Academy ol Managemenl Review, 1990, Vol.

15, No, 1, 113-136,

Cross-Cultural Training Effectiveness:

A Review and a
Theoretical Framework for
Future Research
J. STEWART BLACK
Dartmouth College
MARK MENDENHALL
University of Tennessee, Chattanooga
Increased internationalization in the economic, political, and social
arenas has led to greater interpersonal cross-cultural contact. Be-
cause much of this contact has not been successful, cross-cultural
training has been proposed by many scholars as a means of facili-
tating more effective interaction. A review of the cross-cultural train-
ing literature is presented, and it is determined that cross-cultural
training in general is effective. The article also offers a theoretical
framework based on social learning theory for understanding past
research and for guiding future research; this is important because in
this context variables seem to operate differently in international ver-
sus domestic areas.

The field of international management has
been observed to be in a nascent, preparadigm
state of development (Adler, 1983; Beaty & Men-
denhall, 1989; Kyi, 1988; Roberts, 1970; Roberts &
Boyacigiller, 1984; Schollhammer, 1975). Kyi
(1988) perhaps best summarized these findings
when he stated, "The paucity of papers in the
hypothetico-deductive category . . . is related to
the stage of the development of the field and the
nature of comparative analysis. At this stage,
there are no deductively developed theories in
[international] management and most so-called
'theories' are experienced-based hunches or
empirical generalizations. Well-integrated de-
ductive theories with a central core concept,
such as 'market and rationality' in economic the-
ory, have not appeared yet" (p. 209).
This preparadigm state is especially descrip-
tive of the newer subfield of cross-cultural inter-
national human resource management (Adler,
1983; Beaty & Mendenhall, 1989). Adler (1983)
found that from 1971 to 1980 only one percent of
the 11,000 articles published in 24 management
journals focused on cross-cultural work interac-
tion. Of the major international business jour-
nals from 1984 to 1988, only 9 percent of the
articles were devoted to international human re-
source management issues, and in the Acad-
emy of Management Review, for the same pe-
riod, only one and one half percent of the arti-
cles dealt with international human resource
management issues; however, none were at-
tempts at theory building (Beaty & Mendenhall,
1989).
This is particularly unfortunate because in-
creased internationalization in the economic,

113
 political, and social arenas has led to a greater
frequency of, and depth in, cross-cultural inter-
actions (contacts between two or more people
from different cultural backgrounds). These in-
teractions occur in a variety of work-related sit-
uations, including short-term business trips to
foreign countries, long-term overseas assign-
ments, and even work in one organization.
However, work-related cross-cultural interac-
tions are not always successful. For example,
studies have found that between 16 and 40 per-
cent of all expatriate managers who are given
foreign assignments end these assignments
early because of their poor performance or their
inabflity to adjust to the foreign environment
(Baker & Ivancevich, 1971; Black, 1988; Dunbar
& Ehrlich, 1986; Tung, 1981), and as high as 50
percent of those who do not return early function
at a low level of effectiveness (Copeland &
Griggs, 1985). Other studies have found that ne-
gotiations between businessmen of different cul-
tures often fail because of problems related to
cross-cultural diflerences (Adler, 1986; Black,
1987; Graham, 1985; Tung, 1984). Unsuccessful
cross-cultural interactions become even more
important when the costs of failure are high, and
they often are. For example, studies have esti-
mated that the cost of a failed expatriate assign-
ment is $50,000 to $150,000 (Copeland & Griggs,
1985; Harris & Moran, 1979; Misa & Fabricatore,
1979). For a firm that has hundreds of expatriate
employees worldwide, such costs can easily
reach into the tens of millions of dollars. In fact,
Copeland and Griggs (1985) have estimated that
the direct costs to U.S. firms of failed expatriate
assignments is over $2 billion a year, and this
does not include unmeasured losses such as
damaged corporate reputations or lost business
opportunities.
Cross-cultural training (CCT) has long been
advocated as a means of facilitating effective
cross-cultural interactions (Brislin, 1981; Landis
& Brislin, 1983; Bochner, 1982; Harris & Moran,
1979; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1986; Tung, 1981).
Despite the normative arguments for the use of
cross-cultural training, its use in American busi-
114
ness organizations is not very widespread. Stud-
ies have found that only 30 percent of managers
who are sent on expatriate assignments (one to
five years) receive cross-cultural training before
their departure (Baker 8f Ivancevich, 1971;
Black, 1988; Runzheimer Executive Report, 1984;
Tung, 1981). Various reasons have been cited by
business organizations for the low use of cross-
cultural training, and the most prevalent of
these is that such training is not thought to be
effective (Baker & Ivancevich, 1971; Mendenhall
& Oddou, 1985; Schwind, 1985; Tung, 1981;
Zeira, 1975); thus, top management sees no
need for the training (Runzheimer Executive Re-
port, 1984) and is unwilling to support it, finan-
cially or otherwise. Essentially, American top
managers believe that a good manager in New
York or Los Angeles will be effective in Hong
Kong or Tokyo (Miller, 1973). 'This is illustrated
not only in the lack of training provided but also
in the use of the domestic track record as the
primary criterion for selecting candidates for
overseas assignments (Miller, 1973). Such a cul-
turally insensitive perspective seems to be an
important reason for many faulty international
human resource practices and the high expatri-
ate failure rates (Adler, 1986; Black, 1988; Baker
& Ivancevich, 1971; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985;
Ronen, 1986; Tung, 1982). It would seem, then,
that an attempt to comprehensively review the
empirical literature on cross-cultural training in
an effort to examine its effectiveness or ineffec-
tiveness and an attempt to advance a theoreti-
cal grounding for valid cross-cultural training
program development and evaluation is espe-
cially important.
Thus, this article has two purposes. The flrst is
to review the extant empirical literature on the
effectiveness of cross-cultural training. Three
reasons indicate that this is an appropriate and
timely effort: (a) the opportunities for and the ne-
cessity of engaging in cross-cultural interaction
are widespread, (b) the costs of unsuccessful in-
teractions can be substantial, and (c) many flrms
seem to believe that cross-cultural training is not
effective and that no empirical evidence exists
that supports the efficacy of cross-cultural train-
ing. The lack of a systematic review of the liter-
ature may have contributed to conflicting views
by corporate leaders and academics about
whether cross-cultural training facilitates more
effective cross-cultural interactions. Most corpo-
rate leaders do not provide cross-cultural train-
ing for employees and cite doubt of the training's
effectiveness as the reason. Academics, in con-
trast, who advocate the necessity of cross-
cultural training tout its importance but do not
offer empirical evidence to support their asser-
tions. A comprehensive review of the literature
would aid in the resolution of the debate.
The second purpose is to propose a theoretical
framework for understanding the literature and
guiding future research. This latter aim seems
particularly important because the empirical as
well as prescriptive work on cross-cultural train-
ing to date has been criticized for lacking a clear
theoretical base (Adler, 1983; Brislin, 1981; Boch-
ner, 1982; Landis, Brislin, & Hulgus, 1985).
Review of the Literature
Although no study has attempted a compre-
hensive review, two reviews have examined the
cultural assimilator type of training and its effec-
tiveness (Fiedler, Mitchell, & Triandis, 1971;
Mitchefl, Dosseti, Fiedler, & Triandis, 1972), but
neither examined other approaches, nor did
they offer a theoretical framework. Brislin and
Pedersen (1976) conducted a comprehensive re-
view of cross-cultural training approaches, but
they focused on developing a typology of train-
ing methods. Other somewhat-related reviews
include the nature of cross-cultural adjustment
(Church, 1982; Mendenhafl & Oddou, 1985;
Stening, 1979), the impact of cross-cultural as-
signments on expatriates' careers (Mendenhall,
Dunbar, & Oddou, 1987), and the degree to
which cross-cultural training is utilized (Baker &
Ivancevitch, 1971; Mendenhall et al., 1987;
Tung, 1981). Athough related, none directly at-
tempts a comprehensive review of the empirical
literature or offers a theoretical framework. If, as
115
some scholars have argued (Adler, 1983; Beaty
8f Mendenhall, 1989; Kyi, 1988; Roberis, 1970;
Roberts & Boyacigiller, 1984; Schollhammer,
1975), international management in general is
in a preparadigmatic, pretheoretical stage of
development, then it is not surprising that such
subareas as cross-cultural training also lack
theories and models.
In order to delineate the efficacy of cross-
cultural training programs, a review of the ex-
tant literature was performed across a variety of
disciplines in the social sciences. Much writing
exists on the value of utilizing cross-cultural
training programs for potential expatriates and
others who work in a multicultural milieu; how-
ever, only studies that empirically evaluated the
efiectiveness of cross-cultural training programs
were included. A computer-aided, interdiscipli-
nary literature search was used for a number of
data bases, and after eliminating nonempirical
studies, 29 studies were included in the formal
review process.
Because most studies used a variety of train-
ing methods and because few studies systemat-
ically tried to compare the efficacy of training
methods, training will be treated herein as a
generic activity, and the focus will be to ascer-
tain its overall impact on the dependent vari-
ables used to measure its effectiveness. The re-
lationship between training and each of the de-
pendent variables was coded as (a) not
addressed in the study (lefi blank), (b) positive
(recorded as a -t- ), (c) nonsignificant (recorded
as 0), and (d) negative (recorded as ). A sum-
mary of the studies reviewed is given in Table 1.
From the review of the literature, three pri-
mary dependent variables were commonly
used as indicators of training efiectiveness (a)
cross-cultural skifl development, (b) adjustment,
and (c) performance (see Table 1). Each of these
variables and its relationship to training effec-
tiveness is discussed next.
Cross-Cultural Skill Development
Living and working overseas or within a mul-
ticultural context in one's home country requires
T a b l e 1 -^- - v = - , . : ; ; . : , . , . . - . ,
Review Summary of Cioss-Cultuial Training Effectiveness

