research about cultural shock

Navigating the Currents of Culture Shock: Insights from Recent Research

Understanding the fabric of a new culture is akin to deciphering an enigmatic puzzle. Each piece, whether it’s language, customs, or social norms, forms an intricate part of a larger picture. It’s both fascinating and intimidating. When we immerse ourselves in a foreign environment, a natural reaction is often a phenomenon known as ‘culture shock.’

Culture shock can manifest in various ways, from homesickness to frustration, confusion to excitement. It can be a transformative experience that invites individuals to reflect on their identities and values. But it can also be a debilitating experience that halts progress and stifles growth. With the world becoming more globalised, understanding and dealing with culture shock is more relevant than ever.

Expanding upong this understanding, a recent  study published in the journal Technological Forecasting and Social Change presents a compelling analysis of culture shock from a psychological perspective. The study’s focus was on foreigners adapting to new cultural contexts within two culturally diverse sports organisations.

Intriguingly, the research underscores the notion that the intensity of culture shock varies, depending not only on the magnitude of the cultural differences between the home and host environments but also on an individual’s previous experiences and multicultural skills. The research highlighted the crucial role of local attitudes and behaviors in influencing the intensity of an individual’s culture shock.

The study further elucidated that prior experience doesn’t exempt individuals from experiencing culture shock again when they move to a new environment. Nevertheless, past experiences can equip them with valuable strategies to better manage the challenges posed by a new culture. These experiences often become most valuable as individuals transition through the stages of cultural adaptation.

Initially, in the honeymoon stage, individuals are often entranced by the novelty of the new culture. The different food, language, traditions, and social norms can seem exciting. However, as the novelty wears off, the negotiation stage begins, and individuals start to grapple with the differences between their home culture and the new one. Frustration, homesickness, and feelings of loneliness are common during this stage.

In the adjustment stage, individuals start to understand and become accustomed to the new culture. They develop strategies to cope with the cultural differences and start to build a routine. This is where the process of acculturation begins, and individuals start to integrate the norms and values of the new culture into their own.

Finally, the mastery stage occurs when individuals can fully function in the new culture. They have successfully integrated themselves into the society, while also maintaining their original identity.

But other studies show that the speed and ease with which one navigates through these stages can be significantly influenced by individual factors like adaptability, open-mindedness, and even language proficiency. Moreover, access to a support network, such as friends, family, or organisations that provide cultural training, can be immensely beneficial .

Interestingly, other studies also debunked the notion that culture shock is necessarily a negative experience. Yes, it can be challenging, but it’s also a learning opportunity. By navigating through the stages of culture shock, individuals become more culturally competent. They develop empathy, understanding, and a broader worldview.

Understanding culture shock is crucial in today’s globalized world. As we become more interconnected, the ability to effectively navigate culture shock is an invaluable skill. It’s not about erasing our roots or completely adapting to the new culture, but rather finding a balance between preserving our identity and being open to learning and understanding.

Culture shock is more than a clash of differences. It’s a journey of self-discovery, growth, and adaptation. The latest research provides a nuanced understanding of culture shock, emphasizing its potential to be a transformative, enriching experience. With the right mindset and resources, anyone can navigate the waves of culture shock and emerge stronger, more understanding, and more culturally competent.

Jack Bradford is an anthropologist and writer, passionate about bridging cultural divides and fostering global understanding.

Related Articles

Life is like clay, but the mould isn’t always in your hands, how the 1981 film porky’s hilariously reveals the hidden struggles of teen psychology, practising shamanism respectfully, these effective strategies can help you master the art of negotiation, spreading conspiracy theories can boost your reputation during conflict, study finds, new study reveals deep-seated biases favouring the religiously faithful, bots driving social media polarisation, new study finds, study reveals significant variation in homicides targeting homeless individuals in the uk, streaming in schools affects adult civic engagement, favouring high-ability students, how eye health is the key to understanding your body, why is britain lashing out, and where do we go from here, study reveals familiarity neutralises accent bias in social interactions, largest study on muslim prisoners clarifies the nature of islamic extremism in europe, care home residents become pedalling pals, and share their advice for international friendship day, luxury cars boost status and attractiveness, finds new study, rising islamic extremism threatens national unity in nigeria, reveals new study, rising iq scores are linked to rising anxiety in the west – here’s why, employment appeal tribunal to hear landmark whistleblower case involving british psychological society, gen z’s cancel culture driven by attitudes and norms, not justice beliefs – according to new study, new study exposes varied forms of violence in oslo streets, the freedom to be more than your race, high rates of consanguineous marriages linked to genetic disorders in saudi arabia, according to new study, multiculturalism in britain has led to new linguistic forms – but also significant social problems, according to new study, nursing home abuse: a serious concern in modern society.

Psychreg is a digital media company and not a clinical company. Our content does not constitute a medical or psychological consultation. See a certified medical or mental health professional for diagnosis.

• Privacy Policy

© Copyright 2014–2034 Psychreg Ltd

• PSYCHREG JOURNAL
• MEET OUR WRITERS
• MEET THE TEAM

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• APA Open Access

The Highs and Lows of a Cultural Transition: A Longitudinal Analysis of Sojourner Stress and Adaptation Across 50 Countries

Kali a. demes.

1 Department of Psychology, University of Essex

Nicolas Geeraert

The research reported in this article was supported by a research grant of the Economic and Social Research Council to the second author [ESRC RES-062-23-1211]. We thank AFS Intercultural Programs for their contributions to this project. The authors also wish to thank Tim Rakow, Colleen Ward, and Geoff Ward for comments on an earlier version of the article. Both authors contributed equally to this article.

The impact of living abroad is a topic that has intrigued researchers for almost a century, if not longer. While many acculturation phenomena have been studied over this time, the development of new research methods and statistical software in recent years means that these can be revisited and examined in a more rigorous manner. In the present study we were able to follow approximately 2,500 intercultural exchange students situated in over 50 different countries worldwide, over time both before and during their travel using online surveys. Advanced statistical analyses were employed to examine the course of sojourners stress and adjustment over time, its antecedents and consequences. By comparing a sojourner sample with a control group of nonsojourning peers we were able to highlight the uniqueness of the sojourn experience in terms of stress variability over time. Using Latent Class Growth Analysis to examine the nature of this variability revealed 5 distinct patterns of change in stress experienced by sojourners over the course of their exchange: a reverse J-curve, inverse U-curve, mild stress, minor relief, and resilience pattern. Antecedent explanatory variables for stress variability were examined using both variable-centered and person-centered analyses and evidence for the role of personality, empathy, cultural adaptation, and coping strategies was found in each case. Lastly, we examined the relationship between stress abroad with behavioral indicators of (mal)adjustment: number of family changes and early termination of the exchange program.

For decades acculturation researchers have been interested in the psychological impact on the individual, of moving to a new country ( Berry, 1997 ; Church, 1982 ; Furnham & Bochner, 1986 ; Geeraert & Demoulin, 2013 ; Graves, 1967 ; Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2010 ; Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001 ). It was originally assumed that the experience of “culture shock” was an inevitable consequence of intercultural relocation ( Lysgaard, 1955 ). Authors such as Oberg (1960) even described culture shock as a kind of disease or condition, with symptoms such as excessive hand washing, fear of physical contact, absent-mindedness and “fits of anger.” Since this early research however, studies have shown that movement from a familiar to an unfamiliar culture does not always impact negatively. Geeraert and Demoulin (2013) for example, found that on entering the host country, the stress levels of a sample of intercultural exchange students actually decreased on average relative to pretravel levels.

The term acculturative stress is now generally preferred over culture shock when describing the impact of culture change on the individual ( Berry, 1997 ). Rather than focusing on purely negative outcomes, acculturative stress implies a process characterized by phases of stress and adjustment ( Berry, 2006 ). This process can be viewed within a stress and coping framework ( Lazarus & Folkman, 1984 ) by recognizing the acculturation experience as a series of life change events ( Holmes & Rahe, 1967 ; Spradley & Phillips, 1972 ). Importantly, factors identified as influential to stress and coping with other major life events, such as personality and coping strategies ( Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010 ; Penley & Tomaka, 2002 ), have also been acknowledged as relevant in an acculturation context ( Berry, 1997 ; Herman & Tetrick, 2009 ; Ward, Leong, & Low, 2004 ).

The “highs and lows” of acculturative stress, its course over time, is a central topic of exploration in the acculturation field ( Berry, 1997 ; Ward et al., 2001 ). Natural partners to this topic are the questions of what can account for or explain the course of stress and adjustment over time and of what are the consequences of different acculturation experiences ( Geeraert & Demoulin, 2013 ; Zhang & Goodson, 2011 ). In a multinational and longitudinal study of intercultural exchange students (of high school age) we address these issues anew by overcoming some of the limitations or boundaries of past research. Specifically, the prevalence of cross-sectional studies has limited the ability to make directional assumptions about the relationships between individual differences and cultural adjustment (e.g., Ward et al., 2004 ), single culture samples have restricted the generalizability of findings to other cultural groups (e.g., Wan et al., 2012 ), and variable-centered analyses have ignored interindividual differences in experiences within samples (e.g., Hechanova-Alampay, Beehr, Christiansen, & van Horn, 2002 ). The current study is the first to combine, in a single study, a longitudinal design, a multinational sample and both variable-centered and person-centered analyses. Before discussing the current research in more detail, relevant research and findings from the literature will be presented.

Literature Overview

Cultural adjustment over time.

Perhaps the most well cited theoretical model of acculturative stress and its course over time is Oberg’s (1960) culture shock model or the U-curve model of cultural adjustment ( Lysgaard, 1955 ). Oberg (1960) described culture shock as a condition or state with both physical and psychological symptoms. Importantly, he argued that not all individuals may experience these symptoms with the same intensity or at the same time. However, the model does specify a number of stages through which every acculturating individual will travel. The first is one of euphoria and fascination with the new culture, labeled the “honeymoon.” If the person remains in the new culture long enough, a second “crisis” stage begins, characterized by hostile attitudes toward the host culture. However, as the individual gradually learns about and opens up to the culture, a phase of recovery occurs, ending finally in full adjustment and acceptance of the culture. While somewhat anecdotal in its basis, this model does hold intuitive appeal and has been tested frequently since its specification ( Black & Mendenhall, 1991 ; Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963 ; Hechanova-Alampay, Beehr, Christiansen, and van Horn, 2002 ; Ward, Okura, Kennedy, & Kojima, 1998 ). Overall, however, support for this U-curve or stage pattern of cultural adjustment is mixed.

In a sample of international students at an American university, Hechanova-Alampay et al. (2002) did observe an inverse U-curve pattern of strain over three time points from the start of a semester, to 3 and 6 months later. Ward et al. (1998) , in line with a stress and coping prediction (that initial entry to a new country will involve the most life changes and thus the most stress), found support for an alternative pattern of cultural adjustment, a reverse J-curve. Specifically, in a sample of Japanese students in New Zealand social difficulty and depression was found to be at its highest 24 hours after entry, dropping steeply at 4 months and leveling over the remaining waves. Other patterns have also been reported, such as drops in sojourners stress on arrival to the host country relative to baseline levels ( Geeraert & Demoulin, 2013 ).

Given the variety of adjustment patterns that have been observed across different samples of intercultural travelers, one could ask whether there really is a single “one size fits all” description of how cultural adjustment proceeds over time. We argue that this may not be the case and that a person-centered approach to such longitudinal data may be a more appropriate way to assess this. While variable-centered approaches (e.g., factor analysis, multilevel modeling) describe how variables relate to one another, person-centered approaches (e.g., cluster analysis, latent class analysis) describe how individuals relate to one another ( Jung & Wickrama, 2008 ; Muthén & Muthén, 2000 ). Specifically, in our study we attempt to identify a number of subgroups of individuals experiencing different patterns of cultural stress and adjustment over time.

This type of approach was employed by Wang, Heppner, Fu, Zhao, and Chuang (2012) , in a study of Chinese international students in the U.S., using growth mixture modeling as a means to identify distinct trajectories of psychological distress measured over four time points. They identified four subgroups of individuals: a “well-adjusted” group reporting consistently low distress levels, a “culture-shocked” group experiencing a peak in distress during their first semester, a “relieved” group who reported a drop in stress from prearrival to the first semester and a final “consistently distressed” group. Interestingly, Wang et al. (2012) found that individuals belonging to these different subgroups could be distinguished along variables measured pre- and postarrival to the U.S., including self-esteem, perfectionism, and coping strategy use.

Antecedents of Cultural Adjustment

A natural progression from the examination of cultural stress and adjustment over time is to explore what variables moderate that adjustment; that is variables that appear to facilitate or hinder the acculturation process. In line with the stress and coping framework, previous research has examined the role of variables such as expectations ( Martin, Bradford, & Rohrlich, 1995 ; Demes & Geeraert, 2015 ), personality ( Swagler & Jome, 2005 ; Ward, Leong, & Low, 2004 ), social support ( Cemalcilar, Falbo, & Stapleton, 2005 ; Geeraert & Demoulin, 2013 ), and coping strategies ( Wang et al., 2012 ; Ward & Kennedy, 2001 ). In this article we focus on the role of personality and coping strategies (including social support) in explaining different patterns of stress during a cross-cultural transition. We will also examine the function of empathy, an interpersonal tendency related to personality, in the adjustment of our sojourners.

Personality

In Berry’s (1997) elaborated stress and coping model of acculturation, personality is specified as an important moderating factor that is present preacculturation. Locus of control ( Ward & Kennedy, 1992 ) and self-efficacy ( Harrison, Chadwick & Scales, 1996 ) for example, are among several traits that have been studied in relation to the success of a cultural transition. One of the most famous and popular conceptualizations of personality, however, is the Five Factor Model, also known as the Big Five ( Costa & McCrae, 1992 ; Piedmont, 1998 ). This describes five central personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Similar to this but more recent is the HEXACO personality model describing six major personality dimensions ( Ashton & Lee, 2009 ). Five of the six factors of the HEXACO broadly overlap with the Big Five concepts, but a sixth novel factor labeled honesty-humility is also specified ( Ashton & Lee, 2001 ). This six factor structure has been shown to replicate well across cultures and honesty-humility is believed to be a valuable addition to the model from a cross-cultural perspective ( Ashton & Lee, 2007 ).

To date some research has examined the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and the cultural adjustment of sojourners. For example, Swagler and Jome (2005) , in a sample of North American sojourners in Taiwan, reported a negative association between psychological adjustment and neuroticism but a positive association with agreeableness and conscientiousness. In addition they found that extraversion was positively related to sociocultural adjustment. Ward, Leong, and Low (2004) also found that neuroticism was negatively and extraversion positively related to the cultural adaptation of sojourners in Australia and Singapore and reported evidence linking agreeableness and conscientiousness to sojourners well-being.

While these findings support the inclusion of personality in acculturation models, these are based almost exclusively on cross-sectional research ( Berry, 1997 ; Swagler & Jome, 2005 ; van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2013 ; Ward et al., 2004 ). Consequently, these studies have not been able to attest to the durability or stability of these effects over time. The present study, therefore, provides a crucial progression from previous research by examining the influence of personality on change in adjustment over time using longitudinal research methods. Additionally, utilizing the HEXACO personality inventory ( Ashton & Lee, 2009 ) as opposed to the Big Five Model, allows us to examine whether a sixth personality factor, honesty-humility, has a role to play in cultural stress and adjustment ( Ashton & Lee, 2007 ). Previous research suggests that low levels of honesty-humility are related to increased levels of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy ( Lee & Ashton, 2005 ), traits that play an important role in interpersonal settings ( Holden, Zeigler-Hill, Pham, & Shackelford, 2014 ). Considering the role of honesty-humility in sojourner adjustment may be particularly relevant as a key feature of an intercultural exchange is to form brand new relationships in the host country.

While not explicitly specified in Berry’s (1997) stress and coping model of acculturation, empathy has associations with emotion regulation which is relevant from a stress and coping perspective ( Matsumoto, Hirayama, & LeRoux, 2006 ). We are interested to see how sojourners levels of empathy may relate to their stress and adjustment patterns over the exchange and to do this draw upon a multidimensional conceptualization of empathy ( Davis, 1983 ). We are particularly interested in the perspective taking and empathetic concern dimensions due to their associations with positive interpersonal functioning ( Davis, 1983 ; Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005 ; Håkansson & Montgomery, 2003 ). Perspective taking has been described as the cognitive ability to take on the perspective of another person, while empathetic concern is a more emotional tendency that involves feeling sympathy and concern for others ( Davis, 1983 ).

The relevance of these traits or tendencies to intercultural relocation is clear. Part of the adjustment process to living abroad involves understanding people who come from a different cultural background who may think about and perceive the world in a very different way but at the same time also experience the same feelings, concerns, or joys as anyone else. Indeed, Ward and Kennedy’s (1999) Socio-Cultural Adaptation Scale includes a cultural empathy and relatedness factor, as does the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire of van der Zee and van Oudenhoven (2000) , highlighting its relevance to cultural adjustment. In a study of students at two international business schools, Van Oudenhoven and van der Zee (2002) found that scoring higher on the cultural empathy factor of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire was related to reporting better physical and mental health, higher subjective well-being and higher perceived peer support.

While cultural empathy is described as functional for cultural adjustment, the empathetic concern factor of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis, 1980 ) has been associated with emotional vulnerability ( Davis, 1983 ), a trait which may actually hinder cultural adjustment. For example, Matsumoto, Hirayama, and LeRoux (2006) highlight the importance of emotion regulation in sojourner adjustment, which is a facet in their Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale ( Matsumoto et al., 2001 ). Therefore, high levels of empathetic concern may be detrimental in this context. Perspective taking as a discrete facet of empathy has received little direct attention in the acculturation literature. However, more general research on perspective taking suggests that it is positively related to social competence ( Davis, 1983 ) and the development of social bonds ( Galinsky et al., 2005 ). Given that the perspective taking and empathetic concern dimensions of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis, 1980 ) have not yet been examined in the context of sojourner adjustment, our research may shed more light on the role of these discrete facets of empathy.

