This study examines the relationship between psychological capital (PsyCap), occupational stress, and organizational socialization in a cross-cultural context. It hypothesizes that: 1) PsyCap will moderate the relationship between diversity (mono vs multi-cultural groups) and stress, 2) PsyCap will moderate the relationship between diversity and socialization, and 3) stress will negatively impact socialization. To test this, participants will be assigned to mono- or multi-cultural groups and complete a task. PsyCap, stress, and socialization will be measured before and after. Results will be analyzed using ANOVA to understand the impact of PsyCap on stress and socialization across cultural contexts. Findings could help organizations implement Psy

1. CROSS-CULTURAL
PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND
ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH
OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AND
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
Emmanuel Segui

2. Background to Psychological Capital
(PsyCap)
 According to Luthans, Youssef & Avolio (2007), PsyCap was
founded on theoretical frameworks that have been widely
recognised (e.g. social cognitive theory, Bandura, 1986; hope
theory, Snyder, 2000).
 The four scales that were included in the development phase of
the instrument were selected based on sound reliability and
validity evidence, clear relevance to the workplace and being
measures of state-like constructs (Luthans, Avolio, Avey &
Norman, 2007).

3. Psychological Capital (PsyCap)
 Individual's positive psychological state of development
characterized by: (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007)
 Having confidence (self efficacy) to take on and put in the effort to
succeed
 Making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding (now &
future)
 Persevering and redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to
succeed
 When beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing
back and even beyond (resilience) to attain success

4. Psychological Capital (PsyCap)
 PsyCap consists of efficacy, optimism, hope and
resilience and when combined has been shown to represent a
second-order, core factor that predicts performance and
satisfaction better than each of the four factors that make it up
(Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007).

5. PsyCap in the workplace
 Predictor of work performance and satisfaction (Luthans et
al, 2007)
 Positive relationship between PsyCap and desirable
workplace attitudes, such as commitment, and well-being.
(Avey et al, 2011).
 PsyCap can broaden the range of emotional responses
that a leader may have in a cross-cultural situation
(Reichard et al, 2014).

6. PsyCap and Its Relationship to Stress
 Negative relationship with stress symptoms, intention to quit
and job search behaviors (Avey, Luthans & Jensen, 2011)
 Potential antidote to the effects of stress, suggests that this
higher-order concept may offer an avenue to boost student
immunity to stressors, or even to shape the way in which
they appraise and define events to reframe them as
motivational challenges rather than debilitating threats (Riolli,
Savicki & Richards, 2012).

7. Proposed Study
 Extension of Avey, Luthans & Jensen study (2011) – examined PsyCap and
stress responses, and Reichard et al. study (2014) – examined PsyCap and
cross-cultural performance.
 Hypotheses:
 1. PsyCap will moderate the relationship between diversity (mono vs
multi) and stress.
 2. PsyCap will moderate the relationship between diversity (mono vs
multi) and group socialization.
 3. Stress will affect socialization in that the more stress, the less
socialized you feel in a small work group situation.

8. Measures
 Psychological Capital Questionnaire (Luthans, Youssef, et
al., 2007).
 Likert scale 1-6 (Strongly agree to strongly disagree)
 Examples of items include,
 Hope: “If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to
get out of it”
 Efficacy: “I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find its solution”
 Resilience: “I can get through difficult times at work because I've
experienced difficulty before”
 Optimism: “I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job.”
 Internal consistency ranged from 0.72 to 0.80 for hope, 0.66 to 0.72 for
resilience, 0.75 to 0.85 for self-efficacy and 0.69 to 0.79 for optimism.
(Luthans et al, 2007)

9. Measures, Continued.
 Anxiety-Stress Questionnaire (House & Rizzo, 1972)
 Assesses the subjective experience of job tension
 Responses are scored as 2 or 1 for true or false, respectively, and
averaged.
 17 statements, 3 subscales
 Job Induced Tension (7 items)
 Somatic Tension (5 items)
 General Fatigue and Uneasiness (5 items)

10. Measures, Continued.
 Small Group Socialization Scale (Riddle, Anderson & Martin,
2000)
 Likert scale 1-5 (Strongly agree to strongly disagree)
 Examples
 “I found someone in the group who could provide me with emotional
support.”
 “I found someone in the group who could help me adjust to the group.”
 “I understood the “group talk” the group used to do its work.”
 2 additional questions: “During the activity, did you feel connected to
the group?” and “During the activity, did you feel isolated?”

11. Participants & Procedures
 2 Groups
 One mono-cultural group
 Male/female Caucasian participants from Psych 121
 One multi-cultural group
 Male/female multi-cultural participants from International Services
 30 participants/group
 Each group divided into 6 groups of 5 people and administered a “lego
construction” activity or other “shared resource” activity to complete as a
group.
 Each participant is administered the PsyCap survey before
Intervention and stress and socialization survey after intervention.
Other variables such as age, race and ethnicity were recorded
before the PsyCap questionnaire.

12. Results
 2*3 ANOVA analyzed with SPSS
 2 groups
 Mono and multi-cultural groups
 3 levels of PsyCap
 A total of Psycap between 0 and 40 was considered “low”, 41-80 was
considered “moderate” and 81-120 was considered “strong”.

13. Results
H1 H2 H3

14. Value Proposition for Organizations
 What can managers do about people working in multi-
cultural environment?
 Micro Training intervention –
 - PsyCap training (2-hour face-to-face or computerized
intervention)

15. References
 Riddle, B. L., Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (2000). Small Group Socialization Scale: Development and validity.
Small Group Research, 31, 554–572.
 Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Positive
Psychological Capital on Employee Attitudes, Behaviors, and Performance. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 22(2), 127-152.
 Li, L., Ying, C., Jialiang, F., Jiana, W., & Lie, W. (2012). The mediating role of psychological capital on the
association between occupational stress and depressive symptoms among Chinese physicians: a cross-sectional
study. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 219-226. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-219
 Luthans F, Norman S., Avolio B. & Avey J.. (2008). The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive
organizational climate - employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 219.
 Pasca, R., & Wagner, S. (2011). Occupational Stress in the Multicultural Workplace. Journal Of Immigrant &
Minority Health, 13(4), 697-705. doi:10.1007/s10903-011-9457-6
 Reichard, R. J., Dollwet, M., & Louw-Potgieter, J. (2014). Development of Cross-Cultural Psychological Capital and
Its Relationship With Cultural Intelligence and Ethnocentrism. Journal Of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
21(2), 150-164. doi:10.1177/1548051813515517
 Riolli, L., Savicki, V., & Richards, J. (2012). Psychological Capital as a Buffer to Student Stress. Journal of
Psychology, 3(12), 1202-1207.
 Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee
stress and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48(5), 677-693.