Variables oi Training Effectiveness

Subjects b Cross-Cultural Skills Adjustment Perionnance
Study Sample Size Seli Relationship Perceptual Mise'
Befus(1988) Missionaries F,C
n = 64
Chemers (1969) Managers, + /Q F,T
Teachers n = 48
Chemers et al. Students n = 42 -H/O L,C,T
(1966)
Dege(1981) Teaching -1- F
assistants n = 30
Earley(1987) Managers n = 80 + F,C,T,LG
Fernandez Nurses n = 31 L
(1986)
Gudykunst et al. Navy personnel -I- F,C,T,LG
(1977) n = 530
Katz(1977) Students n = 24 -1- L,C,LG
Landis et a l Army officers F,C
(1985) n = 923
Landis et al. Students n = 45 L,T,C
(1985)
Landis et al. Army officers F,C
(1976) n = 170
Lefley (1986) Mental health -1- F,LG
agencies n = 97
Lefley (1985) Psychologists -1- F,LG
n = 122
McDaniel et al. Teachers n = 180 -1- F,LG
(1988)
McGroarty Teachers of F
(1984) English as a
second language
n = 29
Mitchell et al. Peace corps F,C
(1972) volunteers n = 23
Mitchell & Foa Students n = 64 0 L,C
(1969)
Ncryar et al. Students n = 72 -{- L,T
(1968)
Neimeyer et al. Students n = 20 L
(1986)
Newbold et al. Medical interns F,LG
(1982) n =6
O'Brien & Nurses n = 74 L,C,LG
Plooij (1976)
O'Brien et al. Public health F,T,LG
(1970) workers n = 265
PSI (1982) Peace corps F
teachers n = 79

116
Table 1Continued
Review Summary of Cross-Cultural Training Effectiveness

Variables of Training Effectiveness

Subjects & Cross-Cultural Skills Adjustment Performance

Study Sample Size Self Relationship Perceptual Mise*
Randolph et al. Students -1- L,C
(1977) n = 35
Salisbury Eskimo students -1- F,C,LG
(1971) n = 53
Steinkalk College F,C
&Taft administrators
(1979) n = 43
Vigushin College staff F
(1982) n = 126
Weldon et al. Students 0 L,C
(1975) n = 128
Worchel & Mitchell Military officers F,C,T,LG
(1972) n = 110
* The code for the miscellaneous column is: L = laboratory study, F = field study, C = control group was used. T = Training
programs were compared for relative effectiveness. LG = longitudinal study.

an individual to use interaction skills that tran-
scend those that are effective when dealing with
others from one's immediate in-group (Adler,
1986; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Torbiorn,
1982). Thus, the development of cross-cultural
skills in trainees has been a major objective in
the evaluation studies reviewed here. The link
between possessing these skills and subsequent
success in overseas assignments has been dem-
onstrated elsewhere (for reviews see Brein &i
David, 1971; Church, 1982; Mendenhall &
Oddou, 1985). The purpose here is to ascertain
whether cross-cultural training can indeed fos-
ter the development of such skills in trainees.
The skills needed to be successful in a new
culture can be subsumed under three dimen-
sions: skills related to the maintenance of self
(mental health, psychological well-being, stress
reduction, feelings of self-confidence), skills re-
lated to the fostering of relationships with host
nationals, and cognitive skills that promote a
correct perception of the host environment and
its social systems (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985).
The self dimension. O the 29 studies, 10 ex-
amined the relationship between cross-cultural
training and the development of greater feelings
of well-being and self-confidence (Dege, 1981;
Fernandez, 1986; McGoarty, 1984; Neimeyer,
Fukuyama, Bingham, Hall, & Mussenden, 1986;
O'Brien & Plooij, 1976; O'Brien, Fiedler, &
Hewett, 1970; PSI Associates, 1982; Randolph,
Landis, & Tzeng, 1977; Salisbury, 1971; Worchel
& Mitchell, 1972), and all 10 found a positive re-
lationship. In examining the validity of the find-
ings of these studies, two points should be noted.
First, all 10 studies relied on self-repori mea-
sures of variables related to the self dimension
(e.g., O'Brien & Plooij, 1976). This approach may
have inflated the relationship between training
and the self dimension dependent variables be-
cause of common method variance problems.
However, studies by Worchel and Mitchell
(1972), Salisbury (1971), and O'Brien and Plooij
(1976) included control groups and found signif-
icant differences in pre- and posttest measures
of self-confidence between the experimental
and control-group subjects. Second, despite the
fact that studies that utilized control groups