Coping strategies

When a situation is appraised as problematic, that is as causing stress, individuals employ coping strategies with the aim to ameliorate the stress ( Lazarus & Folkman, 1984 ). While some coping strategies might have short-term benefits, not all are effective at reducing stress in the long-term ( Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989 ). A number of different models of coping styles have been specified in the literature, distinguishing between functional and dysfunctional types. Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping distinguish between strategies that address and target the problem “head on” and strategies that aim to address the symptoms (i.e., stress) caused by the problem, respectively ( Lazarus & Folkman, 1984 ). Other distinctions have been made between approach and avoidance coping ( Nes & Segerstrom, 2006 ), active versus passive ( Diaz-Guerrero, 1979 ), and primary and secondary control coping strategies ( Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003 ). There is a great deal of overlap, however, in how each of these contrasting coping styles is defined. Specifically, the remit of problem-focused coping is similar to that of approach, active, and primary control coping, while there is overlap between emotion-focused and avoidance coping. Passive coping and secondary control coping are similar to one another in that they both aim to alter the self in some way in order to better adjust to the situation ( Skinner et al., 2003 ); this has been equated with the assimilation approach to cultural adjustment ( Berry, 1997 ). Other examples of coping strategies that do not directly fall within one of the above styles include turning to religion, using humor, self-blaming, and seeking social support ( Carver et al., 1989 ; Ward & Kennedy, 2001 ).

Typically, problem-focused or approach strategies are associated with positive adjustment outcomes and avoidance or emotion-focused strategies with negative outcomes. For example, Herman and Tetrick (2009) studied the repatriation adjustment of North American and Australian employees who had worked in Japan. In a cross-sectional investigation, they found that problem-focused coping was related to better adjustment on return, while emotion-focused coping was related to poorer adjustment. Similarly, in a cross-sectional study of British citizens in Singapore, Ward and Kennedy (2001) found that approach and avoidance strategies respectively, were negatively and positively related to depression (psychological adjustment). They also found that the use of humor was related to positive adjustment but found no effect of social support.

Overall there is little research in the field that has examined the association between the use of different coping strategies and cultural adjustment in student sojourner samples, (i.e., international university students or exchange students) and even fewer that have employed longitudinal research methods. An exception to this on both counts is research by Wang et al. (2012) , who studied the relationship between different coping styles and psychological distress trajectories in Asian students in the U.S. They found that the use of acceptance, reframing, and striving strategies as well as family support were related to better adjustment. They found no effect, however, of the use of avoidance, religion, or emotional outlets on adjustment. A major strength of their research is its longitudinal design, which allowed for assumptions to be made about the relationship between coping and adjustment over time. Still, their research was also limited in that it studied a single cultural group within a single cultural setting. Therefore, the observed effects may be unique to this particular combination of sending and hosting cultures and generalization to other groups may be problematic. This is one of the limitations that the present research overcomes.

Consequences of Cultural Maladjustment

A further area of study in this field concerns the behavioral consequences of adjustment or maladjustment. Specifically, one of the main signs of failure of an intercultural exchange is early termination of the program. However, very little research has monitored and investigated early return in student samples. Most research on this issue in fact focuses on international assignees or expatriate samples (e.g., Black & Gregerson, 1990 ; Caligiuri, 2000 ). Failed international assignments can be financially costly for the sending organization (see Mendenhall, Dunbar, & Oddou, 1987 ) and can jeopardize employees future career prospects ( Bolino, 2007 ). For exchange students, returning home early may be equally detrimental. However, the cost is likely to be more personal and psychological in nature than financial or career related. Nevertheless, while the precursors to or warning signs of early return have received attention in research on expatriates ( Caligiuri, 2000 ; Hechanova, Beehr, & Christiansen, 2003 ), this has not been the case for other sojourning populations such as exchange students.

Certainly, research has explored and identified predictors of good or poor cultural adjustment in students ( Zhang & Goodson, 2011 ), but the link between adjustment and early return has rarely been examined directly. One exception to this is a longitudinal study of Belgian exchange students by Geeraert and Demoulin (2013) . They found a significant and positive association between acculturative stress and early return, such that higher stress in the early phases of the exchange predicted increased likelihood of subsequent early return. A particular strength of their study was that actual early return was recorded rather than intention or desire to return which is most typical in expatriate research (e.g., Black & Gregerson, 1990 ; Caligiuri, 2000 ). Still, while this finding is important, the researchers acknowledge that its implications are limited, as the sample size of the early return group was very small ( n = 10). Consequently, the current study provides the ideal conditions to study this further as the size of our sample is larger.

In addition to early return, in exchange student samples that live with a host family while abroad, another behavioral indicator of (mal)adjustment is changing host families. To our knowledge, however, there is no published research that has examined this variable and its association with stress. In this study we examine the relationship between stress and coping and the number of family changes experienced by participants.

Current Research

In this article we present findings from a longitudinal study of approximately 2,500 intercultural exchange students of multiple nationalities who were situated in over 50 different countries for a year abroad. Taking advantage of the longitudinal and multinational nature of this study’s design and of appropriate advanced statistical techniques, we investigate a number of research questions that are central to the acculturation field. First, we will examine the variability in stress over time in a sojourning and nonsojourning group of participants. The nature of any variability found will be decomposed using a person-centered approach to assess interindividual differences in temporal stress trajectories. Specifically, steering away from trying to identify a single standard course of adjustment over time (e.g., Oberg, 1960 ; Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002 ), we will investigate whether multiple discrete trajectories of change in stress can be identified within our sample. Given that our sample includes individuals traveling from and traveling to multiple different countries means that we can generalize our findings more broadly than has been possible in previous research (e.g., Wang et al., 2012 ).

Second, we will look at whether personality, empathy, cultural adaptation, and coping strategies can explain variations in stress over time and account for the likelihood of experiencing different patterns of stress. Importantly, and as acknowledged by other researchers, personality and coping strategy use as antecedents of cultural adjustment have been relatively understudied, especially in a sojourner population and in longitudinal research studies ( Ward et al., 2001 ; Ward & Kennedy, 2001 ).

Third and finally, we will assess whether the different stress and adjustment patterns identified relate to two behavioral measures concerned with cultural (mal)adjustment: early return and host family changes. The examination of behavioral indicators of adjustment is rare in the literature making these measures an exciting addition to the present research. In the following section the research method and design will be described. The results will then be presented in three discrete sections concerning (a) stress over time, (b) their antecedents, and (c) consequences; each section includes a short introduction with predictions, a Results section, and a Discussion section.

Participants

A sample of 2,480 teenagers ( M age = 17.0 years, SD = 1.4 years, 70% female) who participated in an intercultural exchange program were followed by the researchers over an 18-month period, from 2 months before, through to 6 months postexchange. These participants were registered with the organization AFS Intercultural Programs, 1 a nonprofit, volunteer-based organization that offers international exchange programs in more than 50 different countries. Typically, these students are placed with a host family for the duration of their 8–10 month stay abroad and during this time they enroll at a local high school. The participants to this project were traveling from one of 46 different “home” countries to one of 51 different “host” destinations. Table 1 provides a breakdown of sample size per sending (home) and hosting countries. In addition to the sojourner participants, data was collected in parallel from a nonsojourning control group, who were friends nominated to take part in the study by the sojourner participants ( N = 578, M age = 17.7 years, SD = 2.1 years, 74% female).

Design and Procedure

Data was collected from a large-scale longitudinal study with a total of nine timewaves of measurement, and both a sojourner and control group. For the purpose of the current research we focus only on data collected at the pretravel and exchange data waves (Timewaves 1 to 6). Timewaves 1 and 2 were recorded approximately 3 months and 1 month prior to participants traveling abroad (pretravel), respectively. Timewaves 3, 4, 5, and 6 were measured during the sojourn, approximately 2 weeks (t3), 2.5 months (t4), 5 months (t5), and 8.5 months (t6) after arrival to the host country. At each timewave, participants were invited by e-mail to visit the project website, log in, and complete an online survey. The timeline for the control group’s survey assignments was matched with that of the sojourner who nominated them.

To encourage ongoing participation in the study, a number of incentives were offered over the course of the project, these were bimonthly prize draws, an end of project “grand” prize draw and personalized feedback. If participants missed a survey, they were still invited to complete the subsequent one. Overall, participant retention was respectable; of the 2,480 sojourners who started the study, 1,141 completed the final survey, and of those, 826 had completed all nine surveys over the duration of the project. Overall, the average number of surveys that participants in the sojourning group completed was 5.92 ( SD = 3.00) and in the nonsojourning control group 5.00 ( SD = 2.91).

All survey materials were translated in to 10 different languages from English, covering the most commonly spoken languages within the AFS Network. Materials were translated in to Chinese (simplified and traditional script), French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Spanish, Thai, and Turkish using the standard forward-backward translation procedure ( Brislin, 1980 ).

Over 20 different concepts were recorded through the online surveys but here we only concentrate on those measures relevant to the present research questions. These measures, all in the format of 7-point Likert-type scales, include a measure of stress, cultural adaptation (sociocultural and psychological adaptation), personality, interpersonal reactivity (perspective taking and empathetic concern), and coping. Higher scores on each scale indicate higher levels on that construct, such as higher stress, greater adaptation, and so forth. Additionally, data for two behavioral measures, early return and family change, were acquired directly from the exchange organization and matched with participants survey responses.

At each timewave, a brief version of the perceived stress scale ( Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983 ) was administered. Participants were asked “ In the last 2 weeks how often have you felt . . .” which was followed by four items such as “ you were unable to control the important things in your life .” Participants responded using a 7 point scale (1 = never, 7 = always) and reliability at each wave was good (all α’s > .70).

Cultural adaptation

Two scales were used to assess sojourners’ sociocultural and psychological adaptation ( Ward & Kennedy, 1996 ). Adaptation was recorded twice during the sojourn, once at the start (t3) and once half-way through the sojourn (t5). Adaptation was not measured at t4 or t6, but for the purpose of the analyses, adaptation scores for these timewaves were assigned from the previous timewave (t3 and t5, respectively).

The Brief Sociocultural Adaptation Scale ( Demes & Geeraert, 2014 ) was used to assess ease of adaption to social and cultural elements of the host country. Put differently, this measure assesses the behavioral and practical aspects of sojourners’ adaptation. Participants were asked “ How easy or difficult do you think it is for you to adapt to . . .” which was followed by an item such as “ social norms (how to behave in public, style of clothes, what people think is funny ).” Sojourners responded using a 7-point scale (1 = very difficult, 7 = very easy). A total of 12 items assessed adaptation to such topics as climate, language, making friends, the food, and pace of life (α t3 = .85, α t5 = .82).

The Brief Psychological Adaptation Scale ( Demes & Geeraert, 2014 ) was used to assess the emotional and psychological aspects specific to a cultural relocation, rather than psychological adaptation in the broader sense. Participants were asked “ In the last 2 weeks how often have you felt . . .” followed by items such as “ excited about being in [name of the host country]” and “ homesick when you think of [name of the home country].” Across eight items the scale assesses the frequency of experiencing happiness, excitement, but also homesickness or feeling out of place (α t3 = .83, α t5 = .83).

A six factor personality structure was measured prior to the sojourn (t1) using the HEXACO inventory ( Ashton & Lee, 2009 ). Across 60 items participants had to indicate their agreement with items such as “ I would never accept a bribe, even if it were very large ” (honesty-humility), “ I feel like crying when I see other people crying ” (emotionality), “ The first thing that I always do in a new place is to make friends ” (extraversion), “ Most people tend to get angry more quickly than I do ” (agreeableness), “ I often push myself very hard when trying to achieve a goal ” (conscientiousness), and “ People have often told me that I have a good imagination ” (openness to experience). All six factors had good reliability (all α‘s > .70, except α agreeableness = .67).

Interpersonal reactivity

Perspective taking and empathetic concern were measured prior to the sojourn (t1) using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis, 1980 ). Participants had to indicate their agreement with items such as “ I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision ” (perspective taking, α = .71) and “ I am often quite touched by things that I see happen ” (empathetic concern, α = .72).

The brief COPE scale ( Carver, 1997 ) was implemented to assess the reported frequency with which participants used different coping strategies during the exchange (t4). Specifically, participants were asked to “ Think about any difficult times you have experienced since you arrived in [name of the host country]. How often do you have the following reactions? ” A series of items assessing the different coping strategies of the COPE scale were then presented, with two items for each of the following strategies: acceptance, active coping, disengagement, denial, distraction, humor, planning, reframing, religion, self-blame, substance abuse, emotional support, instrumental support, and venting. In the context of acculturation a distinction is often made between support received from host nationals versus home nationals ( Geeraert, Demoulin, & Demes, 2014 ). In light of the Internet and social media and the ease of communicating across large geographical distances, in this study we took a related but alternative approach and assessed support received from people locally in the host country ( close support ) separately from support received remotely from people in the home country ( distant support ). This required altering the support items to reflect this. For example, one of the two items for emotional support was altered from “ I get emotional support from others, ” into “ I get emotional support from people I’ve met in [name of the host country]” for close support and into “ I get emotional support from people back in [name of the home country]” for distant support. For the instrumental items, rather than “ I try to get help and advice from people, ” this particular item read “ I try to get help and advice from people I’ve met in [name of the host country]” for close support and “ I try to get help and advice from people back in [name of the home country]” for distant support. Thus, both emotional and instrumental support items were measured for both geographically close and distant support, resulting in a total of 16 coping strategies being assessed overall.

Preliminary inspection of the coping strategies’ internal consistency and external validity indicated some issues with certain strategies. Specifically, internal consistency was particularly low for venting (α = .22) and distraction (α = .48). Also, bivariate correlations between coping strategies and stress, as an indicator of validity, were particularly low for religion ( r = .05), humor ( r = −.09) and distraction ( r = .09). We decided to remove these four coping strategies, resulting in 12 remaining strategies with acceptable reliability (all α’s > .60, except for α acceptance = .54) and external validity (all r ’s > +/−.15). Next, in the interest of further data reduction we examined the factor structure of the scales to see whether these strategies might be collated at a higher level. Based on methods employed in previous research using the COPE scale (e.g., Carver et al., 1989 ; Deisinger, Cassisi, & Whitaker, 1996 ; Ward & Kennedy, 2001 ), we expected the active coping and planning items to be explained by a single factor, similarly so for disengagement and denial, acceptance and positive reframing, and then the emotional and instrumental support items, each for close and distant support. We did not have any predictions for the substance abuse and self-blame strategies. The predicted factor structure emerged both in a first order factor analysis (on the 24 items) and a second-order factor analysis (on the 12 strategies). 2 Thus, we combined active coping and planning into an approach strategy (α = .73), denial and disengagement into an avoidance strategy (α = .72), positive reframing and acceptance into an acceptance strategy (α = .65), emotional and instrumental support in the host country into a close support strategy (α = .92), and emotional and instrumental support in the home country into a distant support strategy (α = .93). Self-blame ( r = .58) and substance abuse ( r = .81) were upheld as separate strategies. These seven higher order factors provide a more parsimonious conceptualization of coping strategy use than the original 16 and will be utilized in the analyses.

Behavioral measures

Data regarding early return from the sojourn and host family changes was acquired directly from the exchange program organizers. Early return is a dichotomous variable coded as 1 or 0, 1 meaning that a student did return home early and 0 meaning that they did not. Out of the 2,480 participants, 111 returned home early, a 4% rate overall. Family change is a continuous variable, from 1 upward that serves as a count of how many host families students resided with. Although the majority of sojourners stayed with a single family throughout their exchange ( N = 1,760, 71.0%), others changed families once ( N = 499, 20.1%), twice ( N = 176, 7.1%), three times ( N = 33, 1.3%), or more ( N = 12, .5%). For the whole sample of sojourners the average number of host families was 1.4 ( SD = .74).

Statistical Considerations

Of the 2,480 sojourners in this sample, 2,015 were eligible for the following analyses and of the 578 controls, 447 were eligible. The remaining participants were excluded due to having completed none of the surveys during the sojourn phase. To assess the nature of this missing data we examined whether there was an association between pretravel measures and attrition. Attrition from the study was more likely for male participants ( p < .001), and for those with lower scores on honesty-humility or conscientiousness ( p ’s < .001). Importantly however, attrition was not associated with stress ( p > .10). Thus, although the missing completely at random (MCAR) assumption was not met, we can assume that missing data due to attrition was missing at random (MAR; but see Hox, 2010 ). Although some participants did not complete every survey, data from their completed surveys was still included in the analyses. The advantage of many advanced statistical techniques is their ability to handle missing data, which is crucial for longitudinal research. Having met the conditions for MAR this should satisfy the preconditions for handling missing data in the following analyses (such as FIML).

A further consideration for this study is the level at which effects are deemed to be statistically significant. Due to the large sample size ( N > 2,000), there is an increased chance of finding significant effects at the conventional level of p < .05, where no real effect actually exists (i.e., incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis or Type I error). Therefore, in all of the following analyses we employ the stricter significance threshold of p < .005. However, where planned contrasts are conducted and are protected by a significant omnibus effect at the strict threshold ( p < .005), the conventional significance level ( p < .05) will be applied.

Stress Over Time

A significant area of research in the acculturation field has been dedicated to examining the stress, well-being, and adjustment of sojourning groups over the duration of an intercultural relocation. While some research has attempted to compare sojourning with nonsojourning populations along these variables, as a means to assess the “uniqueness” of the sojourning experience, the logistics of longitudinal research that captures both samples mean that such studies are still rare (e.g., Geeraert & Demoulin, 2013 ). The design of the present study however allows us to compare change in stress levels over time in both a sojourning and a nonsojourning control group. We expect to find more variability in the sojourning group with regards to stress over time than in the control group.

