Recent years have witnessed the emergence of a number of tests that measure cross-cultural competence; yet to date there is no review of their validity and reliability. This article addresses this gap in the literature. We discuss issues associated with evaluation of the content, construct, and ecological validity of such tests, and review the evidence for 10 tests. We evaluate that evidence, draw conclusions about the tests with the best evidence for ecological validity, and provide recommendations for future research in this area.One important area of research related to cross-cultural competence (3C) involves the development and validation of tests to assess it, which has theoretical import and practical ramifications. Theoretically, they can help to identify the psychological constructs necessary for intercultural adaptation and adjustment, aiding in the creation of models that improve our understanding of this rich and complex phenomenon. Practically such tests can identify goals of intervention, allowing practitioners to design effective training programs and assess efficacy, which are important for organizations and individuals.The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of the available tests of 3C. Although initial efforts to create such tests started decades ago, recently multiple tests have emerged in the literature. To our knowledge, there has not been a review of them published in a peer-reviewed journal; this article fills that gap.We begin by describing issues associated with the creation of tests of 3C, which provide the basis for evaluating their content validity, and then issues associated with establishing their psychometric reliability and validity, which provide the basis for an evaluation of their construct and ecological validities. We review the psychometric evidence of ten 3C tests, aggregating information on each heretofore not assembled in a single place in the literature. We evaluate that evidence, draw conclusions, and give recommendations about future research based on that evaluation.Creating a test of 3C typically begins with the identification of the desirable outcomes to be predicted, the target cultures within which competence is to be demonstrated, and the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other (KSAOs) factors that are necessary to demonstrate competence. Based on this analysis, initial item pools that assess the hypothesized KSAOs are created. The quality of this process is the basis by which evaluations of a test's content validity can occur. Below, we discuss briefly each of these issues as they relate to this review. Identifying Desirable OutcomesIn this literature, outcomes are broadly referred to as adaptation and adjustment. These terms can have different meanings to different researchers and are sometimes used interchangeably. Thus, we make explicit here our definitions of them.Adaptation is the process of altering one's behavior in response to the environment, circumstances, or social pressure. Changing which side of the street on which to drive w...

Rankings of countries on mean levels of self-reported Conscientiousness continue to puzzle researchers. Based on the hypothesis that cross-cultural differences in the tendency to prefer extreme response categories of ordinal rating scales over moderate categories can influence the comparability of self-reports, this study investigated possible effects of response style on the mean levels of self-reported Conscientiousness in 22 samples from 20 countries. Extreme and neutral responding were estimated based on respondents' ratings of 30 hypothetical people described in short vignettes. In the vignette ratings, clear cross-sample differences in extreme and neutral responding emerged. These responding style differences were correlated with mean self-reported Conscientiousness scores. Correcting self-reports for extreme and neutral responding changed sample rankings of Conscientiousness, as well as the predictive validities of these rankings for external criteria. The findings suggest that the puzzling country rankings of self-reported Conscientiousness may to some extent result from differences in response styles.

In cross‐national studies, mean levels of self‐reported phenomena are often not congruent with more objective criteria. One prominent explanation for such findings is that people make self‐report judgements in relation to culture‐specific standards (often called the reference group effect), thereby undermining the cross‐cultural comparability of the judgements. We employed a simple method called anchoring vignettes in order to test whether people from 21 different countries have varying standards for Conscientiousness, a Big Five personality trait that has repeatedly shown unexpected nation‐level relationships with external criteria. Participants rated their own Conscientiousness and that of 30 hypothetical persons portrayed in short vignettes. The latter type of ratings was expected to reveal individual differences in standards of Conscientiousness. The vignettes were rated relatively similarly in all countries, suggesting no substantial culture‐related differences in standards for Conscientiousness. Controlling for the small differences in standards did not substantially change the rankings of countries on mean self‐ratings or the predictive validities of these rankings for objective criteria. These findings are not consistent with mean self‐rated Conscientiousness scores being influenced by culture‐specific standards. The technique of anchoring vignettes can be used in various types of studies to assess the potentially confounding effects of reference levels. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

Emotions can drive intergroup behavior, including intergroup violence. We propose that anger, contempt, and disgust (ANCODI) work together in combination to motivate action, devaluation of the other group, and then elimination of their members. We tested the ANCODI hypothesis by examining speeches given by leaders of extreme political groups prior to major events or rallies that either turned violent (e.g., Kristallnacht in Nazi Germany) or did not (e.g., Gandhi's Salt March in India). Three studies assessed these speeches in the year prior to the critical event and coded for verbal and nonverbal emotional and emotional-appraisal content in references to the nemesis group. Amounts of all three of the ANCODI emotions and their precursor appraisals, in text or video, were elevated 3 months prior to violent events, whereas only anger was elevated prior to nonviolent events. These results suggest that leaders using the ANCODI emotions can generate violence against others, and that identifying this combination prior to an event may facilitate interventions to reduce intergroup violence.