, Eric B. Gresch
School of Business, Georgia Gwinnett College, 1000 University Center Lane, Lawrenceville, GA 30043, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Cultural Intelligence (CQ) has been theorized as the ability of individuals to adapt effec-
Received 18 June 2013 tively in cross-cultural settings. This study sought to extend the literature by investigating
Received in revised form 12 August 2013
whether CQ accounts for variance in cross-cultural adjustment of expatriates beyond what
Accepted 12 August 2013
is accounted for by the five factor model of personality. Questionnaire responses from
154 expatriates in Japan were analyzed using hierarchical regression. The results indi-
Keywords:
cate that motivational CQ can explain variance in expatriate general, interaction, and work
Cultural intelligence
Cross-cultural adjustment adjustment over and above the five factor model of personality.
Personality Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Expatriates

1. Introduction

With the influence of globalization continuing to expand in today’s business environment, many organizations increas-
ingly rely on expatriates to conduct business abroad. While expatriate assignments are important to organizational
performance and competitiveness, unsuccessful expatriates may be detrimental for the organization’s operations in the
host country (Gregersen & Black, 1990; Zeira & Banai, 1985). In order for an expatriate to successfully fulfill their foreign
assignment, they often need to adjust their attitudes and behaviors to new cultural contexts (Huang, Chi, & Lawler, 2005).
Research has shown, however, that all too often expatriates do not adjust well to the host country and are not successful in
their positions (Caligiuri, 1997).
A growing body of research examines factors believed to impact expatriates’ adjustment to new cultures. Extant literature
on expatriate cross-cultural adjustment has revealed noteworthy findings relating to work, organizational and contextual
factors (e.g., Black & Mendendall, 1990; Huang et al., 2005; Shaffer, Harrison, & Gilley, 1999). Still, the current cross-cultural
adjustment literature is limited and further research is desirable as to discern other predictors of expatriate cross-cultural
adjustment and to increase predictive power.
Cultural Intelligence (CQ) was first advanced by Earley and Ang (2003), defined as an individual’s capability to adapt
effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity. Thus, CQ can explain individual differences in adapting to new
cultural settings. The authors conceptualized CQ as a multidimensional construct including four components: cognitive,
meta-cognitive, motivational and behavioral. The construct of CQ has attracted increasing interest from scholars in areas
including social, cross-cultural and organizational psychology (Konrad, 2006). Recent studies indicate that CQ is related
to a number of important cross-cultural outcomes such as adjustment and task performance (e.g., Ang et al., 2007; Huff,
2013; Kim, Kirkman, & Chen, 2008; Templer, Tay, & Chandrasekar, 2006). Yet the research on CQ is still sparse and further
exploration is needed on its antecedents, outcomes, as well as associations with other related constructs.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 678 407 5842.

E-mail addresses: khuff@ggc.edu (K.C. Huff), psong@ggc.edu (P. Song), egresch@ggc.edu (E.B. Gresch).

0147-1767/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.08.005
152 K.C. Huff et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 151–157

While a significant body of research has examined the association between expatriate personality traits and cross-cultural
adjustment (Black, 1990; Caligiuri, 2000; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985), little is known about the validity of CQ in predicting
expatriate cross-cultural adjustment when personality traits are also considered. This paper seeks to fill this research gap
by testing whether CQ explains variance in cross-cultural adjustment above and beyond personality traits.
This paper contributes to the literature in the following ways. First, it adds to the current CQ literature providing empirical
evidence that is now limited. Second, the paper advances the research on cross-cultural adjustment, shedding light on
how the four CQ dimensions influence the different facets of cross-cultural adjustment. Third, the research contributes to
personality literature, offering greater insight into the current mixed findings about how personality traits impact cross-
cultural adjustment facets. Last, by including both CQ and personality traits in the study, the paper enables us to compare
the relative explanatory power of the two constructs regarding cross-cultural adjustment of expatriates.
Following colleagues in the field of cross-cultural adjustment literature, in this study we refer to cross-cultural adjustment
as the degree to which expatriates are psychologically comfortable and familiar with different aspects of a foreign culture in
the context of expatriate experiences (Black, 1988; Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991). An expatriate that adjusts well feels
comfortable and experiences little stress associated with one’s expatriate assignment in the host country. Prior research
findings generally support the positive relationship between CQ and cross-cultural adjustment (Ang et al., 2007; Chen,
Kirkman, Kim, & Farh, 2010; Huff, 2013; Kim et al., 2008; Lee & Sukoco, 2010; Lin, Chen, & Song, 2012; Templer et al., 2006;
Ward, Fischer, Lam, & Hall, 2009; Ward, Wilson, & Fischer, 2011). However, the extant studies have important limitations. For
example, a number of the studies have used an overall CQ score (Kim et al., 2008; Lee & Sukoco, 2010), an overall adjustment
score (Lee & Sukoco, 2010), a reduced number of CQ factors (Templer et al., 2006), student samples (Ang et al., 2007; Lin
et al., 2012; Ward et al., 2009, 2011), and/or a reduced number of adjustment factors (Ang et al., 2007). As far as we know,
only two publications to date, one of three studies reported by Ang et al. (2007) and Huff (2013), have looked at all four CQ
factors and all three of Black and Stephen’s adjustment factors with a non-student sample. These studies also have mixed
findings (e.g., only one of the two of them demonstrated that behavioral CQ predicted adjustment). Therefore, additional
research is needed to better understand the connections between CQ and cross-cultural adjustment.

1.1. CQ and personality

A significant body of literature has examined the relationship between personality traits and expatriate outcomes. The
meta-analysis conducted by Mol, Born, Willemsen, and Van Der Molen (2005) found that personality traits are signifi-
cantly related to expatriate performance. Recent studies also found that personality traits impact cross-cultural adjustment
dimensions (e.g., Peltokorpi, 2008; Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, and Ferzandi, 2006).
Research has found that personality and CQ are distinct although related constructs; each associated with its own unique
set of individual differences (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006). While personality characteristics are trait-like individual dif-
ferences that describe broad and stable predispositions, CQ is state-like individual differences that describe malleable
capabilities, skills and behaviors to deal effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity (Ang et al., 2006).
However, very limited research has empirically investigated both constructs simultaneously regarding their impacts on
cross-cultural adjustment, with mixed findings. While some studies found that CQ explained additional variance beyond
personality traits in predicting cross-cultural adjustment (Ang et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2008), others reported non-significant
findings (Ward et al., 2009). We expect that CQ can explain additional variance relating to cross-cultural adjustment beyond
that explained by personality factors:

H1. CQ explains general, interaction, and work adjustment above and beyond the Big Five personality factors.

1.2. CQ and cross-cultural adjustment

The cognitive component of CQ relates to an individual’s knowledge of specific norms, practices and conventions in
a foreign country (Earley & Ang, 2003). It is the general knowledge and fundamental principles about the new culture,
such as how much a person knows about the legal and economic systems, the rules of the foreign language, non-verbal
communications as well as cultural values and religious beliefs.
Ang et al. (2007) found that cognitive CQ improves decision making in simulations of cross-cultural interactions although
studies have not found a relationship between cognitive CQ and interaction adjustment (Ang et al., 2007; Huff, 2013; Kim
et al., 2008; Ward et al., 2009, 2011). When an individual understands the rules or expectations of the culture, she can
behave and communicate in ways that are accepted in the culture, which in turn improves the ability of the individual to
interact appropriately with other people in the culture. Thus we expect that cognitive CQ will be positively associated with
interaction adjustment:

H2. Cognitive CQ will be positively related to interaction adjustment.

Meta-cognitive CQ reflects the processes individuals use to acquire and understand cultural knowledge. According to
Ng and Earley (2006), meta-cognitive CQ is an individual’s cultural awareness during interactions with people in different
cultural setting, involving cognitive strategies to acquire and develop coping strategies. Individuals with high meta-cognitive
CQ are aware of cultural differences, and they effectively learn about the new culture and also how to act appropriately in
 K.C. Huff et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 151–157 153

various situations, including social interactions and work environment. Prior research has demonstrated that metacognitive
CQ is related to adjustment (Kim et al., 2008), job performance and cultural judgment and decision making tasks (Ang
et al., 2007). Thus we expect that higher meta-cognitive CQ will lead to higher levels of interaction adjustment and work
adjustment:

H3. Meta-cognitive CQ will be positively related to interaction and work adjustment.

Motivational CQ refers to an individual’s drive to learn about and function in other cultural settings. It is an individual’s
intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy to engage in cross-cultural experiences. Individuals with high motivational CQ are
more open and tend to persist in continuous adaptation to a new culture for both work and non-work situations. In line with
prior CQ research that proposes that motivational CQ positively impacts cross-cultural adjustment (Ang et al., 2007; Chen,
Liu, & Portnoy, 2012; Huff, 2013; Kim et al., 2008; Templer et al., 2006), we expect that motivational CQ will be positively
related to all three facets of cross-cultural adjustment:

H4. Motivational CQ will be positively related to general, interaction, and work adjustment.

Behavioral CQ refers to an individual’s flexibility in demonstrating appropriate actions when interacting with people
from different cultural backgrounds. Ang et al. (2007) found that behavioral CQ is positively associated with general, work,
and interactional adjustment. Behavioral CQ is the capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions when
interacting with people in a cross-cultural setting. The ability to take appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions enables an
individual to effectively communicate with people particularly those from different cultural background. Since interpersonal
communication can be an important part of work, it should also influence the extent that someone becomes adjusted to a
cross-cultural work setting. Thus we propose the following hypothesis:

H5. Behavioral CQ will be positively related to interaction and work adjustment.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample used in this study was drawn from participants in the Japanese Exchange and Teaching (JET) program operated
by the Japanese government. This study included only those in either Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) or Coordinator for
International Relations (CIR). ALT positions comprise over 90% of the JET positions. The jobs responsibilities of the ALT position
primarily consist of assisting Japanese teachers teach English and do not require Japanese proficiency. The CIR position
represents less than 10% of the total JET participants. The major duties of the position involve translation/interpretation for
local government officials, preparing pamphlets in English or Japanese, advising/arranging international exchange programs,
and teaching English to members of the local government or community and therefore require a functional command of
Japanese.
Although different from traditional expatriates who are sent by an organization, the JETs represent a subgroup of expa-
triates referred to as self-initiated expatriates (SIEs). SIEs are individuals who make the decision themselves to work abroad.
Prior research has found that SIEs report higher levels of interaction adjustment than traditional expatriates (Peltokorpi
& Froese, 2009). Prior research has also found that JETs have challenges adjusting to work like traditional expatriates
(Komisarof, 2010).
Data for this study was collected from 203 participants; however 51 participants were excluded due to missing data,
leaving 152 for analysis. Of this sample, the mean age was 24.87 years, and 30.6% were male. All participants had been
in Japan between 1–49 months at the time of the survey, and 55.4% were on their first assignment. Participants in ALT
positions comprised 86.0% of the sample. Nationalities of participants included the United States (74.5%), Canada (6.4%),
Australia (5.7%), England (4.5%), South Africa (3.8%), New Zealand (2.5%), Singapore (1.2%), and Belgium (0.6%).