The particular pattern or nature of this variation in stress and adjustment over time has also been a central theme in acculturation research. However, past attempts to identify a single temporal pattern of sojourner stress and adjustment have proved inconsistent across studies ( Geeraert & Demoulin, 2013 ; Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002 ; Ward et al., 1998 ). Rather than seeking a “one size fits all” solution to this question, we employ a person-centered approach to examine interindividual differences within our sojourner sample in relation to change in stress over time. Using this approach we anticipate finding up to five distinct temporal stress patterns as based on research and findings from earlier studies (see Figure 1 ).

Hypothesized stress trajectories showing five different predicted patterns of change in stress over the exchange relative to baseline stress (anchored at 0 on the y -axis). Note: Above 0 on the y -axis indicates an increase in stress relative to baseline and below 0 on the y -axis indicates a decrease in stress relative to baseline.

Relative to pretravel stress, some participants are expected to experience an increase in stress immediately upon arrival to the host country, followed by a steady decrease over time; this is a typical “J-curve” of adaptation or reverse “J-curve” of stress ( Ward et al., 1998 ). Other participants are anticipated to demonstrate a more gradual increase in stress over time that peaks around midstay and drops later on, in line with “U-curve of adaptation” or inverse “U-curve” of stress ( Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002 ). Additionally, it is predicted that some participants will actually demonstrate a decrease in stress on arrival to the host country that remains stable over time: a “resilience” pattern ( Geeraert & Demoulin, 2013 ). Further, drawing upon the work of Diener and colleagues on subjective well-being and the return to “dispositional” levels following significant life events ( Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999 ), an “enchantment” response is anticipated from some participants where stress levels initially decrease on arrival but then return to baseline over time. Finally, we also expect that some participants will show very little stress response to the exchange, that is, an “unaffected” or stable pattern of stress.

Our design allows us the opportunity to compare sojourner stress trajectories with those of a nonsojourning control group. Unlike for sojourners however, we have no theoretical basis on which to predict particular stress trajectories for the controls. Also, we do not have any information regarding possible life events that would have affected individuals with the control sample. We do expect that there will be some interindividual differences within the control group over time but that these patterns will be more uniform overall when compared with the sojourner group.

Sojourner stress trajectories

Change in sojourners stress over the course of the exchange was examined using a person-centered approach, moving away from attempts to identify a single growth curve to chart sojourner stress over time. Specifically, we explored whether multiple growth curves can be identified among sojourners using latent class growth analysis (LCGA; Jung & Wickrama, 2008 ) conducted in MPlus 7.11 ( Muthén & Muthén, 2012 ). As in standard latent growth curve analysis, LCGA models patterns of change in a particular variable over time. However, rather than estimating a single latent intercept and slope to describe the full sample, LCGA allows specifying multiple latent intercepts and slopes that describe different patterns of change across meaningful subpopulations or classes within the larger sample. 3

The number of subsamples or classes that are modeled in LCGA is user-defined. Practically, the user builds up the model by specifying the minimum number of classes in the first instance, and then increases by one class at a time in subsequent models. Comparing model fit statistics (e.g., BIC) and likelihood ratio tests between models with k - 1 class (i.e., models with one less class) guides identification of the most suitable or best fitting number of classes for the data. In addition, it is crucial that model selection is also guided by theory and prior predictions about the number and nature of the classes expected. It is important therefore to inspect the class growth plots specified by the models. In sum, model selection is guided by a combined evaluation of the statistical output, prior predictions and interpretability of classes.

Specifying the LCGA model

Stress measured at four time points during the exchange (t3, t4, t5, and t6) was modeled using LCGA. Crucially, we were specifically interested in identifying patterns of change in stress upon entering the host country relative to pretravel levels, rather than absolute levels of stress. Absolute levels of stress are likely to vary according to individual and cultural level differences that we are not interested in capturing here, but that will be addressed in later analyses. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis we centered stress recorded during the exchange (t3 to t6) on baseline stress (an average of the two pretravel records of stress, t1 and t2). 4 This means that each individuals stress score at the four time points was a measure of deviation from baseline, with positive values representing increases in stress, and negative values representing decreases in stress from pretravel.

As described above we expect to find up to five distinct trajectories of stress within the data (see Figure 1 ). Consequently, a series of models were conducted that specified two through to six classes. We constructed a six-class model to see whether there is a further meaningful class that we had not anticipated. In addition, given that four time points were analyzed and that nonlinear trajectories were expected (i.e., U-curve), linear models in each case were compared with a model including a quadratic growth factor. This resulted in a total of 10 models, each specifying the full-information maximum likelihood algorithm for handling missing data.

Model comparisons

Selection of the final model was guided by comparing the recommended fit statistics between alternative models (see Table 2 ) including BIC, sample size adjusted BIC (aBIC), entropy, and latent class fit probabilities ( Jung & Wickrama, 2008 ). 5 In addition to, and complimentary to this, the class growth plots were inspected for each model and judged according to their interpretability in light of the hypothesized trajectories. We preferred the five-class quadratic model over all others, for a number of reasons. First, this model had a smaller BIC and aBIC than equivalent models with fewer classes and the BLRT suggested that the five-class model was a significant improvement over the four-class model. Second, the latent class fit probabilities were .75 or above for all of the five classes, indicating a good fit for the data within each class. Third, inspection of the growth plots for the five-class quadratic model revealed that the classes were interpretable in light of the hypothesized trajectories and prior research. Although there were slight improvements in the fit statistics for the six-class quadratic model, the sample size for the smallest class was very low ( n = 45), and importantly, visual inspection of the six-class solution was not clearly interpretable in light of previous theory and research.

The final model

The five growth trajectories from the five-class quadratic model were plotted and are presented in Figure 2 . As participants stress levels at each time point were centered on baseline stress, 0 on the y -axis represents the baseline, positive values represent increases in stress from baseline and negative values represent decreases in stress from baseline. Each class was assigned a label describing the nature of the pattern of change in stress, as follows. The analysis revealed the anticipated reverse J-curve pattern of change in stress for 64 individuals (3.2%). The analysis also yielded the hypothesized inverse U-curve pattern of change in stress for 98 individuals (4.9%). Although a single “stable” class was not identified by the model, the two largest classes showed only small deviations from baseline in each direction and thus represent two groups with relatively stable levels of stress over the course of the study. A “mild stress” class included 819 individuals (40.6%) who demonstrated a small but relatively stable elevation in their stress during the exchange. Additionally, a “minor relief” class represents 951 individuals (47.2%) who reported a small and stable drop in stress from baseline during their exchange. Finally, the predicted “resilience” pattern was observed which depicted a marked and stable decrease in stress from baseline for 83 individuals (4.1%). The hypothesized “enchantment” group, that is, a group of participants’ who first dropped in stress and then returned to baseline, was not observed in the data. Overall, however, the five classes derived from this model are consistent with the initial predictions.

Five class representation of change in perceived stress over time for sojourners. Change in stress is relative to pretravel baseline.

Control group stress trajectories

In order to assess whether the sojourner group experienced greater interindividual variation in stress trajectories over time than the nonsojourning control group we replicated the LCGA analysis described above on the control group data. As anticipated, fewer meaningful stress trajectory classes were identified in the control group than in the sojourner group. Specifically, the statistical output of the LCGA analysis suggests that a linear three-class solution is most appropriate (see Table 3 ). The three-class solution was preferred as the final model given its smaller BIC and aBIC indices and greater entropy value when compared with the equivalent two-class solution. Further, the LMR-LRT and BLRT both indicate a significant improvement in the three-class model from the two-class. While the fit statistics suggest a very minor improvement for the four-class solution over the three, this is rejected due to the very small sample size of the fourth class ( n = 7). Finally, the linear solution is selected over the quadratic as there is very little change or improvement in the fit statistics in the latter. Examining the growth plots for the three-class linear solution (see Figure 3 ) highlights that the majority of control participants ( n = 312) did not demonstrate any shift in stress from baseline levels over the subsequent measurement waves. The two remaining classes represent smaller samples of individuals who reported a slight linear increase ( n = 88) or decrease ( n = 47) in stress over time relative to baseline levels. Importantly, these changes in stress had a smaller range than for the sojourners.

Three class representation of change in perceived stress over time for controls. Change in stress is relative to pretravel baseline.

The pattern of stress experienced by participants over the course of this study was explored using LCGA to model multiple growth curves depicting varying patterns of change in stress over time, relative to baseline stress in both the sojourning and nonsojourning control group. This analysis revealed five statistically meaningful and theoretically interpretable growth trajectories of stress within our sojourner sample, supporting our argument that specifying a single standard temporal pattern may ignore important variability within sojourning groups ( Geeraert & Demoulin, 2013 ; Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002 ; Ward et al., 1998 ). Specifically, while some participants showed marked increases in stress on arrival to the host country (i.e., the reverse J-curve and inverse U-curve patterns), others clearly decreased in stress (i.e., the resilience pattern). We did not, however, find the hypothesized “enchantment” group, as would be anticipated if participants experienced a “honeymoon” phase of low stress on entry to the host culture. While this effect has been discussed theoretically and anecdotally in previous literature ( Oberg, 1960 ) these findings suggest that such an affective reaction may not be very common. In fact, the majority of participants reported only small shifts in their stress levels from pretravel to arrival, in both directions (i.e., mild stress and minor relief), which suggests that for most sojourners, relocating to a new culture may not be quite the “shock” or “euphoria” that some would expect.

In the control group sample we found little interindividual variation in stress trajectories over time. Indeed approximately two thirds of the control sample reported no shift from baseline levels of stress over time, while the remaining third was split between those showing an increase in stress over time relative to baseline and those showing a decrease in stress relative to baseline. Given that we have no additional information about the control group in terms of the life experiences they went through over the course of the study we cannot speculate as to the explanation for the deviations in stress in the third of the sample that did shift from baseline.

Antecedents of Stress

Naturally, some of the variation in stress can be explained by individual difference variables. In this section we examine whether variations in personality and interpersonal reactivity (prior to the sojourn) can account for changes in sojourners’ stress. In addition, the role of cultural adaptation and coping strategies (during the sojourn) is also examined.

With regards to personality, previous research has found relations between adjustment and neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness dimensions of personality ( Swagler & Jome, 2005 ; Ward et al., 2004 ). Research in nonsojourning contexts has also demonstrated the buffering effects of extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience for stress and the risk effect of neuroticism (e.g., Bowling & Eschleman, 2010 ; Cheung Chung et al., 2014 ; Matthews et al., 2006 ; Williams, Rau, Cribbet, & Gunn, 2009 ). We anticipate that the relationship between personality and stress in a sojourning context will be consistent with previous findings. Specifically, we expect that participants with higher levels of extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness will report lower levels of stress abroad than those with lower levels on these personality dimensions. Conversely, we anticipate that participants reporting higher levels of emotionality pretravel will report higher levels of stress abroad. With regards to honesty-humility, we expect that participants with lower levels on this factor will report higher levels of stress, due the known association between low levels of honesty and dysfunctional interpersonal traits ( Holden et al., 2014 ; Lee & Ashton, 2005 ).

Research on the role of empathy in cultural adjustment has not previously separated perspective taking and empathetic concern components. However, based on more general research findings we anticipate that greater perspective taking will be associated with participants experiencing less or decreasing stress over time abroad ( Galinsky et al., 2005 ). For empathetic concern and its association with stress we do not have any clear predictions, as previous research has found this factor to be associated with both desirable and undesirable interpersonal styles ( Davis, 1983 ).

Cultural adaptation and its association with stress has been well documented. In this study however, we implement novel measures of sociocultural and psychological adaptation, the latter of which deviates from the typical operationalization by specifying psychological reactions specifically in relation to being in the host culture as opposed to context general psychological reactions ( Demes & Geeraert, 2014 ). We anticipate that participants’ adaptation will be strongly associated with change in stress over time, with higher levels of adaptation relating to lower levels of stress and expect that participants in each of the different stress trajectories will be clearly distinguished by their levels of adaptation on arrival to the host country.

With regards to coping, approach strategies have been consistently associated with positive adjustment outcomes and avoidance strategies with negative ones ( Herman & Tetrick, 2009 ; Ward & Kennedy, 2001 ). We expect therefore that a similar pattern of effects will emerge in our study such that approach and acceptance strategy use will be related to lower levels of stress, while avoidance, self-blame, and substance abuse will be related to higher levels of stress. Evidence in the field for the role of social support strategies in moderating stress has been less consistent than research on other coping strategies. Importantly however, such studies have failed to distinguish between support received from people locally (in the host country) from support received from people back home. This distinction is particularly relevant today, with the ease of communication across large geographical distances. In this study we do distinguish between close support (from people in the host country) and distant support (from people in the home country) and expect the former to be associated with lower stress and the latter with higher levels of stress. This would align with findings showing the detrimental effect of contact with home nationals while abroad ( Geeraert et al., 2014 ).

We first use multilevel modeling to assess in the sojourner sample as a whole, the relationship between these explanatory variables and stress. Second, we employ multinomial logistic regression to examine differences in the explanatory variables across the five groups of participants experiencing different stress trajectories, as established in the earlier LCGA analysis. We expect the results of both of these analyses to be largely consistent with one another. Whereas the former analysis has the advantage of greater statistical and explanatory power, the latter allows for summarizing and describing the data in the form of profiles for distinct groups.

Explaining sojourners’ stress

The role of individual difference variables in moderating sojourners’ stress over time was examined through a series of longitudinal multilevel models. Independent sets of models were constructed for demographic variables, personality factors, interpersonal reactivity, cultural adaptation, and coping variables. 6 Each model was built as a two-level model with time (t3 to t6) as the primary unit of analysis (Level 1) nested within individuals (Level 2). 7 For each analysis, a first model was computed including time (t3 to t6) as a linear variable (coded 0 to 3), controlling for lagged stress. 8 Grand-mean centered explanatory variables were added in the second model and the interaction of these variables with time added in the third model. As a comparison, and where appropriate, equivalent analyses were also carried out for the control group. All analyses were conducted following the procedures suggested by Hox (2010) and using MLwiN 2.30 ( Rasbash, Browne, Healy, Cameron, & Charlton, 2014 ).

Demographics

The association between stress (t3 to t6) and a number of demographic variables was analyzed first. Eleven demographics were examined, including participant’s sex, nationality relative to their home country and parents, status of residence, number of languages spoken, and previous exposure to traveling, living abroad, and hosting international students. The explanatory ability of each demographic variable was examined separately in a two-level multilevel model. First, a basic model was constructed which included time and lagged stress (Model 1). 9 The explanatory variable was then entered by itself (Model 2), followed by its cross-level interaction with time (Model 3). The results of the 11 multilevel models are summarized in Table 4 . An effect of participant’s sex was found, such that male participants reported lower levels of stress than females while controlling for lagged stress and time. The number of languages spoken by participants was also related to stress, but only when controlling for the cross-level interaction with time. Speaking more languages was related to less stress but only at the start of the sojourn. Lastly, having previous travel experience was marginally but negatively associated with stress.

The role of pretravel personality (t1) on stress was modeled with time at the lowest level ( N L1 = 6,648) nested within individuals ( N L2 = 1,937). First, a basic model was constructed including a linear effect of time and the lagged stress variable (Model 1, deviance = 17,324.11, df = 5). The personality variables, as measured by the HEXACO, were then added to the model (Model 2, see Table 5 ) significantly improving the fit, χ 2 (6) = 299.42, p < .001. All six personality factors independently explained a significant amount of variance in sojourners’ stress. Specifically, sojourners reporting higher levels of honesty-humility, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness reported lower levels of stress while abroad. Higher levels of emotionality and openness to experience however were related to higher levels of stress abroad. Adding the cross-level interactions of time with each of the personality variables did not statistically improve the model (Model 3), χ 2 (6) = 4.36, ns. , nor did any of the individual interactions reach significance independently. As a set, these models suggest that the relationship between personality and stress was relatively stable over the course of the sojourn. The equivalent analysis was conducted for control participants, and revealed that stress was positively associated with emotionality and negatively associated with extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. 10

The relationship between the interpersonal reactivity variables and stress were also examined in a two-level model ( N L1 = 6,648, N L2 = 1,937). As before, the basic model included a linear effect of time and the lagged stress variable (Model 1, deviance = 17,324.11, df = 5). The addition of empathetic concern and perspective taking (Model 2, see Table 6 ) improved the model fit, χ 2 (2) = 28.38, p < .001. Only perspective taking emerged as an independently significant explanatory variable however, indicating that sojourners who reported higher levels of perspective taking experienced less stress. The cross-level interactions of each variable with time did not significantly improve the model (Model 3, χ 2 < 1). Thus, the relationship between stress and perspective taking did not change over time. In the equivalent analysis for control participants there was no effect of the interpersonal reactivity variables. 11

The association between both sociocultural and psychological adaptation with stress was examined next. Adaptation was operationalized as a time varying variable (situated at Level 1) in a two-level model ( N L1 = 6,671, N L2 = 1,933). First, a basic model was constructed including the linear effect of time and the lagged stress variable (Model 1, deviance = 17,384.27, df = 5). Both psychological and sociocultural adaptation were added next (Model 2, see Table 7 ), improving the overall model fit, χ 2 (2) = 930.79, p < .001. Both types of adaptation were negatively related to stress. That is, higher levels of psychological and sociocultural adaptation were significantly associated with lower levels of stress overall. The interactions of adaptation with time (Model 3) further improved the model, χ 2 (2) = 178.41, p < .001, and the interaction between psychological adaptation and time emerged alongside the main effects of both types of adaptation. This interaction indicates that the relationship between psychological adaptation and stress is particularly pronounced at the earlier timewaves, but weakens somewhat over time.