117
 found significant relationships between training
and self-confidence, it is possible that subjects
assigned to the experimental groups through
common method measures may have inflated
the relationship because of Hawthorne effects of
knowing they were in an experimental group.
The Relationship Dimension. Nineteen of the
29 studies examined the relationship between
cross-cultural training and skills related to fos-
tering relationships with host nationals (Chem-
ers, 1969; Chemers, Lekhyananda, Fiedler, &
Stoulurow, 1966; Dege, 1981; Earley, 1987;
Gudykunst, Hammer, & Wiseman, 1977; Katz,
1977; Landis, Brislin, Swanner, Tseng, & Thom-
as, 1985; Landis, Day, McGrew, Thomas, &
Miller, 1976; Lefley, 1985; McGroarty, 1984;
Mitchell & Foa, 1969; Mitchell et al., 1972; Nayar,
Touzard, & Summers, 1986; Newbold, Carroll,
Hartman, Mitchell, & Story, 1982; PSl Associ-
ates, 1982; Randolph et al., 1977; Salisbury,
1971; Weldon, Carlston, Rissman, Slobodin, &
Triandis, 1975; Worchel & Mitchell, 1972). Each
of these 19 studies found a significant relation-
ship between cross-cultural training and self-
reported measures of relationship skills.
More than half of the studies that examined
the effectiveness of cross-cultural training on re-
lational skills used control groups (Chemers et
al., 1966; Earley, 1987; Gudykunst et al., 1977;
Landis, Brislin, Swanner et a l , 1985; Landis et
al., 1976; Mitchell et al., 1972; Mitchell & Foa,
1969; Randolph et al., 1977; Salisbury, 1971;
Weldon et a l , 1975; Worchel & Mitchell, 1972). In
addition, the studies of Earley (1987), Salisbury
(1971), and Worchel and Mitchell (1972) were
longitudinal in nature. All of these studies found
a significant relationship, and the longitudinal
studies found the relationship to persist over
time. However, relational skills were measured
through self-reports, which opens these studies
and their findings to the same limitations and
issues that concerned the self dimension.
The Perception Dimension. A total of 16 of the
29 studies examined the relationship between
cross-cultural training and the development of
appropriate perceptions relative to members of
118
another culture, and all 16 studies found a pos-
itive relationship (Chemers, 1969; Chemers et
al., 1966; Earley, 1987; Katz, 1977; Landis, Bris-
lin, HulgusetaL, 1985; Landis, Brislin, Swanner
et a l , 1985; Landis et al., 1976; Lefley, 1985; Mc-
Groarty, 1984; Nayar et al., 1968; O'Brien &
Plooij, 1976; Randolph et al., 1977; Steinkalk &
Taft, 1979; Vigushin, 1982; Weldon et al., 1975;
Worchel & Mitchell, 1972). Again, more than
half the studies examining the perception di-
mension used control groups (Chemers, 1969;
Earley, 1987; Katz, 1977; Landis, Brislin, & Hul-
gus, 1985; Landis, Brislin, Swanner et a l , 1985;
Landis et al., 1976; O'Brien & Plooij, 1976;
Steinkalk & Taft, 1979; Randolph et al., 1977^
Weldon et al., 1975; Worchel & Mitchell, 1972),
and Earley (1987), O'Brien and Plooij (1976), and
Worchel and Mitchell (1972) were longitudinal in
nature. This lends some support to the conclu-
sion that cross-cultural training has a positive
impact on individuals' correctly perceiving other
cultures and members of those cultures. Addi-
tionally, Weldon et a l (1975), Landis, Brislin, &
Hulgus (1985), Randolph et al. (1977), Vigushin
(1982), and Worchel and Mitchell (1972) all sup-
ported this conclusion using objective measures
of perception (the comparison of perception or
knowledge of the subjects with that of the host
national group). This independent measure of
the perception dimension overcomes some of
the limitations related to common method vari-
ance already discussed concerning the self-
reported measures of the self and relational di-
mensions.
Adjustment
The main argument for using cross-cultural
training is that it allows individuals to more rap-
idly adjust to the new culture and, therefore, to
be more effective in their new roles. Adjusting to
a new culture involves the gradual develop-
ment of familiarity, comfort, and proficiency re-
garding expected behavior and the values and
assumptions inherent in the new culture, all of
which are different from the individual's native
culture (Torbiom, 1982). A total of 9 studies ex-
amined the relationship between cross-cultural
training and adjustment (Befus, 1988; Earley,
1987;Gudykunstetal., 1977; Mitchell et aL, 1972;
Newbold et al., 1982; O'Brien, Fiedler, & Hewett,
1970; Salisbury, 1971; Steinkalk & Taft, 1979;
Worchel & Mitchell, 1972). All 9 studies found a
positive relationship between cross-cultural
training and adjustment. Seven of these nine
studies used control groups (Befus, 1988; Earley,
1987;Gudykunstetal., 1977; Mitchell et al., 1972;
Salisbury, 1971; Steinkalk & Taft, 1979; Worchel
& Mitchell, 1972), and Earley (1987), Salisbury
(1971), and Worchel and Mitchell (1972) were
longitudinal in nature. Earley (1987) and Mitch-
ell et al. (1972), in addition to using control
groups and longitudinal designs, also used in-
dependent measures of adjustment and found a
significant relationship between cross-cultural
training and adjustment; this use of indepen-
dent measures of adjustment increases the con-
fldence one can place in their findings that
cross-cultural training has a positive impact on
cross-cultural adjustment.
Performance
Institutions that send individuals overseas or
into a multicultural work setting expect those in-
dividuals to perform, whether that involves
building a dam, managing a factory, negotiat-
ing a contract, teaching children to read, or con-
verting host-nationals to a new religion. Thus,
the relationship of cross-cultural training to per-
formance is a critical concern: Does such train-
ing aid work performance in the cross-cultural
setting, or are its effects negligible? Fifteen of the
29 studies examined the relationship between
cross-cultural training and performance, and 11
of the 15 studies found a significant relationship
between cross-cultural training and perfor-
mance (Dege, 1981; Earley, 1987; Katz, 1977; Le-
fley, 1985, 1986; McDaniel, McDaniel, &
McDaniel, 1988; Nayar et al., 1968; O'Brien &
Plooij, 1976; O'Brien et aL, 1970; Salisbury, 1971;
Randolph et al., 1977; Worchel & Mitchefl, 1972).
Three lab studies found generally nonsignificant
relationships between cross-cultural training
119
and performance (Chemers et al., 1966; Mitchell
& Foa, 1969; Weldon et al., 1975). Mitchell et al.
(1972), in their review of culture assimilator train-
ing, argued that in general lab studies do not
allow sufflcient time for the effects of cross-
cultural training to be manifested in perfor-
mance. However, one field study found signifi-
cant and nonsignificant relationships between
cross-cultural training and various measures of
performance (Chemers, 1969). It should be noted
that none of the studies found a significant neg-
ative relationship between cross-cultural train-
ing and performance. Studies by Earley (1987),
Worchel and Mitchell (1972), Lefley (1986), and
O'Brien et al. (1970) afl used independent mea-
sures of performance, and all found a significant
and positive relationship between training and
performance.
Several concluding remarks can be made
concerning the effectiveness of cross-cultural
training. First, on average about one half of the
studies examining each dependent variable
used control groups, which allows for some con-
fidence to be placed in the consistency of the
findings. Only 6 of the 29 studies included both
control groups and a longitudinal design; there-
fore, even though it does seem that cross-
cultural training has a long-term effect on all the
dependent variables examined, it is clear that
more longitudinal studies are needed that in-
clude rigorous research designs, before defini-
tive conclusions about the impact of training
over time can be made. Second, many of the
studies of skill-related dependent variables did
not use independent measures of dependent
variables and, thus, common method variance
limitations must be kept in mind concerning the
apparent positive relationship between training
and skill development. Third, it is important to
note that those studies that included rigorous re-
search designs (e.g., control groups, longitudi-
nal designs, independent measures), such as
Earley (1987), Salisbury (1971), and Worchel and
Mitchell (1972), found support for a positive rela-
tionship between cross-cultural training and the
following dependent variables: cross-cultural
 skill development, cross-cultural adjustment,
and performance in a cross-cultural setting.
Thus, the empirical literature gives guarded
support to the proposition that cross-cultural
training has a positive impact on cross-cultural
effectiveness.
Need for a Theoretical Framework
This review indicates that, in general, cross-
cultural training seems to have a positive impact
on skill development, adjustment, and perfor-
mance; however, the lack of a theoretical frame-
work leaves unanswered the question about
why cross-cultural training is effective. Thus, in
order to systematically understand the condi-
tions that cause cross-cultural training to be ef-
fective or ineffective a theoretical framework,
which encompasses cross-cultural training and
its relation to cross-cultural interaction, is
needed.
Any attempt to move toward a theoretical un-
derstanding of the efiectiveness of cross-cultural
training must begin with a basic understanding
of cross-cultural interaction. Although it is be-
yond the scope of this article to present a com-
prehensive review of the theoretical literature
on cross-cultural interaction, several points can
be summarized based on other, more detailed
reviews (Brislin, 1981; Bochner, 1982).
Most discussions of cross-cultural interaction
begin with a definition of culture. In their classic
review of culture, Kluckhohn and Kroeberg
(1952) cited over 160 definitions of culture. Based
on their exhaustive review, Kluckhohn and
Kroeberg (1952) concluded that culture consists
of patterns of behaviors that are acquired and
transmitted by symbols over time, which be-
come generally shared within a group and are
communicated to new members of the group in
order to serve as a cognitive guide or blueprint
for future actions. Thus, cross-cultural interac-
tions bring people together who have different
patterns of behaving and believing and who
have different cognitive blueprints for interpret-
ing the world (Triandis, Vassifiou, Tanaka, &
120
Shanmugam, 1972). If people who have differ-
ent culturally based behaviors and beliefs must
interact, difficulties arise because faulty attribu-
tions are made about the motives and meanings
of the others' behaviors since the attributions are
based on the attributor's own cultural norms
and worldview (Bochner, 1982).
Cross-cultural training enables the individual
to learn both content and skills that will facilitate
effective cross-cultural interaction by reducing
misunderstandings and inappropriate behav-
iors. If this is accepted as the major objective of
cross-cultural training, it becomes necessary to
understand how people learn to appropriately
interact with others and how they use that
knowledge for efiective interactions.
In an effori to focus learning theory on the
more specific issue of training, Noe (1986) pro-
posed a model of how training facilitates perfor-
mance. This suggested that two aspects of an
individual's motivation had an important impact
on the effectiveness of training. Noe argued that
an individual's motivation to learn and his or her
motivation to transfer what was learned into ac-
tion were critical elements in the relationship of
training and performance. However, Noe did
not delineate how individuals actually learn or
how they transfer that learning to behaviors. In
order to understand the relationship between
training and performance, these aspects of the
model require additional attention.
Cognitive and behavioral theorists have long
competed to explain how individuals learn and
how they use this knowledge (for reviews on
cognitive and behavioral learning theories and
the debate between them see Bochner, 1982;
Hilgard & Bower, 1975; Swenson, 1980). Accord-
ing to the cognitive theories of learning, learn-
ing takes place through the mental processing of
information and the determination of subse-
quent behavior. Behavioral theories argue that
