For the review, we were interested in studies that used a cross-cultural training program and measured its effectiveness in terms of cultural competence and cultural intelligence.

The literature search was conducted using the EBSCOhost interface which searched the following databases: Academic Search Complete, Education Research Complete, MEDLINE, ERIC, APA PsycInfo, Business Source Premier, CINAHL Complete, SocINDEX with Full Text, Hospitality & Tourism Complete, Teacher Reference Center, SPORTDiscuss with Full Text. A manual search of key articles’ reference lists was also conducted for papers that were either highly cited or papers that became clear through the research as being highly relevant.

To ensure a comprehensive but specific search for eligible papers, the search terms were first developed and tested by the researchers. The final search terms used were: (“cross-cultural training” or “cct” or “cross-cultural program” or “cross-cultural education”) AND (“cultural intelligence” or “cultural competence”). The limiters developed in this review were: “peer-reviewed,” “published date (2000–2023),” and the language selected as “English.” We included studies from 2000 to 2023 to ensure our review reflects current evidence and the latest developments in training programs (Moher and Tsertsvadze, 2006). The search terms and limiters were used for all databases using the EBSCOhost interface. See Table 1 for inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The initial search conducted by DU resulted in 475 papers. After the removal of duplicates and records automatically marked as eligible by automation tools, DU and JS independently screened all study titles and abstracts for inclusion and any disagreements were discussed and resolved by referring back to the eligibility criteria. DU and JS then reviewed all the full-text papers. Of the 64 papers, six were discussed between DU and JS and agreed, and 8 were discussed with RO or MB and agreed. Only three papers were discussed with RO/MB, which changed the decision taken previously. This process resulted in 20 papers, with seven additional papers added through citations resulting in the final inclusion of 27 papers (Figure 1). The full text of excluded papers is included in the Supplementary material.

Details of the 27 papers were extracted and compiled into a table (DU and JS). Any uncertainties and disagreements regarding the variables during data extraction were resolved through discussions between authors. As an example, six papers were excluded because they contained insufficient information concerning the type and implementation of the training. Authors were not contacted to provide further information about the training programs.

For each paper, data was collected about the components of the cross-cultural training program (delivery method, participants, content, duration) and its outcomes on cultural intelligence and cultural competence, as well as study design.

A quality assessment of papers was not performed as the focus was on synthesizing findings related to the types and impacts of training programs, rather than on evaluating the methodological quality of the individual studies.

A narrative synthesis was used because it is the most appropriate way to discuss the different components of training delivery as per our main research question.

Seven studies employed didactic methods, incorporating various activities: courses, group discussions, briefings, as well as self-directed and group-directed tasks relevant to the cultural topics (Harris et al., 2008; Pandey, 2012; Rehg et al., 2012; Smith and Bahr, 2014; Spitzer, 2015; Ramsey and Lorenz, 2016; Kirste and Holtbrügge, 2019). The primary focus of these courses was on culture-general and culture-specific knowledge. For instance, Smith and Bahr (2014) offered an overview of cultural competence, discussing its definitions and presenting cultural characteristics of the Hispanic population including aspects like second-language acquisition and parental involvement (i.e., culture-general and specific knowledge). Likewise, Harris et al. (2008) provided psychiatry residents with general cultural knowledge as well as culturally sensitive techniques for interviewing, diagnosing, and reviewing patients tailored to their practice settings.

Group activities mostly consisted of discussions, briefings, and presentations while individual activities included tasks such as self-reflection essays, case studies, and readings. For example, Spitzer’s (2015) program asked students to create surveys and compare responses from first- or second-generation immigrants to typical acculturation patterns described in the literature. In Pandey’s (2012) workshop, participants analyzed video clips from popular films such as “Outsourced” and “My Big Fat Greek Wedding.” Of the seven programs using a didactic delivery, only one relied entirely on online resources, with participants completing four training units and exercises over 2 weeks (Kirste and Holtbrügge, 2019).