Sojourners’ coping strategies were measured at a single time point (at t4); thus, this variable was set as a time-invariant variable (at Level 2) in a two-level model looking at stress from t4 to t6 ( N L1 = 4,774, N L2 = 1,788). First, a basic model was constructed including time and lagged stress (Model 1, deviance = 12,350.09, df = 5). The addition of the different coping strategies (Model 2, see Table 8 ) significantly improved model fit, χ 2 (7) = 313.39, p < .001. All coping strategies were independently significant explanatory variables in the model, with the exception of substance abuse. More specifically, whereas the approach, acceptance, and close support strategies were all associated with lower levels of stress; the avoidance, self-blame, and distant support strategies were associated with higher levels of stress. Interestingly, and as predicted, whereas support in the host country (close support) was associated with lower levels of stress, support from the home country (distant support) was associated with higher levels of stress.

Adding the cross-level interactions between coping strategies and time significantly improved the model (Model 3), χ 2 (7) = 96.38, p < .001. Controlling for these interactions, the substance abuse strategy now emerged as being significantly associated with stress. Importantly, however, the associations between stress and the coping strategies were qualified by time. This was the case for all strategies, except approach coping. The relationship between stress and these coping strategies was generally stronger at the start of the sojourn than at the later waves. The equivalent analyses for control participants revealed that stress was positively associated with avoidance, substance abuse, and self-blame coping, and negatively associated with approach and acceptance coping. 12

Composite model

Having examined the explanatory ability of demographics, personality, interpersonal reactivity, cultural adaptation, and coping strategies on stress in separate model sets, we decided to bring all of these together into a single composite model. Specifically, variation in stress was examined in a two level model looking at stress from t4 to t6 ( N L1 = 4,398, N L2 = 1,607). A basic model was constructed including time and lagged stress ( deviance = 11,386.55, df = 5). In the composite model, personality, interpersonal reactivity, cultural adaptation, coping, and demographics (sex, previous travel experience, and number of spoken languages) were added, as well as the previously significant cross-level interactions for cultural adaptation, coping, and number of languages spoken, together improving model fit, χ 2 (30) = 713.16, p < .001.

The composite model makes it possible to examine the explanatory ability of individual variables while controlling for all other variables. Consistent with the earlier demographics analysis, there was a significant effect of sex, prior travel experience, and the interaction between time and number of languages spoken. For personality, a negative association with stress remained for extraversion, and a positive association for emotionality and openness to experience. There were no significant effects for the interpersonal reactivity variables. For cultural adaptation, the only effect to remain was the negative relationship between psychological adaptation and stress. In contrast to the earlier analysis, time no longer qualified this effect of adaptation. In terms of coping, the relationship with stress was positive (associated with high stress) for avoidance, self-blame, substance abuse, and distant support, and negative (associated with low stress) for acceptance, and close support. As before all of these effects were qualified by time, with the exception of approach coping, such that the association between coping strategy use and stress was strongest at the earlier than later timewaves.

Explaining sojourners stress trajectories

Above we established the explanatory role of a number of key individual difference variables in accounting for variations in stress over the course of the sojourn across the sojourner sample as a whole (variable-centered approach). In this section we examine these associations in a different way, by exploring individual differences between participants belonging to the five distinct stress trajectory groups. Specifically, we examined whether membership to these trajectory groups could be accounted for by individual differences in variables measured both before traveling and after arrival to the host country. Using multinomial logistic regression, with class membership as a categorical dependent variable, we examined whether individual differences in personality, interpersonal reactivity, cultural adaptation, and coping strategies could account for the likelihood of experiencing certain stress and adjustment trajectories, controlling for baseline stress. Where a particular explanatory variable is found to significantly improve model fit, we inspected class comparisons to determine how the likelihood of experiencing different stress trajectories differs as a function of the variable. Separate sets of analyses were conducted for personality, interpersonal reactivity, cultural adaptation, and coping variables (see Table 9 ).

In the personality model, emotionality, χ 2 = 14.80, p = .005, and extraversion, χ 2 = 41.09, p < .001, were found to be significant explanatory variables for stress trajectory membership while controlling for all other personality factors and baseline stress. An examination of differences across classes indicates that with higher levels of emotionality at baseline, participants were more likely to experience a reverse J-curve pattern of stress while abroad. With higher levels of reported extraversion however, participants were more likely to experience a resilience pattern of stress over all other patterns. A minor relief pattern of stress was also more likely than a mild stress, reverse J-curve or inverse U-curve pattern for participants with higher levels of extraversion.

In the interpersonal reactivity model, empathetic concern, χ 2 = 17.17, p < .005, but not perspective taking, χ 2 = 8.42, p = .08, emerged as an independently significant explanatory variable for stress trajectory membership over and above perspective taking and baseline stress. Comparisons of stress trajectory classes revealed that with higher reported empathetic concern pretravel, the more likely participants were to experience a resilience pattern of stress over a minor relief, mild stress, or inverse U-curve pattern of stress. Mild stress and reverse J-curve patterns were also more likely to be experienced than inverse U-curve patterns in participants with higher levels of empathetic concern pretravel.

In the cultural adaptation model both sociocultural, χ 2 = 29.39, p < .001, and psychological adaptation, χ 2 = 251.00, p < .001, were independently significant explanatory variables for stress trajectory membership when entered with baseline stress. Participants were found to be more likely to experience a reverse J-curve pattern of stress than any other pattern the lower their psychological adaptation was on entry to the host country. Participants with low sociocultural adaptation were also more likely to experience a reverse J-curve pattern of stress than a mild stress, minor relief, or resilience pattern. With higher levels of psychological adaptation, a resilience pattern was significantly more likely than any other stress trajectory. With higher levels of sociocultural adaptation a resilience pattern was more likely than all others but the minor relief pattern.

In the coping model, all but two of the coping strategies (approach and substance abuse) made an independently significantly contribution to the model, controlling for baseline stress, that is, avoidance, χ 2 = 74.54, p < .001, acceptance, χ 2 = 39.76, p < .001, close support, χ 2 = 26.18, p < .001, distant support, χ 2 = 50.30, p < .001, and self-blame χ 2 = 86.11, p < .001, although the approach strategy was marginally significant according to our criteria, χ 2 = 13.52, p = .009. Notably, reverse J-curve and inverse U-curve patterns were found to be more likely than other patterns in participants reporting greater use of avoidance strategies, self-blame, and support from people back home. In contrast, participants were found to be more likely to experience a resilience trajectory than any other the more they employed acceptance coping and close support. In the case of close support, however, a minor relief pattern was just as likely as a resilience pattern.

Finally, a person-centered composite model was conducted and was found to largely replicate the variable-centered findings. Specifically, controlling for all other variables, psychological adaptation (χ 2 = 130.09, p < .001) and the three coping strategies, avoidance (χ 2 = 40.22, p < .001), acceptance (χ 2 = 20.18, p < .001), and self-blame (χ 2 = 49.29, p < .001) made independently significant contributions to the model. However, none of the personality variables remained independently significant in the person-centered composite model. That none of the personality variables are independently significant in this model in contrast to the variable-centered analysis may be due to the relatively weaker statistical power of the person-centered analysis.

In this section we examined associations between sojourners stress over time and personality, interpersonal reactivity, cultural adaptation, and coping strategies as potential moderators of stress. These associations were examined through both a variable-centered (longitudinal multilevel modeling) and a person-centered approach (multinomial logistic regression). Although each type of analysis address the same research question, they also provide a different perspective on the data, the former a more statistically powerful and explanatory approach and the second a more descriptive “profiling” approach. Despite the differences between these two methods, the conclusions we can draw from their results are largely convergent.

With regards to personality, our results were consistent with predictions and previous research ( Cheung Chung et al., 2014 ; Swagler & Jome, 2005 ; Ward et al., 2004 ). Emotionality was found to be associated with overall increased levels of stress and stress trajectories characterized by peaks in stress. Extraversion had a buffering effect, such that participants with higher levels on this variable tended to report lower levels of stress in general and stress trajectories characterized by drops in stress relative to pretravel. In addition, honesty-humility, agreeableness, and conscientiousness were also found to be associated with lower overall levels of stress, although this only materialized in the variable-centered analyses—probably due to the increased statistical power of analyzing the sample as a whole, rather than as split into groups. Although low levels of honesty have been linked with dysfunctional interpersonal traits ( Holden et al., 2014 ; Lee & Ashton, 2005 ), the negative relationship between honesty-humility and stress in a cross-cultural transition has not been demonstrated before. Finally, and contrary to predictions, openness to experience was found to be associated with increased levels of stress. One speculative explanation may be that sojourners with greater openness to experience are more likely to put themselves in novel situations that they may find challenging or stressful. Further, openness to experience is believed to produce the most inconsistent results of all the main personality dimensions. For instance, there is a well-established link between personality and subjective well-being for all factors of the Big Five, with the exception of openness ( Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008 ). Similarly, openness is the only factor of the Big Five that does not link well to mental well-being ( Malouff, Thorsteinsson, & Schutte, 2005 ). Thus, it is difficult to interpret our findings with the openness factor in this case.

With regards to the interpersonal reactivity variables, in the variable-centered analysis perspective taking was found to be significantly associated with lower stress, while empathetic concern was not. The reverse was found for the person centered analysis in that empathetic concern was significantly associated with trajectories with drops in stress but perspective taking was not. This might imply that these associations may not be as stable or robust. Indeed, both effects disappeared when controlling for other factors such as emotionality or extraversion.

In both types of analysis sociocultural and psychological adaptation were found to be associated with stress. Psychological adaptation was revealed to have a particularly powerful association with stress even when controlling for all other explanatory variables, suggesting that feeling psychologically adapted to the culture is strongly tied to sojourners perception of stress while abroad. Interestingly, the association between psychological adaptation and stress was more pronounced at the earlier waves compared with the later waves. This is understandable as sojourners experience a number of significant life changes in the first weeks of their sojourn. Later on, after the sojourner has become more accustomed to the host culture, those factors influencing stress may be less concerned with cultural adjustment.

The coping strategies that participants employed while abroad was found to be highly relevant to stress across all types of analyses. In line with predictions and previous research ( Herman & Tetrick, 2009 ; Wang et al., 2012 ; Ward & Kennedy, 2001 ), participants were found to report lower levels of stress overall or to experience stress trajectories characterized by decreases in stress when relying on approach, acceptance, and close support strategies. Conversely, higher levels of stress were related to greater use of avoidance, self-blame, and distant support strategies. A marginal effect of substance abuse was also found, suggesting that greater use of substances as a means to cope is maladaptive and related to higher levels of stress abroad.

It is worth noting the findings reported in this section could only be revealed through the longitudinal design of this study. Specifically, the association between personality variables recorded pretravel remained stable over time, that is, the relationship was the same at both the later and earlier timewaves. This was not the case for psychological adaptation and coping strategies, whose associations with stress were most marked at the earlier waves and then diminished over time.

Consequences of Stress

The final series of analyses involves examining the relationship between stress levels and stress trajectory group membership and two key behavioral indicators of (mal)adjustment: number of family changes and early return. In many cases, moving host family is a sign of failure to adjust to the new family environment and while most participants stay with one family for the duration of their exchange, some do move families multiple times. Similarly, most participants stay for the full term of their intercultural exchange but some sojourners, experiencing difficulties in adjustment, return home early. It is anticipated that incidence of family change and early return will vary as a function of stress during the exchange. Specifically, participants reporting higher levels of stress relative to baseline or those belonging to groups characterized by increases in stress on entry to the host country are expected to be more likely to change host families and to return home early than those characterized by decreases in stress or stable stress.

Family change

The variable family change provides a count of the number of families a sojourner has stayed with. A variable resulting from such a counting process has a Poisson distribution, 13 and thus the data was analyzed by means of a Poisson regression. Average stress over the duration of the sojourn (t3 to t6) was computed for each sojourner and then entered in to the regression model with the family change variable as the dependent variable. Results of the Poisson regression indicated that sojourners’ average stress level was indeed positively associated with family change ( B = .21, Wald’s χ 2 = 27.63, p < .001), such that sojourners with higher stress levels were more likely to change family. Importantly, the effect of average stress also remained ( B = .30, Wald’s χ 2 = 39.70, p < .001) when controlling for sojourners’ baseline stress (at t1).

We next examined the role of coping strategies in the occurrence of family change by means of a Poisson regression. Specifically, family change was regressed on coping strategies and the regression model was significant, χ 2 (7) = 57.46, p < .001. There was a negative relationship between the number of family changes and acceptance ( B = −.12, Wald’s χ 2 = 7.28, p < .01) and close support coping ( B = −.07, Wald’s χ 2 = 5.18, p = .023). Interestingly, a positive relationship emerged between family change and approach ( B = .24, Wald’s χ 2 = 21.11, p < .001) and distance support coping ( B = .12, Wald’s χ 2 = 22.77, p < .001). Apart from close support coping, these relationships remained when controlling for average levels of stress.

Finally, we examined the relationship between stress trajectories and family change, by means of a Poisson regression. The stress trajectories were regressed on family change and the overall model was significant, χ 2 (4) = 38.14, p < .001. Pairwise comparisons revealed that individuals in the mild stress ( M = 1.41, SD = .74) and minor relief ( M = 1.36, SD = .71) groups lived with significantly fewer families on average than those in the reverse J-curve ( M = 1.61, SD = .96) and inverse U-curve ( M = 1.61, SD = .96) groups (all p’s < .05). The resilience group was found to have changed host families the least often of all groups, that is, they lived with significantly fewer families overall ( M = 1.17, SD = .46, all p’s < .001). Finally, the reverse J-curve and inverse U-curve groups did not differ from one another, nor did the mild stress and minor relief groups from one another.

Early return

The event of early sojourn termination was analyzed by means of a binary logistic regression. In the entire sample, we had an early return rate of 4%. 14 Early return was regressed on average stress level for the duration of the sojourn (t3 to t6). This model was significant, Wald χ 2 (1) = 26.27, p < .001. An odds ratio of 1.91 indicated that for each one unit step along the stress scale, the odds of early return almost double. For instance, participants with an average stress score at the 10th percentile have a 1.7% risk of early return, compared with a 6.6% risk for participants at the 90th percentile for stress. Crucially, this pattern of results was identical when controlling for baseline stress.

The relationship between the number of family changes and early return was examined next by means of a logistic regression. As expected, the analysis showed that family change was positively associated with early return, Wald χ 2 (1) = 25.79, p < .001. An odds ratio of 1.85 indicated that for each additional family change the odds of early return nearly double. For instance, sojourners who remained with a single host family ( N = 1,448, 71.9%), had a 2.8% risk of early return. However, sojourners who changed family once ( N = 395, 19.6%) had a 5.1% risk, and this increased to 9.0% for two changes ( N = 134, 6.7%) and 15.5% for three changes ( N = 27, 1.3%). These results were also replicated when controlling for both average and baseline stress.

Finally, we examined the incidence of early return across the stress trajectories using binary logistic regression. The overall contribution of stress trajectories on the prediction of early return was significant, χ 2 (4) = 37.33, p < .001. Comparisons of the groups revealed that participants who experienced a reverse J-curve or inverse U-curve pattern of stress and adjustment were significantly more likely to return home early than participants who experienced a mild stress, minor relief, or resilience pattern. Individuals reporting a resilience pattern had significantly lower early return rates than individuals in all of the other groups. Specifically, 17.2% of the reverse J-curve participants and 13.3% of the inverse U-curve participants returned home early, while only 3.7% of the mild stress group, 2.7% of the minor relief group, and 1.2% of the resilience group did so. All other comparisons were not significant, that is early return rates did not differ significantly between the reverse J-curve and inverse U-curve groups, nor between the mild stress and minor relief groups.

Overall, the results of the early return and family change analyses demonstrate that average levels of stress while abroad are significantly associated with family changes and early return rate. In addition, the types of coping strategies that participants employed were also related to family changes, such that greater use of acceptance coping and seeking support from people in the host country was related to fewer family changes and greater use of approach coping and seeking support from people in the home country was related to more family changes. While it would be interesting to look at the association between coping and early return, statistical limitations (due to the small proportion of students returning home early) means this was not possible.

With regards to the stress trajectories and their relationship with family change and early return, the pattern of findings seem to suggest that there are three distinguishable classes in relation to these variables. Overall, the resilient group appears to differ from all others, the J and U-curve classes differ from all others but not from each other and likewise the mild stress and minor relief groups differ from all others but not from each other.

General Discussion

In this article we built upon a large body of theory and research regarding the stress and adjustment patterns of intercultural travelers, their antecedents, and consequences ( Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002 ; Herman & Tetrick, 2009 ; Swagler & Jome, 2005 ; Zhang & Goodson, 2011 ). We presented a series of analyses from a longitudinal study of approximately 2,500 intercultural exchange students who traveled from over 40 different countries and spent a year abroad in one of over 50 different host destinations. Taking advantage of the longitudinal and multinational nature of this study and the presence of a control group, we examined a number of central research questions to the acculturation field. The results of these examinations present a number of theoretical contributions which are discussed below.

In this study we recorded stress on multiple occasions over time, in both a sojourning and a control group. This design enabled us to examine whether sojourners typically experience greater variation in stress over time than nonsojourning peers. Indeed we found that sojourners’ experienced significant variation in stress over time while a control group did not. This highlights the uniqueness of the sojourn in terms of its psychological impact and supports the examination of the nature of this impact as an important area of enquiry.

Researchers have long attempted to identify a “standard” temporal pattern to describe the cultural stress and adjustment of intercultural travelers ( Geeraert & Demoulin, 2013 ; Oberg, 1960 ; Ward et al., 1998 ). In this article we demonstrated that a single overarching description of the course of adjustment over time may be inadequate and instead were able to identify five patterns which described the adjustment of different subsets of sojourners. We detected a number of patterns that have been observed previously, such as an inverse U-curve ( Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002 ), reverse J-curve ( Ward et al., 1998 ), and resilience pattern ( Geeraert & Demoulin, 2013 ), in addition to other patterns not previously observed in this context. This highlights that reactions to an intercultural relocation are not uniform and that earlier theoretical and methodological approaches have not captured this.

