The Effect of Multicultural Experience in Conflicts Management Styles: Mediation of Cultural Intelligence and Self-Monitoring

Abstract

Conflict is an inevitable reality both in personal and in organizational life. For being inevitable, the conflict must be managed Defined as a process that occurs when one party feels adversely affected by another (e.g., De Dreu, 1997 the conflict management styles can be analysed as a function of personality variables. In this respect the cultural intelligence, self-monitoring and self-interdependent seem to be relevant variables, since characterised by flexibility and interest in other aspects present in conflict management styles. In this study, we propose that cultural intelligence, associated with the self-interdependent and self-monitoring, can have a positive impact on the choice of most effective interpersonal conflict resolution styles. Being cultural intelligence an attribute of extreme importance, we still sought to determine how the quantity and quality of intercultural contact and self-interdependent
present themselves as predictors of it. With a sample of 399 individuals, the proposed model suggests that high levels of cultural intelligence mediated by a high self-monitoring and self interdependent positively affect and predict the conflict resolution styles adopted. Given the need to develop abilities aimed at increasing the skills of conflict resolution, this study adds to the existing literature new predictors, contributing to the welfare and performance of human resources, and consequently to success and organizational effectiveness.

Full text

THE EFFECT OF MULTICULTURAL EXPERIENCE IN
CONFLICTS MANAGEMENT STYLES: MEDIATION OF
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE AND SELF-MONITORING
Gabriela Gonçalves
Marta Reis
Cátia Sousa
Joana Santos
Alejandro Orgambídez-Ramos
ABSTRACT
Conflict is an inevitable reality both in personal and in organizational life. For being inevitable,
the conflict must be managed Defined as a process that occurs when one party feels adversely
affected by another (e.g., De Dreu, 1997 the conflict management styles can be analysed as
a function of personality variables. In this respect the cultural intelligence, self-monitoring
and self-interdependent seem to be relevant variables, since characterised by flexibility and
interest in other aspects present in conflict management styles. In this study, we propose
that cultural intelligence, associated with the self-interdependent and self-monitoring, can
have a positive impact on the choice of most effective interpersonal conflict resolution
styles. Being cultural intelligence an attribute of extreme importance, we still sought to
determine how the quantity and quality of intercultural contact and self-interdependent
present themselves as predictors of it. With a sample of 399 individuals, the proposed model
suggests that high levels of cultural intelligence mediated by a high self-monitoring and self-
interdependent positively affect and predict the conflict resolution styles adopted. Given
the need to develop abilities aimed at increasing the skills of conflict resolution, this study
adds to the existing literature new predictors, contributing to the welfare and performance
of human resources, and consequently to success and organizational effectiveness.
Keywords: Cultural Intelligence, Multiculturality, Conflict Management Styles, Self-
Monitoring
JEL Classification: J24
1. INTRODUCTION
Characterized by the perception of interests, goals or opposing values (Putnam & Poole,
1987), the conflict is present in any type of social interaction. And, as the social interactions
are becoming more complex, the greater the number of conflicting situations (Serrano, 2000,
as cited in Cunha, Rego, Cunha, & Cabral-Cardoso, 2005). This is because all societies are
characterized by a domestic multiculturalism. Domestic multiculturalism is related to the
fact of individuals from the same society don’t have the same qualities, as people differ in
biological, physical and socio-cultural terms (Polat & Mettin, 2012). When we reflect on
the interpersonal differences, the most common to occur are the identity, as the experiences,
beliefs, age, gender, religion, social class, physical skills, professional experience, education

The Effect of Multicultural Experience in Conflicts Management Styles
5
level, family and political and economic trends (Foxman & Easterling 1999). And it is the
perception of these differences, or rather, this domestic multiculturalism, that is often at
the root of conflicting situations. Culture, defined as a set of contents, modes of thought
and behaviours (e.g., language, history, religion, customs, values) transmitted through the
process of socialization (Almeida, 2012) is not assimilated in the same way by all individuals.
Different perceptions of the same reality, different experiences, shape individuals, this is
because the personality is influenced by the correlation between heredity and the environment
where the individual is inserted. Thus, each individual will present different preferences or
a bias in the way of conducting a conflict situation. That is, the strategic guidelines and the
behaviours adopted by an individual depend on their personality characteristics (Cunha et
al., 2005). The effectiveness of cultural intelligence, although addressed mostly in relation
to multicultural contexts, is an attribute that can and must be parsed as a predictor of
everyday situations, which do not necessarily imply a context characterized by cultural
diversity. Thus, it is our objective to analyse the styles of conflict management in the light
of cultural intelligence. Cultural intelligence, characterized as a competence that increases
the communicational effectiveness, performance, flexibility, satisfaction and adaptability to
various situations, (e.g., Earley & Ang, 2003; Malek & Budhwar, 2013; Van Dyne, Ang, &
Nielsen, 2007) will certainly have a positive influence on the adoption of the most effective
styles depending on the type of conflict and depending on the characteristics of the other
party involved. Moreover, personality is an antecedent of cultural intelligence (Earley &
Ang, 2003), so the personality traits self-monitoring and self-dependent, when associated
with cultural intelligence, may serve as predictors of positive conflict management. Firstly,
because a high self-monitoring allows individuals to change their behaviour depending on
the environment where they are (Snyder, 1974), secondly because the self-interdependent
leads individuals to behaviours that emphasize their connection with others, strengthening
existing relationships (Cross, Bacon, & Moris, 2000).
At the same time, the demand for high standards of multicultural competence
(see Littrell & Salas, 2005; Morris & Robie, 2001) has become an extremely important
factor for organizations, thus attributes like cultural intelligence begin gaining ground as
core competencies. Some investigations have pointed to a positive relationship between
intercultural contact and cultural intelligence (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006; Crowne, 2008;
Gelfand, Imai, & Fehr, 2008). In addition, the intercultural contact is closely related to
the concept of cultural intelligence (Earley & Ang, 2003) and theoretically, it is a notable
precursor of it (Gelfand et al., 2008). As such it will be able to function as a predictor of
cultural intelligence and its dimensions. In this way, it is also our goal to seek to understand
how the quantity and quality of intercultural contact associated with the self-interdependent
construct affect the levels of cultural intelligence.
Conflict management is a critical competence not only at the organizational level
(Adler, 2008; Cai & Drake, 1998; Imai & Gelfand, 2010) but also at the social level.
Cultural intelligence and the use of appropriate and effective conflict resolution strategies,
have become of utmost importance, so the identification of predictors of both concepts
become relevant to the social and organizational world.
2. CONFLICTS MANAGEMENT STYLES
The conflict is “a perceived or real incompatibility of values, expectations, processes or
outcomes between one or more parties on practical and/or relational issues “ (Ting-Toomey,
1994, p. 360). People are in conflict when the actions of a person interfere, block or, in
any way, make the behaviour of someone else less effective (Tjosvold, 1997, p. 24). The

Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Volume III, Issue 1
6
strategies used to deal with the conflict can be categorized according to the way in which two
variables intersect themselves: desire to satisfy the interests of the counterparty, and desire to
satisfy own interests (Cunha et al., 2005). From this intersection result five styles of conflict
management (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979):
integrating, avoiding, dominating, compromising, obliging. These authors identify each style
of conflict management as a function of the degree of concern with self and the degree of
concern with the others. The style integrating refers to a high concern with others and self.
The focus of this style is cooperation, this being the most effective in conflict resolution. You
seek the win/win situations in which the issues are discussed and resolved for the benefit of
both parties. The views of the parties can be combined into a more comprehensive solution
and consensus on the commitment. The avoiding style refers to low concern with self and
the other - the individual seeks to avoid conflict and may even delay the matter until a more
suitable occasion or can withdraw from the ominous scenario. The dominating style refers
to a high concern with self and a low concern with the other. It is a style associated with
authoritarianism, reflecting a concern to impose the self-interest. An individual with this
style does everything to win or achieve is goal, often ignoring the needs of the other party.
It can also be used when it becomes necessary to take quick decisions, sometimes imposed,
unpopular or important (Rahim, 2002). The compromising style refers to an average concern
with self and with the others. It is an intermediate style in which both parties give way to
manage to win other things. Both parties have equal power, usually without time pressure.
You tend to reach a temporary solution in which neither party feels totally satisfied, and
in the base remain the assumptions for future conflicts. The obliging style refers to a low
concern with self and a high concern with the other. The individual seeks to minimize the
differences and focus the effort in solving the problem in the common points between them
in order to satisfy the other party. Aims at peaceful coexistence and recognition of common
interests. There is a process of generosity, goodness and obedience relatively to the other
party (Rahim, 2002). Although these styles are often applied to organizational scenarios, it
is possible to generalize them to scenarios that involve interpersonal interactions (Kaushal
& Kwantes, 2006).
Conflicts often result of conflicting interests, cultures or values. The choice of styles
of conflict management depends not only on the negotiating situation, but also on the
individual characteristics of each, in particular on the personality of the negotiators. This is
the reason why the identification of personality traits that facilitate the adoption of more
effective styles of conflict management, in particular the cultural intelligence, self-monitoring
and self-interdependent, is fundamental.
3. CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE, SELF-MONITORING AND SELF-
INTERDEPENDENT AS PREDICTORS OF THE CONFLICTS MANAGEMENT
STYLES
Earley and Ang (2003) were based on Sternberg and Detterman (1986) multidimensional
model of intelligence and define cultural intelligence as an individual capacity that allows
the individual to effectively work and manage the social interactions when he meets in
different cultural scenarios. It is a specific form of intelligence focused on the ability to
learn, evaluate and effectively behave in different situations characterized by cultural
diversity (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2007). It´s a multidimensional construct consisting of
four dimensions: a) metacognitive, which refers to the awareness that individuals possess
during interactions with individuals from different cultures; b) cognitive, which refers to
the specific knowledge that you have about the standards, habits and conventions in new

The Effect of Multicultural Experience in Conflicts Management Styles
7
cultural contexts; c) motivational, that captures the motivation that an individual has to
learn more and act effectively in various situations; and d) behavioural, conceptualized as an
individual flexibility in demonstrating appropriate actions with individuals of other cultural
contexts (Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2008; Ward, Wilson, & Fisher, 2011).
Considering the defining characteristics of cultural intelligence and its dimensions,
and applying them to a multicultural domestic setting, where all individuals, although of the
same culture, have distinct values, beliefs, interests, behaviours and goals, it will be expected
that individuals with high levels of cultural intelligence are able to organize their social
behaviour, opting for more integrative styles and more cooperative relations, compared to
those with lower levels of cultural intelligence (Imai & Gelfand, 2010). They are more likely
to persist, even if negotiating becomes stressful and difficult, given their high motivation in
different situations (e.g., Van Dyne et al., 2012). The metacognitive dimension promotes an
active thinking about people and situations, unleashing a critical thinking about habits and
beliefs and enables you to make an assessment and review of mind maps increasing, thereby,
the ability of understanding (Van Dyne et al., 2008). Individuals with high levels of cognitive
cultural intelligence have a deeper understanding of how people are shaped/influenced by the
environment in the way of thinking and acting (Van Dyne et al., 2012). Similarly, high levels
of behavioural cultural intelligence are essential in conflict management. Individuals with
high levels of behavioural cultural intelligence can overcome the natural human tendency to
rely on habits, demonstrating a behavioural flexibility in different situations, what includes a
change of code and an adjustment to the negotiating context (e.g., Molinsky, 2007). Greater
verbal flexibility increases communicational effectiveness; non-verbal flexibility allows you
to demonstrate compliance with the standards, and is especially critical because it works
as a “silent language” allowing interpret light indicators of sincerity, honesty, competence,
etc. (Hall, 1959) fundamental in a negotiation process; and a greater flexibility in the act
of speech demonstrates that you understand the communication standards, putting others
at ease. In general, cultural intelligence enables individuals to change their behaviours in
the face of the nature of the conflict and the requirements of the negotiation process. This
change of behaviour, according to specific situations, is a factor of utmost importance during
a conflict resolution, and the way individuals decide to change their behaviour (or not)
is strictly related to the personality traits self-monitoring and self-interdependent, so its
analysis as mediating variables in conflict management styles is presented as relevant.
According to Snyder (1974) individuals regulate their behaviour in order to introduce a
specific Self according to situational cues, i.e., they differ in the way they present themselves
in social situations. Some individuals are motivated to present an appropriate Self in
different social situations while others are motivated to be themselves (Gainey, 2012).
Individuals with a high self-monitoring are considered “the world’s chameleons”, willing
to change their behaviour depending on the environment where they are (Snyder, 1974).
Usually they are individuals who obtain more positive results at work, since they change
their behaviour depending on the situation and have a higher likelihood of resolving the
conflict through the integrating and compromising styles (Warech, Smither, Reilly, Millsap,
& Reilly, 1998). These evidences are not restricted to an organizational scenario, because a
high self-monitoring presents itself as a variable linked to a better interpersonal effectiveness
(Warech et al., 1998). On the other hand, individuals who have a low self-monitoring seek
to be themselves in different social situations (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000), appealing to
introspection and focusing their attention on thoughts, beliefs and feelings. Thus, their
behaviour is consistent even in different social situations, or at least similar, because they
are motivated by dispositions, which do not differ from one situation to another (Gangestad
& Snyder, 2000).

Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Volume III, Issue 1
8
The self-construal is defined as the conception that the individual has of himself or self-
image and is composed by the self-dependent and self-interdependent (Markus & Kitayama,
1991). It is based on the way the culture at the level of communication with members of
other cultures, cultural norms, values and the perception that the individual has of self,
influences his behaviour (Oetzel & Bolton-Oetzel, 1997). Regarding self-interdependent,
this measures the tendency to think of ourselves concerning our relationships with others.
The basic principle of this concept lies in the premise that an individual is connected to
another, in a way his self is defined, at least in part, in terms which refer to the membership
of a particular group, to the existing relationships within that group, as well as to the social
roles to play (Cross et al., 2000). To maintain and increase this interdependent vision of
the Self, individuals tend to think and behave in ways that emphasize its connection with
others and that strengthen existing relationships (Cross et al., 2000). In order words, the
perception of our Self depends on the relationship we have with the others. This relationship
with the interactions with others (Oetzel, 2001; Oetzel et al., 2001), makes individuals
with an interdependent-self believe that their relation with the others are more important
than focusing on the individual Self. Individuals seek to create harmonious relations
through the adaptation and the help to the other, according to social rules and cooperative
behaviours (Oetzel & Bolton-Oetzel, 1997). In this context Cross et al. (2000) reported that
individuals who have a high self-interdependent characterize their important relationships
as closer than individuals who have a low self-interdependent and, are more likely to take
into consideration the needs and wishes of others in decision making.
Research linking these concepts simultaneously with the conflict management styles,
are scarce, at least as far as we know. Stands out the study of Kaushal and Kwantes (2006),
which sought to explore the influence of self-monitoring in conflict resolution styles. These
authors found no relationship between the variables suggesting the application of a measure
greater than the scale of 16 items of Warech et al. (1998). For its part, the study of Mehra and
Schenkel (2008) showed that individuals who have a high self-monitoring tend to experience
a greater degree of conflict. Oetzel et al. (2001), n his study on conflict management styles
and self-construal, showed that the interdependent self is related to the style obliging and
integrating. Other studies, such as Ting-Toomey et al. (2000) found that self-interdependent
was also related to the style obliging.
According to the study of Gupta, Singh, Jandhyala and Bhatt (2013), self-monitoring
is a significant predictor of cultural intelligence and its dimensions. The styles of conflict
management adopted, are characteristic of the personality, therefore the personality trait
self-monitoring, and cultural intelligence attribute, can predict the conflict management
style. That is, it is expected that individuals with a high level of self-monitoring that adapt to
the situation of conflict and act according to the needs of others preferably adopt integrating
and comprising styles to the resolution of the conflict. On the other hand, those with lower
levels of self-monitoring, denoting a stable behaviour and carefree face to the needs of the
other, will tend to adopt the styles of dominating and avoiding (Kaushal & Kwantes, 2006).
4. THE ROLE OF THE INTERCULTURAL CONTACT
Live and work in a society where cultural diversity is a reality, requires an awareness that
there are different systems of values, rules, behaviours, inherent in different cultures, and
that becomes indispensable to understand them better in order to be able to communicate
and interact effectively (Rocha, 1991). Thus, during a social interaction, it is necessary that
the individual is able to suspend the judgement of a situation until the various clues of the
context can be interpreted (Triandis, 2006). In this way, situations of tension or conflict can

The Effect of Multicultural Experience in Conflicts Management Styles
9
be alleviated if an individual is familiar with the cultural values and behaviour of the other
(Holt, 2000). Crowne (2008) points out that the knowledge of cultural norms and values
can increase if the individual develop an understanding of another culture through the
experiences in this culture or by the degree of contact with individuals from other cultures. In
this sense, the multidimensional exposure to various cultures allows an individual to become
familiar with the products, norms, and values and make assumptions about another culture,
what increases his levels of cultural intelligence. In general, the intercultural contact has
been associated with increased cultural skills. If the intercultural contact allows individuals a
greater confidence in their interactions, as well as greater openness to individual differences,
then, you can also extrapolate this variable for contexts characterized by domestic
multiculturalism. This is because, it allows the individual to communicate more effectively
with people from different social and educational levels, different genders and ages, with
different beliefs, goals and interests, i.e. allows him to handle multiple “cultures”. Some
investigations have pointed to a positive relationship between intercultural contact and
cultural intelligence (Ang et al., 2006; Crowne, 2008; Gelfand et al., 2008). In addition, the
intercultural contact is closely related to the concept of cultural intelligence (Earley & Ang,
2003) and theoretically, it is a notable precursor of it (Gelfand et al., 2008). Therefore, it will
be able to function as a predictor of cultural intelligence and its dimensions. The exposure
to multiculturalism, being the way in which an individual learns and adapts to others, seems
to be fundamental for the development of cultural intelligence, and, consequently, for the
use of integrative conflict management styles, reason why the analysis of its correlation with
both variables is of utmost importance.
To sum up, this study seeks to test a model which, on the one hand explores the effect of
the quality and quantity of intercultural contact on cultural intelligence, and on the other
the influence of cultural intelligence, self-monitoring and self-interdependent on the conflict
resolution styles (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Proposed model

Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Volume III, Issue 1
10
5. METHOD
5.1 Sample
This study used a convenience sample of 399 individuals (62.9% female and 30.8% male)
from several regions of Portugal (22.3 %% Alentejo and Algarve, 23.5% Beiras, Estremadura,
Ribatejo and 8.2% foreigners - Portuguese speakers) and aged between 18 and 59 years (M =
26.40; SD = 8.90). Regarding to qualifications, participants are mostly graduates (46.9%).
As regards the degree of contact, 36.6% often interact with other cultures, 17% refer
that is very often and 10.3% refer that interact all day with other cultures. Being that,
these participants that interact since frequent to all day with other nationalities, 15.3%
refer that the type of contact is with “Friends and Family”, 32.9% interact with “Friends,
Family, Classmates and Neighbours” and 36.9% interact with “Friends, Family, Classmates,
Neighbours Customers, Work Colleagues and Work Superiors”.
5.2 Procedures
5.2.1 Data collecting:
The data were collected through an online questionnaire, elaborate on the Google Drive
platform. The questionnaires contained a cover page with informed consent, ensuring the
confidentiality and anonymity of the data, and information to fill it in. The questionnaire
remained available for a period of 4 months.
5.2.2 Data analysis:
The data were processed using the SPSS and AMOS programs (V. 20) and the significance
level was assumed at 0.05. To examine the values of variables and descriptive analysis
of hierarchical regressions we used SPSS program. The confirmatory factor analysis was
performed by AMOS program aiming to evaluate the fit of the model and verify if this was
consistent with the data.
5.3 Measures
5.3.1. Cultural Intelligence:
The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS), adapted to the Portuguese population by Sousa,
Gonçalves, Reis and Santos (2015), was originally developed in English by Van Dyne
and colleagues (2008). This 20-item tool, rated according to a Likert-type scale from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), is a multidimensional measure that includes four
dimensions of “intelligence”: metacognitive (4 items, e.g., item 1: “I am conscious of the
cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds”),
cognitive (6 items, e.g., item 7: “I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other
cultures”), motivational (5 items, e.g., item 11: “I enjoy interacting with people from different
cultures”) and behavioural (5 items, e.g., item 18: “I vary the rate of my speaking when a
cross-cultural situation requires it”). The Cronbach’s alpha for the Portuguese adaptation of
the scale was 0.93; the alpha of the scale dimensions ranged from 0.86 to 0.89.
5.3.2. Conflict Management Style:
The participants answered the instrument developed by Simões (2008) based on the
assumptions of the Rahim`s contingencial model (1983), demonstrating a Cronbach`s alpha
of 0.80. This instrument consists of 30 items rated according to a Likert-type scale from 1
(rarely) to 7 (usually) contemplating the five conflict management styles: dominating (e.g.,
item 7: “I’d rather win than agree to compromise”), avoiding (e.g., item 2: “I’d rather avoid
the person until the problem is solved by itself”), compromising (e.g., item 30: “If both give

The Effect of Multicultural Experience in Conflicts Management Styles
11
in a little, we will have a solution easily”), obliging (e.g., item 25: “I agree immediately before
there is discussion”) and integrating (e.g., item 12:” I try to act like a mediator and not an
adversary”). The five scale dimensions showed acceptable levels of internal consistency,
varying the alpha between 0.66 and 0.73.
5.3.3. Self-Monitoring
We used the Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS) developed by Snyder and Gangestad (1986)
and translated and tested for the Portuguese population for this study. The face validity was
supported by translation and retranslation of four bilingual translators and subsequently
adjusted for the final version. Participants rated the extent to which they regarded the
statements as true or not, with respect to their behaviour. We used a Likert scale of 1 (not
true) to 7 (totally true). In terms of reliability, the scale showed an internal consistency of
0.55.
5.3.4. Self-Interdependent
The degree to which the individual includes his intimate relationships in his self-
concept was measured through the version for the Portuguese population developed by
Gonçalves, Gomes, Hipólito, Santos and Orgambídez-Ramos (2015) and demonstrate an
internal consistency of 0.84. This value is similar to the original instrument The Relational-
Interdependent Self-Construal Scale (RISC) developed by Cross et al. (2000), which show an
alpha ranging between 0.85 and 0.90. The instrument consists of 11 items; two of which
are inverted items (items 8 and 9). The participants were asked to assess to what extent
they agreed or disagreed with statements associated with their intimate relationships,
using a Likert scale, with a variation of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The
definition of “intimate person” was provided as a guideline in the questionnaire. Based on
the definition of Gonçalves et al. (2014), “intimate person” is defined as the person who is
part of the emotional relationships of the individual, with whom he has a strong connection.
In other words, the person with whom he has a strong relationship, not necessarily sweet. It
includes loving, close friends, family, etc.
5.3.5. Contact level
We measured both the quantity and the quality of contact. Participants were asked to
indicate the kind of cultural experiences they had (e.g., vacation in another country, studying
in another country, among others), the frequency of contact with other nationalities and,
if it was the case, who they interact with. In terms of quantity of contact we asked “how
often do you contact with other nationalities?”, considering the growing scale: 1 – Nothing
frequent a 5 – All day. As to the quality of the contact, a scale was constructed taking into
account the type of cultural relationship of individuals, i.e., participants should indicate
the kind of relation they maintained with people of other nationalities, considering the
following options: 1 - Friends; 2 - Classmates; 3 - Family; 4 - Neighbours; 5 – C-workers; 6 –
Work Superiors; 7 – Customers; 8 – Not Applicable. On the basis of this question the quality
of contact was operationalized in a growing range of degree of contact:
1. Classmates and Neighbours (individuals who have contact with other nationalities but
without high level of affective relationship);
2. Work (individuals who maintain contact with people of other nationalities just at the
professional level, including co-workers, managers and customers);
3. Personal (individuals who maintain contact with people of other nationalities only on
a personal level and with a high degree of affective relationship);
4. Classmates, Neighbours and Work;

Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Volume III, Issue 1
12
5. Friends, Family, Classmates and Neighbours;
6. Contact with all;
7. No contact (individuals who do not have any kind of contact with people of other
nationalities).
In addition to the scales, items on the biographical variables (age, gender, employment
status and educational level) were included, in order to characterize the sample.
6. RESULTS ANALYSIS
Table 1 shows the descriptive values (means and standard deviations) for each dispositional
variable of the model.
Table 1. Descriptive analysis of the variables cultural intelligence, self-monitoring and self-
interdependent
M SD
Cultural Intelligence
Metacognitive 5.20 1.03
Cognitive 3.97 1.03
Behavioural 5.12 1.11
Motivational 4.92 1.10
M = 4.74; SD = 0.83
Self-monitoring 3.92 0.61
Self-interdependent 5.28 0.75
Conflict Management
Styles
Obliging 3.13 0.94
Avoiding 3.21 1.09
Compromising 4.07 0.81
Integrating 4.83 0.97
Dominating 3.74 1.01
As regards the cultural intelligence, the cognitive dimension features the lower mean (M
= 3.97; SD = 1.06) and the metacognitive dimension presents the highest mean (M = 5.20;
SD = 1.02). These results suggest that, despite the individuals do not consider who possess
a specific knowledge about the standards, habits and conventions in new cultural contexts;
they seek to be more aware when they interact with individuals from another culture. As
for self-monitoring and self - interdependent variables, it was obtained M = 3.92; SD =
0.60 and M = 5.28; SD = 0.74, respectively. The self-interdependent mean suggests that
individuals consider their Self as and, at least in part, belonging to a certain group. On the
other hand, in terms of concern to behave appropriately, the sensitivity to the slopes of the
environment and adapt the behaviour according to the environment, clears up that the self-
monitoring mean is the core values of the scale.
In relation to conflict management styles, it turns out that the style integrating presented
the highest mean (M = 4.83; SD = 0.96) and the style obliging the lowest mean (M= 3.13;
SD = 0.94).

The Effect of Multicultural Experience in Conflicts Management Styles
13
6.1. Hierarchical regression analysis
For the verification of the model, hierarchical regression analyses were carried out to explore
what effects the quantity of contact, quality of contact and self-interdependent show on the
cultural intelligence, and what was the effect of the three dispositional measures – cultural
intelligence, self-monitoring and self-interdependent – on the conflict management styles.
At first, the quantity and quality of contact were introduced in block, using the enter
method to verify the explanatory power of cultural intelligence. These predictors only
explain 0.8% of the variance of the dependent variable (R2 = 0.086), showing a statistically
significant contribution [F (2.398) = 18.721, p = 0.00]. The explanatory weight of the
quantity of contact is rather higher than the quality of the contact (β = 0.213, p = 0.00 and
β = 0.034, p = 0.49, respectively) (Table 2). Analysing the correlation between the quantity
and quality of contact, we found that this also presents itself as weak (r = 0.266, p = 0.00).
Table 2. Synthesis of the hierarchical regression for predict cultural intelligence
Cultural Intelligence
βt R²
QLC 0.213 5.676 0.086**
QC 0.034 .692
Note: QLC - Quality of Contact; QC - Quantity of Contact; R² = determination coefficient; **p< 0.001
For its part, when the variable self-interdependent was introduced, using the stepwise
method, the power of determination of these variables greatly increases and the quantity
and quality of contact and self-interdependent explain 15% of the variance of the cultural
intelligence. It must be emphasized that only when the variable self-interdependent was
introduced in the proposed model, its explanatory power increased significantly (∆R² =
14%) (Table 3).
Table 3. Hierarchical regression for predict cultural intelligence – models
Cultural Intelligence
βt R²
QLC 0.051 1.052 0.012**
QLC+QC 0.275 5.713 0.086**
QLC+QC+SI 0.259 5.583 0.153**
Note: QLC – Quality of contact; QC – Quantity of contact; SI – self-interdependent; R² = determination coefficient;
**p< 0.001
Secondly, we have examined the relationship between the cultural intelligence and
conflict management styles mediated by self-interdependent and self-monitoring. It was
observed that the self-interdependent only shows itself correlated with cultural intelligence
(r = 0.261, p = 0.00), being this correlation weak. In this way, we have removed this variable
from the hierarchical regression analysis.
The two dispositional variables (cultural intelligence and self-monitoring) explain 13 %
of the variance [F (3.398) = 19.212, p = 0.00]. In Figure 2 are the mediation values.

Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Volume III, Issue 1
14
Figure 2. Cultural intelligence mediated by self-monitoring to predict conflict management style
It is also denoted that the explanatory cultural intelligence weight in conflict management
increases slightly when it is alone as independent variable (β = 0.182 p = 0.00).
To understand how these variables behave in the proposed model, we have chosen to
verify, first, what is the contribution of cultural intelligence about the self-monitoring and
subsequently, what is the contribution of self-interdependent on cultural intelligence. At the
level of the self-monitoring, cultural intelligence explains only 0.2% of the variance with a
contribution of [F (1.398) = 9.235, p = 0.003]. The preliminary analysis of correlations
between variables indicated that self-interdependent was only correlated with cultural
intelligence. To accomplish a linear regression with these variables we observed that self-
interdependent only explain 0.7% of the cultural intelligence, with a contribution of [F
(1.398) = 28.968, p = 0.00] (Table 4).
Table 4. Synthesis of hierarchical regression for predict cultural intelligence and self-monitoring
Cultural Intelligence
βt R²
Self-interdependent 0.262 5.377 0.068**
Self-monitoring
βt R²
Cultural Intelligence 0.151 3.039 0.023**
In terms of contributions to the styles of conflict management, we used the only variables
correlated and predictive in this relationship: cultural intelligence and self-monitoring.
The four dimensions of cultural intelligence are only correlated with the integrating style
of conflict management. The metacognitive dimension is the only one that presents a
considerable percentage of variance of this style 11% (R2 = 0.113), [F (1.398) = 50.546,
p = 0.00 and an explanatory power of β = 0.336, p = 0.00. The remaining dimensions
showed very low regressions on the five conflict management styles.
About the contribution of the self-monitoring at the level of the conflict management
styles, this explains 11% of the variance [F (1.398) = 48.435, p = 0.00]. To explore which
of the styles possessed a greater explanatory weight we found that the dominating and
compromising strategies have a higher weight to the other (β = 0.280, p = 0.00 and β =

The Effect of Multicultural Experience in Conflicts Management Styles
15
0.264, p = 0.00, respectively). It should be noted that the integrating strategy has not
reported as significant in this relationship (β = 0.041, p = 0.41) (Table 5).
Table 5. Synthesis of hierarchical regression to predict conflict management styles
Self-monitoring
βt R²
Dominating 0.280 5.816 0.079**
Avoiding 0.224 4.579 0.050**
Compromising 0.264 5.458 0.070**
Obliging 0.196 3.991 0.039**
Integrating 0.041 0.822 0.002
Power analysis of determination of the contact quantity and dispositional variables on
conflict management strategies, shows that, just after the introduction of the variable self-
monitoring in the proposed model, its explanatory power increases significantly (∆R² =
10%) (Table 6).
Table 6. Synthesis of hierarchical regression to the prediction of Conflict Management Style variable
Conflict management styles
βt R²
QC 0.042 -0.829 0.002
QC+CQ 0.186 3.592 0.033**
QC+CQ+SI 0.011 0.209 0.033**
QC+CQ+SI+SM 0.312 6.521 0.128**
Note: QC – Quantity of the contact; CQ- Cultural Intelligence; SI – Self-interdependent; SM – Self-monitoring;
R² = determination coefficient; **p< 0.001
In terms of adjusting the model, the results showed a CMIN/DF of 9.152, not indicating
a suitable adjustment of the sample model (Byrne, 2001). The remaining indicators used
show a proper adjustment to the extent that the values CFI = 0.864 and GFI = 0.985 show
values close to 1, and the values RMR = 0.032 and SRMR= 0.064 are close to 0. The
RMSEA value is 0.143 and does not constitute a good adjustment indicator (Brown, 2006).
7. DISCUSSION
This article aimed to test a model where high levels of cultural intelligence mediated by a high
self-dependent and self-monitoring, positively affect and predict the trend that an individual
has to use effective conflict management styles according to the individual characteristics of
those involved in the conflict.
In relation to the dispositional measures used to predict conflict management styles,
we observed that cultural intelligence presents itself as a reasonable predictor of conflict
management styles. When associated with the self-monitoring, its explanatory power
decreases slightly. However, it must be emphasizes that the single dimension of cultural

Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Volume III, Issue 1
16
intelligence that shows a decisive power in management conflict styles is the metacognitive
dimension. This dimension reasonably predicts the integrating style. These results point to
the importance, in interpersonal relationships, of the existence of cooperative reasons in
individuals who exhibit high levels of intelligence, once the outcome in conflict situation
will be more satisfying for both parties (Imai & Gelfand, 2010). Therefore, if individuals
have a greater awareness of the other´s individual differences during social interactions and
behave in ways that emphasize their connection with the others, so, in situations of conflict,
they will opt for strategies that benefit not only themselves but also the others and, perhaps
more important, strengthening and simultaneously maintaining their relationship with the
others. Self-monitoring has proved to be a predictor of styles of conflict management, with
emphasis on a higher power in the dimension dominating. Our study is consistent with the
study of Mehra and Schenkel (2008) and suggests that it may also exist some disadvantages
to being a social “chameleon”: individuals with a high self-monitoring use a more aggressive
management conflict style than those with a low self-monitoring. Other studies that explored
this relationship showed that these “chameleons” are better to deal with interpersonal issues
and probably to use integrating and compromising strategies (Wareck et al., 1998) but, on
the other hand, we found studies that did not find any relationship with the five conflict
management styles (Kaushal & Kwantes, 2006). So, if it is considered that an individual
with a high self-monitoring shows a special ability to focus on the others emotions, it would
be expected that integrating strategies would stand out.
It was still our objective to understand how the quantity and quality of intercultural
contact affects cultural intelligence. Cultural intelligence is a dispositional measure that is
not innate or immutable to the individual, on the contrary, it can be developed and improved
according to the multicultural experience that the individual possesses, being this the basic
factor that allows its development. In this sense, we have sought to understand whether the
quantity and quality of intercultural contact predicts cultural intelligence. The results show
that the explanatory power of these variables is very low and that only the quantity of contact
shows a relevant weight to high levels of cultural intelligence. However, when we add the
self-interdependent personality trait to this equation, we have seen that this variable shows
a superior explanatory power of the cultural intelligence, compared to the contact variables.
These results are relevant since they suggest that are not only the environmental aspects and
contact with the multiculturalism that influence the cultural intelligence but also individual
aspects. Being the self-interdependent a concept that is related to the national identity in
terms of the emphasis that an individual puts in intra-group allegiance (Fernándes, Páes, &
Gonzáles, 2005). We can concluded that it is not enough for an individual to contact daily
with other cultures and have an affective or close relationship with others from a different
cultural background if he doesn´t consider this relationship important to the definition of
his Self. It is important to consider that, although we have not found any relationship, it
doesn’t mean that the quality of contact is not important. Wood and Peters (2014) state
that, through short-term visits to another country, the interactions with representatives
of the country visited, promote the development of individual knowledge, by means of
comparisons between the country of origin and the country visited. It also allows check prior
assumptions through reflexivity. Besides, these visits allow you to develop the motivation
and involvement needed in future cultural interactions. Thus, the quality of contact is a
variable that should continue to be explored.
In the same line of reasoning, the importance that the self-interdependent shows in
the relationship with cultural intelligence was relevant, since this measure of personality
has more weight in the formation of cultural intelligence than the quantity and quality of
contact. That is, it’s not the frequent contact or an affective relationship with someone of
another culture that will develop significantly cultural intelligence levels, it is necessary for