Seven studies used experiential delivery including activities such as simulation games (Bücker and Korzilius, 2015; Rahayu and Arga, 2019) and cultural immersion (Wood and St. Peters, 2014; MacNab, 2012; Alexandra, 2018a, 2018b) followed by group discussions. For example, Wood and St. Peters (2014) developed cross-cultural study tours, immersing participants in unfamiliar cultural environments through visits to organizations and community engagement. MacNab (2012) and Alexandra (2018a, 2018b) used self-selected cultural immersion experiences, combined with group reflection program as part of the 7-stage Experiential CQ Education program. Majda et al. (2021) introduced a set of six experiential activities, such as role-playing and simulation exercises to improve nursing students’ cross-cultural communication skills and CQ. Overall, experiential programs relied on interactive methods like simulations and immersion to foster cultural awareness and practical skills within multicultural settings.

Thirteen studies used a mixed approach combining didactic and experiential methods. These programs typically combined courses, educational tasks and experiential activities. Courses addressed cultural concepts, such as CQ and leadership (Azevedo and Shane, 2019), the functioning and operation of cultures (Presbitero and Toledano, 2018), cultural dimensions (Eisenberg et al., 2013), and cultural competence (Kratzke and Bertolo, 2013). Tasks included film assignments (Engle and Crowne, 2014; Azevedo and Shane, 2019), presentations (Azevedo and Shane, 2019; Dunlap and Mapp, 2017), and journaling on cultural experiences (Alexander et al., 2021; Alexander et al., 2022; Azevedo and Shane, 2019). The experiential components ranged from role playing to simulations and cross-cultural conversations (Kurpis and Hunter, 2017; Young et al., 2018).

Some training programs (n = 4) used preparatory activities related to field trips abroad (Eisenberg et al., 2013; Alexander et al., 2021; Alexander et al., 2022; Engle and Crowne, 2014). For instance, Engle and Crowne’s (2014) program included preparatory readings, film tasks, and cultural case studies. After their international experiences, participants took part in debriefings and were encouraged to submit cultural case studies for future students. Similarly, Eisenberg et al. (2013) used cultural preparation before study abroad programs, leading to significant gains in overall CQ.

Role-playing activities, such as the BaFa BaFa game, were used to simulate cross-cultural interactions (Hiller and Woźniak, 2009; Fischer, 2011; Kratzke and Bertolo, 2013). These activities engaged participants in cultural role assignments, encouraging them to reflect on their reactions and the behaviors of others in foreign cultures.

Self-reflective essays were also a key component in several programs (Kratzke and Bertolo, 2013; Dunlap and Mapp, 2017; Alexander et al., 2021; Alexander et al., 2022; Azevedo and Shane, 2019), aiming to improve cultural self-awareness and deepen the understanding of cross-cultural interactions. The goal of these training programs was to help participants understand their own behaviors and the reactions of individuals from different cultures. For example, Azevedo and Shane (2019) required trainees to interview a manager facing a cultural challenge and write a reflective essay, and Young et al. (2018) asked trainees to interact with refugees from diverse cultures and reflect on their experiences.

This section includes a synthesis of qualitative and quantitative results reported in the reviewed studies. Overall, the findings point to positive outcomes for participants engaging in cross-cultural training programs, though not all effects were statistically significant.

Eight studies (four using qualitative methods only) reported improvements in participants’ cross-cultural competence (Hiller and Woźniak, 2009; Kratzke and Bertolo, 2013; Pandey, 2012; Spitzer, 2015; Smith and Bahr, 2014; Fakhreldin et al., 2021; Kurpis and Hunter, 2017; MacNab, 2012; see Supplementary Table 3). Participants described benefits as gaining greater cross-cultural communication skills (Pandey, 2012; Kratzke and Bertolo, 2013), cultural awareness, culture-general knowledge, and cultural competence (Pandey, 2012; Spitzer, 2015). These benefits may have been associated with the specific activities in which they were involved. For example, readings and case studies program led to a better understanding of culture-related components such as cultural competence (Pandey, 2012; Spitzer, 2015), while role-playing and simulation exercises were particularly effective in enhancing communication (Kratzke and Bertolo, 2013), behavioral flexibility, empathy, and confidence in interacting with different cultural groups (Hiller and Woźniak, 2009).

Nineteen studies quantitatively assessed outcomes, generally reporting positive effects on CQ and cultural competence, though some findings were not statistically significant (see Supplementary Table 4).

For instance, four of six programs using didactic methods showed improvements in cultural competence (Harris et al., 2008) and in cultural intelligence and/or its dimensions (Rehg et al., 2012; Smith and Bahr, 2014; Ramsey and Lorenz, 2016). Ramsey and Lorenz (2016) found that a cross-cultural management course, which included cultural concepts and video clips as part of the educational tasks, had a significant and positive impact on the CQ scores of the experimental group. Similarly, Rehg et al. (2012) found that a cross-cultural awareness course significantly improved participants’ cognitive and behavioral dimensions of CQ (Class 2), with smaller gains in motivational CQ, likely due to the course’s focus on culture-specific knowledge and the influence of cultural backgrounds on behavior. Harris et al. (2008) also found lasting improvements in cultural competence which were maintained at a 9-month follow-up. In contrast, one study found no positive effects of an online-only CQ training program on students’ CQ levels (Kirste and Holtbrügge, 2019), raising questions regarding the effectiveness of online-only education compared to in-person approaches.

Experiential methods consistently showed improvements to cultural competence and cultural intelligence and/or its dimensions (MacNab, 2012; Wood and St. Peters, 2014; Alexandra, 2018a, 2018b; Rahayu and Arga, 2019; Bücker and Korzilius, 2015; Majda et al., 2021). For example, participating in the 7-stage CQ education program led to improvements across all domains of cultural intelligence among participants (Alexandra, 2018a, 2018b; MacNab, 2012). However, some studies reported varied outcomes across CQ dimensions such as significant gains in cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational CQ but no change in behavioral CQ, despite the practical cross-cultural activities (Wood and St. Peters, 2014). Similarly, the Ecotonos program was effective in developing the metacognitive, behavioral, and motivational CQ, but less effective in changing cognitive CQ (Bücker and Korzilius, 2015). Significant improvements in CQ did not translate into increased cultural competence in Majda and colleagues’ program (2021).

Nine of ten programs that used mixed delivery methods showed improvements in cultural intelligence and/or its dimensions (Eisenberg et al., 2013; Engle and Crowne, 2014; Dunlap and Mapp, 2017; Presbitero and Toledano, 2018; Young et al., 2018; Azevedo and Shane, 2019; Alexander et al., 2021; Alexander et al., 2022; Fakhreldin et al., 2021). For instance, Alexander et al. (2021) combined a cultural learning course with a study abroad experience of either 3 weeks or 6 weeks. Their first study reported significant increases in all CQ dimensions, except motivational CQ, suggesting that cultural immersion did not enhance participants’ motivation. However, their 2022 study showed positive results on all CQ domains, regardless of the duration of the study abroad experience. In another study, Azevedo and Shane (2019) compared the CQ scores of students and professionals after both groups completed a similar cultural intelligence training program. While students reported significant increases in all dimensions of CQ, including a moderate increase in behavioral CQ, professionals only showed significant improvement in the cognitive dimension, with no significant changes in other areas. The differences in outcomes may stem from program differences in activities or learning preferences between groups.

Engle and Crowne (2014) showed that short-term international experiences were effective in improving CQ, while both Dunlap and Mapp (2017) and Eisenberg et al. (2013) found that pre-departure courses focusing on the target country’s culture enhanced overall CQ. However, they also found poor results in motivational and behavioral CQ despite the experiential nature of the program.

Kurpis and Hunter (2017) found that international students scored higher in cognitive CQ than domestic students, despite receiving no formal training. Both international and domestic students perceived benefits in discussing the similarities and differences between the host country and the students’ home countries. Presbitero and Toledano (2018) and Fakhreldin et al. (2021) reported increases in overall CQ scores following programs that combined courses with experiential activities such as case studies and role-playing. In contrast, Fischer (2011) found a significant improvement only in behavioral CQ, with significant decreases in all other dimensions after role-playing and behavior modification sessions.

In this study we did not include a quality assessment or a risk of bias assessment. This was because its focus was on synthesizing training outcomes rather than evaluating methodological quality. However, this means that the study can provide no suggestions regarding future methodological improvements to the field. Future studies can incorporate needs assessments to tailor cultural training programs to specific organizational and contextual requirements. To enhance evaluation methods, research could combine standardized, validated quantitative measures, such as CQ Scale (Ang et al., 2007) or CQ Sport scale (Borges et al., 2022b), with qualitative feedback, including post-experience reflections, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of cultural competence or CQ outcomes. Future research can implement long-term follow-up assessments (see Harris et al., 2008) with care to include co-variate measures such as migration experience, to better assess the sustained impact of cultural training programs. Finally, with the increasing shift toward digital learning, future studies should continue to explore the effectiveness of online or hybrid cultural training programs.