Further, theorists have proposed that relocating to a new culture will inevitably lead to stress and strain ( Oberg, 1960 ) but our research shows that this is not always the case. Indeed, the large majority of our sample, those in the mild stress or minor relief groups appeared only to be marginally affected by the move, at least in terms of their stress levels. It is likely that the unique characteristics of this particular population are responsible for the more typical low stress reaction, as the whole experience is intended to be an opportunity for personal growth, learning, and to expand cultural awareness ( Maddux & Galinsky, 2009 ; Montuori & Fahim, 2004 ). It would be interesting therefore to see what patterns emerge in different sojourning or immigrant samples, with the application of such person-centered analyses. We would expect similar trajectories as found in this study to emerge, but that the proportion of individuals experiencing the different patterns would vary. In an immigrant sample for example, a greater proportion of individuals may be expected to experience inverse U-curve or reverse J-curve patterns characterized by substantial peaks in stress, as the relocation experience of immigrants involves relatively more personal, emotional, and financial upheaval than that experienced by exchange students.

Antecedents of Stress Trajectories

Following the identification of different stress reactions to the relocation we examined the role of personality, empathy, cultural adaptation, and coping strategies in moderating stress over time. Looking at personality alone, the results suggest a buffering effect on stress of honesty-humility, extraversion, and conscientiousness but a risk effect of emotionality. Similarly, for the interpersonal reactivity variables alone, perspective taking was shown to be adaptive in the variable-centered analysis and empathetic concern in the person-centered analysis. The fact that alternative variables were found to be significant across the two types of analysis may suggest that perspective taking is more powerful in explaining variation in stress levels in general over the sojourn but that empathetic concern is related more to the particular course of increases or decreases in stress over time, that is its contribution to stress may be less uniform over time. For the coping variables alone, their associations with stress were found to vary over time, such that the adaptive role of acceptance coping and seeking support from people in the host country, and the maladaptive role of avoidance, seeking support from people back home, and self-blame were particularly pronounced in the early waves, but less so as the sojourn progressed.

Controlling for all explanatory variables revealed robust and stable effects of emotionality, extraversion, psychological adaptation, avoidance coping, acceptance coping, seeking support from locals and self-blame. Robust time varying effects were found for both close and distant support and self-blame. Interestingly, the relationship between support and stress was different depending on the proximity of social support. Seeking support from people remotely back in the home country was related to having higher stress in general, while seeking support from people local in the host country was related to having lower stress in general. This finding is also in line with previous research showing that too much contact with home nationals can hinder cultural adjustment ( Geeraert et al., 2014 ).

Overall, these findings are consistent with theory and previous research ( Carver et al., 1989 ; Davis, 1983 ; Galinsky et al., 2005 ; Herman & Tetrick, 2009 ; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984 ; Skinner et al., 2003 ; van Oudenhoven & van der Zee, 2002 ; Ward & Kennedy, 1999 ; Ward & Kennedy, 2001 ). However, this research provides a valuable contribution to the literature by demonstrating these effects across a multinational sojourner sample (from both a sending and hosting perspective) and using longitudinal data which has enabled us to demonstrate the robustness and stability of these associations over time.

Consequences of Stress Trajectories

Lastly, we found that different patterns of stress over the exchange were related to key behavioral indicators of adjustment, with higher levels of stress relating to increased likelihood of changing host families and returning home early. The types of coping strategies that sojourners used were also found to be associated with family changes. Interestingly, the approach strategy was related to more family changes, which may be because participants using the approach strategy took action when experiencing difficulty adjusting to one family and thus moved to another. Altogether these results are particularly meaningful as we were able to record participants’ actual behavior; whether they did indeed return home early and how many times they did change host family. Having behavioral measures make these findings particularly strong and novel. Further, while research on international assignees has previously examined precursors to early return, these studies have typically only utilized measures of desire or intention to leave rather than actual behavior ( Black & Gregerson, 1990 ; Caligiuri, 2000 ).

Strengths and Limitations

This study has a number of important strengths that make this study quite unique in terms of its design and research findings. First of all, the fact that this is a longitudinal study is crucial, as this allowed us to monitor and examine the stress and adjustment patterns of sojourners over the entire course of their 8–10 month intercultural exchange while also controlling for baseline, pretravel levels of stress. We were also able to examine the antecedents and consequences of stress and make claims regarding their temporal variability or stability.

Certainly this is not the first study to examine sojourner adjustment over time; but it is the first of its kind to benefit from such a culturally diverse sample of participants. Specifically, this sample included participants traveling from over 40 different countries and traveling to one of 51 different destinations. Naturally, this cultural diversity summons the question of cultural distance, and its role in stress ( Babiker, Cox, & Miller, 1980 ). Cultural distance is a multifaceted construct, which encompasses economic factors (i.e., GDP), geographical features (i.e., climate), sociocultural aspects (i.e., ethnicity, language), differences in psychological values and dimensions (i.e., individualism-collectivism, universalism, tightness-looseness, etc.), as well as subjective perceptions of cultural distance ( Fearon, 2003 ; Gelfand et al., 2011 ; Hofstede, 2001 ; Kogut & Singh, 1988 ; Schwartz et al., 2012 ; Searle & Ward, 1990 ; Van de Vliert, 2009 ). Indeed, this dataset is ideally suited to address the cultural distance puzzle, and we have explored this extensively elsewhere. Our analyses show that both subjective and more objective measures of cultural distance do impact on measures of acculturative stress ( Geeraert & Demes, in preparation ). Still, the diversity of this sample does mean that we can generalize these findings across cultures more confidently than has been possible in previous studies that examined acculturation from a single sending or single hosting perspective ( Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002 ; Ward et al., 1998 ; Wang et al., 2012 ).

What is less clear is how well the findings reported in this article would generalize to other acculturating groups such as expatriates, immigrants, or refugees. These groups differ along a number of important dimensions such as whether their relocation is voluntary or not and whether it is permanent or temporary ( Berry, 1990 ). Also, our exchange students, placed with local host families and attending local schools may have more day to day contact with host nationals than individuals in other acculturating groups. Research has shown that contact with host nationals is important to cultural adjustment ( Geeraert et al., 2014 ; Zhang & Goodson, 2011 ) and this may explain at least in part, why we found a number of positive adjustment reactions to the exchange (e.g., minor relief and resilience). In other groups who have less frequent contact with host nationals, patterns of stress and adjustment may differ. It would be interesting therefore, to explicitly test this by replicating the current study in these different samples.

In terms of the statistical approach to the analyses reported here, in utilizing both variable and person-centered techniques we were able to provide different perspectives on the course of stress and adjustment over time. Specifically we were able to offer both explanatory and descriptive findings from the data. The descriptive approach provided a novel perspective on sojourner adjustment over time relative to previous approaches ( Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002 ; Ward et al., 1998 ). We argued that identifying multiple patterns of stress over time recognizes and demonstrates that not all individuals react in the same way to an intercultural relocation. The unique features of sojourners reacting in different ways can therefore be examined and provide a more tailored view of the acculturation process and the factors that may facilitate or hinder it (see also Wang et al., 2012 ).

With regards to the findings on coping strategy use, these have a high level of practical relevance as they can be used to inform interventions and training programs for relocating individuals. While some level of stress may be inevitable for sojourning groups, this research suggests that employing certain coping strategies over others may ameliorate the degree and or duration of this stress.

The body of research on acculturation is growing rapidly as intercultural contact becomes an increasingly common experience for individuals around the world. This phenomenon is closely related to advances in technology which make cross-cultural travel and communication so easy now. It is important for research to keep up with this change by exploring and understanding how different groups of individuals experience and react to this. This study has been the first of its kind to examine acculturation in such a culturally diverse sample of sojourners in conjunction with a longitudinal design and control group. More research of this scope and nature is needed in order to better understand the acculturation experience and how key variables interact to influence this experience over time.

1 AFS (originally the American Field Service) began as a service of volunteer ambulance drivers in 1914 but has since evolved into an international youth exchange organization.

2 Principal axis factoring and direct Oblimin rotation was used for both the first and second-order factor analysis.

3 An important characteristic of LCGA is that the variance of the growth parameters (i.e., intercepts and slopes) within each class is fixed to 0; they are considered to be homogeneous ( Jung & Wickrama, 2008 ).

4 The mean of t1 and t2 stress was taken as the baseline as it was deemed to be a more stable value than stress at either one of the two time points alone. However, conducting the analysis with a single time point baseline produced the same pattern of results.

5 Comparatively smaller values for BIC and aBIC and values closer to 1 for entropy and class fit probabilities, are indicative of better fitting models. The Lo, Mendell, and Rubin (2001) likelihood ratio test (LMR-LRT) and bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT) were also used to identify whether the fit of each model was a statistically significant improvement from the equivalent model with one less class ( k – 1).

6 Many of the explanatory variables were specified as time invariant. That is, we examine how these variables (i.e., personality) as captured at a specific point in time (i.e., pretravel) covary with stress. However, we do not make any assumptions about their temporal stability.

7 Across the different analyses, the number of timewaves (Level 1) ranged from 6,297 to 6,770 and the number of individuals (Level 2) ranged from 1,788 to 2,015. The variation in sample size was due to missing timewaves and attrition.

8 Analyses in this section control for lagged stress to model change in stress. However, analyses in which lagged stress was substituted by stress baseline (stress at t1) yielded similar results.

9 Due to differences in sample size between variables, two different basic models were constructed. Variables regarding sex, nationality, and previous sojourn experience were analyzed in a model with 6,770 units at Level 1 and 2,015 units at Level 2. Variables regarding language experience, residence status, previous travel experience, and cultural experience of the family were analyzed in a model with 6,297 units at Level 1 and 1,845 units at Level 2.

10 For controls, compared with the basic model (Model 1, deviance = 3,285.11, df = 5, N L1 = 1,295, N L2 = 424) the addition of personality improved the fit (Model 2, χ 2 (6) = 62.43, p < .001). Associations with stress were found for emotionality ( B = .07, p < .01), extraversion ( B = −.14, p < .001), agreeableness ( B = −.08, p < .01), and conscientiousness ( B = −.14, p < .001). Cross-level interactions did not improve the model (Model 3, χ 2 (6) = 2.47, ns ).

11 For controls, compared with the basic model (Model 1, deviance = 3,285.11, df = 5, N L1 = 1,295, N L2 = 424) the fit was not improved by the interpersonal reactivity variables (Model 2, χ 2 (2) = 2.24, ns. ), nor the cross-level interactions (Model 3, χ 2 (2) = 1.43, ns ).

12 For controls, compared with the basic model (Model 1, deviance = 3,088.89, df = 5, N L1 = 1,229, N L2 = 364) the addition of the coping strategies improved the model fit (Model 2, χ 2 (6) = 129.73, p < .001). Associations with stress were found for the approach ( B = −.13, p < .001), avoidance ( B = .12, p < .001), acceptance ( B = −.09, p < .001), substance abuse ( B = .06, p < .01), and self-blame ( B = .10, p < .001) strategies, but not for social support ( B = −.01, ns .). Cross-level interactions did not improve the fit (Model 3, χ 2 (6) = 4.30, ns ).

13 A Poisson distribution or exponential distribution is defined as a discrete probability distribution that expresses the probability of a given number of events occurring in a fixed interval of time and/or space ( Haight, 1967 ).

14 Although early return is a relatively infrequent event in our population, logistic regression is well-suited to analyze this data. Monte Carlo simulations have shown that logistic regressions can run with a minimum of 10 events per predictor variable ( Peduzzi, Concato, Kemper, Holford, & Feinstein, 1996 ).