learning is determined by behaviors and expe-
rienced consequences. In response to this 20-
year debate Latham and Saari (1979) noted, "To
show that behavior is determined only by cog-
nitions, one would have to find a control group
consisting of subjects who cannot think. Simi-
larly, to prove empirical suppori for the argu-
ment that behavior is due to environmental con-
sequences alone, one would have the impossi-
ble task of forming a control group for which
there was no environment" (p. 240).
Social learning theory (SLT) has been advo-
cated as a synthesis of the cognitive and behav-
ioral learning theories (Bandura, 1977; Hilgard
& Bower, 1975). Davis and Luthans (1980), who
compared SLT with other theories of behavior,
argued that it is the most useful in understand-
ing organizational behavior. Additionally, gen-
eral reviews of learning in particular have ar-
gued for the superiority of SLT (Hilgard & Bower,
1975; Swenson, 1980). For example, Swenson
(1980) stated that SLT was viewed as a consen-
sus position on most aspects of learning. SLT not
only integrates cognitive and behavioral theo-
ries, it also encompasses the motivational as-
pects stressed by Noe (1986) within the concept of
self-efficacy, and it covers the issues of how in-
dividuals both learn and utilize what they learn
during a training situation, aspects that Noe did
not emphasize. In addition, SLT is becoming the
dominant framework in U.S. management train-
ing (Latham & Saari, 1979; Manz 8f Sims, 1981).
These make for compelling reasons to use SLT
as the theoretical framework for understanding
cross-cultural learning and training. However,
greater depth and breadth of novel behaviors
that trainees must learn during cross-cultural
training present a challenge to SLT's explana-
tion of the success or failure of cross-cultural
training. Consequently, it is important to see if
the domestic and the foreign contexts can both
be explained through SLT.
Social Learning Theory: An Overview
According to SLT, learning is affected by both
observation and experience (Bandura, 1977). A
central premise is that individuals use symbols
to engage in anticipatory action, that is, they
anticipate actions and their associated conse-
quences. This enables people to determine how
121
they will behave before an actual situation.
Also, it is argued that individuals learn from ex-
perience and that the experienced conse-
quences of their behavior shape what they learn
as wefl as their future behavior. As described by
Bandura (1977), SLT has four central elements:
attention, retention, reproduction, and incen-
tives.
Attention. Before behavior can be modeled,
the subject must notice it. Several factors influ-
ence the attention process of the subject, includ-
ing: (a) the status of the model, (b) the attractive-
ness of the model, (c) the similarity of the model,
(d) the repeated availability of the model, and (e)
past reinforcement for paying attention to the
model (actual or vicarious).
fefenion. Retention is the process by which
the modeled behavior becomes encoded as a
memory. Two representational systems are in-
volved in this process. The imaginai system is
utilized during exposure to the model. At this
time the subject associates sequences of corre-
sponding sensory images with the physical con-
tiguity of the model. These images are stored as
cognitive maps, which can guide the observer
when he or she tries to imitate the behavior. In
the second system, a verbal system, the coded
information is abbreviated into verbal systems,
and groups of constituent patterns of behavior
are integrated into larger units. It should be
noted that both the repeated modeling of a be-
havior and the repeated cognitive rehearsal of
the modeled behavior help to secure the reten-
tion process.
fleproduciion. The third major component in-
volves the translating of flie symbolic represen-
tations into actions. As individuals try to imitate
the modeled behavior, they check their perfor-
mance against their memory of what was mod-
eled. Motoric reproduction of the modeled be-
havior can, of course, be inhibited by physical
differences between the model and the person
imitating the model, how well the model is ob-
served, and how well the modeled behavior is
retained.
Incentives and the Motivational Processes.
 The fourth element of SLT, incentives, can come
from the environment, from vicarious associa-
tion, and from the individual. Each of these can
affect several aspects of the learning process.
For example, incentives (a) can affect which
models are observed and how much attention is
paid to them, (b) can influence the degree to
which the modeled behavior is retained and re-
hearsed, and (c) can influence which learned
behaviors are emitted. It is imporiant to note that
Bandura (1977) argued on the basis of empirical
work that incentives play a much larger role m
influencing what behavior is emitted as op-
posed to what behavior is learned. He con-
cluded that individuals learn numerous behav-
iors that are not emitted because they are not
positively rewarded. However, if the reward
structure is changed, the behaviors are per-
formed.
In relation to the motivational processes of
learning, Bandura (1977) distinguished between
two types of expectancies: efficacy expectations
and outcome expectations. Self-efficacy is the
degree to which the individual believes he or
she can successfully execute a pariicular behav-
ior. This expectation is similar to the effort-
to-performance expectancy proposed by Vroom
(1964). In his review of the literature, Bandura
(1977) found that higher levels of self-efficacy led
individuals to persist at imitating modeled be-
havior longer and to be more willing to try to
imitate novel behavior. The sources for increas-
ing self-efficacy, in order of importance, include
past experience ("I've done it or something like it
before"), vicarious experience ("other people
have done it"), and verbal persuasion ("people
say I can do it").
Outcome expectations are people's beliefs
that the execution of ceriain behaviors will lead
to desired outcomes. There is a clear similarity
between this type of expectation and the expect-
ancy-of-performance-to-outcome (instrumental-
ity expectancies) proposed by Vroom (1964).
Bandura concluded that incentives influence
what people learn and that incentives, efficacy.
122
expectations, and outcome expectancies influ-
ence what learned behaviors are acted out.
Although a number of empirical findings are
reviewed by Bandura (1977), three are impor-
tant to summarize because they provide insight
about fundamental elements in the learning
process. The first finding is that gradual model-
ing is more effective than one-shot modeling,
especially if the modeled behaviors are novel.
Gradual modeling involves providing succes-
sive approximations of the final behavior and it
is more effective because (a) observers pay more
attention to models and modeled behaviors that
are familiar, (b) observers can more easily re-
tain models that are similar to cognitive maps
they already possess, (c) observers have higher
expectations of efficacy and outcome of behav-
iors that are familiar, and (d) observers are more
likely to be able to reproduce familiar behaviors.
The second finding is that individuals can learn
completely through symbolic modeling, that is,
by watching actions and mentally rehearsing
them. As previously mentioned, this symbolic
learning process can be facilitated by other vari-
ables and by the use of multiple models. Finally,
Bandura found that participative reproduction,
in general, is more effective than symbolic pro-
cesses. Participative reproduction simply means
that the observer actually practices (compared
to only cognitively rehearsing) the modeled be-
havior. The external, and especially the inter-
nal, feedback processes serve to refine the ob-
server's ability to reproduce the modeled behav-
ior at a later time.
Social Learning Theory and
Cross-Cultural Training
SLT provides both a theorefical framework for
understanding past research and a guide for fu-
ture investigation. Because few of the past em-
pirical studies of cross-cultural training have at-
tempted a systematic study of training methods,
this section treats cross-cultural training in a ge-
neric manner.
Social Learning Theory and
Skill Development
The review of the literature on cross-cultural
training and skill development found that cross-
cultural training tended to increase various
skills that facilitated effective cross-cultural inter-
action. This section examines how cross-cultural
training might achieve this within the theoretical
framework of social learning theory.
The Self Dimension. Cross-cultural training
increased trainees' confidence in themselves
and their abiliti' to act effectively in a cross-
cultural setting. According to SLT, as trainees
receive either verbal or visual models of appro-
priate and inappropriate behaviors for the im-
pending cross-cultural interaction, and for asso-
ciations between these behaviors and expected
consequences, that trainees rehearse (cogni-
tively or behaviorally) these behaviors and con-
sequences. Such cognitive maps will increase
the individual's efflcacy and outcome expecta-
tions because he or she has learned the appro-
priate behaviors (vicariously) and made associ-
ations about the expected outcomes. According
to SLT, higher self-efficacy and outcome expec-
tations would have a positive impact on the re-
tention and reproduction learning processes,
which, in turn, would have a positive impact on
outcome variables such as adjustment and per-
formance. This learning process would explain
why individuals who received cross-cultural
training reported higher levels of confidence
and other self-hygiene factors than those who
did not (Church, 1982; Mendenhall & Oddou,
1985). For example, as the public health workers
in the O'Brien et al. (1970) study were trained
through culture assimilator exercises, they were
presented with verbal models of how to interpret
the behavior of the people of Honduras and
Guatemala and how to behave appropriately.
The information gained gave the volunteers
confidence that they could now function appro-
priately in these two countries and cultures.
The Relationship Dimension. The review of
123
the literature indicated that cross-cultural train-
ing increased trainees' relational skills. Most
cross-cultural training provides models that both
describe cognitive maps of individuals from the
other cultures and explain appropriate and in-
appropriate behaviors for interacting in these
settings. Because trainees have both modeled
behavior and information, upon which they can
imagine models of behavior, and because they
have formed expectations about the conse-
quences of certain behaviors, when they actu-
ally are confronted with the cross-cultural situa-
tion they can recall the models and imitate them
better than individuals who have not been
trained. Additionally, even if the models are not
perfect or not perfectly imitated, the increased
self-efficacy that the trained individuals have
gained would lead them to persist longer than
nontrained individuals in imitating more novel
behaviors in the actual cross-cultural situation.
This, in turn, would generate both external and
internal feedback, which would serve to refine
the modeled behaviors; all of this would help to
facilitate the trained individuals' skills at estab-
lishing relationships with individuals from the
other culture. As an example, the workers in
Earley's (1987) study were subjected to a simu-
lation in which they were required to interact
with individuals who represented South Kore-
ans (the target culture). Through this simulation,
trainees had the opportunity to see (attend) and
practice (retain) interpersonal interaction skills,
which they later recalled and utilized in South
Korea.
The Perception Dimension. Most cross-
cultural training includes information about
how people of other cultures view the world as
well as their cognitive tendencies (e.g., ethno-
centrism), which cause problems in cross-
cultural situations. This information enables the
trainee to make cognitive associations between
congruent behaviors and the cognitive maps of
members of the other culture. Assuming the in-
formation provided to the trainee is correct, and
the cognitive maps the trainee creates are accu-
 rate, when the trainee imagines models of be-
havior in the actual situation, these behaviors
will be appropriate and will enable the individ-
ual to be effective in the cross-cultural interac-
tion.
Training, which provides a means for model-
ing behaviors such as being tolerant of ambigu-
ity or reserving judgment about the actions of
those of the other culture and the consequences
of such behavior, can serve as an important vi-
carious learning experience for the trainee and
can result in cognitive behavior/consequence
associations as well as efficacy and outcome ex-
pectations. The social learning process would
result in the same but opposite results concern-
ing the modeling of inappropriate behaviors
such as ethnocentricity. Thus, according to SLT,
cross-cultural training leads both to trainees'
perceiving they have accurate perceptions of
the target culture and to trainees actually hav-
ing correct perceptions of the target culture. For
example, some workers in Earley's (1987) study
also went through an interaction simulation
called BaFa BaFa, in which two teams tried to
trade with each other without knowing the oth-
er's rules of trading. Debriefing sessions illus-
trated that without knowing the rules most par-
ticipants made inaccurate attributions, which
had a dysfunctional effect on their attempts to
trade. Thus, trainees were able to make antici-
patory behavioral adjustments by determining
to reserve judgment about the actions of South
Koreans until they had more information,
which, subsequently, had a positive effect on
their adjustment in South Korea.
Social Learning Theory and Adjustment
Adjustment to a cross-cultural situation gener-
ally has been viewed as the process and end
state of being familiar and comfortable while in-
teracting in the host culture. Thus, adjustment is
most relevant when an individual will live in
another culture for some period of time. Social
learning theory also provides a framework for
understanding why various skills are important
for adjustment and how they facilitate this pro-
124
cess. Simply stated, cross-cultural adjustment
involves the knowledge of which behaviors to
execute or suppress in given situations and the
ability to effectively actualize this understand-
ing. Cross-cultural training can provide models
of appropriate and inappropriate behavior in
general or specific, hypothetical or simulated
situations; it can provide information from which
trainees can imagine appropriate and inappro-
priate behavior and associated consequences; it
can increase individuals' efficacy and outcome
expectations; and it can facilitate symbolic and/
or participative rehearsals of the modeled be-
haviors.
All of these results can lead to several impor-
tant links between cross-cultural training and
adjustment. First, by having models of appro-
priate and inappropriate behavior upon which
to base behavior, cross-culturally trained indi-
viduals would have a greater ability to imitate
the models in actual situations. Also, because
cross-culturally trained individuals would have
higher efflcacy and outcome expectations, they
would be more likely to imitate and to persist in
imitating the modeled behaviors that would be-
gin the feedback process. Additionally, such
models of appropriate behavior would enable
trainees to better recognize model behavior in
host nationals, which would increase the
trained individuals' retention of the models and
their ability to reproduce the behaviors. Also,
trained individuals would have higher levels of
self-efflcacy, which would lead them to be more
persistent in attempting to execute new behav-
iors. This persistence would facilitate the learn-
ing process in the host culture, and it also would
aid in the individual's understanding of, and
ability to execute, appropriate behavior.
As an example. Navy personnel in the study
by Gudykunst et al. (1977) were trained by two
methods (factual briefing and integrated
method) in preparation for living in Japan. The
integrated, multimethod training included both
symbolic and participative modeling. This sym-
bolic modeling (e.g., lectures on Japanese cul-
ture and culture shock) enabled trainees to use
their imaginai systems to create anticipatory as-
sociations between appropriate and inappropri-
ate behaviors in the Japanese culture and to un-
derstand likely positive and negative conse-
quences. Pariicipative modeling (e.g., contrast
American role play, BaFa BaFa simulation, and
field trips) allowed trainees to utilize both verbal
and imaginai systems, to have repeated expo-
sure to the models of desirable behavior, and to
practice those behaviors. Based on SLT, re-
peated exposure would increase attention pro-
cesses, which, in turn, would have a positive
effect on the retention process. Additionally,
given the novelty of the Japanese culture (rela-
tive to American culture), participative model-
ing would increase the retention of desirable be-
haviors. As SLT would predict, the trainees ex-
posed to this more comprehensive training were
more adjusted to Japan than trainees who re-
ceived only the factual briefing.
Social Learning Theory and Periormance
The relationship between cross-cultural train-
ing and performance in the theoretical frame-
work of SLT is based on the assumption that
tasks that are performed in a cross-cultural set-
ting have dimensions that are related to the host
culture. At the least, this assumes a positive re-
lationship between adjustment to living in a for-
eign culture and efiectively performing organi-
zational tasks; that is, that successful adjustment
to living in a foreign culture requires an under-
standing of the host culture. At the most, it as-
sumes that every task has cultural dimensions to
it and that effectively performing these tasks re-
quires an integration of appropriate behavior.
Without one or both of these assumptions, it
could be argued that living in a foreign culture
has no influence on work performance, and that
work performance has no relationship with cul-
tural dimensions; therefore, there would be no
reason for cross-cultural training to have an im-
pact on work performance in a cross-cultural
setiing. Thus, if one can assume that a person's
effective execution of tasks and responsibilities
in a cross-cultural situation are determined by
125
the cultural dimensions of the setiing, then cross-
cultural training would have an impact on per-
formance in a number of ways.
First, based on the previous discussion, SLT
provides a means of understanding why cross-
cultural training has an impact on the acquisi-
tion of various skills and on adjustment to the
culture, as well as how certain skills may facili-
tate adjustment. If adjustment is viewed as the
person's ability to know and execute appropri-
ate behaviors relative to the cross-cultural situ-
ation, then to the degree that performance is tied
to culturally determined behavior, cross-cultural
training would also have a positive impact on
task performance. Within the SLT framework,
cross-cultural training would enable individuals
to determine in advance appropriate behaviors
and culturally congruent ways of performing job
tasks. Also, if cross-cultural training allowed for
more cognitive and behavioral rehearsal, the
individual would have higher efficacy and out-
come expectations as well as greater proficiency
regarding certain behaviors before actually en-
tering the cross-cultural setting, all of which
would facilitate the effective execution of the job
tasks. Obviously, to the extent that performance
is unrelated to culturally determined appropri-
ate behaviors, then other theoretical models of
performance would be more relevant and cross-
cultural training would be less relevant. For ex-
ample, based on empirical evidence. Porter and
Lawler (1968) argued that abflity, motivation,
opporiunity, and role perceptions are the key
determinants of performance. If these factors are
unrelated to the cross-cultural situation, then
logically (as well as within the theoretical frame-
work of SLT) one would not expect cross-cultural
training to have an impact.
However, the studies reviewed found that
cross-cultural training did lead to greater levels
of performance in various groups of individuals.
This suggests that in most cases performance
does have culturally related components and
that the processes described with the framework
of SLT of how skills are acquired, how modeled
behaviors are imitated, and how the adjustment
 process is facilitated explain why cross-cultural
training facilitates performance. Figure 1 illus-
trates how elements of cross-cultural training
and SLT would interact in affecting cross-
cultural skill development, adjustment, and per-
formance.
Theoretical Implications
The primary focus of the previous section was
to examine how SLT might explain the empirical
findings of the effectiveness of cross-cultural
training; however, SLT also provides a means
by which cross-cultural training can be system-
atically investigated in the future.
Attention Processes in
Cross-Cultural Learning
Social learning theory suggests that similar
models receive more attention than dissimilar
models. In a cross-cultural training situation, the
more the model or trainer seems similar to the
trainees, the more the trainees relate to the
trainer and the more attention they pay to the
modeled behaviors. It is important to remember
that the modeling can be in the form of (a) lec-
tures, which require symbolic associations
based on imagined relationships between be-
haviors and consequences, (b) watching films,
which requires symbolic associations based on
observed relationships between behaviors and
consequences, and (c) role playing, which re-
quires symbolic associations based on observed
and experienced behaviors and consequences.
No studies in the cross-culture training literature
have examined the impact on trainee learning
of having trainers who are similar to the train-
ees. For example, if businessmen are being
trained for overseas expatriate assignments,
what would be the impact of using trainers who
are expatriates, trainers who are consultants
(but utilize models from actual expatriates
through means such as case studies), or trainers
126
who are university professors and lack expatri-
ate or business experience?
Proposition 1 : The use of similar models results
in greater attention to (he modeled behavior
and more effective training.
Individual differences might affect the degree
to which individuals attend to the training and,
therefore, the degree to which the training is
effective. Locus of control might be an important
individual difference in this regard. For exam-
ple, because individuals with internal locus of
control orientations (internals) believe that
events are determined by their own actions and
abilities, it could be expected that they would
have higher efflcacy and outcome expectations,
which, in turn, might lead to more motivation to
attend to the training content. Additionally, in a
review of the locus of control construct, Lefcourt
(1983) indicated that internals also attend more
closely to new or ambiguous environments. In
the context of this article, according to SLT indi-
viduals differ in their abilities to anticipate cross-
cultural situations, which by their nature are
new and ambiguous. Therefore, internals might
pay more attention during cross-cultural train-
ing, which would have a positive impact on the
learning process and the effectiveness of the
training.
Additionally, Ratiu (1983) found that individu-
als who were rated as most internationally ef-
fective by their colleagues were more likely to
alter their stereotypes of foreigners, whereas
those rated as least internationally effective
were more likely to maintain their stereotypes.
Although this individual diflerence factor has
not been highly researched, it may be evidence
of what others (Oddou & Mendenhall, 1984)
have referred to as cognifiVe flexibility. Thus, it
might be that individuals who have a high level
of cognitive flexibility would be more willing to
accept and incorporate fundamental notions
from cross-cultural training; therefore, they
might beneflt more from cross-cultural training
than individuals who have lower levels of cog-
nitive flexibility.
 M A
0)

a
I
*
I
3 W
en
o
fl "2
.2
"G
-S g
1 ^

S*
(S I I I 2 g" g
x; n, x; D. -c 0)
.3 u ..o -S -o -S

I
1
fl
o
1

sfl e s
O o
> S-
U
c
^ 0
i

cl il
U k..

127
The Retention Process in
Cross-Cultural Learning
Social learning theory suggests that modeled
behavior that is appropriate in the cross-cultural
situation and is perceived as similar to behavior
the observer has already learned is easier to
retain and imitate than dissimilar behavior. This
means that new behavior and its consequences
can be incorporated into already existing cogni-
tive maps. Once incorporated, the new sym-
bolic representations become part of, and are
retained in, the past cognitive maps; therefore,
they can be retrieved in the future. Thus, pre-
senting new and culturally different behavior
and consequences in a way that allows the
learner to perceive them as similar to known
behavior and associated consequences would
facilitate the learners' ability to retain these new
behaviors, which in turn would have a positive
impact on the appropriate execution of the new
behaviors in the cross-cultural situation.
Proposition 2: Presenting novel behavior in a
form which allows the learner to perceive it as
similar to his or her own behavior will enable
the learner to more effectively retain the new
behavior.
Social learning theory also suggests that
novel behavior is best learned through model-
ing successive approximations of the final be-
havior. Thus, by rst providing a basic model of
the behavior and its consequences in a cross-
cultural situation which are appropriate in the
new culture, a reference or starting point can be
provided for the learner. The gradual addition
of successive and more complex approximations
of the complete model of new and novel behav-
ioral norms allows the trainee to build associa-
tions between each successive approximation
and the previous ones. Essentially, in SLT it is
argued that cross-cultural trainers should first
provide the skeleton of the new behavior and
then gradually add the flesh until the complete
model is presented. Once the symbolic associa-
tions have been constructed, the modeled be-
havior can be retained more easily than by pre-
senting the complex model of the behavior.
128
Proposifion 3: Gradual modeling of novel be-
haviors that are needed for cross-cultural inter-
actions has a greater impact on the retention
processes than one-time modeling.
Social learning theory implies that cognitive
and behavioral rehearsal of the modeled be-
haviors that are appropriate for the cross-
cultural situation will facilitate retention. Once
the trainee has formed the original cognitive as-
sociations between the components of the be-
haviors and the related consequences, both
cognitive rehearsals and a combination of cog-
nitive and behavioral rehearsals will reinforce
and refine the trainee's cognitive map, which, in
turn, serves to facilitate the retention of the be-
havior.
Proposition 4: Cognitive and behavioral re-
hearsal facilitate the retention of models of
novel behavior.
These retention-oriented propositions evoke
general questions for investigation in the area of
cross-cultural training; for example, what train-
ing method or combination of methods (e.g., lec-
ture, factual briefing, cultural assimilator, role
play, field trips, etc.) is best for learning the
behaviors of a different and novel culture?
Gudykunst et al. (1977) found that a combination
of lecture and experiential methods may be
more effective than training through lecture
alone. Based on SLT, very novel behaviors
might be best modeled through a combination
of methods. In addition, gradual modeling and
participative modeling should be incorporated
so that trainees can easily comprehend the
novel behavior, make associations between the
behavior and its consequences, and rehearse
the behaviors; all of these, in turn, will enable
trainees to reach a higher retention level.
The Reproduction Process in
Cross-Cultural Learning
The moioric reproduction process, as Bandura
(1977) referred to it, is the execution of the
learned behaviors in actual situations. In SLT
accurate and effective reproduction of learned
behaviors depends on the attention and reten-
tion processes, the person's incentive to repro-
duce the behavior, and the person's ability to
reproduce it. Because of the relationships
among attention and retention processes and
motoric reproduction, it follows that the more
similar the modeled behavior is to what has
been learned and reproduced in the past, the
easier the new behavior will be to learn and
reproduce. In contrast, the more novel the mod-
eled behaviors, the more difficult they will be to
learn and reproduce.
Proposition 5: The more novel the modeled be-
haviors relative to what has been learned and
reproduced in the past, the more difficult it will
be to reproduce them accurately in the future.
This proposition raises some general ques-
tions about the relationship between the novelty
of the culture (and, therefore, the novelty of the
behaviors necessary for effective cross-cultural
interactions) and the rigor of the cross-cultural
training. Past reviews on factors that affect
cross-cultural adjustment have found that the
more novel the new culture, or what Menden-
hall and Oddou (1985) referred to as culture
toughness, the more difflcult the adjustment for
the expatriate. Based on this review's flndings, it
seems reasonable to speculate that the more
novel the culture and behaviors necessary for
effective cross-cultural interactions, the greater
will be the necessary rigor of the cross-cultural
training. Although no clear consensus concern-
ing the deflnition of training rigor exists, Men-
denhall and Oddou (1986) provided typologies
of training methods and ranked the methods in
terms of rigor, where rigor is largely a function
of the degree of cognitive involvement required
of the learner. Although these scholars did not
make specific reference to SLT, the training
methods they classified as low rigor (e.g., lec-
tures and factual briefings) involved only sym-
bolic modeling processes, whereas those they
classified as high rigor involved symbolic and
participative modeling processes.
Social learning theory also suggests that, as-
suming a person is physically capable of repro-
129
ducing a learned behavior and has an incentive
for reproducing the behavior, the more novel
the modeled behavior, the more important will
be the attention and retention processes, rela-
tive to the accurate reproduction of the learned
behavior in the cross-cultural situation. The
more attention the trainee pays to the modeled
behavior, the more information he or she has to
form associations that will facilitate the retention
of the model. Also, the greater the trainee's re-
tention of the model, the easier it will be for the
individual to recall the modeled behavior and
the more useful that recollection will be in guid-
ing the actual motoric reproduction.
Proposition 6; The more novel the modeled be-
haviors, the more important will be the attention
and retention processes for accurate and effec-
tive motoric reproductions.
It is possible to derive a number of general
questions for future cross-cultural training re-
search from this proposition. For example, if the
new culture and its attendant behavioral norms
are extremely novel, what is the difference in
motoric reproduction of purely symbolic versus
symbolic and behavioral rehearsal during the
retention process? Also, what is the trainee's af-
fective response to different methods during the
attention and retention processes?
In addition, past experiences as well as the
attention and retention processes influence the
individual's level of self-efflcacy, which, in turn,
influences several aspects of motoric reproduc-
tion. In cross-cultural training, if a person has a
low level of self-efficacy, despite the training to
learn the new behaviors necessary for effective
cross-cultural interaction, it would be probable
that the individual would not attempt to repro-
duce the learned behaviors during appropriate
cross-cultural situations. In contrast, if the indi-
vidual has a high level of self-efficacy, he or she
would probably persist at that effort to repro-
duce the learned behavior longer than an indi-
vidual who has a lower level of self-efficacy.
Proposition 7: The higher the person's self-
efficacy, the more likely the person is to execute
 the learned behavior and to persist in executing
the behavior.
This proposition in combination with others
presents many questions for future study in the
cross-cultural training area. For example, is a
high level of self-efficacy more important for
learning novel behaviors of a novel host culture
than it is for learning similar behaviors in a sim-
ar host culture? In other words, is there an in-
teraction effect between novelty of the behaviors
and the degree of self-efficacy?
Motivation and Incentives in
Cross-Cultural Learning
Within SLT, incentives can have an imporiant
impact on the attention, retention, and repro-
duction processes. Incentives can be actual or
vicarious, immediate or expected; they can
have an external or internal origin; and they can
influence the extent to which individuals attend
to the modeled behavior. Incentives can influ-
ence the extent to which modeled behavior is
cognitively or behaviorally rehearsed; there-
fore, they can influence the extent to which the
behavior is retained. Additionally, and strongly
emphasized by Bandura (1977), even if behav-
iors are learned, incentives largely determine if
the learned behaviors will be executed. For ex-
ample, even if an individual learns how to ef-
fectively interact with Japanese subordinates, if
there are no incentives for exhibiting those be-
haviors, and if the individual is instead re-
warded via praise, recognition, promotions, or
salary raises for behaviors that have nothing to
do with interacting with Japanese subordinates
(or is rewarded for actions that contradict the
learned behaviors necessary for effective inter-
actions with Japanese subordinates), it is likely
that the pserson will not execute these behaviors.
Proposition 8: Incentives influence the trainees'
attention, retention, and especially their repro-
duction of modeled behavior in cross-cultural
training.
This proposition also generates general re-
search questions. What will be the impact of ex-
130
ternal rewards for receiving cross-cultural train-
ing on the degree of retention and reproduction
of learned behaviors? What will be the impact of
vicarious rewards for receiving the training on
the efiectiveness of the cross-cultural training
(e.g., feedback regarding how past trainees
have benefited from the training)? What will be
the impact of the trainee's reaction to past train-
ing situations or his or her expectations that the
current training will be beneficial?
Relationship Between Adjustment and
Cross-Cultural Training
Scholars have defined adjustment in three
ways. Some scholars have defined adjustment
in terms of the psychological comfori and famil-
iarity an individual feels for the new culture
(Black, 1988; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Tor-
biorn, 1982). In contrast, culture shock has been
used as a measure of adjustment and has been
described as a state of not knowing how to be-
have appropriately in the new culture and be-
ing overwhelmed by this anxiety (Oberg, 196(D).
Other scholars have defined adjustment in
terms of the individual's ability to get along with
and effectively interact with host nationals
(Brem & David, 1971; Brislin, 1981; Landis & Bris-
lin, 1983).
Because cross-cultural training familiarizes
the individual with the culture (and the new and
appropriate behaviors in that culture), the indi-
vidual would be expected to feel comfortable
and familiar with the culture more easily and
quickly. Likewise, because of the subsequent
cultural familiarity and advanced cross-cultural
understanding on the part of the trainee, cross-
cultural training would lead to less anxiety and
culture shock and thereby facilitate adjustment.
In terms of adjustment (if it is defined as effective
interactions with host nationals), the trainee
learns through cross-cultural training the appro-
priate behaviors for effective interactions and in-
creases his or her self-efficacy, both of which
enable the individual to reproduce the behav-
iors that would lead to effective interactions
more quickly than a nontrained individual.
 Proposition 9: Cross-cultural training reduces
the severity of normal culture shock and re-
duces the time necessary to reach a level of
cultural proficiency.
This proposition in combination with proposi-
tions about the novelty of new behavior sug-
gests general questions for future research. For
example, would the impact that rigorous cross-
cultural training has on reducing culture shock