The Effect of Multicultural Experience in Conflicts Management Styles
17
the individual to consider this relationship as important and meaningful for the formation
of his identity.
8. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this study contributes to the literature of individual differences and conflict
management, demonstrating that some individual differences that predict the styles of
conflict management can lead to a certain ambiguity in understanding the behaviour that
an individual may adopt in situations of conflict. Self-monitoring introduced itself as a
dispositional controversial measure in relation to conflict management styles. On the one
hand, it presents itself as an important predictor of conflict management, on the other hand
has a greater weight in the choice of the dominating style in conflict situation. If an individual
presents a greater ability to perceive its environment and draw clues that give him the ability
to act according to it, one would expect that, in situations of domestic or cultural diversity,
these individuals would show evidence of being more sensitive and skilled in managing these
aspects. Future studies could contribute to this analysis, through aspects considered relevant
to conflict management, such as, for example, the mimicry. The mimicry is an important
factor in conflict resolution (e.g., Maddux, Mullen, & Galinsky, 2008; Swaab, Maddux,
& Sinaceur, 2011) and varies according to levels of self-monitoring (Cheng & Chartrand,
2003). Also the multicultural personality (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001)
may be a variable to consider in future investigations as to provide individuals a greater
empathy, flexibility, openness, emotional stability and social initiative, being an important
personality trait for the understanding of conflict management styles adopted. We suggest
that a forthcoming analysis use the scale of intercultural conflict styles (Hammer, 2005) as
this allows the comparison with groups of different cultures.
In general, the proposed model shows relevant aspects in relation to the importance
that these measures of personality present in conflict management styles. Understanding
the predictors of conflict management style and, in particular, to what extent the cultural
intelligence promotes a most effective conflict management style, can contribute to outline
fundamental skills training programmes in negotiation and decision-making processes,
targeting not only the organizational success but also the personal success.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is financed by National Funds provided by FCT- Foundation for Science and
Technology through project UID/SOC/04020/2013.
REFERENCES
Adler, N. (2008). International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour (5th ed.). Mason, OH:
Thomson South-Western.
Almeida, A. (2012). Alguns conceitos sobre cultura. Retrieved from https://books.google.pt/
books?id=fb-Nec1KFsYC
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality Correlates of the Four-Fator
Model of Cultural Intelligence. Group and Organization Management, 31, 100-123. doi:
10.1177/1059601105275267

Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Volume III, Issue 1
18
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (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. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K., Templer, K., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. (2007).
Cultural intelligence: its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision
making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review,
3(3), 335-371. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.
Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Retrieved from www.
google.pt/books
Cai, D, & Drake, L. (1998). The business of business negotiation: Intercultural perspectives.
Communication Yearbook, 21, 153-189.
Cheng, C., & Chartrand, T. (2003). Self-monitoring without awareness: using mimicry as
a nonconscious affiliation strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1170–
1179.
Cross, S., Bacon, P., & Morris, M. (2000). The relational-interdependece self-construal
and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791-808. doi:
10.1O37//0O22-3514.78.4791
Crowne, K. (2008). What leads to cultural intelligence? Business Horizons, 51, 391-399. doi:
10.1016/j.bushor.2008.03.010
Cunha, M., Rego, A., Cunha, R., & Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2005). Manual de Comportamento
Organizacional e Gestão. Lisboa: RH Editora.
Day, V., & Schleicher, J. (2006). Self-monitoring at work: A motive based perspective. Journal
of Personality, 74(3), 685-713. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00389.x
De Dreu, C. (1997). Productive conflict: The importance of conflict management and
conflict issue. In C. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp.
9 – 22). London: Sage.
Earley, P., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures. Palo
Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fernándes, I., Páez, D., & Gonzállez, J. (2005). Independent and interdependent self-
construals and social cultural factos in 29 nations. Revue International de Social Psychologie,
18(1), 35-64. doi: 109.231-G56/98; 109.231-136-45-2001
Foxman, E., & Easterling, D. (1999). The representation of diversity in marketing principles
texts: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 74(4), 285-288.
Gainey, R. (2012). Self-Monitoring and Partner Knowledge Structures. (Master Dissertation).
University of North Florida, USA.
Gangestad, W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological
Bulettin, 126(4), 530-555.doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.4.530
Gelfand, M., Imai, L., & Fehr, R. (2008). Thinking intelligently about cultural intelligence:
The road ahead. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory,
Measurement, and Application (pp. 375-387). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Gonçalves, G., Gomes, A., Hipólito, C., Santos, J., & Orgambídez-Ramos, A. (2015).
Adaptação da escala RISC: The relational-interdependent self-construal para a população
Portuguesa (in proceeding).