• Ashton M. C., & Lee K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality . European Journal of Personality , 15 , 327–353. 10.1002/per.417 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashton M. C., & Lee K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 11 , 150–166. 10.1177/1088868306294907 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashton M. C., & Lee K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality . Journal of Personality Assessment , 91 , 340–345. 10.1080/00223890902935878 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Babiker I., Cox J., & Miller P. (1980). The measurement of culture distance and its relationship to medical consultations, symptomatology and examination performance of overseas students at Edinburgh University . Social Psychiatry , 15 , 109–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation In Berman J. J. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 201–234.) Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation . Applied Psychology , 46 , 5–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry J. W. (2006). Stress perspectives on acculturation In Sam D. L. & Berry J. W. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 43–57). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 10.1017/CBO9780511489891.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Black J. S., & Gregersen H. B. (1990). Expectations, satisfaction, and intention to leave of American expatriate managers in Japan . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 14 , 485–506. 10.1016/0147-1767(90)90032-R [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Black J. S., & Mendenhall M. (1991). The U-curve adjustment hypothesis revisited: A review and theoretical framework . Journal of International Business Studies , 22 , 225–247. 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490301 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolino M. C. (2007). Expatriate assignments and intra-organizational career success: Implications for individuals and organizations . Journal of International Business Studies , 38 , 819–835. 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400290 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowling N. A., & Eschleman K. J. (2010). Employee personality as a moderator of the relationships between work stressors and counterproductive work behavior . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 15 , 91–103. 10.1037/a0017326 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brislin R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material In Triandis H. C. & Berry J. W. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. II Methodology (pp. 389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caligiuri P. M. (2000). The big five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate’s desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance . Personnel Psychology , 53 , 67–88. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00194.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carver C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the Brief COPE . International Journal of Behavioral Medicine , 4 , 92–100. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carver C. S., & Connor-Smith J. (2010). Personality and coping . Annual Review of Psychology , 61 , 679–704. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100352 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carver C. S., Scheier M. F., & Weintraub J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 56 , 267–283. 10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cemalcilar Z., Falbo T., & Stapleton L. M. (2005). Cyber communication: A new opportunity for international students’ adaptation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 29 , 91–110. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung Chung M., Stedmon J., Hall R., Marks Z., Thornhill K., & Mehrshahi R. (2014). Posttraumatic stress reactions following burglary: The role of coping and personality . Traumatology: An International Journal , 20 , 65–74. 10.1037/h0099374 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment . Psychological Bulletin , 91 , 540–572. 10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.540 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen S., Kamarck T., & Mermelstein R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 24 , 385–396. 10.2307/2136404 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa P. T. Jr., & McCrae R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy . JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology , 10 , 85. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 44 , 113–126. 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deisinger J. A., Cassisi J. E., & Whitaker S. L. (1996). Relationships between coping style and PAI profiles in a community sample . Journal of Clinical Psychology , 52 , 303–310. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199605)52:3<303::AID-JCLP7>3.0.CO;2-S [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Demes K. A., & Geeraert N. (2015). Sojourners’ expectations: Are they met and does it matter if they’re not? Unpublished manuscript.
• Demes K. A., & Geeraert N. (2014). Measures matter: Adaptation, cultural distance, and acculturation orientation revisited . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 45 , 91–109. 10.1177/0022022113487590 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diaz-Guerrero R. (1979). The development of coping style . Human Development , 22 , 320–331. 10.1159/000272452 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diener E., Suh E. M., Lucas R. E., & Smith H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress . Psychological Bulletin , 125 , 276–302. 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fearon J. D. (2003). Ethnic and cultural diversity by country . Journal of Economic Growth , 8 , 195–222. 10.1023/A:1024419522867 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Furnham A., & Bochner S. (1986). Culture shock . London, UK: Methuen. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galinsky A. D., Ku G., & Wang C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self–other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination . Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 8 , 109–124. 10.1177/1368430205051060 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geeraert N., & Demes K. A. (in preparation). Cultural distance: Sojourners’ final frontier? Manuscript in preparation.
• Geeraert N., & Demoulin S. (2013). Acculturative stress or resilience? A longitudinal multilevel analysis of sojourners’ stress and self-esteem . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 44 , 1239–1260. 10.1177/0022022113478656 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geeraert N., Demoulin S., & Demes K. A. (2014). Choose your (international) contacts wisely: A multilevel analysis on the impact of intergroup contact while living abroad . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 38 , 86–96. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.08.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gelfand M. J., Raver J. L., Nishii L., Leslie L. M., Lun J., Lim B. C., et al.Yamaguchi S. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study . Science , 332 , 1100–1104. 10.1126/science.1197754 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graves T. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community . Southwestern Journal of Anthropology , 23 , 337–350. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gullahorn J. T., & Gullahorn J. E. (1963). An extension of the U-curve hypothesis . Journal of Social Issues , 19 , 33–47. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1963.tb00447.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haight F. A. (1967). Handbook of the Poisson distribution . New York, NY: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Håkansson J., & Montgomery H. (2003). Empathy as an interpersonal phenomenon . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 20 , 267–284. 10.1177/0265407503020003001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrison J. K., Chadwick M., & Scales M. (1996). The relationship between cross-cultural adjustment and the personality variables of self-efficacy and self-monitoring . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 20 , 167–188. 10.1016/0147-1767(95)00039-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hechanova R., Beehr T. A., & Christiansen N. D. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of employees’ adjustment to overseas assignment: A meta-analytic review . Applied Psychology , 52 , 213–236. 10.1111/1464-0597.00132 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hechanova-Alampay R., Beehr T. A., Christiansen N. D., & van Horn R. K. (2002). Adjustment and strain among domestic and international student sojourners: A longitudinal study . School Psychology International , 23 , 458–474. 10.1177/0143034302234007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herman J. L., & Tetrick L. E. (2009). Problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping strategies and repatriation adjustment . Human Resource Management , 48 , 69–88. 10.1002/hrm.20267 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstede G. (2001). Cultural consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holden C. J., Zeigler-Hill V., Pham M. N., & Shackelford T. K. (2014). Personality features and mate retention strategies: Honesty–humility and the willingness to manipulate, deceive, and exploit romantic partners . Personality and Individual Differences , 57 , 31–36. 10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.018 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holmes T. H., & Rahe R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale . Journal of Psychosomatic Research , 11 , 213–218. 10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hox J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routlegde. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jung T., & Wickrama K. A. S. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling . Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 2 , 302–317. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00054.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kogut B., & Singh H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode . Journal of International Business Studies , 19 , 411–432. 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490394 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazarus R., & Folkman S. (1984). Stress, coping and appraisal . New York, NY: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee K., & Ashton M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure . Personality and Individual Differences , 38 , 1571–1582. 10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo Y., Mendell N. R., & Rubin D. B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture . Biometrika , 88 , 767–778. 10.1093/biomet/88.3.767 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysgaard S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fullbright grantees visiting the United States . International Social Science Bulletin , 7 , 45–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maddux W. W., & Galinsky A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 96 , 1047–1061. 10.1037/a0014861 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malouff J. M., Thorsteinsson E. B., & Schutte N. S. (2005). The relationship between the five-factor model of personality and symptoms of clinical disorders: A meta-analysis . Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment , 27 , 101–114. 10.1007/s10862-005-5384-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin J. N., Bradford L., & Rohrlich B. (1995). Comparing predeparture expectations and post-sojourn reports: A longitudinal study of U.S. students abroad . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 28 , 201–219. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matsumoto D., Hirayama S., & LeRoux J. (2006). Psychological skills related to intercultural adjustment In Wong P. T. P. & Wong L. C. J. (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 387–405). New York, NY: Springer; 10.1007/0-387-26238-5_16 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matsumoto D., LeRoux J., Ratzlaff C., Tatani H., Uchida H., Kim C., & Araki S. (2001). Development and validation of a measure of intercultural adjustment potential in Japanese sojourners: The Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS) . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 25 , 483–510. 10.1016/S0147-1767(01)00019-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthews G., Emo A. K., Funke G., Zeidner M., Roberts R. D., Costa P. T. Jr., & Schulze R. (2006). Emotional intelligence, personality, and task-induced stress . Journal of Experimental Psychology , 12 , 96–107. 10.1037/1076-898X.12.2.96 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendenhall M. E., Dunbar E., & Oddou G. R. (1987). Expatriate selection, training and career-pathing: A review and critique . Human Resource Management , 26 , 331–345. 10.1002/hrm.3930260303 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Montuori A., & Fahim U. (2004). Cross-cultural encounter as an opportunity for personal growth . Journal of Humanistic Psychology , 44 , 243–265. 10.1177/0022167804263414 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén B., & Muthén L. K. (2000). Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: Growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes . Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research , 24 , 882–891. 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2000.tb02070.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén L. K., & Muthén B. O. (2012). MPlus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nes L. S., & Segerstrom S. C. (2006). Dispositional optimism and coping: A meta-analytic review . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 10 , 235–251. 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oberg K. (1960). Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments . Practical Anthropology , 7 , 177–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peduzzi P., Concato J., Kemper E., Holford T. R., & Feinstein A. R. (1996). A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 49 , 1373–1379. 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Penley J. A., & Tomaka J. (2002). Associations among the Big Five, emotional responses, and coping with acute stress . Personality and Individual Differences , 32 , 1215–1228. 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00087-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piedmont R. L. (1998). The revised NEO personality inventory: Clinical and research applications . New York, NY: Plenum Press; 10.1007/978-1-4899-3588-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rasbash J., Browne W. J., Healy M., Cameron B., & Charlton C. (2014). MLwiN Version 2.30 . Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
• Schwartz S. H., Cieciuch J., Vecchione M., Davidov E., Fischer R., Beierlein C., et al.Konty M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 103 , 663–688. 10.1037/a0029393 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz S. J., Unger J. B., Zamboanga B. L., & Szapocznik J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research . American Psychologist , 65 , 237–251. 10.1037/a0019330 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Searle W., & Ward C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 14 , 449–464. 10.1016/0147-1767(90)90030-Z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner E. A., Edge K., Altman J., & Sherwood H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping . Psychological Bulletin , 129 , 216–269. 10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spradley J. P., & Phillips M. (1972). Culture and stress: A quantitative analysis . American Anthropologist , 74 , 518–529. 10.1525/aa.1972.74.3.02a00190 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steel P., Schmidt J., & Shultz J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being . Psychological Bulletin , 134 , 138–161. 10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swagler M. A., & Jome L. M. (2005). The effects of personality and acculturation on the adjustment of North American sojourners in Taiwan . Journal of Counseling Psychology , 52 , 527–536. 10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.527 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Zee K. I., & van Oudenhoven J. P. (2000). The multicultural personality questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness . European Journal of Personality , 14 , 291–309. 10.1002/1099-0984(200007/08)14:4<291::AID-PER377>3.0.CO;2-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Zee K., & van Oudenhoven J. P. (2013). Culture shock or challenge? The role of personality as a determinant of intercultural competence . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 44 , 928–940. 10.1177/0022022113493138 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van de Vliert E. (2009). Climate, affluence, and culture . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Oudenhoven J. P., & Van der Zee K. I. (2002). Predicting multicultural effectiveness of international students: The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 26 , 679–694. 10.1016/S0147-1767(02)00041-X [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang K. T., Heppner P. P., Fu C. C., Zhao R., Li F., & Chuang C.-C. (2012). Profiles of acculturative adjustment patterns among Chinese international students . Journal of Counseling Psychology , 59 , 424–436. 10.1037/a0028532 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward C., Bochner S., & Furnham A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward C., & Kennedy A. (1992). Locus of control, mood disturbance, and social difficulty during cross-cultural transitions . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 16 , 175–194. 10.1016/0147-1767(92)90017-O [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward C., & Kennedy A. (1996). Crossing cultures: The relationship between psychological and socio-cultural dimensions of cross-cultural adjustment In Pandey J., Sinha D., & Bhawuk D. P. S. (Eds.), Asian contributions to cross-cultural psychology (pp. 289–306). New Delhi, India: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward C., & Kennedy A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 23 , 659–677. 10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00014-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward C., & Kennedy A. (2001). Coping with cross-cultural transition . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 32 , 636–642. 10.1177/0022022101032005007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward C., Leong C.-H., & Low M. (2004). Personality and sojourner adjustment: An exploration of the Big Five and the Cultural Fit proposition . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 35 , 137–151. 10.1177/0022022103260719 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward C., Okura Y., Kennedy A., & Kojima T. (1998). The U-curve on trial: A longitudinal study of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transition . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 22 , 277–291. 10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00008-X [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams P. G., Rau H. K., Cribbet M. R., & Gunn H. E. (2009). Openness to experience and stress regulation . Journal of Research in Personality , 43 , 777–784. 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.06.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang J., & Goodson P. (2011). Predictors of international students’ psychosocial adjustment to life in the United States: A systematic review . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 35 , 139–162. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.11.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

A Review of Culture Shock: Attitudes, Effects and the Experience of International Students

Article sidebar.

• How to Cite

In light of increasing globalization and the rising trend of international study, this paper reviews prominent literature as well as benchmark studies on culture shock, focusing on the experience of international students. First, it takes a look at concepts of the phenomenon, both negative and positive. This is followed by a discussion of the physical and psychosocial effects of culture shock, prior to detailed discussion of international students and their cultural adjustment problems. A number of suggestions are provided for educational institutions as well as international students regarding how best to manage and overcome culture shock.

Full text article

Adler, S.P. (1975). The transitional experience: An alternative view of culture shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15(4): 13-23. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/002216787501500403

Andrade, S.M. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2): 131-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240906065589

Ayyoub, M., S. Khan & A. Riaz (2019). Qualitative analysis of cultural adjustment issues in Austria. New Horizons, 13(1): 31-50.

Befus, P.C. (1988). A multilevel treatment approach for culture shock experienced by sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12(1): 381-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(88)90032-6

Bochner, S. (2003). Culture shock due to contact with unfamiliar cultures. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Online Readings in Psychology and Culture(1): 1-12.

Church, T.A. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3): 540-572. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.540

David, H. K. (1971). Culture shock and the development of self-awareness. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 4(1): 44-48. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/BF02110274

Egenes, J.K. (2012). Health care delivery through a different lens: The lived experience of culture shock while participating in an international educational program. Nurse Education Today, 32(1): 760-764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.05.011

Furnham, A. (1984). Tourism and culture shock. Annals of Tourism Research, 11(1): 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(84)90095-1

Furnham, A. (2010). Culture shock: Literature review, personal statement and relevance for the South Pacific. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 4(2): 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1375/prp.4.2.87

Garza-Guerrero, A. C. (1974). Culture shock: Its mourning and the vicissitudes of identity. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 22(2): 408-429. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F000306517402200213

Hailu, T.E., and H. Ku (2014). The adaptation of the Horn of Africa immigrant students in higher education. The Qualitative Report, 19(28): 1-19. Retrieved 20 May 2022 from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss28/1

Kelly, P., J. Moores & Y. Moogan (2012). Culture shock and higher education performance: Implications for teaching. Higher Education Quarterly, 66(1): 24-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2011.00505.x

Levy, D. (2000). The shock of the strange, the shock of the familiar: Learning from study abroad. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 4(1): 75-83.

Lombard, A.C. (2014). Coping with anxiety and rebuilding identity: A psychosynthesis approach to culture shock. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 27(2): 174-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2013.875887

Mahmud, Z., S. Amat, S. Rahman & M.N. Ishak (2010). Challenges for international students in Malaysia: Culture, climate and care. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7: 289-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.040

Marsh, L. (2012). Unheard Stories: Narrative Enquiry of the Cross-cultural Adaptation Experiences of Refugee Women in Metro Vancouver [Master’s thesis]. Colwood, BC, Canada: Royal Roads University. Retrieved 20 May 2022 from https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item?id=TC-BRC-511&op=pdf&app=Library&oclc_number=1032911558

Martin, N.J. (1986). The relationship between student sojourner perceptions of intercultural competencies and previous sojourn experience. Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, USA, November 1986 [oral presentation]. Retrieved 20 May 2022 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED280089.pdf

Mesidor, K.J. & F.K. Sly (2016). Factors that contribute to the adjustment of international students. Journal of International Students, 6(1): 262-282.

Oberg, K. (1954). Culture shock. Women’s Club of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil [oral presentation]. Retrieved 20 May 2022 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.5459&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Curare, 29(2): 142-146. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F009182966000700405

Pandian, A. (2008). Multiculturalism in higher education: A case study of Middle Eastern students’ perceptions and experiences in a Malaysian University. International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 4(1): 33-59.

Pantelidou, S. & K.J.T. Craig (2006). Culture shock and social support: A survey in Greek migrant students. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41(1): 777-781. Retrieved 20 May 2022 from https://rdcu.be/cNXZi

Popadiuk, N. & N. and Arthur (2004). Counseling international students in Canadian schools. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 26(2): 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ADCO.0000027426.05819.44

Samovar, A.L., E.R. Porter, R.E. McDaniel & S.C. Roy (2013). Communication between Cultures (8th Edition). Boston: Cengage.

Stewart, L. & A.P. Legga (1998). Culture shock and travelers. Journal of Travel Medicine,5(1): 84-88.

Ward, A.C., S. Bochner & A. Furnham (2001). The Psychology of Culture Shock. Routledge.

Winkelman, M. (1994). Cultural shock and adaptation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73(1): 121-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1994.tb01723.x

Xiaoqiong, H. (2008). The culture shock that Asian students experience in immersion education. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 15(1): 101-105. https://doi.org/0.1080/13586840701825378

Xue, F. (2018). Factors that Contribute to Acculturative Stress of Chinese International Students [unpublished manuscript]. Retrieved 20 May 2022 from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=major-papers

Yan, K. & C.D. Berliner (2011). Chinese international students in the United States: Demographic trends, motivations, acculturation features and adjustment challenges. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(2): 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9117-x

Zapf, K.M. (1991). Cross-cultural transitions and wellness: Dealing with culture shock. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 14(1): 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117730

van der Zee, K. & P.J. van Oudenhoven (2013). Culture shock or challenge? The role of personality as a determinant of intercultural competence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6): 928-940. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022022113493138

Zhou, Y., D. Jindal-Snape, K. Topping & J. Todman (2008). Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1): 63-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701794833

Yusra Mustafa, 620 Ferguson Rd. Milton, Ontario, Canada

Yusra Mustafa is a linguist and dedicated ELT professional with seven years' experience teaching English and linguistics. She was first in her master's class (English), going on to enroll in an MPhil program (English linguistics), which she completed in 2019. Yusra has publications in Critical Discourse Analysis, ELT and sociolinguistics, but her main areas of interest are cross-cultural communication and education-abroad programs. The former is the topic of her MPhil dissertation. She has presented her papers in international conferences. As part of her current job as lecturer at COSTI, she is among the frontline workers who help newcomers adjust to life in Canada.

Copyright (c) 2022 Journal of Intercultural Communication

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Copyright / Open Access Policy: This journal provides immediate free open access and is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . This is an open-access journal, which means readers can access it freely. Readers may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles for any lawful purpose without seeking prior permission from the publisher or author. This is consistent with the Budapest Open Access Initiative's (BOAI) definition of open access.

Article Details

• Abstract 6368
• Download PDF 2013

Similar Articles

• Mohammed Juma Alkharusi, Reynaldo Gacho Segumpan, I wish that I could have friends: The Intercultural Friendship Experience of Omani Students at US Universities , Journal of Intercultural Communication: Vol. 24 No. 1 (2024)
• Ming Xie , Chin-Chung Chao, The Interplay between Social Media and Cultural Adjustment: Analysis of the Subjective Well-Being, Social Support, and Social Media Use of Asian International Students in the U.S. , Journal of Intercultural Communication: Vol. 22 No. 2 (2022)
• Elena V. Chudnovskaya, Diane M. Millette, Understanding Intercultural Experiences of Chinese Graduate Students at U.S. Universities: Analysis of Cross-Cultural Dimensions , Journal of Intercultural Communication: Vol. 23 No. 1 (2023)
• Hui Wen Sun, Zhenyi Li , Norliana Hashim, Jen Sern Tham , Rosmiza Bidin , Superficial Causes of AUM Theory Affect Uncertainty and Anxiety among Students in a High-Context Culture , Journal of Intercultural Communication: Vol. 23 No. 4 (2023)
• Tzu Yiu Chen, The Chinese Intercultural Competence Scale and the External Factors of Spanish as a Foreign Language , Journal of Intercultural Communication: Vol. 23 No. 3 (2023)

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

An exploratory investigation of the effects of a cultural orientation programme on the psychological well-being of international university students

• Published: April 1996
• Volume 31 , pages 379–395, ( 1996 )

Cite this article

• N. J. Mckinlay 1 ,
• H. M. Pattison 1 &
• H. Gross 1  

1689 Accesses

31 Citations

11 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

‘Culture shock’ has been identified as a psychological reaction to a change in cultural environment. The main symptoms of culture shock are reported to be psychological disturbance, a negative reaction to the new surroundings and a longing for a more familiar environment. Research has identified culture shock as a component in the difficulties that international students face when studying in another country. One way that institutions of higher education have responded to these difficulties is to provide initial cultural orientation. In the study reported here, a group of post-graduate students who had participated in a study skills and cultural orientation course at a British university were compared with a group who had not. Contrary to the research hypothesis, the group that took part in the orientation course were significantly more homesick and reported more psychological difficulties. The overall findings cast doubt on the received view of culture shock as it affects international students. They suggest that culture shock is exacerbated by personal and social factors and this has implications for the way that international students may be helped through the experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Cultural novelty and international students’ experience: a five-country study

Cultural Competences of International Students: Its Role on Successful Sociocultural and Psychological Adaptation

An Exploratory Study of Sociocultural Adaptation Among International Students in Malaysia

Anumonye, A. (1970). African Students in Alien Cultures . New York: Black Academy Press.

Google Scholar  

Barker, M., Child, C., Gallois, C., Jones, E. and Callan, V.J. (1991). ‘Difficulties of overseas students in social and academic situations’, Australian Journal of Psychology 43, 79–84.

Bochner, S. (1982). The social psychology of cross-cultural relations. In S. Bochner (ed) Cultures in Contact: Studies in Cross-cultural Interaction . Oxford: Pergamon.

Bochner, S. and Ohsako, T. (1977). ‘Ethnic role salience in racially homogeneous and heterogeneous societies’, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 8, 477–92.

Bock, P. (1970). Culture Shock: A Reader in Modern Anthropology , New York: A.A. Knopf.

British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes (1993). Accreditation report . Manchester: BALEAP.

British Council (1989). Code of Practice: Educational institutions and overseas students . London: British Council.

British Council (1990). Studying and Living in Britain 1990 . London: British Council.

British Council (1991). Feeling at home . London: British Council.

Church, A.T. (1982). ‘Sojourner Adjustment’, Psychological Bulletin 91, 540–72.

Cochrane, R., Hashmi, F. and Stopes-Roe, M. (1977). ‘Measuring psychological disturbance in Asian immigrants to Britain’, Social Science and Medicine 11, 157–164.

Cochrane, R. and Stopes-Roe, M. (1980). ‘The mental health of immigrants’, New Community 8, 123–8.

Cox, J.L. (1988). ‘The overseas student: Expatriate, sojourner or settler?’, Acta-PsychiatricaScandanavia 78, 179–184.

Department for Education (1993). Students from Abroad in Great Britain 1981 to 1991 . London: Government Statistical Service.

Fisher, S. (1989). Homesickness, Cognition and Health . London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fisher, S. (1990). Helping the homesick: Attentional management strategy, commitment and adaptation. In S. Fisher and C. L. Cooper (eds.) On the Move: the Psychology of Change and transition . London: Wiley.

Fisher, S., Murray, K. and Frazer, N. (1985). ‘Homesickness and health in first-year students’, Journal of Environmental Psychology 5, 181–195.

