The purpose of this chapter is to provide the results based on the hypotheses posed in this research. The first part elaborates on the descriptive statistical analysis. The second one presents correlations of the variables and hierarchical regressions.
Descriptive Analysis
The demographic information included gender, age, duration of time spent abroad in total, highest educational level, identity while being abroad, continent which an individual studied in, foreign language ability (reading, speaking, writing, listening). The data was obtained from 213 valid questionnaires. The demographics questions were listed in the last section of the survey.
In the research, over a half of the participants were female (71.43%), male constituted 28.6% of the asked, and the most frequently seen age range was from 21 to 25 years old (58.7%).
The age ranges from 26 to 30 years old was placed as the second most common one (33.3%).
More than 80% of the respondents obtained higher education diploma, 47.4% for the undergraduates and 41.3% for the graduates, 2.8% for people pursuing doctoral degree. When it comes to the purpose of staying abroad, close to a half (46.9%) went overseas to pursue a degree. 42.7% of the respondents chose to go abroad as exchange students, some were visiting scholars (8.9%) and 1.4% stands for respondents whose purpose was different than the ones mentioned above. In terms of continents the respondents went to Europe was placed first with 56.3% Americas followed with the percentage of 25.4. The third choice for foreign study was Asia (15%). The destinations least frequently selected were Oceania (2.8%) and Africa (0.5%).
As for the language used abroad, the results vary across the competencies. As far as listening ability is concerned, the respondents assessed it as follows good (32.9%), fair (34.3%), excellent (14.1%), poor (10.8%), and none (8%). In terms of oral ability, 38.5% of the surveyed have it fair, 32,4% good, 14,1% poor, 8,9% none and 6,1% excellent. Reading ability, similarly to
44
speaking, results showed 36.2% of the interviewed thought their ability is good, 32.9% fair, 13.1% excellent, 9.4% poor and 8.5% none. The last foreign language ability measured was writing and here are the results: 40.8% of the individuals taking part in the survey has fair writing skills, 27.7% has them good, 16.4% poor, 8.5% none and 6.6% excellent. Table 4.1.
exhibits detailed information on the demographics of the sample.
Table 4.1.
Demographic Information (N = 213)
Item Frequency Percentage %
Gender Female Educational level High School
Bachelor Degree Identity while abroad An exchange student
A degree-seeking student
45 Table 4.1. (continued)
Item Frequency Percentage %
Continents Asia
46
Pearson’s Correlation Analysis
The correlation analysis was used to test the correlations between the dimensions of depth of cultural exposure and cultural intelligence. The Table 4.2 shows the mean, standard deviation, correlation and Cronbach’s alpha of the variables. The results present that neither of the control variables: number of countries nor education were correlated to any of the variables.
Cultural intelligence was correlated to depth of cultural exposure (r = .37, p < .001). Foreign language communication anxiety was negatively correlated to depth of cultural exposure (r = -.14, p < .05). When it comes to the reliability Cronbach’s alpha for CQ and FLCA were high above .70, .85 and .96, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha value of depth of cultural exposure was low .44, which is not unacceptable, however, it suggests that the scale does not measure the variable good enough, which in this case is understandable because the Crowne’s scale is a new one, still under research. In order to show that Cronbach’s alpha does not have one uniform value to be considered another example of authors are presented: Hilton and Brownlow (2004) who said that Cronbach’s alpha value oscillating .50-.75 still exhibits moderately reliable scale.
Table 4.2.
Mean, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability (N = 213)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Number of visited countries
11.49 9.63
2. Education 2.33 0.67 0.08
3. Depth of CE 4.07 0.60 0.04 0.06 (0.44)
4. FLCA 3.80 1.34 -0.03 0.10 -0.14* (0.96)
5. CQ 3.91 0.46 0.05 0.02 0.37*** -0.00 (0.85)
Notes. *p < .05; ***p < .001
Numbers in the parentheses indicated the Cronbach’s α coefficient of the measurement.
Depth of CE: depth of cultural exposure, FLCA: foreign language communication anxiety, CQ: cultural intelligence
47
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The summary of confirmatory factor analysis and theoretical model fits were included in the Table 4.3 and the Table 4.4. The measurement model of the one-factor model, two-factor model and three-factor model were drawn in AMOS 22.0. For the one-factor model look at the Figure 4.1, two-factor model Figure 4.2 and three-factor model Figure 4.3.
Table 4.3. includes CFA for each construct. The chi-square values of depth of cultural exposure, cultural intelligence, and foreign language communication anxiety were 0.14, 1.98 and 4.53. The very first two exhibited the acceptable value. The RMSEA value of depth of cultural intelligence (.00) and cultural intelligence (.07) were within the appropriate range which is 0.08. the RMSEA of foreign language communication anxiety had RMSA value of 0.13. For depth of cultural exposure all of them met the criteria. The cultural exposure’s values of CFI, IFI and GFI reached the threshold being .90, .90 and .087 accordingly. Only NFI and TLI had the values lower than 0.9 having .81 and .81, however, they were very close to be reached. For foreign language communication anxiety the results were 0.82 for CFI. .78 for NFI, .82 for IFI, .80 for TLI and .69 for GFI. Even though none of the values reached the threshold, they were not far from the acceptable ranges. See Table .4.3.
Table 4.3.
Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
𝑥2 df 𝑥2/df RMSEA CFI NFI IFI TLI GFI
48 Table 4.4.
Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Theoretical Model Fit
𝑥2 df 𝑥2/df RMSEA CFI NFI IFI TLI GFI One-factor
model 3572.38 989 3.61 0.11 0.56 0.48 0.56 0.54 0.48 Two-factor
model 2311.77 981 2.36 0.08 0.77 0.67 0.76 0.76 0.68 Three-factor
model 2096.53 978 2.14 0.07 0.81 0.70 0.81 0.80 0.70 Note. Three-model factor = Proposed measurement model; Two-factor model = Combined items cultural intelligence and foreign language communication anxiety; One-factor model = Combined items of depth of cultural exposure, cultural intelligence, and foreign language communication anxiety.
The study also put into test the goodness of fit of all the theoretical measurement models.
Fr chi-square values of the factor models, two of them met the threshold having the values for 2.36 for two-factor model and 2.14 for three-factor model. One-factor model exceeded the suggested value having 3.61. Three-factor model presented a good fit. For RMSEA two-factor model and three-factor model met the standard scoring .08 and .07 respectively. Only one-factor model had the value of .11. CFA values of three-factor model were improved compared to those of one-factor model and two-factor model which confirms the validity between the variables, hence, it was proper to use the scales for the hypotheses testing. For the values see Table 4.4.
49 Figure. 4.1. Measurement Model of One-factor Model.
50 Figure. 4.2. Measurement Model of Two-factor Model.
51
Figure. 4.3. Measurement Model of Three-factor Model.
Hierarchical Regression Analysis
In this part, hypotheses were run by hierarchical linear regression. The following Table 4.4 presented the results of the Hypothesis 1 which stated that depth of cultural exposure is positively correlated with cultural intelligence. Model 1 and Model 2 are the results of the hierarchical regression. The result shows that depth of cultural exposure was significantly and positively related to cultural intelligence (𝛽 = .37, p < .001; Model 2). Therefore, depth of cultural exposure has a direct and positive impact on CQ. To put it simply, an individual can develop higher CQ when exposed to culture by a deep immersion. Hence, the H1 was supported.
52
Hypothesis 2 stated that foreign language communication anxiety negatively moderates the relationship between depth of cultural exposure and cultural intelligence. Table 4.5 presented the outcomes of hierarchical linear regression analysis. FLCA moderated the relationship between depth of cultural exposure and CQ (𝛽 = .17, p < .001; Model 3), however, the moderation was a positive not negative. Hence, the H2 was rejected.
Table 4.5.
Regression results of Hypotheses Test for H1 and H2 (N=213)
Dependent variable: Cultural Intelligence CQ
Standardized Coefficients (𝛽)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Control variables
Education 0.02 -0.01 -0.03
Number of visited countries 0.03 0.03 0.04
Direct effect
Depth of cultural exposure 0.38*** 0.36***
FCLA 0.05 0.05
Interactions
Depth of exposure (centered) x FLCA
(centered) 0.17**
R2 0.00 0.14 0.16
Adj. R2 -0.01 0.12 0.15
∆R2 0.00 0.14 0.03
F 0.27 8.3*** 8.22***
∆F 0.27 16.45*** 6.56*
Notes. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001; FLCA: foreign language communication anxiety
53
Figure 4.4. The Interaction of Depth of Cultural Exposure and Cultural Intelligence on Foreign Language Communication Anxiety.
Notes. CQ: cultural intelligence, CE: depth of cultural exposure, FCLA: foreign language communication anxiety
Table 4.6
Summary of Hypotheses Testing
Hypotheses Result
H1: Depth of exposure is positively correlated to cultural intelligence Supported H2: Foreign language communication anxiety negatively moderates the
relationship between depth of exposure and cultural intelligence Rejected
54
55
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
In the final chapter, the conclusions and suggestions are listed. Both the implications and limitations of the study are elaborated on next.
Conclusions
The main purpose of this study was to identify if depth of cultural exposure can lead to higher cultural intelligence among Taiwanese international students. In order to achieve it, it was hypothesized that depth of cultural exposure positively affects cultural intelligence. The research also aimed to give some insight into whether foreign language communication anxiety moderates negatively the relationship mentioned above. To explore the relationships between the variables, the direct relationship between depth of cultural exposure and cultural intelligence was tested first. The final statistical results showed that the first of the hypotheses was fully supported which was consistent with previous research (Crowne, 2008, 2013). The hypothesis H2 stating foreign language communication anxiety negatively moderates the relationship between depth of cultural exposure and cultural intelligence was rejected in this study. It turned out that the moderation indeed happens, however, it is positive. That is to say, when an individual exhibits higher levels of foreign language communication anxiety, their cultural intelligence also increases.
Theoretical Contributions
The current study has a few important theoretical implications for the depth of cultural exposure as well as cultural intelligence literature. First of all, as it was mentioned before cultural exposure variable has not been fully researched yet, thus, this study contributes to the evaluation of the scale which still needs to be developed and adjusted. Throughout the study, depth of cultural exposure emerged as a significant and interesting variable in the connection with cultural intelligence, that is also why more research should be done on the first one. If done properly, it may contribute to finding another solid predecessor to cultural intelligence.
56
Even though, abundant research has been published on cultural intelligence, it is hard to find some information about foreign language communication anxiety affecting CQ.
This study also contributes to the body of literature on foreign language communication anxiety which previously was researched in particular settings like classroom. Here, the moderating role of FLCA is highlighted. There are some studies talking only about foreign language ability with regard to cultural intelligence, and there is not a lot on the anxiety accompanying using a foreign language while communicating which is very important to obtain higher levels of CQ which is proved to lead to better adjustment regardless of circumstances like going abroad for studying, working, traveling etc. Thus, this research addressed this gap in some way. Another contribution is that this study used a newly developed scale for FLCA which presented great reliability, thus it proves that although the measurement is quite fresh is also very well constructed.
Furthermore, outcomes of this research give clear evidence that students can improve cultural intelligence by different types of exposures happening abroad. Moreover, frequently education, age, or foreign travels are shown to be control variables for cultural intelligence, however, this research reports that it does not matter how high an individual’s level of education is or how many countries they have been to when it comes to enhancement of CQ.
To sum up, this study was expected to give some contribution to the body of literature on depth of cultural exposure and cultural intelligence. The research outcomes backed the previous studies conducted on a similar topic (Crowne, 2008, 2013). Furthermore, the research also gives some information about the variables in the context of Taiwanese society which has not been researched a lot in recent years.
Practical Implications
The result of this research provided some practical implications for Ministry of Education, teachers and students themselves, as well. The relationships backed in this study can be applied
57
and adopted to make changes in curriculum on foreign language learning. In recent years, it is very obvious that the Ministry of Education in Taiwan wants to promote the country to the outside world by inviting foreign people to come for studying or work which is shown by the number of scholar opportunities offered by the universities, but also it is trying to adopt a global perspective by sending its nationals to other countries and is also thinking about making English language one of the formal languages.
In order to have a global perspective, individuals have to possess abundance of knowledge on different topics, especially the ones connected to various cultures. Foreign language ability cannot be omitted here, either. To improve cultural intelligence which encompasses the practical and theoretical knowledge on how to behave amongst people and places foreign to us.
Thus, it is important to enhance our CQ quickly and effectively. This research shows that people who go out and meet with the local people, that is to say have various interactions with foreign cultures, have higher chance to become more knowledgeable. Why is that so important?
Exhibiting high levels of CQ are able to adopt to new situations and places faster, which is crucial and helpful while living abroad. When going abroad for studying is taken into consideration, it is obvious that the main reason for doing so is to gain professional expertise that an individual may not be able to do in the home country. Adaptation is a key to obtaining knowledge faster. When a person is constantly frustrated and stressed about new places and people, they cannot focus on their primary aim which is studying. Thus, students and people going abroad need to remember that being around their own people in a foreign country will not help them to adjust, they need to go out of their comfort zone and interact with the locals as much as it is possible to use their chance of foreign experience to the fullest. The study also proves that it is completely normal to feel anxious while communicating in a foreign language, and in fact, it is better to feel that way, since it makes people learn faster and more effectively.
Later, while working in the home country they will be able to share what they learnt abroad and
58
also educate others which may be helpful when doing business with international companies.
In that way, people can contribute better to the economy of the country.
Furthermore, anxiety which is incidental to using a foreign language should not necessarily be lessened as much as possible. Although his special type of apprehension may hamper foreign encounters, make people less confident and open for new, exciting confrontations, it helps with increasing knowledge That is also why, teachers and others responsible for creating curricula should not put a lot of attention to it. It is advisable to make courses on foreign languages more approachable and resembling regular, day-to-day situations. By doing that while still being in a home country, people could learn how to deal with stress and anxiety more effectively. Having courses devoted only to emotions before leaving the country seems to be a good idea, as well.
This can be used not only at school prior to students’ foreign experiences but also at workplace before assigning employees to go abroad. Low levels of stress and frustration can help them being more productive.
Limitations and Future Research Suggestions
Because of the data collection, measurement, and sample characteristics there are a few limitations to the present study. First of all, the data was collected in a form of a self-reported questionnaire, which might contribute to common method variance (CMV). That is also why in order to minimize the problem mentioned before two scales were used: 5-point and 7-point Likert scale to measure up different variables. Another thing is that the sample considered only people who had an experience of studying overseas for at least four months and the time from their graduation could not exceed two years. Also, the research was limited to one country only, since apart from Taiwanese no other nationality has been taken into consideration. Also, due to screening questions, Taiwanese who were above certain age were not taken into account either.
Moreover, foreign language communication anxiety variable was not specified in terms of the language used abroad by Taiwanese, that is also why, it is hard to measure the anxiety
59
levels if a person used more than one foreign language, due to their level of its command the levels of anxiety could be changed, which might have also contributed to less precise results.
Another limitation is the difficulty of assessing the level of depth of exposure since it was measured by frequency of going to certain places. In the survey the answers like never, rarely, often, sometimes, always were used. For every subject interviewed those frequency words may mean something different.
Based on the limitation given, the researcher would like to suggest some ideas for future research. Firstly, the study can be fully re-conducted with the special emphasis on cultural exposure: depth of exposure variable. Since the variable is very interesting but its instrument is not developed enough, it would be a good idea to make some further research on that variable to create a better and more reliable way to measure its value. Additionally, personality is thought to be a huge factor while communicating, hence, it would be a good idea to include that variable in further research.
Moreover, the sample in present research took into consideration people of all majors, however, it would be fascinating to see what the results would be if the target population was only aiming at people whose major is related to learning a foreign language and compare it to those of majors not related to studying foreign language.
60
61
References
Alon, I., Boulanger, M., Elston, J. A., Galanaki, E., Martínez de Ibarreta, C., Meyers, J., &
Vélez-Calle, A. (2018). Business cultural intelligence quotient: A five-country study.
Thunderbird International Business Review, 60(3), 237-250.
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Handbook of cultural intelligence. New York: ME Sharpe.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 100-123.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K.J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N.A.
(2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgement and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335-371.
Bailey, P., Daley, C. E., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1999). Foreign language anxiety and learning style. Foreign Language Annals, 32(1), 63-76.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structure Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Barbuto, J. E., Beenen, G., & Tran, H. (2015). The role of core self-evaluation, ethnocentrism, and cultural intelligence in study abroad success. The International Journal of Management Education, 13(3), 268-277.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (2003). What is a global manager?. Harvard Business Review, 81(8), 101-8.
Bell, M. P., & Harrison, D. A. (1996). Using intra-national diversity for international assignments: A model of bicultural competence and expatriate adjustment. Human Resource Management Review, 6(1), 47-74.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, P. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustments: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy
Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustments: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy