Self-efficacy in cross-cultural studies

The significance of mastery experiences in cross-cultural adaptation is easy to see when one looks at Bandura’s texts. He explains that instead of adopting ready-made habits, the development of self-efficacy through mastery experiences “involves acquiring the cognitive, behavioral, and self-regulatory tool for creating and executing appropriate courses of action to manage ever-changing life circumstances” (1997,3).

As can already be noticed, self-efficacy and its sources have similarities with several multicultural personality factors described above. Mastery experiences can be compared to MPQ’s social initiative, and emotional arousal to emotional stability, a concept mentioned in numerous studies. Mak & Tran (2001) compare mastery experiences in cross-cultural contexts to mastering intercultural social interactions; vicarious experiences to watching other foreigners successful social performance in new cultural setting; verbal persuasion to obtaining encouragement and positive feedback for one’s own performance in a new cultural milieu; and emotional arousal in managing to focus on action instead of being frozen by emotional arousal in intercultural situations.

In numerous studies of cross-cultural adaptation self-efficacy is seen as one of the key features in successful adaptation (e.g. Harrison et al., 1996;

Hechanova et al., 2003; MacNab & Worthely, 2011; Mak & Tran, 2001;

Milsten, 2005). In the review of overseas adjustment studies, Mendenhall &

26

Oddou (1985) argued that the ability to believe in oneself and one’s abilities to deal effectively in a new cultural surrounding is one of the underlying issues behind various skills necessary in adaptation. Black et al. (1991) introduced the term self-efficacy, borrowed from Bandura (1977), and claimed that

“individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy tend to persist in exhibiting new behaviors that are being learned, even when those efforts are not successful, longer than do individuals with less self-efficacy” (Black et al., 1991, 307). The authors concluded that the more one exhibits new behaviours in a new situation, the more chances one has of receiving feedback, whether it be positive or negative. This in turn facilitates an understanding of what is expected of oneself, and leads to better adjustment. Self-efficacy is therefore crucially related to the degree of intercultural relations (relational skills) and an understanding of the behaviour of others in a new cultural environment (perceptual skills), which are seen as important cornerstones of successful adaptation in most studies. Harrison et al. (1996) have accentuated the pivotal role of self-efficacy in cross-cultural adjustment for these same reasons.

Cultural intelligence and self-efficacy. Cultural intelligence refers to individual capacities that enable a person to interact effectively with others from different cultural backgrounds and in different cultural contexts (Brislin, Wothley & NacNab, 2006). The cultural intelligence (CQ) theory consists of three components: cognitive, motivation and behaviour. The cognitive component refers to awareness, self-awareness and knowledge (Earley &

Peterson, 2004). This component includes the basic knowledge and awareness of different cultures from one’s own and how this influences one’s perspective and thinking (MacNab & Worthley, 2011). The motivation component refers to perseverance and appropriate goal setting related to cultural interaction (Earley & Peterson, 2004). Macnab & Worthley (2011) explain this as not giving up too soon in relation to the increased challenges and stress that occur in inter-cultural activity. The behaviour component refers to the ability to consciously adapt behaviours suitable to the cultural environment (MacNab &

Worthely, 2011). The authors showed that general¹³ self-efficacy is crucial in predicting the successful development of cultural intelligence capacities in all three components.

Anxiety/uncertainty management theory (AUM). Gudykunst and his colleagues’ (Gudykunst, 1993, 1995; Gudykunst & Nishida, 2001) anxiety/uncertainty management theory posits that the management of anxiety and uncertainty directly influences the effectiveness of communication. Gudykunst & Nishida (2001) have stated: “Individuals can communicate effectively to the extent that they are able to manage their anxiety and accurately predict and explain other’s attitudes, feelings, and behaviors” (p. 55). They argue that other variables, like identity, expectations,

13 MacNab & Worthley (2011) distinguish general self-efficacy from task-specific self-efficacy, explaining that general self-efficacy cuts across situations whereas task-specific self-efficacy has an impact on perceived self-efficacy when performing specific tasks.

27

ability to process information complexly and empathy are superficial causes of effective communication, and that the effects of these variables on communication are mediated through anxiety and uncertainty. Uncertainty is a cognitive phenomenon, and predictive uncertainty is the uncertainty one has about predicting other’s attitudes, feelings, beliefs, values, and behaviours.

Attributional confidence is the inverse of predictive uncertainty (Gudykunst &

Nishida, 2001). Anxiety is the affective or emotional equivalent of uncertainty. Gudykunst (1993) has argued that there are minimum and maximum thresholds for uncertainty and anxiety. When an individual’s anxiety and uncertainty are within these thresholds, one can communicate effectively. Gudykunst and Nishida (2001) write that when anxiety is within the thresholds, “we have a high level of confidence in our abilities to predict other’s behaviors” (p. 58). This definition has a striking resemblance to Bandura’s self-efficacy, where “people guide their lives by their beliefs of personal efficacy” (1997, 3). Gudykunst and Nishida (2001, 62) also showed about anxiety that “anxiety negatively predicts perceived effectiveness of communication across relationships and across cultures” (italics added).

Emotional arousal in the development of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) could be seen as a counterpart to anxiety in AUM communication theory. Gudykunst and Nishida (2001) have argued that when anxiety is above the maximum threshold, one gets so uneasy that one no longer wishes to communicate with others. In Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy and behavioural change:

“People rely partly on their state of physiological arousal in judging their anxiety and vulnerability to stress. Because high arousal usually debilitates performance, individuals are more likely to expect success when they are not beset by aversive arousal than if they are tense and viscerally agitated” (p.

198). So both theories entail the claim that anxiety/emotional arousal can inhibit one from completing a task at hand, and that confidence in one’s abilities is likely to lead to more effortful behaviour, even when there are setbacks along the way.

All in all, the concept of self-efficacy appears to be either directly or indirectly present in several theories of cross-cultural adaptation. Milsten (2005) connected self-efficacy, for instance, to the culture shock, intercultural sensitivity and intercultural transformation theory, indicating the similarities of the learning and growth in cross-cultural adjustment to the development of self-efficacy by Bandura (1997). She concluded: “A sojourner who judges her sojourn to be a success, whether it was objectively or not, would therefore most likely experience a rise in self-efficacy” (Milsten, 2005, 224). She did find in her study that 95.5% of the sojourners studied retrospectively reported a perceived increase in self-efficacy.

28

2.4.4 BICULTURALISM, INTEGRATIVE COMPLEXITY AND CULTURAL