Fisher, S. and Hood, B. (1987). ‘The stress of the transition to university: A longitudinal study of psychological disturbance, absent-mindedness and vulnerability to homesickness’, British Journal of Psychology 78, 425–441.

Furnham, A. and Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty in a foreign culture: an empirical analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (ed.) Cultures in contact: Studies in Cross-cultural interaction . Oxford: Pergamon.

Furnham, A. and Bochner, S. (1986). Culture Shock; psychological reactions to unfamiliar environments . London: Routledge.

Furnham, A. and Sheikh, S. (1993). ‘Gender, generational and social support correlates of mental health in Asian immigrants’, The International Journal of Social Psychiatry 39, 22–33.

Furnham, A. and Trezise, L. (1983). ‘The mental health of foreign students’, Social Science and Medicine 17, 365–370.

Gunn, A. (1970). The Privileged Adolescent . Aylesbury: Medical and Technical Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values . California: Sage.

Kinnell, M. (1990). The marketing and managing of courses. In M. Kinnell (ed) The Learning Experiences of Overseas Students . Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Klineberg, O. and Hull, W. F. (1979). At a Foreign University: An International Study of Adaptation and Coping . New York: Praeger.

Lago, C. (1990). Working with overseas students . London: British Council and Huddersfield Polytechnic.

Langner, T.S. (1962). ‘A twenty-two item screening score of psychiatric symptoms indicating impairment’, Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 3, 269–276.

Lysgaard, S. (1955). ‘Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fullbright grantees visiting the United States’, International Social Science Bulletin 7, 45–51.

Makepeace, E. E. (1989). Overseas Students: Challenges of Institutional adjustment . SCED Paper (56) Birmingham: Birmingham Polytechnic.

Oberg, K. (1960). ‘Cultural shock: adjustment to new cultural environments’, Practical Anthropology 7, 177–82.

Pennebaker, J.W., Colder, M. and Sharp, L. K. (1990). ‘Accelerating the coping process’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58, 528–537.

Selby, H. and Woods, C.W. (1966). ‘Foreign students at a High Pressure University’, Sociology of Education 39, 138–154.

Singh, A. K. (1963). Indian Students in Britain . Bombay: Asia Publishing House.

Tajfel, H. and Dawson, J. L. (1965). Disappointed Guests . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs (1992). Orientation within the Institution . London: UKCOSA.

Willmuth, L., Weaver, L. and Donald, S. (1975). ‘Utilization of medical services by transfered employees’, Archives of General Psychiatry 2, 182–9.

Westwood, M. J. and Barker, M. (1990). ‘Academic achievement and social adaptation among international students: A comparison of groups study of the peer-pairing program’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 14, 251–263.

Zwingmann, C.A.A. and Gunn, A.D.G. (1983). Uprooting and Health: Psychological problems of students from abroad . Geneva: World Health Organisation.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough University, LE11 3TU, Leicestershire, UK

N. J. Mckinlay, H. M. Pattison & H. Gross

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mckinlay, N.J., Pattison, H.M. & Gross, H. An exploratory investigation of the effects of a cultural orientation programme on the psychological well-being of international university students. High Educ 31 , 379–395 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128438

Download citation

Issue Date : April 1996

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128438

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• International Student
• Negative Reaction
• Research Hypothesis
• Cultural Environment
• Exploratory Investigation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

You are viewing:

Archived Content

Information released online from January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017. Note: Content in this archive site is not updated , and links may not function. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

Go to the current State.gov website for up-to-date information.

U.s. department of state, diplomacy in action.

• Under Secretary for Management
• Foreign Service Institute
• Transition Center
• Overseas Briefing Center (OBC)
• Reverse Culture Shock: The Challenges of Returning Home

Reverse Culture Shock - Reverse Culture Shock

• For Families

Reverse Culture Shock Overview

This section will discuss reverse culture shock -- the psychological, emotional and cultural aspects of reentry. While the phenomenon of culture shock is increasingly well known (and relatively well prepared for in the foreign affairs community), reverse culture shock is not as recognized and understood. This is due in part to the fact that people are returning home. So why should "returning home" result in culture shock?

It may be helpful to think of Reverse Culture Shock in terms of the culture shock one experiences when moving overseas. Many of the same events and circumstances that create stress when adapting to a foreign culture also create stress in the return trip. Craig Storti, in his book, The Art of Coming Home , notes that both stresses - culture shock and reverse culture shock - tend to follow the  U-curve pattern  explained later in more detail.

As with culture shock, many aspects of reverse culture shock are subjective, therefore each person will have a unique experience in readapting to his or her home culture. Research does, however, indicate some common patterns existing among most sojourners' reentry experiences. While reading about these common patterns, remember to keep an open mind about reverse culture shock and the various ways it may affect you and your individual family members. Issues specific to spouses and kids are also included at the end of this section.

Culture Shock: A Refresher Course

We are familiar with things where we live. We know the streets and which sides of them to drive on. We know what type of food we like to eat.  We also generally follow routines. Many of our daily actions are done without even thinking about them. We know the people we live and work with. We know the patterns of how we communicate with others. We know the cracks in the ceiling and the creaks in the floor. We may not pay conscious attention to all of these little details, but we are accustomed to them.

These customs, routines and communications are cues that we depend on to direct our behavior. Over time, these cues have become second nature and predictable to us. In a sense, our culture actually helps define who we are.

Our concept of "home" is built on these ideas of familiarity, routine, communication and identity. Home is more than the physical place in which we live. Home is associated with all of the people, actions, feelings, emotions and cues that make us feel "at home." Craig Storti , says the following: "The essence of home can be described in three key elements: familiar places, familiar people and routines, and predictable patterns of interaction." These three elements associate the feelings of security, understanding, trust, safety and belonging.

The Culture Shock U-Curve

Some scholars have noted that culture shock follows a U-curve pattern. Upon arrival in a foreign country, people tend to experience a "honeymoon" period where the new culture is exciting, fresh and fun. Soon after however, as differences surface and mount, sojourners fall into the pit of culture shock. Gradually, as one adapts to the new culture and accepts differences, they regain their emotional and psychological stability.

For some, this experience is over in a matter of weeks; for others it may take months. Nonetheless, researchers maintain that if you have spent a significant amount of time in a foreign country, chances are that you have experienced some of the stresses common to culture shock.

Reverse Culture Shock

As with cross-cultural adaptation stress, change of routine and a lack of familiarity contribute significantly to reverse culture shock. As you've settled into your foreign location (sometimes staying outside the United States for as many as three tours / 8 or 9 years), you've spent less time in your home culture. Upon return, not only is home different from what you are now used to, but it may be different from what it was when you left, and different from what you expect it to be like.

Craig Storti's book  The Art of Coming Home presents key variables that affect reentry stress.  In his " Figure 2.1: Some Variables Affecting Reentry ," he includes the following: 

• Voluntary versus involuntary reentry : involuntary is worse
• Expected versus unexpected reentry : unexpected is harder
• Age : reentry may be easier for older people who have been through more life transitions.
• Previous reentry experience : the first time is worse.
• Length of the overseas stay : the longer the sojourn, the greater the chance for adaptation; hence the harder it may be to leave and come home.
• Degree of interaction with the overseas culture : the more involved you become in the local culture the harder it may be to leave it behind.
• The reentry environment : the more familiar and supportive the easier the reentry.
• Amount of interaction with the home culture during the overseas sojourn : the more familiar the returnee is with changes in the home culture the easier the reentry.
• Degree of difference between the overseas and the home culture : the greater the difference, the harder the reentry.

Change and Adaptation

In contemplating your return, consider these three main points:

• Home has changed.
• You have changed.
• You have adapted to another culture and now you must readapt.

Home Has Changed

Often repatriates expect their home to be just the same as it was when they left. While you were outside the country, events and new developments, however, have changed the fabric of your old community.  These natural changes can be shocking and disorienting upon return.  You may be surprised by how much your hometown has grown (or shrunk). They're building a new strip mall here and tearing down your old elementary school there. It may seem both crowded and empty at the same time. There may be new members of your extended family – babies born to siblings – whom you have never met. Your relationships with people may haved changed too, and your friends lives may have evolved. Friends may have changed their social group.  Relationships that were once strong may no longer be the same. Additionally, you may not be going home to the same hometown location.  Chances are you're probably moving to the Washington, D.C. metro area.  Wherever you come home to, expect to see and feel changes. 

You Have Changed

From our review of culture shock, we know that "home" is much more than just the "house" you live in. Home involves feelings, relationships, routines, and predictable patterns of interaction.  Home is also significantly related to a person's identity - home is where you are most yourself.  As you evolve as an individual abroad and adopt the culture practices of your foreign post, your perception of home changes.  Living overseas can be a life-changing experience and may affect your attitudes, feelings and relationships with the home you left many years ago. 

You Have Adapted to a New Culture, and Now You Have to Re-Adapt

As you return home, you will have to relearn routines and patterns that you have forgotten. The more comfortable you were abroad in your foreign home, the harder the transition back.  Your family might have expectations -- frequent visits to your parents or in-laws or help in caring for a family member.  Your friends might expect you to join in their already established book club or community service project.  Your commute to work might be more time consuming.  You may need to spend more time in the car for shopping, picking up kids at school or playdates, or running errands.  These are not necessarily bad things; you simply have to adjust to a new routine.      

Challenges of Reverse Culture Shock

In addition to the change and adaptation issues, there are several challenges that sojourners face on reentry:

General Challenges

• American-Culture Challenges
• Myths/Misconceptions About America
• Changes in Attitudes/Values
• People at home aren’t as interested in hearing about your foreign experience as you are in telling them about it . 
• You aren’t as interested in hearing about what has happened at home as they are in telling you about it. 
• You miss being abroad.
• You miss the celebrity status of being an “American” overseas — at home, you don’t stand out as much.
• You miss the “royal” treatment, lifestyle and social status you may have enjoyed abroad.
• You miss the tight-knit foreign affairs community you were a part of.

Challenges of American Culture

Many repatriates also observe a few characteristics of mainstream American culture: 

• Materialism/Abundance/Waste – Compared to many citizens of the world, Americans have expendable income. While this statement might not be true for al Americans, the majority tend to spend money on items that appear "material" to other cultures.  Coming into this American environment from a culture that is less affluent may be a shock.  Enter any well-stocked U.S. supermarket and the hundreds of food choices can boggle the mind if you have just arrived from a country with limited supplies and/or selection of goods. 
• High-speed pace of life – America (for the most part) is a fast-paced place. People seem to always be in a hurry. While this "fast-paced existence" may be true in many cities around the world, if you come home from a “laid-back” culture to the land of fast food, 24/7 connectivity, and non-stop activities, it takes some time to get used to.     
• Values/Attitudes – The values and attitudes of some of your family and friends may surprise you, especially if you have adopted new ways of thinking about the world from your experience living abroad.   

Myths & Misconceptions About the United States

Many people have misconceptions concerning life in the United States. Some of these myths include:

• Everything works better back home. 
• People are more efficient. 
• Everything is clean. 
• Things are basically the same as when I left.
• Personal relationships can be resumed easily.
• I can cope easily in my own culture.

New Attitudes & Values of Sojourners

Americans often develop new attitudes, values and perceptions as a result of their travels. These can often cause stress on reentry.

• I see America through a sharper lens, both its strengths and weaknesses. I no longer take this country for granted and I really resent unbalanced criticism by Americans who haven't experienced the rest of the world.
• I see the validity of at least one other culture. That makes me realize that the American way is not always "right" or "best." I am impatient with people who criticize other countries and blindly accept everything American causing them to never question anything.
• I have an unclear concept of home now.
• I place more value on relationships than other Americans seem to. People here are too busy for one another.
• Everyone in America is always so stressed and frantic. They never relax. I feel like I can't relate to others.

Effects of Reverse Culture Shock

How do all of the stresses of reverse culture shock manifest themselves in the repatriate? Often the same way they do in initial culture shock. Aside from the obvious frustrations, returnees may experience a number of mental/emotional side-effects, such as criticality, marginality, overexertion/exhaustion, and resistance/withdrawal/self-doubt/depression.

Craig Storti notes the following effects in his book, The Art of Coming Home , summarized here:

• Criticality - At the depths of reverse culture shock, you may notice yourself making a lot of critical judgments about home. Your renewed unfamiliarity with the home culture and your unfamiliarity with the routines can lead to unpleasant and frustrating experiences. Furthermore, this frustration can be displaced, often onto others. It becomes easy to be impatient with others and hard to be objective -- even when the problems are actually insignificant. You may remember all of the wonderful things about your foreign post, and compare them against the least pleasant aspects of being home. Understand that it is normal to critically assess and compare your experience abroad with your experience at home.
• Marginality - Your overseas experience has significantly impacted your identity. As you immersed yourself in a new culture, you broadened your perspective and opened your mind to new ideas. Once you return home, you realize that tensions exist between your new identity and mainstream society. You no longer feel like you fit in.  Many families and individuals in the foreign affairs community make a life for themselves when "back home," are able to function in and adapt to multiple settings, but do not feel completely comfortable.
• Overexertion/Exhaustion - Because many of the routines, patterns and customs of U.S. culture are new to you, you must consciously pay attention to performing basic functions. Add to that the stress of the logistical tasks of your return, and you may begin to feel overwhelmed by this experience. Exhaustion is a commonly reported effect of reverse culture shock.
• Resistance/Withdrawal/Self-Doubt/Depression - As you become discontented with your home culture, a common reaction is to resist adapting to it. Many returnees withdraw or escape, dwelling on fantastical thoughts of the foreign culture and avoiding contact with people from the home culture. With all of the frustrations and disillusionment of "home," it can be easy to question and doubt yourself. Not surprisingly, then, reverse culture shock is often accompanied by a dose of depression.

The Reverse Culture Shock W-Curve

The reverse culture shock W-curve was developed by John and Jeanne Gullahorn.  Upon arrival in the "home" culture, the returnee experiences a "honeymoon" period where all that is grand about home seems to shine through. Visits with old friends and family are refreshing, and you may notice some exciting changes. The honeymoon period doesn't last long, though, as cultural differences and the stresses of reentry continue to mount. For people not expecting reentry stress, the challenges can be even more severe, plunging repatriates into the pit of reverse culture shock. As returnees cope with the cultural differences of their home culture and manage the logistical tasks, they climb up the slope of re-adaptation and again regain their psychological stability. As with initial culture shock, the duration of this phenomenon varies from person to person, but the phenomenon itself is prevalent among returning members of the foreign affairs community.  To view more information about Reverse Culture Shock, follow these helpful links:

• www.uwsuper.edu/fye/parents/upload/W-Curve.pdf
• www.altoona.psu.edu/fts/docs/WCurve.pdf
• http://constantforeigner.com/research/extension-of-the-u-curve-hypothesis

  Special Considerations: Spouses and Kids

Spouses/Partners

Young Children

Note: The Managing Reverse Culture Shock section also includes information for helping spouses and kids in managing reverse culture shock.

The psychological/cultural aspect of reentry for spouses/partners is essentially the same as that of the employees themselves.  However, the main consideration is simply to EXPECT MORE. Depending on the situation, spouses/partners who work in the home or in the local community should expect more reentry stress than their counterparts.  Those who generally spend more time interacting with the local culture open themselves up for a more difficult transition home. Additionally, as previously discussed, the member of the family largely responsible for managing more of the practical aspect of the family's reentry will likely incur a greater amount of stress.

Other members of the family should recognize the additional stresses of these family members, and should be understanding, supportive and helpful. The Managing Reverse Culture Shock and Resources for Managing Logistical Tasks of Reentry sections of this site also give a wealth of information and resources to help spouses/partners prepare for and deal with the additional challenges they may face.

Expatriate parents may or may not be familiar with both the benefits and downsides of raising a family abroad. While the frequent transitions are not always easy, overall the experience can result in a positive upbringing. Children raised in these environments are "third culture kids" who eventually see themselves as global citizens. Moving from place to place is obviously difficult for all children, but less difficult for young children than for teenage children. School-aged children may also face different challenges than pre-school-aged children.

The challenges young children face are similar to the challenges adults face - just tailored to their situation. Familiarity and routine are important during a move with big changes.  For little children, moving to a new house in a new town, being without some of their favorite toys during the transition, and leaving behind people that they may have become close to (such as a nanny) can be especially hard to handle. School-aged children face similar trials, but with additional school-related challenges, such as saying goodbye to friends, and learning to "fit in" at a new school and in a new neighborhood. Regressive behavior and illness may reflect children's stress.

The Managing Reverse Culture Shock and Resources for Managing Logistical Tasks of Reentry sections of this site include many resources for helping parents bring their young children through the stressful challenges of reentry.

Teens may have the most difficult time of any in the experience of reentry. For anyone, "fitting in" is a psychologically and emotionally challenging task, and at a time where the feeling of belonging is crucial, having to tear away and begin again can be a daunting prospect.  Being accepted by others for teens also involves several different aspects, including contemporary fashion, communication (teen-talk), popular music and culture, and peer groups or cliques. These aspects can greatly range from culture to culture. Fitting in is also challenging for the repatriating teen because his or her life-context seems so much broader than the stateside counterpart; they may have a difficult time finding others worth fitting in with, and their stateside peers may actually feel intimidated by them because of their foreign experience. It is important to remember that while parents may feel like they are returning to their home, often times children do not have the same ties to their parent's country.  

The effects of reverse culture shock for teens are similar to that of adults, just on a larger scale. Criticality, marginality, exhaustion, resistance, withdrawal, self-doubt and depression – added to the other normal stresses of teenage life – create a difficult situation for teenagers. The Resources for Managing Logistical Tasks of Reentry  section includes many resources for returning teens.

You are entering the 2009-2017 Archive for the U.S. Department of State.

If you are looking for current information, visit www.state.gov ..

