The paradox role of extraversion in the cross-cultural adjustment process of Asian expatriates

Figures & data

Figure 1 Conceptual framework.

Table 1 Factor loadings, cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability, and AVE

Variables	Items (Parcels)	Loading	Cronbach’s α*	Composite Reliability	AVE
Hindrance Stressors	5 (2)	0.70–0.98	0.84 (0.81)	0.84	0.73
Intrapersonal Motivation	16 (3)	0.73–0.74	0.75 (0.70)	0.70	0.53
Cultural Novelty	8 (3)	0.78–0.94	0.90 (0.88)	0.89	0.72
Adjustment	10 (3)	0.83–0.88	0.91 (0.89)	0.89	0.74
Work Engagement	9 (3)	0.67–0.90	0.74 (0.76)	0.77	0.63
Organizational Citizenship Behavior	16 (3)	0.88–0.91	0.95 (0.92)	0.92	0.79
Extraversion	5 (−)	0.81–0.83	0.84 (0.86)	0.86	0.68

Note: *Cronbach’s α for scale parcels are provided in parentheses.

Abbreviation: AVE, average variance extracted.

Table 2 Comparison of alternative measurement models for main constructs

Models	Factors	χ^2	df	χ^2/df	Δχ^2	RMSEA	SRMR	TLI	CFI
Hypothesized seven-factor solution	Hindrance stressors, intrapersonal motivation, cultural novelty, adjustment, work engagement, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, extraversion	201.76	114	1.77		0.04	0.04	0.97	0.98
Five-factor solution	Hindrance stressors + cultural novelty, intrapersonal motivation, adjustment, work engagement + Organizational Citizenship Behavior, extraversion	377.55	121	3.12	175.79***	0.07	0.11	0.93	0.94
Three-factor solution	Hindrance stressors + cultural novelty, intrapersonal motivation + adjustment + extraversion, work engagement + Organizational Citizenship Behavior	816.74	126	6.48	439.19***	0.11	0.13	0.82	0.85

Note: ***p<0.01.

Abbreviations: df, degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; CFI, comparative fit index.

Table 3 Validation of the measurement model - discriminant validity

	Constructs	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	OCB	3.40	0.80	0.89
2	Hindrance stressors	3.39	1.01	−0.03	0.85
3	Intrapersonal motivation	3.74	0.62	−0.08	0.43**	0.73
4	Adjustment	3.59	0.85	0.06	−0.34**	0.01	0.86
5	Work engagement	3.78	0.71	0.01	0.36*	0.63**	0.09	0.80
6	Extraversion	3.99	0.91	−0.02	0.49**	0.53**	−0.10	0.80**	0.82
7	Cultural novelty	3.51	1.00	0.00	−0.07	0.02	−0.01	−0.03	−0.04	0.85

Notes: N=458. Diagonal represents the square root of average variance extracted (AVE); while below the diagonal the estimated correlations are represented. *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

Abbreviation: OCB, organizational citizenship behavior.

Table 4 Structural model – hypotheses test results

Hypothesis	Path	Estimate	SE	t	p
H1	Hindrance Stressors –> Adjustment	−0.39**	0.06	−6.93	<0.001
H2	Intrapersonal Motivation –> Adjustment	0.22**	0.08	2.87	0.004
H3	Cultural Novelty –> Adjustment	−0.04	0.04	−0.87	0.385
H4	Adjustment –> Work Engagement	0.26**	0.06	4.36	<0.001
H5	Adjustment –> OCB	0.05	0.05	1.07	0.285

Notes: N=458. Unstandardized beta coefficients are reported. **p<0.01.

Figure 2 Path estimates. χ2 (82)=279.14, p<0.01; χ²/DF=3.40; RMSEA=0.07, SRMR=0.09, CFI=0.95, TLI=0.93 *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

Table 5 Bootstrap estimates of the mediation effect of adjustment

	Path: IV –> MV –> DV	Product of coefficients		BC 90% CI^a		p
		Indirect effect	Bootstrap SE	Lower	Upper
H 6a	HS –> adj –> WE	−0.39×0.26=−0.101**	0.027	−0.147	−0.061	0.021
	IM –> adj –> WE	0.22×0.26=0.057*	0.033	0.005	0.102	0.056
	CN –> adj–> WE	−0.04×0.26=−0.010	0.011	−0.030	0.010	0.453
H 6b	HS –> adj–> OCB	−0.39×0.05=−0.020	0.019	−0.051	0.014	0.308
	IM –> adj–> OCB	0.22×0.05=0.011	0.013	−0.008	0.037	0.275
	CN–> adj–> OCB	−0.04×0.05=−0.002	0.003	−0.013	0.001	0.229

Notes: N=458. *p<0.10, **p<0.05

^aThis 90% confidence interval does not include zero; therefore, the mediating effect is significant at p<0.10. Unstandardized estimates are reported.

Abbreviations: IV, independent variable; MV, mediating variable; DV, dependent variable; SE, standard error; BC, bias corrected; CI, confidence interval; HS, hindrance stressors; CN, cultural novelty; WE, work engagement; IM, intrapersonal motivation; OCB, organizational citizenship behavior; adj, adjustment.

Table 6 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses (interaction of hindrance stressors and extraversion)

Variables	Dependent Variable
	Adjustment
	Model 1				Model 2
Main Effects	B	SE	beta	t	B	SE	beta	t
Hindrance Stressors	−0.27***	0.04	−0.32	−6.77	0.16	0.18	0.19	0.89
Extraversion	0.13***	0.04	0.13	2.81	0.50***	0.16	0.52	3.12
Interactions
Hindrance Stressor *Extraversion					−0.11**	0.05	−0.73	−2.43
Overall R	0.31				0.32
Overall R^2	0.09				0.10
Overall Model F	23.30***				17.67***
ΔR^2	0.01

Notes: **p<0.05, ***p<0.01.

Table 7 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses (interaction of intrapersonal motivation and extraversion)

Variables	Dependent Variable
	Adjustment
	Model 1				Model 2
Main Effects	B	SE	beta	t	B	SE	beta	t
Intrapersonal Motivation	0.42***	0.07	0.30	6.45	0.88***	0.29	0.64	3.03
Extraversion	−0.05	0.05	−0.05	−1.14	0.37	0.26	0.38	1.41
Interactions
Intrapersonal Motivation *Extraversion					−0.11*	0.07	−0.63	−1.63
Overall R	0.29				0.30
Overall R^2	0.08				0.09
Overall Model F	21.18***				15.06***
ΔR^2	0.01

Notes: *p<0.10, ***p<0.01.

Figure 3 Moderating effect of extraversion on the relationship between hindrance stressors and adjustment.

Figure 4 Moderating effect of extraversion on the relationship between intrapersonal motivation and adjustment.