be the largest when the host culture is quite
novel and the individual interacts with host na-
tionals on a frequent and involved basis? Would
rigorous cross-cultural training have a less dra-
matic effect on culture shock when the host cul-
ture is novel but the individual has litfle or no
need to interact wifli host nationals?
The Relationship Between Performance and
Cross-Cultural Training
Although no universally accepted deflnition
of performance exists in the cross-cultural liter-
ature, at least two major operationalizations
were found. First, past researchers have dis-
cussed cross-cultural performance in terms of
whether the individual stayed in the new culture
the expected length of time or whether the indi-
vidual requested or was requested to return
early (Baker & Ivancevich, 1971; Tung, 1981).
Through cross-cultural training trainees should
gain a realistic expectation of their jobs and lives
in the foreign country and culture. Realistic job
expectations in general have been associated
with greater satisfaction and lower job turnover
(see Steers & Mowday, 1981, or Wanous, 1980,
for a review).
Cross-cultural training also would allow the
trainee to make anticipatory determinations of
what behaviors to act out. If those determina-
tions were correct, the training would enable
the trainee to execute appropriate behavior
without having to learn by trial and error. There-
fore, the person could avoid some instances of
inappropriate behavior and the associated neg-
ative consequences that might be experienced
by a nontrained individual. Such experience
could, in turn, lead to higher levels of job satis-
131
faction, lower intentions to return early, and less
failure.
Proposition 10: Cross-cultural training would
lead to more realistic expectations, greater job
satisfaction, lower intentions of returning early,
and lower rates of early returns from cross-
cultural assignments.
However, because it is possible that an indi-
vidual would not return early, yet would be in-
effective, performance also was operationalized
in terms of performance evaluations, usually
given by the individual's supervisor (Earley,
1987; Hawes & Kealey, 1981). If the individual's
job has dimensions that are related to effective
cross-cultural interaction, and if cross-cultural
training facilitates effective relationships with
host nationals, it also should lead to high per-
formance evaluations. Preliminary empirical
evidence suggests that the hypothesized rela-
tionship between adjustment and performance
is significant (Earley, 1987). Extending this logic,
cross-cultural training would have the greatest
impact on individuals (e.g., top executives)
whose jobs require a large amount of interac-
tion with host nationals and deep integration
into the culture.
Proposition 11 : Cross-cultural training leads to
higher performance, especially for individuals .
whose jobs require a high level of interaction
with host nationals.
Based on the framework presented, there is at
least one more general issue to consider. Al-
though none of the studies reviewed attempted
to examine and compare the impact of training
for different subjects (businesspeople, military
personnel, educators, etc.) or the impact of dif-
ferent environmental contexts (e.g., job charac-
teristics that require a high demand for interact-
ing with host nationals versus a low demand for
such interaction), it is possible that moderating
effects exist. For example, it is possible that be-
cause many military personnel are isolated from
the foreign environment through base com-
pounds, that training may be less effective for
them than for expatriates who are involved in
the transfer of technology and who live and
work among host nationals. However, it seems
that rather than focusing on differences in sub-
jects, that it would be more productive to exam-
ine the impact of differences in context. For ex-
ample, would cross-cultural training have the
same effect on a senior military ofiicer and a
senior business executive who both would need
to interact frequently with host nafionals in order
to be effective? Tung (1982) and Mendenhall et
al. (1987) argued that the degree to which cross-
cultural training is needed and is effective de-
pends upon the degree to which the individual
must interact with members of other cultures.
The framework of SLT complements this argu-
ment; accordingly, not only would training have
the greatest impact when the new culture and
context are novel compared to the individual's
home culture, but also when the individual must
interact frequently with individuals of the for-
eign culture.
Conclusion
The first purpose of this paper was to provide
a comprehensive review of the extant empirical
literature on cross-cultural training. This review
suggests that cross-cultural training has a posi-
five impact on the individual's development of
skills, on his or her adjustment to the cross-
cultural situation, and on his or her job perfor-
mance in the cross-cultural situation. However,
compared to the training literature in general
(see Latham, 1988, for a review), the area of
cross-cultural training has received little empir-
ical attention.
Because most past empirical research on
cross-cultural training has lacked theoretical
grounding, this article presented SLT as a theo-
retical framework. In the process of examining
SLT in relafion to cross-cultural training, some
important new insights about SLT have
emerged. Although it does not seem that the
context of international training compared to the
132
context of domestic training challenges any fun-
damental assumptions of SLT or presents any
totally new variables that should be incorpo-
rated into SLT, the international context does
seem to rearrange the imporiance of various
factors within SLT.
The first difference concerns the variable of
novelty. Although novelty plays an important
role in SLT within the domestic training context,
it plays a critical role in the international train-
ing context. Generally, the degree of novelty of
new behaviors is significantly higher in the in-
ternational context. In both domestic and inter-
national contexts new work-related behaviors
must be learned; however, in most cross-
cultural training situations new nonwork behav-
iors must be learned as well. For example, an
individual preparing for an assignment in Japan
might need to learn new accounting proce-
dures, how to make decisions by consensus,
how to work within the rules of sempai(senior)/
kohai (junior) relationships, how to give and re-
ceive gifts, and how to behave appropriately on
extremely crowded trains and subways. Thus,
the depth and breadth of the role of novelty in
SLT seems to be much greater in international
contexts.
This also raises the importance of two related
aspects of SLT. First, given that in a cross-
cultural training situation, in general, an indi-
vidual will be required to learn behaviors of
greater breadth and depth of novelty, the atten-
tion and retention aspects of the SLT become
much more imporiant in the international con-
text. For example, in a domestic training con-
text, it is likely that low levels of attention and
retention will negafively affect the trainee's ac-
curate reproduction of the modeled behavior,
but it is also likely that the behavior could be
reproduced in some form because the modeled
behavior is familiar. In an international context,
because of the generally higher level of behav-
ior novelty, low levels of attenfion and retenfion
may render the trainee unable to reproduce the
modeled behavior in any fashion (Gudykunst et
al., 1977). Thus, a higher minimum threshold of
attention and retention may be necessary in in-
ternational contexts.
In addition, there is reason to believe that the
role and sequencing of symbolic and participa-
tive modeling processes of SLT are different in
international versus domestic contexts. Because
most domestic training situations involve behav-
iors that are familiar, the sequencing of sym-
bolic or participative modeling processes and
whether the processes are used in combination
or separately seem less important in domestic
versus international contexts. The results of the
study by Gudykunst et al. (1977) suggest that
symbolic modeling should precede participative
modeling; symbolic modeling alone may not be
sufficient for the training to have a positive and
significant impact on outcomes, such as cross-
cultural adjustment. For example, although
symbolic modeling processes may be sufficient
for training a person to handle a new reporting
procedure or even a new set of job responsibil-
ities in the domestic context, symbolic learning
alone is not likely to be sufficient for training a
person to speak a different language or for train-
ing him or her to interact effectively with people
from a different culture. Thus, while the theoret-
ical axioms of SLT do not necessarily change
with respect to symbolic and participative mod-
eling in the cross-cultural training context, the
importance of participative modeling in SLT, rel-
ative to successful cross-cultural training and
the sequencing of symbolic and participative
modeling, does change.
In addition, if the greater depth and breadth of
novelty in international contexts make the atten-
tion and retention processes more important,
then the motivational factors also increase in im-
portance. It may be that even though greater
motivation to attend to and retain new behav-
iors has a positive impact on the learning pro-
cess in the domestic context, the required mini-
mum threshold level is lower than that required
in the international context. Given that the depth
and breadth of novelty in international contexts
133
are greater than in domestic training contexts, a
higher minimum level of motivation may be nec-
essary in order for effective attention and reten-
tion processes to occur during cross-cultural
training situations. Cross-cultural training effec-
tiveness in the studies reviewed may be ex-
plained partly by almost all the trainees being
volunteers for the cross-cultural work situation
and, therefore, being more likely to be moti-
vated than randomly selected individuals.
Finally, another variable of SLT that seems to
operate differently in an international context is
self-efficacy. In both the domestic and interna-
tional contexts it seems that the greater the level
of self-efficacy, the more likely the individual is
to persist in trying to reproduce the modeled be-
haviors. However, given the greater level of
novelty associated with cross-cultural training
situations, it seems that there may need to be a
higher minimum level of self-efficacy expecta-
tions in the international context before an indi-
vidual will attempt to reproduce the modeled
behavior at all, let alone persist in trying to re-
produce it. There is some evidence that individ-
uals who dropped out of cross-cultural training
situations lacked the confidence that they would
need to successfully execute the new behaviors
(PSI, 1982).
Several conclusions are worth noting. First,
based on the published empirical evidence, it
seems that cross-cultural training is effective in
developing important cross-cultural skills, in fa-
cilitating cross-cultural adjustment, and in en-
hancing job performance. Second, most past
empirical research on this subject has lacked
theoretical grounding. The area of cross-cultural
training will be facilitated by correcting this
practice, and using SLT as a heuristic frame-
work is a first attempt to move the field in a more
theoretically based direction. Finally, although
SLT seems to be a robust theory that can be
applied to both domestic and international train-
ing contexts, the importance of certain variables
of SLT is different in cross-cultural training situ-
ations.
 References
Adler, N. (1983) Cross-cultural management research: The
ostrich and the trend. Academy o Management Review,
8, 226-232.
Adler, N. (1986) International dimensions of organizational
behavior. Boston, MA: Kent.
Baker, ]. C, & Ivancevich, J. M. (1971) The assignment of
American executives abroad: Systematic, haphazard, or
chaotic? Caii/ornia Managemen/Review, 13(3), 39-44.
Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NI: Prentice-Hall.
Beaty, D., & Mendenhall, M. (1989) /nernaionai manage-
ment research: Toward an agenda. Unpublished manu-
script.
Befus, C. P. (1988) A multilevel treatment approach for cul-
ture shock experienced by sojourners. /niernafionaJ Jour-
nal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 381-400.
Black, J. S. (1987) Japanese/American negotiations: The Jap-
anese perspective. Business and Economic Review, 6(1),
27-30.
Black, J. S. (1988) Work role transitions: A study of American
expatriate managers in Japan, /ournai o International
Business Siudies, 19, 277-294.
Bochner, S. (1982) Cuifures in contact: Studies in cross-
cultural interaction. New York: Pergamon Press.
Brein, M., & David, K. H. (1971) Intercultural communication
and adjustment of the sojourner. Psychoiogicai BuiJeiin,
76, 215-230.
Brislin, R. W. (1981) Cross-cuifuraJ encouniers. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Brislin, R. W., & Pedersen, P. (1976) Cross-cultural orienta-
tion programs. New York: Gardner Press.
Chemers, M. M. (1969) Cross-cultural training as a means of
improving situational favorableness. Human Relations,
22, 531-546.
Chemers, M. M., Lekhyananda, D., Fiedler, F. E., &
Stolurow, L. (1966) Some effects of cultural training on
leadership in heterocultural task groups. International
Journal o Psychology, 1, 301-314.
Church, A. T. (1982) Sojourner adjustment. Psychological
Bulletin, 91, 540-571.
Copeland, L., & Griggs, L. (1985) Going internaftonai. New
York: Random House.
Davis, T., & Luthans, F. (1980) A social learning approach to
organizational behavior. Academy o Management ffe-
view, 5, 281-290.
Dege, D. B. (1981, May 21-25) Forma/ and eva/ua(ion o the
cross-cultural component of a foreign teaching assistant
134
training program. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Intemational Communication Association, Minneapolis.
Dunbar, E., & Ehrlich, M. (1986) nernafionai practices, se-
lection, training, and managing the international staff: A
survey report. New York: Columbia University, Teachers
College, Project on International Human Resource.
Earley, P. C. (1987) Intercultural training for managers: A
comparison of documentary and interpersonal methods.
Academy of Management Journal, 30, 685-698.
Fernandez, T. M. (1986, Oct 9-11) Guide design: Sensitivity
to black-white interactions when giving nursing care. Pa-
per presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the Inter-
national Society for Individualized Instruction, Atlanta.
Fiedler, F., Mitchell, T., & Tdandis, H. (1971) The culture
assimilator: An approach to cross-cultural training. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 55, 95-102.
Graham, J. (1985) The influence of culture on the process of
business negotiations: An exploratory study. Journal of In-
ternational Business Studies, 16(1), 81-95.
Gudykunst, W. B., Hammer, M. H., & Wiseman, R. L. (1977)
An analysis of an integrated approach to cross-cultural
training. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
1, 99-110.
Hammer, M. R., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1978)
Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory
study, /nferna/ionai Journal of ntercultural Relations, 2,
382-393.
Harris, P., & Moran, R. T. (1979) Managing cultural dier-
ences. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Hawes, F., & Kealey, D. J. (1981) An empirical study of Ca-
nadian technical assistance. International Journal o In-
tercultural Relations, 5, 239-258.
Hilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. (1975) Theories of earning.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Katz, J. (1977) The effects of a systematic training program on
the attitudes and behaviors of white people. International
lournal of ntercutural Relations, 1, 77-89.
Kluckhohn, C , & Kroeberg, A. L. (1952) CuJfure; A critical
review o concepts and deiinitions. Vintage Books.
Kyi, K. M. (1988) APJM and comparative management in
Asia. Asia Pacific/ournai o/Managemen/, 5, 207-224.
Landis, D., & Brislin, R. (1983) Handbook on intercutura
training (Vol 1). New York: Pergamon Press.
Landis, D., Brislin, R. W., & Hulgus, J. F. (1985) Attributional
training versus contact in acculturative learning: A labo-
ratory study. 7ournai of Applied Social Psychology, 15,
466-482.
Landis, D., Brislin, R., Swanner, G., Tseng, O., & Thomas,
I. (1985) Some effects of acculturative training: A field eval-
uation, /nternationa/ 7ournai of Group Tensions, 15, 68-
91.
Landis, D., Day, H. R., McGrew, P. L., Thomas, J. A., &
Miller, A. B. (1976) Can a black "culture assimilator" in-
crease racial understanding? Journal of Social Issues,
32(2), 169-183.
Latham, G. (1988) Human resource training and develop-
ment. Annuai Review of Psychology, 39, 545-582.
Latham, G., & Saari, L. (1979) Application of social learning
theory to training supervisors through behavior modifica-
tion, journai of Applied Psychology, 64, 239-246.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1983) Research with the locus of control con-
struct (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
Lefley, H. (1985) Impact of cross-cultural training on black
and white mental health professionals, /nternaiionai Jour-
nal of ntercultural Relations, 9, 305-318.
Lefley, H. (1986) Evaluating the effects of cross-cultural train-
ing: Some research results. In H. Lefley & P. Pederson
(Eds.), Cross-cuituraJ training for mental health profes-
sionals (pp. 265-307). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Manz, CO., & Sims, H. P. (1981) Vicarious learning: The
influence of modeling on organizational behavior. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 6, 105-113.
McDaniel, C. O., McDaniel, N. C , & McDaniel, A. K. (1988)
Transferability of multicultural education from training to
practice, /niernational Journal of Intercultural Relations,
12, 19-33.
McGroarty, M. (1984, March 6-11) Design and evaluation of
cross-cultural workshops for ESL teachers and administra-
tors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages, Houston.
Mendenhall, M., Dunbar, E., & Oddou, G. (1987) Expatriate
selection, training, and career-pathing: A review and cri-
tique. Human fiesource Management, 26, 331-345.
Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985) The dimensions of ex-
patriate acculturation. Academy of Management Review,
10, 39-47.
Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1986) Acculturation profiles of
expatriate managers: Implications for cross-cultural train-
ing programs. Columbia Journal of World Business, 21(4),
73-79.
Miller, E. (1973) The international selection decision: A study
of managerial behavior in the selection decision process.
Academy o/Management/ournai, 16, 234-252.
Misa, K. F., & Fdbricatore, J. M. (1979) Return on investment
of overseas personnel. Financial Executive, 47(4), 42-46.
Mitchell, T. R., Dossett, D., Fiedler, F., & Triandis, H. (1972)
Cultural training: Validation evidence for the cultural as-
similator. International Journal of Psychology, 7, 97-104.
135
Mitchell, T. R., & Foa, U. G. (1969) Diffusion of the effect of
cultural training of the leader in the structure of hetero-
cultural task groups. Austraiian Journal of Psychology, 21,
31-43.
Nayar, E. S. K., Touzard, H., & Summers, D. A. (1968)Train-
ing, tasks and mediator orientation in heterocultural ne-
gotiations. Human Relations, 21, 283-310.
Neimeyer, G. J., Fukuyama, M. A., Bingham, R. P., Hall,
L. E., & Mussenden, M. (1986) Training cross-cultural
counselors: Comparison of the pro-counselor and anti-
counselor trial models. Journal of Counseling and Devel-
opment, 64, 437-439.
Newbold, R. C. m., Carrol, J. G., Hartman, M. E., Mitchell,
H. E., & Story, M. R. (1982) A training program in medical
communications for foreign native medical graduates.
Project for the Educational Commission for Foreign Med-
ical Graduates, ERIC ED 219010-HE015252.
Noe, R. A. (1986) Trainee's attributes and attitudes: Ne-
glected influences on training effectiveness. Academy of
Management Review, 11, 736-749.
Oberg, K. (1960) Culture shock: Adjustment to new cultural
environments. PracticaJ AnhropoJogis, 7, 177-182.
O'Brien, G. E., Fiedler, F. E., & Hewett, T. (1970) The effects
of programmed culture training upon the performance of
volunteer medical teams. Human Relations, 24, 209-231.
O'Brien, G. E., & Plooij, D. (1976) Development of cultural
training manuals for medical workers with Pitjantjatjara
aboriginals. In G. E. Kearney & D. W. McElwain (Eds.),
Aboriginai cognition (pp. 383-396). New Jersey: Humantic
Press.
Oddou, G., & Mendenhall, M. (1984) Person perception in
cross-cultural settings: A review of cross-cultural and re-
lated literature. International Journal of Intercultural Re-
lations, 8, 77-96.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968) Managerial attitudes
and performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
PSI Associates, Inc. (1982) Peace corps stateside teacher
training for volunteers in Liberia (Vol. 1) Evaluation report.
(Contract No. 82-042-1003) Washington, DC: Peace Corps.
Randolph, G., Landis, D., & Tzeng, O. C. (1977) The effects
of time and practice upon culture assimilator training. In-
ternational Journal of ntercultural Relations, 1, 105-119.
Ratiu, 1. (1983) Thinking internationally: A comparison of
how international executives leam. /nternaiionai Studies
of Management and Organization, 13, 139-150.
Roberts, K. H. (1970) On looking at an elephant: An evalu-
ation of cross-cultural research related to organizations.
Psychoiogicai Buiietin, 4(5), 327-350.
Roberts, K. H., & Boyacigiller, N. A. (1984) Cross-national
organizational research: The grasp of the blind men. In
 B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organi-
zational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 17-31). Greenwich, CT.: JAI
Press.
Ronen, S. (1986) Comparative and multinational manage-
ment. New York: Wiley.
Runzheimer Executive Report (1984) Expatriation/
repatriation survey. (No. 31). Rochester, WI: Runzheimer
Associates, Inc.
Salisbury, L. (1971) College orientation program for Alaskan
natives: COPAN-education for survival. University of
Alaska at Fairbanks, Institute of Social, Economic, and
Government Research.
Schollhammer, H. (1975) Current research in international
and comparative management issues. Management In-
ternational Review, 13, 17-31.
Swenson, L. L. (1980) Theories of learning. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Torbiom, I. (1982). Living abroad. New York: Wiley.
Triandis, H. C , Vassiliou, V., Tanaka, Y., & Shanmugam,
A. (Eds.) (1972) The analysis of subjective culture. New
York: Wiley.
Tung, R. (1981) Selecting and training of personnel for over-
seas assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business,
16(1), 68-78.
Tung, R. (1982) Selection and training procedures of U.S.,
European, & Japanese multinationals. California Man-
agement Review, 25(1), 57-71.
Tung, R. (1984) Key to Japan's economic strength: Human
power. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Schwind, H. F. (1985) The state of the art in cross-cultural
management training. In R. Doktor (Ed.), /n(erna(ionaJ hu-
man resource development annual (Vol. 1, pp. 7-15). Al-
exandria, VA: American Society for Training and Devel-
opment.
Steers, R., &Mowday, R. (1981) Employee turnover and post-
decision accommodation processes. In L. L. Cummings
and B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behav-
ior (Vol. 3, pp. 237-249). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Steinkalk, E., & Taft, R. (1979) The effects of a planned inter-
cultural experience on the attitudes and behaviors of the
participants. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-
tions, 3, 187-197.
Sterling, B. (1979) Problems in cross-cultural contact: A liter-
ature review. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-
tions, 3, 269-313.
Vigushin, J. (1982) Helping campus personnel help foreign
students: A counseling simulation. Humanist Educator,
20(3), 134-142.
Vroom, V. (1964) Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wanous, J. P. (1980) Organizational entry. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Weldon, D. E., Carlston, D. E., Rissman, A. K., Slobodin,
L., & Triandis, H. C. (1975) A laboratory test of effects of
culture assimilator training. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 32, 300-310.
Worchel, S., & Mitchell, T. R. (1972) An evaluation of the
effectiveness of the culture assimilator in Thailand and
Greece. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 472-479.
Zeira, Y. (1975) Overlooked personnel problems in multina-
tional corporations. Columbia Journal of World Business
10(2), 96-103.

/. Siewarf Black (Ph.D., University of California, Irv-

ine) is Assistant Professor of Business Administration
in the Amos Tuck School of Business Administration at
Dartmouth College. Correspondence regarding this
article can be sent to him at the Tuck School of Busi-
ness Administration, Dartmouth College, Hanover,
NH 03755.
Mark Mendenhall (Ph.D., Brigham Young University)
is the J. Burton Frierson Chair of Excellence in Busi-
ness Leadership in the School of Business Administra-
tion at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga.
The authors wish to thank Hal Gregersen for his help-
ful comments on an eariier version of this manuscript.

136
Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.