Global competencies, with differences in terminology by various researchers, had been frequently investigated, primarily from an American-biased perspective. Little or no defining research existed that identified requisite, universally agreed upon global competencies, or identified what affective components were perceived to be important cross culturally. This research study answered the following questions: 1. What affective components are perceived to be important from a cross-cultural perspective? 2. Are there differences in these perceptions of affective components from a cross-cultural perspective? The purpose of the study was to explore the extent to which individuals in different GeoCultural regions view and identify affective components perceived to be important in today's global society. Affective components relate to emotions, values, and beliefs. The research entailed the development of two instruments for placing individuals within a primary region (the background information form) and for identifying and rating affective components perceived to be important in today's global society from a cross-cultural perspective (the affective component questionnaire). The study used four expert panels to perform content validation. Both instruments were developed by global experts from eight GeoCultural regions. As a result of the panel process, nine affective components were identified. Two instruments were administered, through intermediaries, to individuals in all the GeoCultural regions and subcategories. Of the responses, 423 were usable. Affective competence appears to be a complex construct that involves more than one component. Based on this study, there are at least nine different affective components perceived to be important in order to be a culturally competent individual in today's global society. All of the nine affective components were perceived to be important in all GeoCultural regions and subcategories. Repeated measures ANOVA and Dunn's pairwise comparisons tests were used to assess differences between the affective components and the GeoCultural regions/subcategories. There were differences found in three of the affective components indicating that there may be some differences between GeoCultural regions and subcategories. The Caribbean respondents did not value three affective components as highly as some of the other GeoCultural regions. Repeated measures ANOVAs were also used to determine if there were any significant differences between the subcategories of Asia and the subcategories of Oceania. Since no significant differences existed in either GeoCultural region, it lends support to the notion that the subcategories are not needed for research dealing with affective components.