The Effect of Multicultural Experience in Conflicts Management Styles
19
Gupta, B., Singh, D., Jandhyala, K., & Bhatt, S. (2013). Self-monitoring, cultural training
and prior international work experience as predictors of cultural intelligence. A study of
Indian expatriates. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, Vol. 4, 1(7), 56-71.
Hall, E. (1959). The Silent Language. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Hammer, R. (2005). The intercultural conflict style inventory: A conceptual framework and
measure of intercultural conflict resolution approaches. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 29, 675–695.doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.08.010
Holt, J. (2000). Impact of gender, organizational role, and multicultural status on conflict resolution
style preference. (Doctoral thesis). University of Minnesota, USA.
Imai, L., & Gelfand, J. (2010). The culturally inteligente negotiatior: The impact of cultural
intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 112, 83-98. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.001
Janssens, M., & Brett, J. (2006). Cultural intelligence in global team: A fusion model of
collaboration. Group Organization Management, 31(1), 124-153.
Kaushal, R., & Kwantes, T. (2006). The Role of Culture in Choice of Conflict Management
Strategy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 579-603. doi: 10.1016/j.
ijintrel.2006.01.001
Littrell, L., & Salas, E. (2005). A Review of Cross-Cultural Training: Best Practices,
Guidelines, and Research Needs. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 305-334.
doi:10.1177/1534484305278348
Maddux, W., Mullen, E., & Galinsky, A. (2008). Chameleons bake bigger pies and take
bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 44, 461-468. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.003
Malek, M., & Budhwar, P. (2013). Cultural intelligence as a predictor of expatriate adjustment
and performance in Malaysia. Journal of world business, 48(2), 222-231. doi:10.1016/j.
jwb.2012.07.006
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Retrieved from http://www2.psych.ubc.
ca/~ara/Teaching%20407/psych407%20readings/Markus%26Kitayama1991.pdf
Mehra, A., & Schenkel, T. (2008). The price chameleons pay: self-monitoring, boundary
spanning and role conflict in the workplace. British Jornal of Management, 19(2), 138-144.
Molinsky, A. (2007). Cross-cultural code-switching: The psychological challenges of adapting
behavior in foreign cultural interactions. Academy of Management Review, 32, 622-640.
Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/a/brandeis.edu/iewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=Yn
JhbmRlaXMuZWR1fGFsbXxneDo1ZWY2MjI3ZDc2YzkwOWI3
Morris, M., & Robie, C. (2001). A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cultural training on
expatriate performance and adjustment. International Journal of Training and Development,
5, 112- 125.
Oetzel, G. (2001). Self-construals, communication processes, and group outcomes in
homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Small Group Research, 32(1), 19-54.doi:
10.1177/104649640103200102
Oetzel, G., & Bolton-Oetzel, K. (1997). Exploring the relationship between self-construal
and dimensions of group effectiveness. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 289-315.
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R.
(2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany,
Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68, 235-258.

Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Volume III, Issue 1
20
Polat, S., & Metin, M. (2012). The Relationship Between the Teachers’ Intercultural
Competence Levels and the Strategy of Solving Conflicts. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 46, 1961-1968. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.411
Pruitt, D., & Rubin, J. (1986). Social conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Putnam, L., & Poole, M. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts,
& L. Porter (Eds). Handbook of organizational communication (pp.549-599). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Rahim, M. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of
Management Journal, 26(2), 368-373. doi:10.2307/255985
Rahim, M. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. The International
Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206-235.
Rahim, M., & Bonoma, T. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis
and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44(3c), 1323-1344.
Rocha, R. (1991). Gerir em ambiente intercultural: uma gestão diferente, um diferente
gestor. Administração, 13/14, Vol. IV, 477-498. Retrieved from www.safp.gov.mo/safppt/
download/WCM_003872
Simões, E. (2008). Gerir o conflito. In J. Neves, M. Garrido & E. Simões (Eds.), Manual
de Competências pessoais, interpessoais e instrumentais: teoria e prática (2nd ed., pp.181-204).
Lisboa: Edições Sílabo
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Behavior, 30(4), 526-537.
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment,
matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 125-139
Sousa, C., Gonçalves, G., Reis, M., & Santos, J. (2015). Evidências Métricas da Escala de
Inteligência Cultural numa amostra Portuguesa. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 28(2), 213-
222. doi: 10.1590/1678-7153.201528203
Sternberg, R., & Detterman, D. (1986).What is intelligence? Contemporany viewpoints on its
nature and definition. Norwood, NL: Ablex.
Swaab, R., Maddux, W., & Sinaceur, M. (2011). Early words that work: When and how
virtual linguistic mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 47, 616–621. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.01.005
Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing intercultural conflicts effectively. In L. Samovar & R.
Porter (Eds.). Intercultural communication: a reader (pp. 360-372). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K., Shapiro, R. B., Garcia, W., Wright, T. J. & Oetzel, J. G.
(2000). Ethnic/cultural identity salience and conflict styles in four U.S. ethnic groups.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 47-81.
Tjosvold, D. (1997). Conflict within interdependence: Its value for productivity and
individuality. In C. De Dreu, & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations. (pp.
23-38). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446217016.
n3
Triandis, H. (2006). Cultural intelligence in organizations. Group & Organization Mangement,
31(1), 20-26. doi: 101177/10596001105275253
Van der Zee, K., & Van Oudenhoven, J. (2000). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A
multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality,
14, 291-309. doi:10.1002/1099-0984(200007/08)14:4<291::AID-PER377>3.0.CO;2-6

The Effect of Multicultural Experience in Conflicts Management Styles
21
Van der Zee, K., & Van Oudenhoven, J. (2001). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire:
Reliability and Validity of Self and Other Ratings of Multicultural Effectiveness. Journal of
Research in Personality, 35, 278-288. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.2320
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS. In S.
Ang, & L. Van Dyne (Orgs.), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence. Theory, measurement and
applications (pp.16-38). New York: Sharpe.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Nielsen, T. (2007). Cultural intelligence. In S. Clegg, & J. Bailey
(Orgs.) International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies (Vol.1, pp. 345-350). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M., & Koh, C. (2012). Sub-Dimensions
of the Four Factor Model of Cultural Intelligence: Expanding the Conceptualization and
Measurement of Cultural Intelligence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4), 295–
313. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00429.x
Ward, C., Wilson, J., & Fischer, R. (2011). Assesing the predictive validity of cultural
intellingence over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 138-12
Warech, M., Smither, J., Reilly, R., Millsap, R., & Reilly, S. (1998). Self-monitoring and 360
- degree ratings. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 449–473. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90011-X
Wood, E., & Peters, H. (2014). Short-term cross cultural study tours: impact on cultural
intelligence. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(4), 558-570. doi:
10.1080/09585192.2013.796315