2.2. Measures

This study used 6 control variables, 9 predictor variables, and 3 criterion variables. Control variables included age, gender,
length of time in Japan, Japanese language ability, position, and cultural distance. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics.
Japanese language ability was assessed using a single self-report item. Cultural distance was measured using the formula
developed by Kogut and Singh (1988). The predictor variables included the Big Five personality factors and the four CQ
constructs.
The Big Five personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and intellect/imagination)
were measured by the Mini-IPIP Scales. The Mini-IPIP is a 20 item questionnaire that has been found to be consistent with
other established personality measurement models (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006).
CQ was measured by the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS). Developed by Ang et al. (2007), it consists of 20 items that
measure the four cultural intelligence factors; meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ. Initial reliability
estimates range from .70 to .88 for Metacognitive CQ, .8–.88 for Cognitive CQ, .71–.81 for Motivational CQ, and .82–.87 for
behavioral CQ.
 154
K.C. Huff et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 151–157
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

Mean STD Alpha GA IA WA Age Live Lang CD N E I A C MCCQ CCQ BCQ MOCQ

GA 26.97 4.52 0.79

IA 14.43 3.67 0.87 0.59
WA 15.10 2.88 0.83 0.58 0.47
Age 24.89 3.40 – 0.34 0.16 0.20
Live 11.64 13.80 – 0.41 0.36 0.36 0.35
Lang 1.96 1.02 – 0.24 0.37 0.12 −0.08 0.35
CD 3.20 0.44 – 0.07 −0.02 0.06 −0.06 −0.06 −0.06
N 9.90 3.32 0.75 −0.25 −0.28 −0.17 −0.07 0.05 −0.06 −0.07
E 13.20 3.79 0.85 0.03 0.09 0.12 −0.02 −0.04 −0.07 0.06 −0.21
I 16.75 2.79 0.73 0.14 0.34 0.14 0.13 0.06 0.15 −0.06 −0.15 0.07
A 16.79 2.62 0.71 −0.03 0.05 0.02 0.02 −0.04 −0.02 0.03 −0.06 0.25 0.27
C 14.08 3.30 0.77 0.17 0.02 0.14 0.13 −0.09 −0.08 −0.01 −0.04 −0.03 −0.01 0.13
MCCQ 16.73 2.21 0.74 0.06 0.12 0.07 0.07 −0.08 0.02 −0.06 −0.04 0.26 0.16 0.21 0.15
CCQ 20.55 3.67 0.72 0.19 0.36 0.16 0.07 0.14 0.36 −0.04 −0.09 0.14 0.23 0.12 0.02 0.41
BCQ 20.84 3.05 0.74 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.08 0.11 0.05 0.12 −0.02 0.33 −0.02 0.18 0.00 0.48 0.30
MOCQ 21.46 2.85 0.77 0.49 0.41 0.36 0.11 0.03 0.01 −0.02 −0.31 0.37 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.34 0.24 0.31

Notes: Correlations in bold have p < .05, n = 155. GA, general adjustment; IA, interaction adjustment; WA, work adjustment, Live, length of time the JET has lived in Japan; Lang, Japanese language proficiency; CD,
cultural distance score; N, neuroticism; E, extraversion; I, intellect; A, agreeableness; C, conscientiousness; MCCQ, metacognitive CQ; CCQ, Cognitive CQ; BCQ, behavioral CQ; and MOCQ, motivational CQ.
 K.C. Huff et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 151–157 155

Table 2
Regression beta weights, F values, and r2 values.

GA IA WA

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Age 0.238 0.186 0.173 0.078 0.021 0.001 0.078 0.032 0.022
Gender −0.118 −0.055 −0.04 −0.127 −0.039 −0.03 −0.065 −0.029 −0.018
Position 0.039 0.086 0.149 −0.058 0.001 0.03 −0.178 −0.149 −0.117
Length of Stay 0.233 0.295 0.252 0.204 0.265 0.235 0.319 0.367 0.344
Language 0.143 0.103 0.089 0.303 0.228 0.167 0.095 0.07 0.047
Cultural Distance 0.133 0.114 0.123 0.032 0.014 0.013 0.113 0.1 0.106

Neuroticism −0.216 −0.118 −0.214 −0.154 −0.111 −0.055

Extraversion 0.031 −0.123 0.064 −0.059 0.115 0.021
Intellect 0.052 −0.009 0.248 0.196 0.077 0.035
Agreeableness −0.076 −0.104 −0.03 −0.057 −0.031 −0.049
Conscientiousness 0.184 0.09 0.057 −0.002 0.169 0.114

Metacognitive CQ −0.084 −0.074 −0.048

Cognitive CQ −0.021 0.139 0.038
Behavioral CQ 0.066 0.083 0.033
Motivational CQ 0.502 0.303 0.287

r2 0.257 0.337 0.516 0.221 0.339 0.436 0.17 0.23 0.292

r2 0.08 0.179 0.118 0.097 0.06 0.062
F 8.415 6.515 9.756 6.902 6.573 7.065 4.983 3.834 3.769
F 3.403 12.714 5.035 5.904 2.208 2.994
df 6, 146 11, 141 15, 137 6, 146 11, 141 15, 137 6, 146 11, 141 15, 137

Note: Values in bold are significant at p < .05, Gender was coded as males were 0 and females were 1, Position was coded as ALTs were 0 and CIRs were 1.

The dependent variables used in this study were general adjustment, interaction adjustment, and work adjustment, as
developed by Black and Stephens (1989). Their questionnaire has 14 items in total. The reliabilities for the three scales
range from .82 to .91. Since the JET positions involve job responsibilities with standards and expectations, the use of these
adjustment scales is appropriate.

2.3. Procedures

Advertising for this study included a posting on the JET electronic message board and an e-mail sent by CLAIR inviting
JET participants to take the survey. Once logged in to the system, participants first read over an informed consent form and
then completed the survey.

3. Results

Hierarchical regression was utilized in this study. In the first block, the six control variables were entered. For the second
block, the five personality variables were entered. Finally, the four CQ scores were entered in the last block. Gender and
position were dummy coded since they were binary variables. Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates are in Table 1.
Separate analyses were conducted for the three dependent variables: general, interaction, and work adjustment.
The regression results are presented in Table 2. The addition of CQ step three added a significant increase to the amount
of variance accounted for over the control variables and the personality factors for the prediction of the three types of
adjustment, providing support for Hypothesis 1. Further analysis revealed that only motivational CQ was significantly related
to all three types of adjustment, providing support for hypothesis 4. Hypotheses 2, 3, and 5 were not supported. Finally, length
of time in Japan was significant in predicting all three types of adjustment.

4. Discussion

This study provided support for several of our hypotheses, advancing our understanding of the relationship between cul-
tural intelligence and expatriate adjustment. Particularly noteworthy is our finding that motivational CQ explained variance
for all three types of expatriate adjustment beyond that explained by the five factor model of personality.
Our findings support the argument that motivational CQ is important for expatriate adjustment in cross-cultural settings.
The greater a person’s motivational CQ, the greater the effort and energy that person will exert to adjust. As a result, the
likelihood that the expatriate will be successful in their assignment should increase. This finding provides further support
to recent research on the relationship between CQ and cross-cultural adjustment.
However, meta-cognitive, cognitive, and behavioral CQ components were not found to be significant predictors of cross-
cultural adjustment. In this study, we used the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) (Ang et al., 2007), which is currently the
only developed measure of CQ. However the CQS has two potential shortcomings that may have influenced these results.
First, the CQS is relatively short so it may not fully capture the knowledge, skills, and abilities associated with CQ. Second,
156 K.C. Huff et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 151–157

since it is a self-report questionnaire, it may not be the best way to assess metacognitive, cognitive, and behavioral CQ. If
true, then using alternative ways to measure these CQ factors, such as those proposed by Thomas et al. (2008), could lead to
different results.
In addition, length of time in Japan is found significant for the prediction of general, interaction, and work adjustment.
Investigation of Table 1 reveals that length of time is not correlated with any of the CQ variables. Therefore, we conclude that
while length of time is an important factor in adjustment, it does not appear to be directly related to CQ scores. This finding
is consistent with prior research investigating CQS scores (Huff & Ho, 2010) and adjustment (Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison,
Shaffer, & Luk, 2005) over time.
Our study has several implications for both theory and practice. First, the results of this study add to the growing body
of evidence that motivational CQ in particular is able to predict multiple types of cross-cultural adjustment. In addition, the
results of this study lend support to the initial assertion by Ang et al. (2006) that CQ is distinct from Big Five personality.
This study also has implications for practitioners in terms of the selection and training of expatriates. As our and other
research studies have demonstrated, CQ plays an important role in successful expatriate adjustment, which in turn, impacts
performance (Ang et al., 2007; Chen, Lin, & Sawangpattanakul, 2011; Kim et al., 2008; Lee & Sukoco, 2010; Mol et al.,
2005). Therefore, to increase the probability of expatriate success, one strategy organizations can adopt would be to select
candidates based on cultural intelligence. Another strategy that organizations can use is to train expatriates to improve
their CQ. This training could take place before and/or during their overseas assignment. Results from our study suggest that
the most effective training should focus on improving motivational CQ. If some expatriates are found with low CQ after
training, the organization should reconsider the person for the assignment. Recent research has started to investigate the
effectiveness of different CQ training strategies (Fischer, 2011; MacNab, 2012; MacNab & Worthley, 2012).

4.1. Limitations, and future directions, and conclusions

One limitation of this study is the exclusive use of self-report measures. It would have been ideal to include supervisor
assessment of expatriate adjustment in our study, but this was not possible due to constraints placed on the data collection
by CLAIR. Future research into CQ should include measures other than self-report. These measures could be completed by
supervisor or spouse.
Another limitation was the use of a concurrent validity research design as opposed to a predictive validity research design.
In fact, this is a shortcoming of most of the CQ literature since it is difficult to identify and assess an individual before they
leave for an assignment. Future predictive validity research could provide additional insights into the nature of expatriate
adjustment.
The results of this study support the usefulness of CQ in predicting adjustment in cross-cultural settings. This research
adds to the literature by demonstrating the strength of the relationship between CQ and cross-cultural adjustment in an
expatriate population when controlling for personality.

References

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. Group and Organization Management, 31,
100–123.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., et al. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision
making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3, 335–371.
Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk, D. M. (2005). Input-based and time-based models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic
evidence and theoretical extensions. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 257–281.
Black, J. S. (1988). Work role transitions: A study of American expatriate managers in Japan. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 277–294.
Black, J. S. (1990). The relationship of personal characteristics with adjustment of Japanese expatriate managers. Management International Review, 30,
119–134.
Black, J. S., & Mendendall, M. E. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness A review and theoretical framework. Academy of Management Review, 15,
113–136.
Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M. E., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical
perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 16, 291–317.
Black, J. S., & Stephens, G. K. (1989). The influence of the spouse on American expatriate adjustment and intent to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments.
Journal of Management, 15(4), 529–544.
Caligiuri, P. M. (1997). Assessing expatriate success: Beyond just being there. In D. M. Saunders, & Z. Aycan (Eds.), New Approaches to Employee Management
(pp. 117–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The five big personality characteristics as predictors of expatriates’ desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated
performance. Performance Psychology, 53(1), 67–88.
Chen, A. S., Lin, Y., & Sawangpattanakul, A. (2011). The relationship between cultural intelligence and performance with the mediating effect of culture
shock: A case from Philippine laborers in Taiwan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(2), 246–258.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kim, K., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). When does cross-cultural motivation enhance expatriate effectiveness? A multi-level investigation
of the moderating roles of subsidiary support and cultural distance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1110–1130.
Chen, X., Liu, D., & Portnoy, R. (2012). A multilevel investigation of motivational Cultural Intelligence, organizational diversity climate and cultural sales:
Evidence from U.S. real estate firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 93–106.
Council for Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR). (2009a). General information handbook. Retrieved 6.08.09 from
http://www.jetprogramme.org/
e/current/publications.html
Council for Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR). (2009b). JET program. Retrieved 5.08.09 from http://www.jetprogramme.org/
e/introduction/index.html
 K.C. Huff et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 151–157 157

Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny yet effective measures of the Big five factors of personality.
Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fischer, R. (2011). Cross-cultural training effects on cultural essentialism beliefs and cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35,
767–775.
Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (1990). A multifaceted approach to expatriate retention in international assignments. Group and Organization Studies, 15,
461–485.
Huang, T., Chi, S., & Lawler, J. J. (2005). The relationship between expatriates’ personality traits and their adjustment to international assignments.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 1656–1670.
Huff, K. (2013). Language, cultural intelligence, and expatriate success. Management Research Review (advance online publication).
Huff, K., & Ho, C. (2010). The Influence of Cross-Cultural Experience on CQ. In Paper presented at the American Psychological Association San Deigo, CA.
Kim, K., Kirkman, B. L., & Chen, G. (2008). A process model of cultural intelligence on expatriate job performance. In Paper presented at the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology San Francisco.
Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 411–432.
Komisarof, A. (2010). Five keys to improving assistant language teacher and Japanese teacher relations in the JET program. RJIS, 18(2), 1–9. Retrieved from
25.07.13 from: https://reitaku.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository uri&item id=197&file id=22&file no=1
Konrad, A. M. (2006). Editorial comment. Group and Organizational Management, 31(3), 419.
Lee, L., & Sukoco, B. M. (2010). The effects of cultural intelligence on expatriate performance: The moderating effects of international experience. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(7), 963–981.
Lin, Y-c., Chen, A. S-y., & Song, Y-c. (2012). Does your intelligence help to survive in a foreign jungle? The effects of cultural intelligence and emotional
intelligence on cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 541–552.
MacNab, B. R. (2012). An experiential approach to cultural intelligence education. Journal of Management Education, 36(1), 66–94.
MacNab, B. R., & Worthley. (2012). Individual characteristics as predictors of cultural intelligence development: The relevance of self-efficacy. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 62–71.
Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. R. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A review. Academy of Management Review, 19, 39–47.
Mol, S. T., Born, M. Ph., Willemsen, M. E., & Van Der Molen, H. T. (2005). Predicting, expatriate job performance for selection purposes; a quantitative review.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(5), 590–620.
Ng, K. Y., & Earley, P. C. (2006). Culture + Intelligence: Old constructs, new frontiers. Group and Organization Management, 31(1), 4–19.
Peltokorpi, V. (2008). Cross-cultural adjustment of expatriates in Japan. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(9), 1588–1606.
Peltokorpi, V., & Froese, F. J. (2009). Organizational expatriates and self-initiated expatriates: Who adjusts better to work life in Japan? The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 1096–1112.
Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., & Gilley, K. M. (1999). Dimensions, determinants and differences in the expatriate adjustment process. Journal of International
Business Studies, 30, 557–581.
Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gregerson, H., Black, J. S., & Ferzandi, L. A. (2006). You can take it with you: Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 109–125.
Templer, K., Tay, C., & Chandrashekar, N. A. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview and cross-
cultural adjustment. Group and Organization Management, 31, 154–171.
Thomas, D. C., Elron, E., Stahl, G., Ekelund, B. Z., Ravlin, E. C., Cerdin, J. L., et al. (2008). Cultural intelligence: Domain and assessment. International Journal of
Cross-cultural Management, 8(2), 123–143.
Ward, C., Fischer, R., Lam, R. S. Z., & Hall, L. (2009). The convergent, discriminant, and Incremental Validity of scores on a self-report measure of cultural
intelligence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(1), 85–105.
Ward, C., Wilson, J., & Fischer, R. (2011). Assessing the predictive validity of cultural intelligence over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 138–142.
Zeira, Y., & Banai, M. (1985). Selection of expatriate-managers in multinational corporations: The host environment point of view. International Studies of
Management and Organization, 15, 33–51.