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Culture Shock

Some of the earliest records of human culture describe people traveling to foreign lands for trade or conquest. Today people travel in order to find work, to study or teach. They make brief trips (e.g., for vacations) or settle permanently in a country other than their own. Such travel inevitably involves personal contact between culturally dissimilar individuals, and in the case of visitors, exposure to unfamiliar physical and social settings. As anyone who has traveled will acknowledge, this can be an unsettling experience, particularly if the transition from old to new is sudden.

The journals of Captain Cook, Marco Polo, and Christopher Columbus provide very good descriptions of what will be referred to in this article as culture contact. Modern-day examples include employees of international organizations, guest workers, overseas students, tourists, immigrants, refugees, missionaries, and peacekeepers.

The coining of the phrase culture shock has been attributed to the anthropologist Kalervo Oberg, who in an article in 1960 used it to describe how people react to strange or unfamiliar places. But snappy titles should be treated with caution, and the term culture shock provides a good illustration of this rule. Certainly, it captures some of the feelings and experiences of travelers. However, the use of the word shock draws excessive attention to the negative aspects of coming into contact with novel situations, ignoring the fact that such experiences may also have consequences that benefit the participants. Over the years, culture shock has become a widely used and misused term, both in popular language as well as in cross-cultural psychology.

Culture Contact

Culture shock can best be understood by placing it conceptually within the wider process of culture contact, the term used to describe the (usually first-time) meeting of people who come from different cultural or ethnic backgrounds. Two types of culture contact have been distinguished: within society and between society.

Within-Society Contact

Within-society cross-cultural contact is a defining characteristic of life in multicultural societies. Successful multicultural countries may contain many diverse ethnic groups, which are unified by institutional structures and values that produce a common sense of nationhood. The United States from its earliest days has exemplified such a social system. As people go about their daily lives, they will inevitably encounter others who are dissimilar to them in appearance, heritage, values, and practices. In countries which value ethnic diversity, such cross-cultural contact enriches the lives of its citizens. The opposite is the case in countries where intergroup relations are based on ethnocentric principles.

Between-Society Contact

Between-society culture contacts refer to the category of individuals who go abroad for a particular purpose and for a specified period of time, and the relationships they establish with members of the host society. The term sojourner has been used to describe such culture travelers, implying that they are temporary visitors, with the intention of returning home after achieving their aims.

Most of the research on culture shock has studied between-society contact, because the sojourner experience involves a transition from familiar to unfamiliar settings that is highly focused and usually quite abrupt. For instance, prospective overseas students may leave Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia by plane in the morning, arrive in Sydney, Australia 12 hours later, and suddenly become immersed in a set of circumstances which are totally strange to them, and for which they may not have been prepared. One of the terms Oberg used was “buzzing confusion” to describe such an experience. Furthermore, most sojourners cannot realistically opt out of contact with significant host members, unlike minority groups in multicultural societies, who can effectively segregate themselves from contact with the wider society if they so wish.

The other reason why sojourners have been the center of attention is that culture shock in this area has economic consequences. It costs a lot of money to send business executives (or students) abroad, and if their performance is impaired by their inability to cope with their new environments, this has adverse consequences for the all-important financial bottom line.

Culture as Shared Meanings

The concept of culture is very slippery. For instance, in the 1950s the anthropologist C. Kluckhohn (Kroeber & Kluckhohn. 1952) reviewed 150 definitions, all somewhat different in what they denoted. In our own work on contact, we have found it useful to regard culture as a set of shared meanings that characterize a particular group, and which distinguish it from other groups. This definition is sufficiently general to cover broad, nationwide societal structures, but it can also be used to refer to subcultures within societies. It is also increasingly used to describe corporate cultures. And although the definition emphasizes cognitions, it does not rule out values and behaviors, as these too can be expressed in terms of the meaning the actor and perceiver ascribes to them. Historically, different cultures have evolved unique philosophical systems about the meaning of life and how it should be conducted. In many instances, there exist large between-culture differences, which may be diametrically opposed to each other, so that what is a virtue in one society could be offensive in another.

The Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis

Theory and empirical research in social psychology has shown that people prefer others who are similar to themselves. People can be similar in a variety of ways, all of which can have an effect on how they respond to each other. Thus, individuals are more likely to seek out, enjoy, understand, want to work and play with, trust, vote for, and marry others with whom they share important characteristics. These include interests, values, religion, group affiliation, skills, physical attributes, age, language, and most other aspects on which human beings differ.

The reason for this in-group bias is that the similarity of another person is reassuring. The social world contains many choices and alternatives. Furthermore, values often tend to be unclear and ambiguous, leading people to seek guidance as to their conduct. At one end of the spectrum people may consult traditional religious works, and at the other, books on etiquette. But a more common way is to look at how other people have responded to the problem, the technical term for this process being consensual validation. A person with similar views and practices to our own will provide support which confirms that our opinions, behaviors, and decisions, are safe, virtuous, and correct. Conversely, a dissimilar person may threaten such a self-image.

The Culture-Distance Hypothesis

It follows from the definition of culture as shared meanings that contact between culturally diverse people will inevitably occur between individuals who are dissimilar, often with respect to important, deeply felt issues. Research has shown that the greater the cultural distance separating two individuals, the more difficulty they will have in establishing mutual understanding and effective communication.

The Determinants of Culture Shock

There are a number of determinants of culture shock, including social-cognitive factors, differences in core values, and others.

Social-Cognitive Factors

Social psychologists (for instance Michael Argyle, 1994) regard interpersonal encounters as a skilled performance in which the participants engage in a reciprocal process requiring them to respond to each other’s signals and cues on a continuing basis. It is a bit like waltzing, which can either be executed smoothly or awkwardly, depending on how well the dancers coordinate their movements. In social episodes, the main vehicle for communication is spoken language. However, nonverbal aspects of communication also play a vital role, in particular gestures, turn-taking, tone of voice, posture, proximity between the communicators, and touching. These behaviors are regulated by a set of socially constructed rules and conventions, and participants who have similar backgrounds will have a better understanding of what is expected. In cross-cultural meetings, or for that matter, in contact between members of different subcultures, those involved may not share the assumptions, perceptions, or interpretations of each other’s behavior, and often may not even be aware that they are at cross-purposes. This can lead to misunderstanding, interpersonal awkwardness, confusion, uncertainty, and ultimately to hostility.

The anthropologist E. T. Hall (1966) called these nonverbal and contextual cues the hidden dimension of communication, hidden because they are generally not attended to until a rule is broken. In cross-cultural communication, they are a potential source of trouble, because they are much less accessible to the outsider, and by definition, cross-cultural contact is between outsiders. For instance, most Westerners would regard a smile as a sign of warmth, but in some cultures it may be a way of indirectly conveying disapproval. Indeed, cultural differences in direct or indirect expression of emotion constitute a major barrier to cross-cultural understanding. For example, in many cultures it is impolite to explicitly refuse a request. Uninitiated members of direct cultures do not understand that a “maybe” means “no,” and “indirect” individuals may be offended by an overt refusal, no matter how politely it is phrased.

Differences in Core Values

Culture distance in values is another major source of culture shock. Contact between members of societies diametrically opposed on core issues is fraught with difficulty. For instance, the inferior status of women in some societies attracts deep disapproval in cultures that value nondiscriminatory gender relations. On the other side of this coin, members of male-dominated societies regard the occupational and sexual freedom which women enjoy in many Western cultures as distasteful and immoral. Similar disparities in what is regarded as correct and proper can be found in many other domains, such as religion, attitudes to the natural environment, age versus youth, dietary preferences, attitudes to punctuality, respect for status, and formal versus informal forms of address.

Reducing or Preventing Culture Shock

There is very little that can be done to facilitate communication between participants who differ in core values that cannot be reconciled, other than to alert those involved that these differences exist, that each party is sincere in its beliefs, and that people should agree to differ.

Other techniques that have had modest success in preventing or reducing culture shock include selecting persons for overseas assignment on the basis of personality characteristics deemed to assist in coping with the unfamiliar, such as flexibility, self-efficacy, tolerance for ambiguity, and a nonprejudiced outlook, or racial color blindness as it is sometimes called. Predeparture briefing about salient physical, economic, and political aspects of the new setting is also useful, as are details about the customs, values, and social practices of the people, particularly with respect to any major differences between the sojourners’ and the host cultures. And because disconfirmed expectations contribute to culture shock, it is important to provide accurate information about the negative aspects of the destination.

Most culture contact situations contain a pragmatic element, in the sense that it is in the interests of both sojourners and their immediate hosts to come to some kind of accommodation. Overseas students or expatriate executives may harbor fundamental objections to some aspects of the host culture they find themselves in, but they have a job to do, and most sojourners will consciously follow practices that contribute to those aims. Likewise, host counterparts may be less than impressed with some of the foreigners they have to deal with, but will restrain themselves and make allowances, in the interests of achieving goals that require a cooperative relationship. Sojourners unable to make the necessary adjustments will find the going tough, both personally and professionally, will probably not last the distance, and become part of the minority of travelers who return early, disappointed, and hostile toward their erstwhile hosts. However, the vast majority of sojourns are successful. and contribute to international understanding, both at the personal and institutional level.

Culture shock is an inescapable consequence of culture contact, particularly when a significant distance separates the sojourners’ culture of origin and the culture of the visited country or culture. However, in most instances, culture shock can be reduced by providing culture travelers with useful predeparture information, making them aware of and sensitive to cultural differences, teaching them specific, culture-relevant social skills, and giving them systematic social support during the sojourn.

References:

• Argyle, M. (1994). The psychology of interpersonal behaviour (5th ed.). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
• Bochner, S . (1994). Culture shock. In W. J. Lonner & R. Malpass (Eds.), Psychology and culture. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Furnham. A,. & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture shock: Psychological reactions to unfamiliar environments. London: Methuen.
• Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY Doubleday.
• Kroeber. A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Papers of the Peabody Musrum [Special issue] 47(I).
• Oberg, K. (1960) Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177-182.
• Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd ed.). Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall Europe.
• Torbiorn, I. (1994).Operative and strategic use of expatriates in new organizations and market structures. International Studies of Management and Organizations, 24, 5-17.
• H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407- 415.

Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis

• Byrne, D. (1969). Attitudes and attraction. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4). New York: Academic Press.

Consensual Validation

• Bennis, W. B., & Shepard, H. A. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Relations, 9, 415-438.
• Festinger, I. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.

Culture-Distance Hypothesis

• Babiker, I. E., Cox. J. L., & Miller, P. (1980). The measurement of cultural distance and its relationship to medical consultations, symptomatology, and examination performance of overseas students at Edinburgh University. Social Psychiatry, 15, 109-116.
• Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty in a foreign culture: An empirical analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.). Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural relations. Oxford: Pergamon.

Interpersonal Communication as a Mutually Organized, Skilled Performance

• Argyle, M.,Kr Kendon, A. (1967). The experimental analysis of social performance. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Volume 3. New York: Academic Press.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Culture Shock?

Understanding culture shock, the 4 stages of culture shock, how to overcome culture shock.

• Culture Shock FAQs

The Bottom Line

• Business Essentials

Culture Shock Meaning, Stages, and How to Overcome

Investopedia / Ryan Oakley

Culture shock refers to feelings of uncertainty, confusion, or anxiety that people may experience when moving to a new country or experiencing a new culture or surroundings. This cultural adjustment is normal and is the result of being in an unfamiliar environment.

Culture shock can occur when people move to another city or country, such as when retiring abroad . Culture shock can also occur when people go on vacation, travel in retirement or for business, or study abroad for school. For example, international students studying abroad for a semester in another country may experience a cultural adjustment due to an unfamiliarity with the weather, local customs, language, food, and values.

Although the timing of each person's adjustment process can be different, there are specific phases that most people go through before they adjust to their new environment. Culture shock can be quite stressful and lead to anxiety. However, it's possible to overcome it and grow as a result.

Key Takeaways

• Culture shock refers to feelings of uncertainty, confusion, or anxiety that people may experience when moving to a new country or surroundings.
• Culture shock can occur when people move to a new city or country, go on vacation, travel abroad, or study abroad for school.
• A cultural adjustment is normal and is the result of being in an unfamiliar environment.
• Culture shock is typically divided into four stages: the honeymoon, frustration, adaptation, and acceptance stage.
• Over time, people can become familiar with their new surroundings as they make new friends and learn the customs, leading to an appreciation of the culture.

Culture shock occurs when an individual leaves the comfort of their home and familiar surroundings and moves to an unfamiliar environment. The adjustment period can be fairly intense, particularly if the two locations are completely different, such as going from a small rural area to a large metropolis or moving to another country. People can also experience culture shock when moving from one place to another within the same country.

Typically, no single event causes culture shock, nor does it occur suddenly or without reason. Instead, it gradually builds from a series of incidents, and culture shock can be difficult to identify while struggling with it.

The feeling is particularly intense at the beginning and can be tough to overcome. It's important to remember that the cultural adjustment usually dissipates over time as a person becomes more familiar with a place, the people, customs, food, and language. As a result, navigation of surroundings gets easier, friends are made, and everything becomes more comfortable.

The adjustment process due to culture shock can get better over time, leading to growth and an appreciation of the new environment.

Symptoms of Culture Shock

Culture shock can produce a range of symptoms, which can vary greatly from person to person in terms of scope and intensity. These may include:

• Being homesick
• Feeling helpless
• Feeling isolated
• Disorientation
• Lack of concentration
• Irritability
• Sleep or eating disturbances

People who experience culture shock may go through four phases that are explained below.

The Honeymoon Stage

The first stage is commonly referred to as the honeymoon phase. That's because people are thrilled to be in their new environment. They often see it as an adventure. If someone is on a short stay, this initial excitement may define the entire experience. However, the honeymoon phase for those on a longer-term move eventually ends, even though people expect it to last.

The Frustration Stage

People may become increasingly irritated and disoriented as the initial glee of being in a new environment wears off. Fatigue may gradually set in, which can result from misunderstanding other people's actions, conversations, and ways of doing things.

As a result, people can feel overwhelmed by a new culture at this stage, particularly if there is a language barrier. Local habits can also become increasingly challenging, and previously easy tasks can take longer to accomplish, leading to exhaustion.

Some of the symptoms of culture shock can include:

• Frustration
• Homesickness
• Feeling lost and out of place

The inability to effectively communicate—interpreting what others mean and making oneself understood—is usually the prime source of frustration. This stage can be the most difficult period of cultural adjustment as some people may feel the urge to withdraw.

For example, international students adjusting to life in the United States during study abroad programs can feel angry and anxious, leading to withdrawal from new friends. Some experience eating and sleeping disorders during this stage and may contemplate going home early.

The Adaptation Stage

The adaptation stage is often gradual as people feel more at home in their new surroundings. The feelings from the frustration stage begin to subside as people adjust to their new environment. Although they may still not understand certain cultural cues, people will become more familiar—at least to the point that interpreting them becomes much easier.

The Acceptance Stage

During the acceptance or recovery stage, people are better able to experience and enjoy their new home. Typically, beliefs and attitudes toward their new surroundings improve, leading to increased self-confidence and a return of their sense of humor.

The obstacles and misunderstandings from the frustration stage have usually been resolved, allowing people to become more relaxed and happier. At this stage, most people experience growth and may change their old behaviors and adopt manners from their new culture.

During this stage, the new culture, beliefs, and attitudes may not be completely understood. Still, the realization may set in that complete understanding isn’t necessary to function and thrive in the new surroundings.

A specific event doesn't cause culture shock. Instead, it can result from encountering different ways of doing things, being cut off from behavioral cues, having your own values brought into question, and feeling you don't know the rules.

Time and habit help deal with culture shock, but individuals can minimize the impact and speed the recovery from culture shock.

• Be open-minded and learn about the new country or culture to understand the reasons for cultural differences.
• Don't indulge in thoughts of home, constantly comparing it to the new surroundings.
• Write a journal of your experience, including the positive aspects of the new culture.
• Don't seal yourself off—be active and socialize with the locals.
• Be honest, in a judicious way, about feeling disoriented and confused. Ask for advice and help.
• Talk about and share your cultural background—communication runs both ways.

What Is the Definition of Culture Shock?

Culture shock or adjustment occurs when someone is cut off from familiar surroundings and culture after moving or traveling to a new environment. Culture shock can lead to a flurry of emotions, including excitement, anxiety, confusion, and uncertainty.

Is Culture Shock Good or Bad?

Although it may have a seemingly negative connotation, culture shock is a normal experience that many people go through when moving or traveling. While it can be challenging, those who can resolve their feelings and adjust to their new environment often overcome culture shock. As a result, cultural adjustment can lead to personal growth and a favorable experience.

What Is an Example of Culture Shock?

For example, international students that have come to the United States for a study abroad semester can experience culture shock. Language barriers and unfamiliar customs can make it challenging to adjust, leading some students to feel angry and anxious. As a result, students can withdraw from social activities and experience minor health problems such as trouble sleeping.

Over time, students become more familiar with their new surroundings as they make new friends and learn social cues. The result can lead to growth and a new appreciation of the culture for the study abroad student as well as the friends from the host country as both learn about each other's culture.

What Are the Types of Culture Shock?

Culture shock is typically divided into four stages: the honeymoon, frustration, adaptation, and acceptance stage. These periods are characterized by feelings of excitement, anger, homesickness, adjustment, and acceptance. Note that some people might not go through all four phases and might not reach the acceptance phase. They might experience difficulties adjusting, which could create permanent introversion or other forms of social and behavioral reactions.

If you've travelled abroad for a while or moved overseas , you may have experienced a bout of culture shock. Things that people in other places take for granted or habits and customs that they practice may be so foreign to you that they "shock" your system. While this could put an initial damper on your international travels, remember that culture shock can be overcome by being open-minded and accustomed to the way things are done that differ from back home.

Bureau Of Educational And Cultural Affairs. " Adjusting to a New Culture ."

Brown University. " Cultural Adjustment ."

University of the Pacific. " Common Reactions to Culture Shock ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy