c-church, austin t. (1982), sojourner adjustment

Psychological Bulletin1982, Vol. 91, No. 3, 540-572

Copyright 1982 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0033-2909/82/9103-0540500.75

Sojourner Adjustment

Austin T. ChurchUniversity of Minnesota

Literature related to the psychological adjustment of relatively short-term visitorsor sojourners to new cultures is critically reviewed. Descriptive approaches(stages, curves of adjustment, types, culture learning), the nature and extent ofproblems encountered, and the background, situational, personality, and outcomevariables related to sojourner adjustment are covered. Issues and barriers ineffective cross-cultural counseling of sojourner problems are discussed. Criticismsof the sojourner literature focus on limited, global methodologies, the nonlon-gitudinal nature of most studies, and a failure to attend to and apply contributionsand implications of the literature on cross-cultural research and methodology.

This article reviews research dealing withthe psychological adjustment of relativelyshort-term visitors to new cultures wherepermanent settlement is not the purpose ofthe sojourn. Reflecting the emphasis in thepublished literature, the review deals pri-marily with the adjustment of foreign stu-dents to their host cultures. Where relevant,however, studies involving cross-cultural ex-perience of groups such as Peace Corps vol-unteers, missionaries, technical assistants,businessmen, and professional scholars arealso cited. Such adjustment is referred to as"sojourner adjustment" (Brein & David,1971) because other terms (e.g., cultural orcross-cultural adjustment, cultural or eth-nic assimilation, cultural adaptation) areambiguous or suggest a more permanentassimilation to the host culture,

Sojourner Adjustment: Definition andRelated Concepts

Oberg (1960) is generally credited withintroducing the term culture shock, viewingit as an "occupational disease" suffered bypeople who are introduced suddenly to a cul-ture that is very different from their own.Oberg felt that "culture shock is precipitatedby the anxiety that results from losing allour familiar signs and symbols of social in-

Requests for reprints should be sent to Austin T.Church, who is now at the Department of Guidance andCounseling, Graduate School of Education, De La SalleUniversity, 2401 Taft Avenue, D-406, Manila, Philip-pines.

tercourse" (p. 177), such as customs, ges-tures, facial expressions, or words.

Culture shock is most commonly viewedas a normal process of adaptation to culturalstress involving such symptoms as anxiety,helplessness, irritability, and a longing fora more predictable and gratifying environ-ment (Adler, 1975; Arensberg & Niehoff,1964; Foster, 1962; Gullahorn & Gullahorn,1963; Lundstedt, 1963; Oberg, 1960). Anx-iety may manifest itself in such behavior asexcessive preoccupation with the drinkingwater, the food, and minor pains, excessivefears of being cheated or robbed, fits of angertoward or avoidance of local people, and alonging to be with fellow nationals,

A clear definition of sojourner adjustmentis complicated by the introduction of addi-tional terminology to describe cross-culturalphenomena related to but not identical withthe concept of culture shock. Guthrie (1966,1975) preferred the term culture fatigue todescribe sojourner symptoms such as irri-tability, impatience, depression, loss of ap-petite, poor sleep, and vague physical com-plaints. Smalley (1963) viewed languageshock as one of the basic elements of cultureshock because it is in the language domainwhere many of the cues to social relationslie. Other writers have used the term roleshock (Byrnes, 1966; Higbee, 1969) to de-scribe the role ambiguity and loss of personalstatus that are often experienced by tech-nical assistants or management personneloverseas.

The majority of studies of educational ex-

540

SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT 541

change make little or no reference to theculture shock concept. Instead, they opera-tionalize sojourner adjustment in terms ofsuch variables as academic/professional per-formance and satisfaction, problems and sat-isfaction with the personal and social aspectsof the sojourn, degree of social interactionwith host nationals, and various outcomesof the sojourn experience such as positiveattitudes toward the host country, an inter-national perspective, and personal andprofessional growth. Because early "classic"studies (e.g., Seals & Humphrey, 1957; Ben-nett, Passin, & McKnight, 1958; Coelho,1958; Lambert & Bressler, 1956; Scott,1956; Selltiz, Christ, Havel, & Cook, 1963;Sewell & Davidsen, 1961) suggested thatmany of these indices of adjustment wereinterrelated as part of the same adjustmentprocess, studies that are relevant to sojourneradjustment in this broader sense—encom-passing not only the culture shock and theemotional well-being of the sojourner butalso the attitudinal, academic/professional,and social adjustments and outcomes in thehost culture—are reviewed.

Descriptive Approaches

Stage Descriptions

Several writers (Adler, 1975; DuBois,1956;Garza-Guerrero, 1974; Jacobson, 1963;Lesser & Peter, 1957; Oberg, 1960; Smalley,1963) have described stages of adjustmentthat sojourners go through in the host cul-ture and/or on return to the home culture.Oberg (1960) described four stages: a "hon-eymoon" stage characterized by fascination,elation, and optimism lasting from a fewdays to 6 months depending on how soonreal everyday coping and communicationwith the new culture must begin; a secondstage characterized by hostile and emotion-ally stereotyped attitudes toward the hostcountry and increased association with fel-low sojourners; a recovery stage character-ized by increased language knowledge andability to get around in the new culture, asuperior attitude toward the host people, andan increased sense of humor; and a fourthstage in which adjustment is about as com-plete as possible, anxiety is largely gone, andnew customs are accepted and enjoyed.

Adler (1975) viewed the adjustment of thesojourner as a transitional experience, re-flecting "a movement from a state of lowself- and cultural awareness to a state of highself- and cultural awareness" (p. 15). Adlerdescribed five phases of encompassing andprogressive changes in identity and experi-ential learning: a contact phase character-ized by excitement and euphoria duringwhich the individual views the new environ-ment ethnocentrically, is more attuned tocultural similarities, and perceptually dese-lects cultural differences; a disintegrationphase—marked by tension, confusion, alien-ation, depression, and withdrawal—duringwhich cultural differences become increas-ingly noticeable, and interpersonal predic-tion is deflated; a reintegration phase char-acterized by a strong rejection of the secondculture, defensive projection of personal dif-ficulties, limitation of relationships to fellownationals, and an existential choice to regressto earlier phases or to move closer to reso-lution and personal growth; an autonomystage marked by increasing sensitivity, skilland understanding of the host nationals andculture, and a (perhaps overestimated) feel-ing of expertise; and a final independencestage marked by a cherishing of culturaldifferences and relativism, behavior that isexpressive, creative, mutually trusting, andsensitive, and, most important, increasedself- and cultural awareness enabling the in-dividual to undergo further life transitionsand to discover additional ways to explorehuman diversity. Although Adler's stagesshow strong resemblances to earlier concep-tualizations, the self-actualizing nature ofAdler's final transitional step implies thatthe individual who has reached the finalstage should be better prepared for a thirdcross-cultural experience. Oberg's (1960)stages make no explicit prediction of facili-tated adjustment in future cross-cultural ex-periences.

Stage models of sojourner adjustment en-counter inherent conceptual and method-ological difficulties in classifying individuals.Is the order of stages invariant? Must allstages be passed through or can some beskipped by some individuals? In order toclassify individuals, key indicators of eachstage are needed, indicators that may vary

542 AUSTIN T. CHURCH

with the culture of origin or be indicative ofmore than one stage, reflecting superficialadjustment in an early stage but a true"coming-to-terms" with the new culture ina later stage. Such difficulties must be re-solved if stages of adjustment are to be pre-dictive and useful for other than post hoc,descriptive purposes.

U Curve of Adjustment

Some researchers have found support forwhat has been described as a U curve ofadjustment (Lysgaard, 1955), which de-scribes the sojourner's level of adjustmentas a function of time in the new culture. TheU curve depicts the initial optimism andelation in the host culture, the subsequentdip or "trough" in the level of adjustment,followed by a gradual recovery to higheradjustment levels. Gullahorn and Gullahorn(1963) proposed a W curve, indicating thatsojourners often undergo a reacculturationprocess (a second U curve in their home en-vironments similar to that experiencedabroad).

The earliest study on which the U curvehypothesis is based was Lysgaard's (1955)retrospective study of 200 Norwegians whohad previously studied in the United Statesfor 0-6 months, 6-18 months, or 18 monthsand over. Using several items indexing bothprofessional-educational and personal-socialadjustment, Lysgaard found that "good"adjustment was reported by the first andthird group, whereas the second group was"less well'" adjusted. Other early studiesextended the U curve to cover trends in at-titudes and social interaction patterns overtime (Sewell & Davidsen, 1961), favorabil-ity of images of the host culture (Coelho,1958), and academic adjustment over time(Scott, 1956). Some other early studies (e.g.,Deutsch & Won, 1963; Morris, 1960) thatclaimed to provide evidence for the hypoth-esis appear on closer inspection to provideminimal, if any, support.

The early purported "success" of the Ucurve hypothesis led other investigators toexamine their data for such trends. Chang(1973), Davis (1963, 1971), Greenblat(1971), Heath (1970), and Shepard (1970)all found varying degrees of support for a

U curve for favorability of attitudes towardthe United States, although some of thesestudies suggest that the recovery of favorableattitudes after the lowest period of adjust-ment is not to the original level of the earlysojourn period (e.g., Chang, 1973; Coelho,1958).

Not all investigators have confirmed theU curve hypothesis. Selby and Woods (1966),in a study of 68 non-European foreign stu-dents at Stanford University, found thatboth academic and social morale rise andfall with the stages of the academic yearrather than in a U curve. Golden (1973), ina psychiatric study of American Junior-YearAbroad students, reported a similar pattern.Becker (1968) found support that the Ucurve may be more relevant for sojournersfrom European rather than from less devel-oped countries. Finally, a recent large scaleinternational study of foreign students in 11countries (Hull, 1978; Klineberg & Hull,1979) found little support for the U curvehypothesis. Klineberg and Hull (1979) brokeup sojourn length in several ways and lookedfor evidence of a U curve for several differentvariables (e.g., number of problems re-ported, personal depression, loneliness,homesickness, opinion regarding the localpeople) but concluded that there was almostno cross-sectional support for the hypothesis.Further, longitudinal study over an aca-demic year of a subsample of 20 foreign stu-dents in each host country indicated that theU curve occurs in only a small minority ofcases.

In summary, support for the U curve hy-pothesis must be considered weak (Breiten-bach, 1970), inconclusive (Spaulding &Flack, 1976), and overgeneralized (Becker,1968). Not all students begin the sojournwith a "honeymoon phase" or with a periodof elation and optimism (Becker, 1968;Golden, 1973; Klineberg & Ben Brika, 1972;Selby & Woods, 1966), and althoughdepression occurs with some frequency, it isnot universal (Klineberg & Hull, 1979).Even those studies supporting the hypothesisshow marked differences in the time param-eters of the curve (e.g., from 9 months,Deutsch & Won, 1963; Scott, 1956; Sewell& Davidsen, 1961; to 4 or 5 years, Davis,1963, 1971; Shepard, 1970), making the U


curve description so flexible as to be mean-ingless. Finally, although both stage and Ucurve descriptions of adjustment imply awithin-individual longitudinal adjustmentprocess, almost all of the data on which thesedescriptions are based are cross-sectional.Longitudinal studies of individuals over timeare required to specify the "shape" of anindividual's curve of adjustment.

Types or Patterns of Adjustment

Some investigators have attempted to de-scribe typical sets of characteristics or pat-terns of adjustment in sojourners they havestudied. A consistent dimension emerges inthese typologies representing at one end ofa continuum the sojourner who is more tra-ditional, conservative, and conforming in so-cial behavior, interaction, and outlook, andwho identifies strongly with the home cul-ture—for example, "detached observers"(Sewell & Davidsen, 1956), "constrictors"(Bennett et al., 1958), and "old-style" types(Gandhi, 1972)—and at the other end of thecontinuum the sojourner who is character-ized by reduced identification with the homeculture, a less conservative social outlook,and more involved social interaction withhost nationals—for example, "enthusiasticparticipants" (Sewell & Davidsen, 1956),"idealists" (Bennett et al., 1958), and "new-style" types (Gandhi, 1972). Intermediateto these two "extremes" are individuals—forexample, "adjusters" (Bennett et al., 1958)—who represent a more integrative approachto the new culture, who are open to the hostculture but who integrate new behavior,norms, and roles into the foundation pro-vided by the home culture.

The usefulness of typologies is limited.Such typologies tend to be largely impres-sionistic, post hoc rather than predictive, andhave not been empirically cross-validated orrelated to other sources of data for consis-tency (Brein & David, 1971). They are gen-erally based on small samples and singlenational groups making their generalizabil-ity questionable. Such types probably rep-resent tendencies rather than discrete group-ings of individuals (Lesser & Peter, 1957)and may not even reflect consistent tenden-cies within single individuals over time (e.g.,

see Useem, 1966). Small numbers of typesundoubtedly belie the wide range of stressesthat impinge on sojourners and the possiblyequally wide range of adaptation and copingmethods that are utilized (Klein, Alexander,& Tseng, 1971).

Culture Learning and SojournerAdjustment

A relatively recent conceptual frameworkcasts sojourner adjustment in terms of cul-ture learning using operant conditioning andsocial learning principles (Bochner, 1972;David, 1973, 1976; Guthrie, 1975; Schild,1962). Sojourner adjustment is interpretedin terms of the removal of positive reinforce-ments (e.g., customary food, approval andother social rewards, usual friends and en-tertainment) and the presentation of aversivestimuli (e.g., novel situations, language dif-ficulties, unfamiliar and anxious social en-counters). Being placed in a new culture re-sults in new reinforcers, new discriminativeand aversive stimuli, and changes in re-sponse-reinforcement contingencies. Trans-fer of home culture learning, both positiveand negative, will depend on the similarityof the home and host cultures (Bochner,1972).

Conceptualizing sojourner adjustment interms of learning principles implies proce-dures for reducing maladjustment such astransfer of home culture reinforcers, devel-opment of new reinforcers that are compat-ible with the new culture, modeling of suc-cessful sojourners, and vicarious rein-forcement (David, 1976), The potentialeffectiveness of more "culture-specific" ori-entation programs (Brislin & Pedersen,1976) and culture assimilators (e.g., Fiedler,Mitchell, & Triandis, 1971) may be in help-ing the sojourner to identify relevant rein-forcers, aversive and discriminative stimuli,as well as additional aspects of the host coun-try's "subjective culture" (Triandis, 1975;Triandis, Vassiliou, Tanaka, & Shanmu-gam, 1972).

Schild (1962) hypothesized that learningof new cues and norms can occur throughobservation, participation, and explicit com-munication. Unfortunately, participantlearning in sojourners is often trial-and-error


and may lead to adverse consequences andencounters, inhibiting subsequent interac-tions (Bochner, 1972; Hull, 1978), and thesocial isolation of many sojourners makesculture learning through accurate, explicitcommunication less probable (Bochner,1972). Learning may also fail to occur whenattitudes to be learned contradict deep-seatedpersonality orientations (e.g., authoritari-anism), when defensive stereotypes exist, orat points where the home and host culturesdiffer widely in values or in conceptual frameof reference (Watson & Lippitt, 1955).

The Nature and Extent ofProblems Encountered

Foreign Students

The problems reported by foreign studentsin a variety of host countries have remainedessentially the same over the last 30 years.Students from different cultures, however,differ in the degree to which they experiencecertain problems (e.g., see Hull, 1978). Onthe basis of consistency of mention and ex-pressed importance in various studies (seethe Appendix), the most important problemsappear to be language difficulties, financialproblems, adjusting to a new educationalsystem, homesickness, adjusting to socialcustoms and norms, and for some students,racial discrimination. In recent studiesfinancial problems seem to predominate(e.g., see Klineberg & Hull, 1979). Onestudy (Chu, Yeh, Klein, Alexander, &Miller, 1971) suggests that whereas the ac-tual degree of difficulty experienced in a fewareas (e.g., academic work, homesickness,difficulty in meeting host nationals) may begreater than expected, the nature or kindsof difficulties encountered are fairly well an-ticipated.

Most frequently, the problems of foreignstudents have been elicited with problemchecklists or questionnaires where the stu-dent merely endorses or rates his or her de-gree of difficulty with such problems as"financial difficulties" or "adjusting to localcustoms." In their usual form these check-lists tell us little about the cross-culturalbasis, if any, of these problems, leading sev-eral writers to conclude that the problemsof foreign students are essentially similar to

those of American students (Cormack, 1968;Spaulding & Flack, 1976) and that the for-eign student is actually more "student" than"foreign" in his or her modes of adjustment(Coelho-Oudegeest, 1971; Walton, 1967,1968). Contributing to the controversy overthe extent to which foreign student problemsare unique or more severe than those of hoststudents (e.g., Blegen, 1950; Klein et al,1971;Klinger, 1967; Otis, 1955) is the smallnumber of studies that have compared thenature and degree of adjustment problemsof foreign and host students (Walton, 1968).Survey studies that have made direct com-parisons tend to find differences between for-eign and host students in values (e.g., Klin-ger, 1961; Singh, Huang, & Thompson,1962) and in the extent to which certainadjustment problems are experienced (e.g.,Colacicco, 1970; Jarrahi-Zadeh & Eichman,1970). Studies in a psychiatric setting pro-vide mixed support for the view that foreignstudents suffer from unique culture-basedadjustment problems (Klein et al., 1971;Nelson, 1956; Nickelly, Sugita, & Otis,1964; Zurin & Rubin, 1967).

It seems most reasonable to conclude thatforeign students have many problems similarto those of other students, but in some casesthey also experience problems that are moreuniquely culture-based or are at least ag-gravated by the stresses of the new culturalexperience (Nickelly et al., 1964; Zurin &Rubin, 1967). This multiple nature of theforeign student's adjustment is well sum-marized by Bochner (1972), who sees theforeign student as needing to attain adjust-ment to four different roles: as a foreignerwith special cultural learning problems; asa student adjusting to the stress common toall beginning students; as a maturing, de-veloping person concerned about purposes,meaning, and goals; and as a national rep-resentative sensitive about his or her ethnicbackground and national status.

Estimating the extent of adjustment dif-ficulties of foreign students is difficult, andconsiderable disagreement exists. Manystudies have reported the overall level of ad-justment and global satisfaction to be high,with severe culture shock rare (e.g., Akhun,1961; Beals & Humphrey, 1957; Deutsch,1970; Deutsch & Won, 1963; Gollin, 1966;


Hull, 1978; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Phelps-Stokes Fund, 1949; Political & EconomicPlanning, 1965; Scott, 1956; Sewell & Dav-idsen, 1961; Sharma, 1969; Shepard, 1970;Susskind & Schell, 1968; U.S. AdvisoryCommission on International Educationaland Cultural Affairs, 1966). The percentageof satisfied students, however, varies to someextent in different host countries (Klineberg& Ben Brika, 1972; Klineberg & Hull,1979), and satisfaction with academic orprofessional aspects is generally somewhathigher than satisfaction with nonacademicor social aspects (Hull, 1978; Klineberg &Hull, 1979; Shepard, 1970). Some writershave expressed a less optimistic view (e.g.,Bennett et -al., 1958; Gardner, 1952; Jam-maz, 1973). Klineberg (1970) concludedthat "at least a temporary period of mal-adjustment and depression occurs so fre-quently as to be almost normal" (p. 46).

Studies that have asked students directlyabout the degree of difficulty they experi-enced in adjusting to the new environment(Jammaz, 1973; Shepard, 1970) or the fre-quency of feelings of homesickness, loneli-ness, or depression (e.g., Akhun, 1961; Hull,1978; Jammaz, 1973; Klineberg & Hull,1979; Shepard, 1970) indicate a similar per-centage (15%-25%) of foreign students whohave significant adjustment difficulties, al-though somewhat higher or lower percent-ages are reported depending on sojournernationality and the host country involved(e.g., Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Political &Economic Planning, 1965).

In summary, although it is perhaps safestto conclude that the precise number of thesesojourners who do not cope positively is stillunknown (Hull, 1978), it appears, based onstudies such as those cited here, that themajority (perhaps about 80%) of the stu-dents make reasonable adjustments to theirnew cultural and institutional demands.Comparison against similar adjustment fig-ures for host students would be informative.

Other Sojourner Groups

Cleveland, Mangone, and Adams (1960)described many of the cultural differencesto which Peace Corps volunteers, mission-aries, technical assistance personnel, and

businessmen overseas must adjust, includingwidely different conceptions of time; theadded importance of human relations andsocial niceties; less emphasis on such Amer-ican "virtues" as clarity of expression, equal-ity of treatment, and informality of manner;the seriousness of racial differences overseas;the greater importance of saving face thantelling the truth; and the use of indirectionand innuendo rather than directness. [Forfurther discussion of problems experiencedby Peace Corps volunteers see Dorjahn(1966), Doughty (1966), Mahony (1966),and Szanton (1966); for adjustment diffi-culties of overseas businessmen see Harris& Moran (1979) and Stessin (1973).] Un-fortunately, there is relatively little pub-lished data on the prevalence of adjustmentproblems of these sojourn groups. Further,the prevalence of adjustment problems willprobably vary for different groups. Cleve-land et al. (1960) reported that for mission-aries, adjustment problems are considerable,with about 25% failing to complete theiroverseas assignments. A study completed in1974 by the Center for Research and Edu-cation (cited in Harris & Moran, 1979, p.164) reported a figure of about 33% for pre-mature return of families of Americansworking overseas.

Studies of Peace Corps volunteers suggestthat high levels of anxiety are experiencedby nearly all volunteers during the first fewweeks in the host country (Guthrie & Zek-tick, 1967; Thomson & English, 1964), andthe fairly large percentages of prematureterminations of service (35%-40% in someyears; see David, 1973; Harris, 1973, for tab-ulated figures) suggest that the extent ofadjustment difficulties for Peace Corps vol-unteers is somewhat greater than for foreignstudents. The rate of severe psychiatric cas-ualty may be small; however, with one earlystudy (Menninger & English, 1965) esti-mating it at only .7%, with the common dif-ficulty being depression. Menninger and En-glish (1965) found two periods of clusteringof psychiatric returnees: the first 4 monthsand between the 8th and 12th months.

Although data on the extent of sojourneradjustment difficulties with overseas busi-nessmen are rare and difficult to obtain(Harris & Moran, 1979), these sojourners


may be more satisfied and adjusted for sev-eral reasons: (a) simpler aims and more spe-cific concerns with technical skills as opposedto attitudinal changes and culture learning,(b) the frequent presence of strong sponsor-ship, (c) secure financing and opportunitieson return, (d) the sojourners are generallyolder and more mature, (e) the business or-ganization provides an "enclave" that insu-lates the sojourner from conflict betweenhome and host culture reference groups, (f)the experience is more highly structured andscheduled with less dependence on the so-journer's own resources, and (g) social re-lationships are more likely to be character-ized by equal status and common goals(Lesser & Peter, 1957),

Academic scholars abroad also typicallyshare certain elements considered conduciveto favorable overseas adjustment, includinghigh and equal status, common academicvalues and goals, and the sanction of thecommunity in which their common tasks areperformed (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1960).

Although they have not been frequentlystudied, the wives of overseas workers mayexperience adjustment difficulties greaterthan those of their husbands (Useem, 1966;Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry,Note 1). Useem (1966) interviewed wives ofmarried men working abroad in India andconcluded that there was more continuity inthe professional roles of the men from theold to the new culture than in the wife andmother roles of the women.

In summary, exact statistics concerningthe number of sojourners who fail to adjustoverseas are difficult to determine and varyfrom country to country (Harris & Moran,1979, p, 164). Firm comparisons betweendifferent sojourner groups are even moredifficult, given the available data. One mightpredict, however, that sojourner adjustmentwill be easiest for groups undergoing morestructured, professional experiences (e.g.,some businessmen and scholars) and mostdifficult for those sojourners assuming moreambiguous, less supported roles (e.g., PeaceCorps volunteers, missionaries, and sometechnical assistants), with the adjustmentdifficulties of the average foreign studentfalling somewhere in-between. Considerableoverlap and variation within each sojourner

group will exist, however, based on such fac-tors as nationality, host country, and indi-vidual differences in coping and in stressreactivity.

Background Variables andSojourner Adjustment

Some success has been obtained in pre-dicting indices of sojourner adjustment frombackground or demographic characteristicsof the sojourner. Numerous variables havebeen studied (e.g., see DuBois, 1956; Hill,1966; Hountras, 1957; Hull, 1978; Ibrahim,1970; Morris, 1960; Sewell & Davidsen,1961; Shepard, 1970; Suedfeld, 1967) butwith results sometimes contradictory andunreplicated. The most widely studied back-ground variables are nationality, status, lan-guage proficiency, age, educational level,and previous cross-cultural experience.

With regard to the language variable,there is substantial support for a positiverelationship between language proficiencyand the amount of social interaction withhost nationals (Blood & Nicholson, 1962;Deutsch, 1970; Gullahorn & Gullahorn,1966; Morris, 1960; Sewell & Davidsen,1961; Shattuck, Note 2) and to a lesser de-gree with general indices of satisfaction andadjustment (Calhoun, 1977; Deutsch &Won, 1963; Di Marco, 1974; Gullahorn &Gullahorn, 1966; Morris, 1960; Sewell &Davidsen, 1961; Ursua, 1969). A limitationof all of these studies is that language pro-ficiency is based on interview ratings of un-known reliability and validity (e.g, Di Marco,1974; Morris, 1960; Sewell & .Davidsen,1961; Shattuck, Note 2) or on the sojour-ner's own fluency estimates (e.g., Deutsch,1970; Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1966) ob-tained during rather than prior to the so-journ. Beyond a certain minimal level ofcompetence, the relationship between lan-guage fluency and social interaction is mostlikely a reciprocal one with greater languageconfidence leading to greater participationthat in turn leads to improved command ofthe host language (Gullahorn & Gullahorn,1966; Selltizet al., 1963).

When the relationship between age andacademic level and various indices of so-journer adjustment is examined, the most


consistent finding is that younger sojournersand undergraduate students have more so-cial contact with host nationals both asfriends and in their living arrangements(Deutsch, 1970; Gullahorn & Gullahorn,1966; Hull, 1978; Ibrahim, 1970; Johnson,1970; Sewell & Davidsen, 1961; U.S. Ad-visory Commission, 1966). On the otherhand, older sojourners and graduate studentsgenerally report greater academic and gen-eral satisfaction with the outcome of the so-journ (Gezi, 1959; Gullahorn & Gullahorn,1966; Hull, 1978; Melby & Wolf, 1961),although the results are more consistent forthe graduate/undergraduate distinction thanfor the age variable. This rinding is consis-tent with the different sojourn motivationsof younger, primarily undergraduate stu-dents (more personal development goals)and older, primarily graduate students (moreprofessional goals; Gezi, 1959; U.S. Advi-sory Commission, 1966).

Surprisingly few studies have examinedsex differences in adjustment. Some studiesof foreign students that do show significantsex differences (e.g., Fong & Peskin, 1969;Hill, 1966; Porter, 1963) suggest that femaleforeign students may report a greater num-ber of adjustment problems than do maleforeign students. With Peace Corps volun-teers, two studies suggest that women areslightly more likely to suffer psychiatric cas-ualties and return early (Menninger & En-glish, 1965; Thomson & English, 1964).More careful studies of sex differences insojourner adjustment are needed. One in-teresting study (Fong & Peskin, 1969) in-dicated that special problems may exist forwomen from more traditional cultures wheresocial roles may be defined more restrictivelythan in the United States.

Nationality

It became evident from early studies offoreign student adjustment that nationalitywas an important variable. Whereas earlystudies of Scandinavian students in theUnited States (Lysgaard, 1955; Scott, 1956;Sewell & Davidsen, 1961) indicated thatthese students have minimal adjustment dif-ficulties, studies by Lambert and Dressier(1956) and Bennett et al. (1958) indicated

that Indian and especially Japanese studentsmay have considerable difficulties. Thesestudies also suggested that there are culturalpatterns in the typical defense mechanismsused by sojourners from different culturesto handle culture shock.

Studies that examine differences in theadjustment of sojourners from different na-tionalities often make reference to "culturaldistance," with most writers assuming thatadjustment will be more difficult for visitorscoming from home cultures that are verydifferent from the host culture (Beck, 1963;David, 1971; Morris, 1960). Empirical stud-ies have generally supported this notion (e.g.,Hull, 1978). When national origin, or anyother variable, is examined as a determinantof sojourner adjustment, however, it is im-portant to distinguish different indices ofadjustment. Four adjustment indices (natureand extent of social interaction with hostnationals, general adjustment, attitudes to-ward the host country, and sojourner satis-faction) have been most frequently discussedin the literature. The results relating na-tional origin to social interaction and generaladjustment (generally the number of prob-lems endorsed) are quite consistent. Al-though it is not possible to rank order allgeopolitical areas or national groups, Can-adians and West Europeans are consistentlyfound to be more socially involved with U.S.nationals and to report fewer adjustmentproblems; students from the Far East areleast involved socially and report the greatestnumber of adjustment difficulties. Indians,Black Africans, Latin Americans, and Mid-dle Easterners appear to fall in-betweenthese two extremes (e.g., Deutsch, 1970;Forstat, 1951; Galtung, 1965; Hassan, 1962;Hegazy, 1969; Hull, 1978; Selltiz et al.,1963; Shepard, 1970; U.S. Advisory Com-mission, 1966; Ursua, 1969; Markham, Note3). Unfortunately, it is not possible to de-termine to what extent these results will holdfor host countries other than the UnitedStates.

The results of studies relating nationalityto attitudes toward the host country (e.g.,Heath, 1970; Hegazy, 1969; Hull, 1978;Ibrahim, 1970; Morris, 1960; U.S. AdvisoryCommission, 1963) are less consistent, al-though there is some evidence that West


Europeans express more negative attitudestoward the United States than do studentsfrom other areas (Heath, 1970; Morris,1960; Markham, Note 3). This finding il-lustrates the importance of specifying one'soperationalization of adjustment. AlthoughEuropeans appear to suffer fewer adjustmentproblems in the United States and havegreater interaction with host nationals, theymay also express relatively less favorableattitudes toward the United States. A majordifficulty, however, with studies that exam-ine overall favorability of attitudes is thatthey ignore the highly differentiated natureof attitudes that sojourners develop towarddifferent aspects of the host culture (Mish-ler, 1965). Europeans and other groups dif-fer in what aspects of American life theyapprove and disapprove of (U.S. AdvisoryCommission, 1963). The European/non-Eu-ropean distinction is also confounded withmany other factors that have been relatedto general adjustment and to increased socialinteraction with host nationals. Europeanstudents are more likely to be younger, sin-gle, studying pure humanities or social sci-ences, interested in associating with Amer-icans and living abroad, well traveled, andmore likely to express their primary sojournmotive as getting to know another country(Hull, 1978; Selltiz et al., 1963). Thus, inaddition to the more obvious explanationsfor the differences between Europeans andnon-Europeans in adjustment, such as betterEnglish language fluency, more similar cul-tural patterns, and the increased comfort ofAmericans with students from Western cul-tures, a variety of other confounding factorsmakes it difficult to determine the impor-tance of nationality per se.

Studies relating nationality and sojournsatisfaction (e.g., Hegazy, 1969; Hull, 1978;Morris, 1960; Shepard, 1970; U.S. AdvisoryCommission, 1966) are quite inconsistentand probably reflect the multidimensionalnature of the "satisfaction" construct.

There is a notable absence of studies thatcompare adjustment of sojourners of a givennationality in different host cultures. Onestudy (Galtung, 1965) looked at this ques-tion using a design that crossed three sojourngroups (Egyptians, Iranians, and Indians)with three host countries (United States,United Kingdom, and West Germany). By

looking at variability of responses toquestions relating to satisfaction, adjust-ment problems, perceived personal change,impressions of host country, need for assis-tance, and so forth, Galtung concluded thathome nationality explains response variabil-ity much better than does the host countryof sojourn.

Status

Several studies have found a relationshipbetween perceived loss of personal status andsojourner adjustment in a variety of hostcountries (Aich, 1963; Banham, 1958; Gol-Ijn, 1966; Jammaz, 1973; Lambert & Bres-sler, 1956; Morris, 1960). Although there issome controversy over the nature of the typ-ical relationship between Black Americansand Black Africans (Davis, Hanson, & Bur-ner, 1961; Nielsen, Bryant, & Wyatt, 1962;Phelps-Stokes Fund, 1949), Odenyo (1971)reported that many high-status Black Afri-can foreign students experience an ambiva-lence toward Black Americans due in partto their fear of identifying with an under-privileged, lower status American minority(also see Becker, 1973).

The criteria for personal status may changesubstantially in a new culture with the statusaccorded the sojourner's home nation by thehost country being an important determi-nant of personal status, self-esteem, and so-journer adjustment. For this to be the case,cultural or ethnic identity would have to beevoked during the sojourner's cross-nationalinteractions. Bochner and Perks (1971)demonstrated in an experimental setting thatsojourners are in fact likely to feel that theirhosts perceive them in ethnic terms.

A study of attitudes and experiences ofIndian and Pakistani students led Lambertand Bressler (1955) to conclude that so-journers from "low-status" countries (theauthors classified India and Pakistan as low-status based on what they felt was theAmerican point of view of the time) formtheir attitudes toward the United Stateslargely as the result of a "looking-glass"process based on the visitors' perceptions ofAmerican attitudes toward their country andby extension toward them. Low status isoften inferred from inadvertent reference tocertain national status-rooted "sensitive


areas" (e.g., the caste system, religion, pop-ulation, and [previous] colonial rule).1 Thisrelationship between the sojourner's percep-tions of accorded national status and his orher attitudes toward the host country hasbeen referred to most frequently as the "two-way mirror" hypothesis (e.g., Davis, 1963,1971; Morris, 1960) but also as the "per-ceptual-reciprocity" hypothesis (Ibrahim,1970) or "status-deprivation" hypothesis(Mishler, 1965).

Several studies (Davis, 1963, 1971; Gezi,1959; Ibrahim, 1970, 1971; Klineberg &Ben Brika, 1972; Lambert & Bressler, 1956)have found from moderate to strong supportfor the two-way mirror hypothesis. Someother studies suggest that the hypothesizedrelationship between the sojourner's percep-tion of accorded status and favorability ofattitudes toward the host country may bemoderated by the sojourner's involvement oridentification with his or her home cultureand/or whether the sojourner experiences again or a loss in accorded status (Chang,1973; Morris, 1960; Shattuck, Note 2). Un-like the simpler two-way mirror hypothesis,however, these findings have not been firmlyreplicated (Selltiz et al., 1963). When thesestudies are taken as a whole, support for therelationship between accorded national sta-tus and attitudes toward host country isstrongest for sojourners from "lower status"countries.

Previous Cross-Cultural Experience

A common assumption is that previouscross-cultural experience with other culturesor prior exposure to the host culture shouldfacilitate adjustment, although some cultureshock may still occur (e.g., Arensberg &Niehoff, 1964). On the other hand, previouscultural exposure may serve to reinforce ste-reotypes and defenses, which inhibit adjust-ment (DuBois, 1956). Thus, the nature andquality—for example, the depth, intimacy(Amir, 1969; Peterson & Neumeyer, 1948),accuracy (Basu & Ames, 1970), and simi-larity (Bochner, 1972; David, 1973)—of theprevious cultural experience or host cultureexposure may be more important than thequantitative amount of previous exposure.

Empirical findings support the importanceof accurate prior cultural experience or prior

exposure to the United States for sojourneradjustment (Deutsch, 1970; Hull, 1978;Klineberg & Ben Brika, 1972; Klineberg& Hull, 1979; Peterson & Neumeyer, 1948;Selltiz et al., 1963; Sewell & Davidsen,1961), with the relationship more consistentfor increased social interaction and moregeneral adjustment than for reported satis-faction or attitudes. Studies that have ex-amined the effects of cross-cultural trainingand simulation exercises on subsequent so-journer adjustment (e.g., Fiedler et al., 1971;Mitchell, Dossett, Fiedler, &Triandis, 1972;Worchel & Mitchell, 1972) also support thevalue of accurate prior knowledge of norms,customs, and values of the host culture foradjustment.

It is not possible, however, to eliminatethe possibility that those sojourners who aremore traveled are a select group. Those whocould not cope in earlier sojourns may notsojourn again, and the most well traveledtend to be Western Europeans of urbanbackground and are more likely to be study-ing arts and humanities. The least traveledare more likely to be Asians and to havecome from more rural areas (Hull, 1978).Thus, nationality, language, cultural dis-tance, and field of study are confounded andmay underlie the increased interaction anddecreased adjustment problems of sojourn-ers with previous cross-cultural experience.Previous cross-cultural experience needs tobe studied within national groups to uncon-found these variables.

Situational Variables andSojourner Adjustment

The actual conditions to which the indi-vidual is exposed in the new culture wouldseem to be of paramount importance foremotional well-being and satisfaction. Re-

1 Several other writers have described the presenceof various status-rooted "sensitive areas" in sojournersfrom India (Coelho, 1958; Useem & Useem, 1955), theMiddle East (Hegazy, 1969; Parker, 1976), former co-lonials in Britain (Livingstone, 1960), and among Ger-mans sojourning in the United States after World WarII (Watson & Lippitt, 1955). The perceived ignoranceof Americans about their home cultures is an almostuniversal finding in studies of foreign students in theUnited States (Mishler, 1965) and is often interpretedas low accorded national status by these sojourners.


lating specific situational events or combi-nations of events to sojourner stress and ad-justment difficulties, however, is a difficulttask, with the sum of experiences and ad-justment reported in an interview or ques-tionnaire being acquired in time sequencesthat do not lend themselves easily to causalinterpretation (Galtung, 1965). Such rela-tionships are especially difficult to infer fromthe usual point-in-time interviews or ques-tionnaires covering long periods of time inthe host country.

Many situational variables have beenstudied or hypothesized as relevant for so-journer adjustment (e.g., see DuBois, 1956;Gollin, 1966; MacFarlane, 1958; Peterson& Neumeyer, 1948; Pool, 1965; Shepard,1970). Sewell and Davidsen (1956) foundthat more positive student affect was asso-ciated with more favorable arrival percep-tions of the United States, with the studentshaving received more informal guidance,greater contact with Americans during thesojourn, less frequent and severe frustratingexperiences, greater academic success in theUnited States, and sojourns of long or shortrather than intermediate duration. Selltiz etal. (1963) found that participation in a 6-week orientation had a marked effect on thesubsequent amount of social interaction (butnot general adjustment) of Asians in theUnited States but had no effect on the socialinteraction of Europeans. Although othershave mentioned the importance of formalorientation programs (e.g., Klineberg, 1970;Livingstone, 1960; Torre, 1963), there arefew systematic studies of their effectivenessin aiding adjustment (Moran, Mestenhau-ser, & Pedersen, 1974; Walton, 1968; Cor-mack, Note 4).

Few investigators have studied what wouldseem to be an important relationship be-tween the sojourner's physical health and hisor her adjustment, Useem (1966), in a year-long study of American wives in India, foundthat approximately one-fourth of the fami-lies reported that they were either continu-ously ill or had serious health problems dur-ing their sojourn. Cleveland et al. (1960)suggested that anticipation or fear of illnessmay be even more detrimental to adjustmentthan illness per se. Some studies have dis-cussed the tendency of foreign student ad-

justment difficulties to be manifested in theform of physical ailments (e.g., Akka, 1967;Alexander, Workneh, Klein, & Miller, 1976;Nickelly et al., 1964).

Specifying the important aspects of dif-ferent living arrangements for adjustmentis difficult. One dimension that has been usedis the urban-rural distinction. A frequentPeace Corps finding is that morale and sat-isfaction among volunteers is higher in morerural locales where the more indigenous cul-ture is more consistently found (Guskin,1966; Maryanov, 1966; Textor, 1966). Sell-tiz et al. (1963) found that small colleges,nonmetropolitan universities, and metropol-itan universities showed both decreasing po-tential for and decreasing actual amounts ofsocial interaction between host and foreignstudents in both living arrangements andextracurricular opportunities (see also Carey,1956; Jammaz, 1973; U.S. Advisory Com-mission, 1966; Major, Note 5; Barry, Note6). It is difficult to interpret the significanceof some of these studies, however, becausethey cut across different national groups orother confounding variables (e.g., age, fieldof study, sojourn motivations) related to so-cial interaction and adjustment. Urban-ru-ral and other living distinctions also ignoreindividual differences in preferred living andinstitutional arrangements (David, 1973).

For individuals whose sojourn goals aresignificantly job related, adjustment may bestrongly influenced by job conditions andsatisfaction. Byrnes (1966) discussed severalstudies showing that for many Americanprofessionals working overseas for theAgency for International Development(AID), the major adjustment problems wereassociated with their jobs. Gullahorn andGullahorn (1962, 1966) studied over 5,000Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Americangrantees who were research and teachingprofessors abroad. They, too, found a posi-tive relationship between professional out-come (job role) and sojourn satisfaction.

Because the primary goals of many for-eign students are academic, one would ex-pect adjustment for these sojourners to beinfluenced by academic adjustment and per-formance. Selby and Woods (1966) foundthat the major determinant of student ad-justment at a "high pressure" institution is


academic success, with morale following theups and downs of the academic year (see alsoHountras, 1955, 1957; Hull, 1978; Jammaz,1973; Morris, 1960; Shattuck, Note 2).

Social Interaction

Nature and extent. The number, variety,and depth of social encounters with host-na-tionals may be the most important yet com-plex variables related to sojourner adjust-ment. Many researchers consider positivesocial interaction with host nationals a nec-essary condition for effective sojourner ad-justment (e.g., Arensberg & Niehoff, 1964;Bennett et al, 1958; Brein & David, 1971;Cieslak, 1955; Hull, 1978; Klineberg, 1970;Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Morris, 1960;Oberg, 1960; Selltiz et al., 1963; Sewell &Davidsen, 1961); for some writers it is the"crucial" or "decisive" factor in adjustment(Colacicco, 1970; Garraty & Adams, 1959;MacFarlane, 1958).

Writers in the area of intercultural com-munication have indicated many of the bar-riers to effective and positive communicationbetween members of different cultures, bothverbal—for example, knowledge of latentand connotative meanings in the host lan-guage (Glenn, 1972; Porter, 1972), lan-guage-conditioned differences in categoriesof experience (Hoijer, 1972; Mandelbaum,1949—and nonverbal—for example, bodymovements, posture, facial expressions, ges-tures, eye movement, physical appearance,and proxemics, the use and organization ofspace (Ekman, 1972; Hall, 1959; Hall &Whyte, 1963; Sitaram, 1972). Status differ-entials, ethnocentric attitudes and stereo-types, evaluative or judgmental perceptions,cultural ignorance, different definitions andnorms for friendships, fear of rejection fromconationals, and the high level of anxiety andthreat to self-esteem frequently associatedwith intercultural encounters also inhibitpositive social interaction with host nationals(Barna, 1970; Edgerton, 1965; Garraty &Adams, 1959; Miller et al., 1971; Porter,1972; Wedge, 1972).

Because of the anxieties associated withimmersing oneself in the social environmentof the host culture, many sojourners formenclaves of fellow nationals that largely de-

termine the living arrangements, friendshippatterns, and organizational affiliations ofthe sojourners involved. Such enclaves havebeen reported for a variety of nationalgroups including Indians (Becker, 1971;Gandhi, 1970; Lambert & Bressler, 1956),East Asians (Bennett et al., 1958; Johnson,1970; Kang, 1972; Miller et al., 1971; Sun-der Das, 1972), Americans (Gullahorn &Gullahorn, 1966; Simon & Schild, 1961;Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry,Note 1), former colonials in Britain (Carey,1956; Eldridge, 1960), and a variety of othernationalities (Becker, 1971; Hegazy, 1969).The formation of such enclaves, at least inthe United States, appears to be most typicalof Indians and Asians and less frequentamong Canadians and some Western Eu-ropeans (Becker, 1971; Galtung, 1965; Hull,1978; Klein et al., 1971; Sewell & Davidsen,1961). Klein et al. (1971) concluded on thebasis of questionnaires and interviews with100 Far Eastern students that social isola-tion from Americans is a way of life for themajority of these students, This isolationcomes to be accepted and is highly resistantto change, with many students finding rea-sons and rationalizations to support it. Theauthors noted a noticeable lack of tolerancewithin the subgroup for those who deviateor become too "Americanized" (see alsoMiller et al., 1971). Many Peace Corps vol-unteers also fail to achieve good informalsocial relationships with non-English speak-ing host nationals (Dorjahn, 1966; Hautal-uoma & Kaman, 1977; Szanton, 1966),

Many reasons have been offered for whycultural subcommittees are established (Eld-ridge, 1960; Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1966;Kang, 1972; Klein et al., 1971; Lundstedt,1963; Simon & Schild, 1961; Siu, 1952;Spaulding & Flack, 1976). Such enclavesallow the sojourner to reestablish primarygroup relations and maintain familiar, tra-ditional values and belief systems while min-imizing psychological and behavioral ad-justments. A protective function is servedwhereby psychological security, self-esteem,and a sense of belonging are provided, andanxiety, feelings of powerlessness, and socialstresses are reduced. Such enclaves alsoserve as reference groups with whom the newenvironment can be discussed, compared,


and interpreted. In some instances inaccu-rate prearrival perceptions may be main-tained and conformed to as a result of re-strictive in-group referral patterns (Simon& Schild, 1961). Most writers acknowledgethe positive benefits of such enclaves, but themajority of these writers also feel that re-stricting social interaction with host nation-als to superficial encounters is self-defeatingin the long run because it inhibits learningthe language, values, and customs of the newculture and can reinforce a sense of aliena-tion (Arensberg & Niehoff, 1964; Garraty& Adams, 1959; Gullahorn & Gullahorn,1966; Kang, 1972; Lundstedt, 1963; Groupfor the Advancement of Psychiatry, Note 1).

Ironically, although the amount of contactbetween foreign and host nationals is gen-erally not very extensive (Hull, 1978; Kline-berg & Hull, 1979), and hosts often viewsojourners as not seeking host friendships,many sojourners report wishing to have moreinteraction with host nationals (Garraty &Adams, 1959; Hull, 1978; Johnson, 1970;Susskind & Schell, 1968; U.S. AdvisoryCommission, 1963). Sojourners from somecultures tend to wait for host nationals toinitiate contact (Gezi, 1961).

Relationship between social interactionand adjustment. Empirical studies havetested the hypothesis that increased inter-action with host nationals would lead to im-proved sojourner adjustment. Several havefound support for an "association hypothe-sis" where more social interaction with hostnationals is associated with more favorableattitudes toward the hosts (Basu & Ames,1970; Chang, 1973; Hassan, 1962; Heath,1970; Hofman & Zak, 1969; Ibrahim, 1970).The "association hypothesis," however, isprobably oversimplified. Triandis and Vas-siliou (1967) found that increased contactled to more favorable stereotypes of Amer-icans for Greeks sojourning in the UnitedStates, but increased contact led to less fa-vorable stereotypes of Greeks by Americanssojourning in Greece. On the basis of hisreview of literature relevant to the "contact"or "association hypothesis" in ethnic rela-tions, Amir (1969) concluded that condi-tions favorable for reducing prejudice andincreasing favorable attitudes include such

considerations as the status relationshipsbetween the ethnic groups, the intimacy andpleasantness of the intergroup contact, andthe opportunities for working on common orsuperordinate goals that are important foreach group (also see Kelman & Bailyn,1962). The studies reviewed in this articlesuggest that these principles can be well ap-plied to the situation where the ethnic con-tact consists of interaction between foreignsojourners and host nationals.

Hull (1978) and Klineberg and Hull(1979) found support for a general "modi-fied culture contact" hypothesis that relatesincreased social interaction not only to morefavorable attitudes ("association hypothe-sis") but also to better personal adjustmentand general sojourn satisfaction. In Hull'sstudy those sojourners who were more sat-isfied with their frequency of contact withAmericans were more likely to be found withhost students, to report having made goodfriends, to report less loneliness and home-sickness, and to have more favorable sojournattitudes in general. Those sojourners whoreported loneliness and homesickness veryoften were found to be isolated from Amer-icans as indexed by several contact variablesused in the study. Deutsch (1970), Gulla-horn and Gullahorn (1960), Lysgaard(1955), Morris (1960), and Selltiz et al.(1963) also reported relationships betweenamount of social interaction with host na-tionals and more general adjustment or so-journ satisfaction. Gullahorn and Gullahornand Selltiz et al. pointed out the reciprocalnature of this social interaction - positiveadjustment relationship whereby "social re-lations and adjustment reinforce each other,with social relations easing adjustment, andgreater adjustment freeing the student toenter more fully into social relations" (Sell-tiz et al., 1963, p. 159).

A difficulty with social interaction studiesis the numerous ways in which this variablehas been quantified. Results have been foundto differ depending on whether the amountof social interaction is operationalized interms of frequency, range, or depth of en-counters or by such indices as the numberof close host friends (e.g., Morris, 1960; Sell-tiz et al., 1963). Terms such as friends and


acquaintances mean different things in dif-ferent cultures, making the usual self-ratingsand interviewer judgments of the intimacyor depth of social contacts 'difficult to inter-pret and compare across cultural groups.Finally, there is no guarantee that such in-dices adequately assess the degree of truecross-cultural understanding or communi-cation developing during these social inter-actions (Brein & David, 1971). Given theverbal, nonverbal, and other cultural differ-ences (e.g., Samovar & Porter, 1972, 1976)that make real understanding between in-dividuals of different cultures difficult, cul-tural understanding will not follow auto-matically as a function of the mere quantityof social interaction.

Overlapping Membership Conflict

Several writers have described the poten-tial dangers of overidentifying with the hostculture, including the inhibition of objectivediscrimination of cultural cues, inhibition ofrelaxed social adjustment due to overly am-bitious attempts to be like the hosts, reducedprofessional effectiveness, increased adversereactions to perceived rejection or discrimi-nation, and increased alienation from thehome culture with a concomitant difficultyin readjusting on return (Bennett et al.,1958; Livingstone, 1960; McEvoy, 1968;Political & Economic Planning, 1965; Torre,1963). Such overidentification with the hostculture may be precipitated by unresolvedemotional conflict with one's own socialgroup at home (Group for the Advancementof Psychiatry, Note 1; also see Perlmutter,1954, 1957).

The sojourner's difficulty in'defining theoptimal balance between identification withhome and host culture values ("overlappingmembership conflict") results from the so-journer's desire to behave in a way that isconsistent with host culture acceptance, mo-res, and values, combined with the desire toretain identification with his or her own cul-ture and its mores and values (Lesser &Peter, 1957). Alternative ways of resolvingthis conflict have been described by someauthors in terms of descriptive typologies(Bailyn & Kelman, 1962; McEvoy, 1968;

Watson & Lippitt, 1955). For example,"overidentifiers" have a self-image that isless anchored in the home culture, abandonmany cultural values, and adopt the behaviorand values of the new culture uncritically;"rejectors" have preexisting prejudices thatresult in selective perceptions allowing therejection of the new culture, and they inter-act superficially and less effectively; "viableintegrators" take an objective, discriminat-ing, and balanced approach to resolving theoverlapping membership conflict, integrat-ing new experiences and values into a self-image based on the values and behavior ofthe home culture. The implied optimal na-ture of this third approach to sojourner ad-justment is suggested by Coelho's (1958)contention that "genuinely cosmopolitanorientations are achieved by the visiting stu-dent not through an uncritical conformitywith foreign perspectives but, rather, througha broadening and differentiation of domesticones" (p. 105).

Two studies in an experimental settinghave examined the process by which theoverlapping membership conflict may be re-solved. French and Zajonc(1957) found lim-ited support for their hypothesis that thisnorm conflict would be resolved on a situa-tion-by-situation basis in the direction of theideal behavior appropriate to the group withthe greater situational potency for the in-dividual. Zajonc (1952) found moderate ex-perimental support for his explanation of thedefensive reactions of some sojourners interms of a frustration-aggression hypothesis.According to this hypothesis the need to con-form to host norms in opposition to, one'sown norms arouses frustration that leads toattitudinal aggression.

The extent to which the overlapping mem-bership conflict is resolved in the directionof increased identification with the host cul-ture has implications for the amount of so-cial interaction and involvement with thehost culture. McClintock and Davis (1958)found a decline in the importance of homenationality for self-percept associated withgreater social interaction with host nation-als, less involvement with home country andfellow nationals, and higher general sojournsatisfaction. This finding is consistent with


Kang's (1971) finding that Chinese studentswho anglicize their names associate morewith Americans, are more likely to live withAmericans, and are less likely to read Chinesepublications.

Sojourner adjustment, however, is notcharacterized by a static resolution of theoverlapping membership conflict for mostindividuals. Rather, the normal process ofacculturation involves gradual changes inthe home and host culture identificationswith successive stages of the sojourn char-acterized by increasingly clear and differ-entiated images of host country referencegroups, accompanied by more discriminat-ing and finally more vague and undifferen-tiated images of home culture referencegroups (Coelho, 1958).

In summary, although adaptation to thenew culture generally involves gradualchanges in home and host culture identifi-cations, individual differences exist in thebalance of these identifications and have im-plications for both social interaction patternsand adjustment. Although overidentifyingwith host values, norms, and reference groupscan inhibit adjustment and alienate the so-journer from his or her own culture, rejectionof the host culture results in a defensive andsuperficial adjustment.

Personality Variables andSojourner Adjustment

Early investigators of sojourner adjust-ment (e.g., Lundstedt, 1963; Torre, 1963)hypothesized that attitudes reflecting a closedmind (Rokeach, 1960) and the ethnocentrictendencies described in the authoritarianstudies (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Lev-inson, & Sanford, 1950) would inhibit thesojourner in coping effectively with new so-cial norms, values, and language forms.Gardner (1962) described the "universalcommunicator" as having a well-integratedpersonality, a central organization of theextroverted type, a value system that in-cludes the "values of all," a socialization ofcultural universals, and a high degree of sen-sitivity toward others. He suggested that theuniversal communicator would have theleast difficulty in adjusting to another cul-ture. More recently, the "multi-cultural"(Adler, 1977) or "mediating" person (Boch-

ner, 1977) has been described as having thecultural sensitivity, resiliency, and patternof identity that allows him or her to adjustto and serve as a link between multiple cul-tures. Numerous other personal character-istics have been described as important forsojourner adjustment (e.g., see Cleveland etal., 1960; Harris, 1977; Harrison & Hop-kins, 1967; Hautaluoma & Kaman, 1977;Klein et al., 1971; Lambert & Bressler,1956; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Thomson &English, 1964; Group for the Advancementof Psychiatry, Note 1), but although per-sonality descriptions of the potentially goodadjuster are commonly accepted in the lit-erature, they are based primarily on facevalidity rather than on empirical data (Brein& David, 1971). For example, Byrnes (1966)described several studies of overseas Amer-ican technicians and concluded that therewas no support for an "overseas type" or anyconsistent personality patterns distinguish-ing successful from unsuccessful technicians.

Table 1 summarizes several studies in-volving personality prediction of Peace Corpsvolunteers' performance. The majority of thestudies (e.g., Grande, 1966; Guthrie & Zek-tick, 1967; Hare, 1966; Smith, 1965, 1966;Stein, 1966; Wrigley, Cobb, & Klein [citedin David, 1973]) provide little or no evidencefor the prediction of field performance witha variety of personality, interest, and valuemeasures. Three of the moderately predic-tive studies (Di Marco, 1974; Gordon, 1967;Uhes & Shybut, 1971) predict trainingrather than field criteria. Four other studies(Dicken, 1969; Ezekiel, 1968; Harris, 1972;Mischel, 1965) show moderate prediction offield performance ratings (correlations in the.30s and .40s) for such measures as author-itarianism (Mischel, 1965), ego strength(Dicken, 1969; Mischel, 1965), manifestanxiety (Mischel, 1965), several Gough so-ciability and tolerance scales for women(Dicken, 1969), and various perceived char-acteristics of one's personal future (Ezekiel,1968). Findings in these few moderately suc-cessful prediction studies are limited, how-ever, by lack of replication (David, 1973;Harris, 1972).

Because studies of Peace Corps volunteershave heavily emphasized others' global rat-ings of performance made by staff with vary-


Table 1Summary of Peace Corps Studies Relevant to Personality Prediction of Performance

Author Predictor variable Criterion Results

Mischel (1965)

Smith (1965,1966)

California F scaleBarren's Ego StrengthTaylor Manifest Anxi-

ety

Two measures of au-thoritarianism

Psychiatric ratings ofpredicted psychologi-cal effectiveness

Composite field perfor-mance ratings

General competence factor(Q-oriented factor analy-sis)

Field performance ratings

F scale (r = —.45)Ego strength (/• = .34)Manifest anxiety (r = -.34)

"Essentially nul l correla-tions"

Grande(1966)

Hare (1966)

Stein (1966)

Wrigley, Cobb,& Kline(cited inDavid, 1973)

Gordon (1967)

Guthrie &Zektick(1967)

During 2nd week oftraining:

Measure of self-esteemMeasure of self-accep-

tance (from Bills'sIndex of Adjustmentand Values)

Final training ratingsVarious personality

measures and back-ground variables

Barren's Ego StrengthTaylor Manifest Anxi-

etyLevinson's F scale

Barton's Ego StrengthLevinson's F scaleEdwards Personal Pref-

erence Schedule(EPPS; 16 scales)

MMPK14 scales)

Gordon Personal ProfileGordon Personal Inven-

torySurvey of Interpersonal

ValuesSurvey of Personal Val-

Strong Vocational In-terest Blank (SVIB)

Allport, Vernon, Lind-zey Study of Values

MMPITaylor Manifest Anxi-

etyBarren's Ego Strength

Field and training perfor-mance ratings

Field performance ratings

Field performance ratingsof overall effectiveness

Ratings of job competence,leadership skills, matu-rity, overall evaluation

Final selection or rejectionfor overseas duty

Performance ratings byPeace Corps staff andhosts

No significant differences be-tween "superior" and "in-effective" performers

Final t ra ining ratings vs. per-formance (r = —.20)

Only significant correlations(-.17 to -.19, teachingexperience, extroversion,and aggression) were inopposite direction fromprediction

No statistically significantprediction

A total of 128 correlationsranged from .12 to -.11,most nonsignificant

Tetrachoric correlation coef-ficient between dichoto-mous prediction of selec-tion/nonselection based onintuitive weighting of pre-dictor scales vs. criteria(r, = .34,p<.01)

For SVIB, Study of Values,and MMPI, no significantcorrelations; ManifestAnxiety (r = -.09), EgoStrength (r = .18)

(table continued)


Table 1 (continued)

Author Predictor variable Criterion Results

Ezekiel (1968)

Dicken (1969)

Uhes & Shy-but (1971)

Harris (1972)

Di Marco(1974)

Differentiation (com-plex, detailed map ofpersonal future)

Demand (perceiveslong-term, continuingeffort in personal fu-ture)

Agency (perceives selfas prime agent inpersonal future)

MMPI Ego StrengthCrutchfleld FiguresPeer ratings of leader-

ship during training13 Gough scales

Personal OrientationInventory (POI; self-actualization)

Final Selection Boardratings at end oft ra in ing

Personal OrientationInventory (self-ac-tual iza t ion) during10th week of t ra in ingin host country

Stern's Activities In-dex & OrganizationalClimate Index

Field performance ratingsPeer nominations of best

performers

Composite field perfor-mance rating

Final Selection Board rat-ing at end of training(composite of language,technical, cross-culturalstudies, interpersonalskills, motivation, cul-tural adaptation)

End-of-service performanceratings

Training staff rating ofstage of adjustment dur-ing 10th week of t ra in-ing in host country

Moderate correlations (.28-.41); when divided intoProtestants and Catholics,Protestant rs = .50-.60,Catholic rs were near zero

Ego Strength (r = .32)Crutchfield Figures (r = .31)Peer ratings (r = .50)For Gough scales, only one

significant correlation formen; for women (/V = 27),dominance (.41), psycho-logical-mindedness (.44),social responsibility (.45),social participation (.46),tolerance (.45)

Women more predictable (7POI scales vs. 4 for menhad significant moderatecorrelations)

Inner-directedness best over-all predictor (.40 for men,.46 for women)

For women, time-competence(.52) and existentiality(.48) best predictors

Lowest Board rater (r = .33)Composite of raters (r = .37)

PCVs in poorest adjusted"defensive retreat" stagehad lowest self-actualiza-tion scores (concurrent va-lidity)

"Defensive retreat" PCVsmoved toward greaterneed-press agreement im-plying perceptual distor-tion in direction of needs

Note. PCV = Peace Corps volunteer.

ing degrees of direct contact and familiarity,research to improve the criterion of perfor-mance may improve the predictive ability ofpersonality measures in the Peace Corps set-ting (Guthrie & Zektick, 1967; Harris,1973; Jones & Popper, 1972). Personalityvariables may relate more strongly to more

specific indices of personal adjustment andsatisfaction rather than performance, espe-cially if these assessments are made by theindividuals themselves (e.g., Smith, Fawcett,Ezekiel, & Roth, 1963).

Somewhat more encouraging results havebeen obtained in studies of foreign student


adjustment. More positive sojourner adjust-ment or favorability of attitudes has beenrelated to less authoritarianism (Basu &Ames, 1970; Chang, 1973), increased per-sonal flexibility (Gullahorn & Gullahorn,1962; Sewell & Davidsen, 1961), increasedmodernism (Chunnual & Marsella, 1975),sociability and assertiveness (Antler, 1970;Selltiz et al., 1963), and more realistic so-journ goals and expectations (Carey, 1956;Davis, 1971; DuBois, 1956; Hull, 1978; Kel-man, 1963; Klineberg, 1970; Livingstone,1960; Marshall, 1970; Pool, 1965; Watson& Lippitt, 1955; Group for the Advance-ment of Psychiatry, Note 1), and the per-ceptual sharpener versus perceptual, levelerdistinction (Holzman & Gardner, 1960;Holzman & Klein, 1954) has been relatedto more differentiated, qualified sojournerattitude change versus more undifferen-tiated, global attitude change, respectively(Kelman & Bailyn, 1962; also see Bennettet al., 1958).

Thus, although consistent successful pre-diction of sojourner adjustment with person-ality variables has not yet been demon-strated, it appears premature to give up onsuch efforts. Central to the problem of pre-dicting adjustment from personality mea-sures is the person-situation interaction con-troversy (e.g., Block, 1977; Bowers, 1973;Endler & Hunt, 1966; Mischel, 1968, 1977;Wachtel, 1977). Findings suggest that in-dividual differences exist in how stressorsand situations are perceived (Di Marco,1974; Kelman & Bailyn, 1962; Spradley& Phillips, 1972). Thus, personal disposi-tions may interact with situational factorsin a reciprocal or transactional manner toinfluence the adjustment of the sojourner(Bandura, 1978; Buss, 1977; Draguns, 1979;Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Mischel, 1973;Wachtel, 1977). It may be possible to predictthe level of adjustment of some sojourners(e.g., those with strong ethnocentrism) bet-ter than of others and in some host cultures(e.g., "tough" vs. "easy" cultures; Arsehian& Arsenian, 1948) better than in others(Bern & Allen, 1974).

Sojourner OutcomesSeveral desired outcomes of a successful

sojourn have been mentioned in the litera-

ture, including more favorable or objectiveattitudes toward the host culture; an in-creased appreciation of the home cul-ture ("patriotic reinforcement"); a broaderworldview or perspective (e.g., international-mindedness, cultural relativism, bicultural-ism); a reduction of ethnocentrism, intoler-ance, and stereotypes; increased cognitivecomplexity; and greater personal self-aware-ness, self-esteem, confidence, and creativity(Adler, 1975; Angell, 1969; Coelho, 1962;David, 1971; Flack, 1976; Mishler, 1965;Pace, 1959; Sampson & Smith, 1957; H. P.Smith, 1955; Triandis, 1975; Useem &Useem, 1955; Watson & Lippitt, 1955; Ni-yekawa-Howard, Note 7). Personal out-comes such as increased self-confidence andself-reliance and changes in more superficialhabits (e.g., dress, eating, drinking) appearto be more consistent sojourn outcomes thando changes in primary cultural values relatedto family, interpersonal, and community re-lations, religious and political beliefs, andsexual norms (Allen & Arafat, 1971; Becker,1971; Hull, 1978; Klineberg & Hull, 1979;Useem & Useem, 1955). Religious beliefsseem to remain particularly stable (Hegazy,1969; Hull, 1978; Klineberg & Hull, 1979;Barry, Note 6).

The relationship between adjustment andoutcome is not a simple one. For example,in Hull's (1978) study, foreign students frommore culturally different countries inter-acted less with Americans and were less welladjusted but generally reported the mostpositive personal change, supporting David's(1971) contention that increases in self-awareness will be greatest for sojournersfrom very different cultures whose experi-ence of culture shock will be severe enoughto induce the self-questioning and cultureanalysis required for increased self-aware-ness.

Although an early goal of successful cul-tural exchange was the development of fa-vorable attitudes toward the host country,early and subsequent studies indicate thatthis goal was simplistic. Sojourners are morelikely to develop highly differentiated im-ages, being favorable toward some aspectsof the host culture and not toward others(Beals & Humphrey, 1957; Gardner, 1952;Heath, 1970; Loomis & Schuler, 1948;


Mishler, 1965; Riegel, 1953; Selltiz et al.,1963).2

Although many sojourners report a moreinternational outlook or increased interna-tional understanding as a result of their so-journ (e.g., Garraty & Adams, 1959; lisager,1949; U. S. Advisory Commission, 1963;Watson & Lippitt, 1955), controlled studiesthat have compared measures of interna-tional-mindedness between sojourners andcontrol groups have provided only mixed ev-idence for increased international-minded-ness as a sojourn outcome (e.g., MacGuigan,1958; H. P. Smith, 1955, 1957). Some evi-dence suggests that a sojourn experiencemay lead more to increased interest and par-ticipation in activities of an international orcultural nature rather than to an increase ininternational versus nationalistic attitudesper se (Bochner, Lin, & McLeod, 1979;Pace, 1959).

The contention that sojourn experienceswould result in a liberalizing effect on atti-tudes has also not received strong support(Leonard, 1964; Pool, Keller, & Bauer,1956; H. P. Smith, 1955; Useem & Useem,1955; Major, Note 5). Rather, some studiessuggest a moderation of both liberal andconservative attitudes in the direction of thesojourner's national mean (Pool et al., 1956;Useem & Useem, 1955; Major, Note 5).Again, how liberalism is operationalizedmay be important. Pool et al. (1956) foundthat although highly traveled businessmendid not take a more liberal or internationalstand on tariff issues, they did introducemore international considerations into theirthinking (see, however, Angell's [1969] re-analysis of these data). The movement ofattitudes toward the sojourner's nationalmean may reflect an increased identificationwith the home country as a result of the so-journ. Several writers have found evidencefor such a "patriotic reinforcement" (Becker,1971; Garraty & Adams, 1959; Hull, 1978;Pace, 1959; Useem & Useem, 1955; Veroff,1963), although the process is not a universalone (Becker, 1971; Coelho, 1958; Sharma,1969).

In summary, personal growth in terms ofself-reliance and self-awareness appears tobe a more consistent sojourn outcome thando changes in more value-laden, culture-

based ideologies and norms, at least as per-ceived by the sojourners themselves. Cross-cultural experience is more likely to lead toan increased interest in international activ-ities and an increased ability to view prob-lems from multiple perspectives than to re-sult in the endorsement of more internationalversus nationalistic attitudes on specific is-sues. Controlled studies involving longer andmore varied time periods, however, areneeded. Attitudes toward both the home andhost cultures tend to become more differ-entiated, but sojourners differ in how posi-tively or negatively they come to see the twocultures.

Cross-Cultural Counseling andSojourner Adjustment

Several factors are likely to mediateagainst the effectiveness of cross-culturalcounseling aimed at dealing with sojourneradjustment problems. Counselors often de-pend on fluent verbalization by the client offeelings, motivations, and so forth, and willbe handicapped when counseling in theclient's nonnative language. Furthermore,the client's emotional experience and expres-sion may be aroused to a lesser degree in anonnative tongue (Gonzalez-Reigosa, 1976).The feeling of being unlike the counselor, orstereotypes about the counselor's culturalgroup, may hinder rapport and counselor"influencibility" (Higginbotham, 1979; Von-tress, 1969, 1976). Other barriers to effec-tive counseling with the sojourner includeignorance of the client's culture (Pedersen,1976; Vontress, 1969), the dangers of ste-reotyping the client as "cross-cultural" ratherthan viewing him or her as an individual

2 The number of studies of foreign student attitudestoward the United States is immense, this being one ofthe most heavily studied topics on educational exchange,especially during the 1950s and early 1960s. See, forexample, Akhun, 1961; Beals and Humphrey, 1957;Becker, 1973; Coelho, 1958; Davis, 1961, 1963; Gezi,1961; Heath, 1970; Kiell, 1951; Lambert and Bressler,1956; Loomis and Schuler, 1948; Melby and Wolf,1961; Morris, 1960; Riegel, 1953; Scott, 1956; Selltizet al., 1963; Sewell and Davidsen, 1961; Sharma, 1969;Shepard, 1970; U.S. Advisory Commission, 1963; Ver-off, 1963; Barry, Note 6. The aspects of U.S. societymost often praised and criticized have remained quitestable over time. For summaries see Spaulding andFlack, 1976; Walton, 1968.


within a culture (Barna, 1970; Draguns,1976; Sundberg, 1976), the danger of allow-ing one's curiosity about the client's cultureto interfere with the purposes of counseling(Wohl, 1976), a tendency to be excessivelysympathetic or indulgent with cross-culturalclients (Vontress, 1976), less valid basesfor psychometric evaluation (Coelho-Oude-geest, 1971; Lonner, 1976), and differingcultural conceptions of positive mental health(Arkoff, Thaver, & Elkind, 1966; Nickellyet al., 1964; Sue, 1978).

The reticence of foreign students frommany cultures to use psychological services,their tendency to experience psychologicaldifficulties in physical terms, and their lesserpsychological sophistication in relating emo-tional difficulties to physical complaints hasbeen reported by several investigators (Al-exander et al., 1976; Arkhoff et al., 1966;Nickelly et al., 1964; Vontress, 1969). Thesetendencies reflect in part the fewer psycho-logical resources available in, their home so-cieties and a greater dependence on extendedfamily, peer, and other social networks foremotional support and problem solving (Al-exander et al., 1976; Brammer, 1978). Useof formal counseling may also be associatedwith shame, loss of status, and fear of beingsent home as a failure (Higginbotham,1979), Such clients are likely to be relativelyunfamiliar with the counseling process, mak-ing clarification of roles and structuring ofthe counseling relationship more importantthan usual (Vontress, 1969, 1976).

The specific form that a counseling inter-vention takes must consider the sojourner'sworldview with respect to the etiology ofemotional problems, normal or optimal be-havior, and the locus of control for behav-ioral change and decision making (Higgin-botham, 1979; Sue, 1978; Wohl, 1976). Forexample, different cultures vary in the de-gree of individual responsibility for choiceand decision making (Sundberg, 1976; Von-tress, 1976). An internal control - internalresponsibility worldview may be less appro-priate for more situation- and group-cen-tered cultures in which the individual is de-fined less separately from family and societyand where a more external orientation isvalued and accepted as reflecting good per-sonal adjustment (Sue, 1978).

Because of the uncertain appropriatenessof certain counseling interventions and tech-niques common in our culture, nonspecificfactors such as the quality of the client/counselor relationship may be even more im-portant in cross-cultural counseling (Dra-guns, 1976; Wohl, 1976). American concep-tions of the good therapeutic relationship,however, may not be culturally universal(Wohl, 1976). Openness, genuineness, andhonesty may be construed by clients fromcultures valuing reserve and modesty in self-disclosure as an invasion of privacy or as anaffront to one's dignity (Alexander et al.,1976; Coelho-Oudegeest, 1971; Klein et al.,1971; Vontress, 1969, 1976), and clientsfrom some (e.g., Oriental) cultures may ex-pect a more authoritative, directive role forthe counselor than current American viewsof counseling dictate (Alexander et al., 1976;Arkoff et al., 1966; Draguns, 1976; Peder-sen, 1976; Sundberg, 1976).

Several qualities have been suggested asimportant for the cross-cultural counselor,including cultural relativism and empathy,a knowledge of the common adjustment-re-lated experiences encountered by sojourners,a sound knowledge and awareness of one'sown culture, and, ideally, a knowledge of theclient's culture (Cieslak, 1955; David, 1976;DuBois, 1956; Lesser & Peter, 1957; Linton,1948; Pedersen, 1976; M. B. Smith, 1955;Stewart, 1976; Sundberg, 1976; Wohl, 1976).Pedersen (1976) defined the "culturally en-capsulated counselor" as one who assumeshe or she can deal with clients from othercultures without modifications in counselingstyle or who is unwilling or unable to ac-commodate to the cultural differences be-tween themselves and the client. Some wri-ters (e.g., Higginbotham, 1979; Vontress,1976; Wintrob, 1976) have argued that hav-ing lived in another culture oneself is one ofthe most important qualifications for a cross-cultural counselor because one is forced toundergo one's own culture shock and sub-sequent self-analysis, and so one will be ableto transmit to others strategies for adjust-ment to new cultural environments.

A final ethical and practical issue for thecross-cultural counselor concerns how muchthe sojourner should be encouraged to assim-ilate the host culture. The counselor and


client may feel that optimal adjustment inthe host culture, especially for lengthy so-journs, will be facilitated by the adoption ofcertain host norms and behavior. Previousresearch suggests, however, that overiden-tification with or accommodation to the hostculture may result in poorer adjustment andalienation from the home culture on return.Cross-cultural counseling with sojournersmay involve helping the sojourner define hisor her own balance of cultural identificationsin resolving this conflict (Draguns, 1976).

Methodological Considerations andGeneral Critique

Previous reviewers of the sojourn litera-ture have been critical of both the conceptualand methodological bases of studies in thisarea (Breitenbach, 1970; Coelho-Oudegeest,1971; David, 1973; Spaulding & Flack,1976; Walton, 1967, 1968; Cormack, Note4; Spencer, Note 8; Cussler, Note 9), in-cluding the frequent overgeneralization fromlimited sample sizes and national groups, thepredominance of studies dealing with Amer-ican sojourners or persons from other cul-tures sojourning in the United States, anabsence of studies comparing the adjustmentprocess of particular national groups in dif-ferent host countries (e.g., see Galtung,1965), and the need for more internationalcollaboration of both home and host culturescientists in studies of sojourner adjustment(Klineberg & Hull, 1979).

Another problem with most studies is theabsence of baseline data or adequate controlgroups (Breitenbach, 1970; David, 1973;Cormack, Note 4; Spencer, Note 8). Whatlevel of adjustment is "typical" of personsnot undergoing a cross-cultural experience?Should we compare new sojourners' curvesof adjustment to experienced individuals oftheir own nationality, to the adjustment ofhost culture individuals, or both? A possiblesolution would be to consider the relativeadjustment of a sojourner over time com-pared with his or her initial adjustment levelif one can assume that the assessments madeat different times are comparable. Withoutadequate control groups it is difficult to at-tribute sojourn outcomes such as attitudechange and personal development to the so-

journ experience itself rather than to normalmaturation processes (Useem & Useem,1955).

Related to baselines of adjustment is thequestion whether certain cultures, as a resultof their relatively distinct ecological evolu-tion (e.g., "tough" vs. "easy" cultures; Ar-senian & Arsenian, 1948), will be easier ormore difficult to adjust to for sojourners fromall or most cultures, or whether interactionsexist between culture of origin and host cul-ture in adjustment. Studies in social andtranscultural psychiatry (e.g., Caudill &Lin, 1969; Lebra, 1972; Marsella, 1980) re-lating culture to differential incidence andmanifestation of mental disorder suggestthat some cultures make more stressful de-mands on its members than do others. Also,because cultures differ in their level of dif-ferentiation (e.g., in job roles and social hier-archies) and the individual's degree of psy-chological differentiation is influenced byculture of origin (Berry, 1975; Witkin &Berry, 1975) one might hypothesize betteradjustment for individuals sojourning in cul-tures characterized by a level of differentia-tion analogous to their own.

These issues have been virtually ignoredin the sojourner adjustment literature. Al-though multiple host cultures have been usedin some studies (e.g., Klineberg & Hull,1979), only one study (Galtung, 1965) hassystematically compared the adjustment ofsojourners from specific cultures in morethan one host culture. Studies aimed at de-termining if it is more difficult to move frommore developed to less developed, from moredifferentiated to less differentiated, or moreautonomous to more socially restrictive cul-tures, or vice-versa in each case (or alongany other relevant dimensions of culturaldifferences), would be of substantial interest.

The varied and ambiguous use of the termadjustment has complicated the sojourneradjustment literature (Coelho-Oudegeest,1971; Spaulding & Flack, 1976; Cormack,Note 4; Spencer, Note 8) and made inte-gration of findings more difficult. Estimatesof the extent of maladjustment will vary de-pending on the index of adjustment used aswill the relationship between adjustment andother sojourn variables. Operationalizationof adjustment in terms of several distinct but


related dependent variables is probably nec-essary, however, because adjustment indicesdo not always covary substantially.

Research on sojourner adjustment hasbeen characterized by limited methodolo-gies, and rarely have multiple methods beenused in individual studies. Studies have de-pended largely on survey questionnaires andproblem checklists, sometimes supplementedby interviews (Hull, 1978; Spaulding &Flack, 1976; Walton, 1968; Cormack, Note4; Cussler, Note 9). Such studies tend to besuperficial and generally fail to relate so-journ behavior and adjustment difficulties tospecific sojourn experiences or cultural dif-ferences. Where problem checklists are usedthere are likely to be cultural differences inthe tendencies to endorse less-than-salientproblems and to deny certain problems (e.g.,Al-Shama, 1959; Jarrahi-Zadeh & Eich-man, 1970; Pareek & Rao, 1980), and therelationship between the number of prob-lems endorsed and the extent to which suchproblems are actually debilitating is uncer-tain.

Other methodologies that have been sug-gested for use in studies of sojourner ad-justment include more in-depth interviews,intensive case studies of successful sojourn-ers, autobiographies, naturalistic and partic-ipant observation, cultural distance scales,small group experiments, and various un-obtrusive measures (Bochner, 1980; David,1973; Hull, 1978; Spaulding & Flack, 1976;Cussler, Note 9). Experimental approaches(e.g., Bochner & Perks, 1971; French &Zajonc, 1957; Zajonc, 1952) have rarelybeen used but potentially provide more con-trolled tests of specific hypotheses. Brislin,Lonner, and Thorndike (1973), Brown andSechrest (1980), and Ciborowski (1980)provided useful discussions of problems andsuggested solutions involved in cross-culturalexperimentation. In general, increased at-tention to more psychological rather thansociological approaches, including assess-ments of such adjustment-related variablesas mood, self-esteem, and anxiety, wouldseem promising.

An important limitation of most previousstudies is the nonlongitudinal nature of thedesigns (Spaulding & Flack, 1976; Walton,1967). Most studies are conducted at a single

point in time during the sojourn or retro-spectively, with few studies making multipleassessments throughout the sojourn or evenbefore and after the sojourn (Breitenbach,1970; Cormack, Note 4). For example, Ucurves of adjustment have generally derivedfrom cross-sectional data or by post hoc in-ference from predeparture interviews of in-dividuals. Unfortunately, predeparture (e.g.,Selby & Woods, 1966) and postreturn (e.g.,Lysgaard, 1955; Scott, 1956) interviews andquestionnaires are subject to unknown anddifferential memory effects. Systematic as-sessment of psychological well-being isneeded within individuals over time to verifycurves of adjustment. Such longitudinal de-signs, however, are not without problems.The meaning of scores on attitude and ad-justment measures may change over timepartly as a result of increasing languagefluency with individuals endorsing or listingmore culture shock symptoms as their lan-guage proficiency increases. This will be agreater problem if special care is not takento determine the adequacy of the languagelevel or translation of materials used in thestudy.

Notably absent from previous reviews ofthe sojourner adjustment literature is appli-cation of conceptual and methodologicalconsiderations discussed in the cross-culturalpsychology literature (e.g., Brislin et al.,1973; Butcher & Pancheri, 1968; Draguns,1979; Triandis & Berry, 1980; Triandis,Malpass, & Davidson, 1973). Many meth-odological problems inherent in cross-cul-tural research are relevant to studies of so-journer adjustment despite the fact that thestudies generally take place in the host cul-ture rather than in the individual's owncountry. The danger of assuming the rele-vance or equivalence of theoretical conceptscross-culturally is perhaps even greater insojourner studies because the sojourner'spresence in the host country and facility inthe host language may make basic culturaldifferences in meaning appear to be less thanthey actually are.

The etic/emic distinction is a common onein discussions of cross-cultural methodology(e.g., Berry, 1980; Brislin et al., 1973; Dra-guns, 1979). Studies of sojourner adjustmentare almost invariably pseudoetic, using con-


cepts drawn from the host culture and ap-plying them to sojourners from other cul-tures. In such studies the criteria ofadjustment may themselves be culture bound.For example, cross-cultural research indi-cates that the concept of depression, an im-portant aspect of descriptions of cultureshock or sojourner maladjustment, is notconceptually or experientially equivalentcross-culturally (Marsella, 1980). Furthercomplicating assessment of sojourner ad-justment is evidence that the manifestationand subjective experience of depression maychange over time during the sojourn as thesojourner becomes more acculturated to thehost culture (Marsella, 1980).

Ascertaining the cross-cultural equiva-lence of measures and the extent to whichtools of research are appropriate for and/oran imposition on sojourners from differentcultures are additional problems relevant tostudies of sojourner adjustment. Interviewsmay be received courteously or with hostil-ity, and the effectiveness of more authori-tative versus more polite research styles mayvary with the cultural group being studied.Familiarity with and willingness to completemore structured tests and questionnaires alsovary (Draguns, 1979; Lonner, 1976), relat-ing in part to cultural variations in self-dis-closure reserve (Alexander et al., 1976;Sundberg, 1976; Vontress, 1969, 1976).

Differential susceptibility to response setsmust be considered, with some studies find-ing less (Chun, Campbell, & Yoo, 1974,with Koreans; Iwawaki & Cowen, 1964; Zax& Takahashi, 1967, with Japanese) or more(Triandis & Vassiliou, 1967, with Greeks;Klineberg & Hull, 1979, with Latin Amer-icans) extreme response tendencies in dif-ferent cultural groups. Although these dif-ferences in extreme response tendency seemto make sense along some dimension of cul-tural reserve, it is uncertain to what extentthese tendencies are situation or instrumentspecific (Iwawaki & Zax, 1969) or reflectactual meaningful differences in respondingto the constructs being assessed (Strieker,Takahashi, & Zax, 1967).

Virtually all sojourner adjustment studieshave averted the numerous and subtle prob-lems of translation of measures (e.g., Brislin,1970, 1980; Butcher & Garcia, 1978;

Butcher & Pancheri, 1968; Gordon & Ki-kuchi, 1966; Sechrest, Fay, & Zaidi, 1972)by assuming adequate host language profi-ciency and using English language measures.This necessitates ensuring a reasonable levelof English difficulty for any instrumentsused. It also raises the question of whethermore reliable and valid assessments of ad-justment can be obtained using English lan-guage measures or measures in the sojourn-er's native tongue because language of pre-sentation has been found to influence subjectresponses (Gordon & Kikuchi, 1966; Spiel-berger & Sharma, 1976). In any case, re-searchers should be sensitive to the possibil-ity of interactions between cultural variablesand measurement problems that make cross-cultural differences difficult to interpret(Berry, 1980). Butcher and Pancheri (1968)and Irvine and Carroll (1980) provided ex-cellent discussions of statistical proceduresfor investigating the equivalence of measuresused cross-culturally that are also relevantfor studies of sojourner adjustment.

Malpass (1977) argued that the bases ofsolution to many cross-cultural methodolog-ical difficulties lies in better developed the-ory. Unfortunately, however, concepts andtheory remain underdeveloped in the so-journer adjustment literature (Breitenbach,1970; Hull, 1978; Spaulding & Flack, 1976;Walton, 1968; Cormack, Note 4; Major,Note 5; Spencer, Note 8; Cussler, Note 9).Most concepts that are used were formulatedin the early studies of the 1950s and early1960s, including the U curve, two-way mir-ror, association and sensitive-area hy-potheses, and the notions of culture shock,overlapping membership conflict, patrioticreinforcement, and cultural empathy. Thedevelopment of theories of sojourner adjust-ment has probably been inhibited by the fre-quent emphasis in sojourner studies on iden-tification of adjustment problems and sojournoutcomes rather than on the dynamics orprocess of adjustment (Hegazy, 1969). Mostof the concepts used constitute not so muchtheories, allowing generation and tests ofpredictive hypotheses, but rather post hocdescriptions or "explanations" of adjustmentdata already obtained (David, 1973). Withfew exceptions (e.g., role conflict, authori-tarian personality, frustration-aggression


hypothesis, culture contact hypothesis, iden-tification), there has been a minimal attemptto apply theoretical concepts already exist-ing in the sociopsychological literature to thedynamics of sojourner adjustment (Walton,1971; Cussler, Note 9). One relatively recentexception is the utilization of operant con-ditioning and social learning principles todescribe sojourner adjustment in terms ofculture learning (e.g., Bochner, 1972; David,1973, 1976; Guthrie, 1975).

Application of available interculturalcommunication theory and principles to theunderstanding of sojourner adjustment is aneglected but promising area. Effective cross-cultural communication and understandinghas been mentioned as a key to sojourneradjustment (Brein & David, 1971), but thenature of sojourner-host interactions hastypically been described in only static, quan-titative terms (e.g., the number and varietyof social contacts). Naturalistic or more con-trolled observation of actual ongoing dyadiccommunication between sojourners and theirhosts should provide more information aboutthe process and quality of social interactionthan the usual survey techniques used. Lon-gabaugh (1980) and Brislin (1980) provideddiscussions of the use of systematic obser-vation and content analysis in cross-culturalresearch that would be relevant here.

In summary, it should be noted that a sin-gle, comprehensive theory of sojourner ad-justment is not likely to be found. Ratherthan searching for a single theory of the dy-namics of sojourner adjustment, several pro-cesses, each capable of theoretical formu-lation in terms of existing or new concepts,will probably be required for an adequatedescription of sojourner adjustment. Under-standing of the dynamics of sojourner ad-justment will be facilitated by a deemphasison studies that enumerate sojourner prob-lems and outcomes, especially through theuse of superficial survey techniques, and byincreased emphasis on more intensive, lon-gitudinal studies of individual patterns ofadjustment and coping. In addition, the gen-erality and validity of findings will be in-creased with the use of more diverse meth-odologies. Finally, much more attentionneeds to be given to the contributions andimplications of the literature on cross-cul-

tural research and methodology to studiesof sojourner adjustment.

Reference Notes

1. Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. Workingabroad: A discussion of psychological attitudes andadaptation in new situations (GAP Report No. 41).1958.

2. Shattuck, G. M. Between two cultures: A study ofthe social adaptation of foreign students to anAmerican academic community. Unpublished manu-script, Cornell University, Department of Rural So-ciology, 1965.

3. Markham, J. W. International images and masscommunication behavior (Mass CommunicationResearch Bureau Monongraphs, 1). Iowa City: Uni-versity of Iowa, School of Journalism, 1967.

4. Cormack, M. L. An evaluation of research on ed-ucational exchange. Unpublished manuscript pre-pared for the Bureau of Educational and CulturalAffairs, August 1962. (Available from the BrooklynCollege Library, Brooklyn, New York 11201.)

5. Major, R. T., Jr. A review of the research on inter-national exchange. Unpublished manuscript, TheExperiment on International Living, Putney, Vt,1965.

6. Barry, J. Thai students in the United Stales: A studyin altitude change (Data Paper No. 66). Ithaca,N.Y.: Cornell University, Southeast Asia Program,Department of Asian Studies, May 1967.

7. Niyekawa-Howard, A. M. Biculturality and cogni-tive growth: Theoretical foundations for basic andapplied research (Occasional Papers of the East-West Culture Learning Institute No. 1). Honolulu,Hawaii: East-West Center, July 1970.

8. Spencer, R. The academic performance of foreignstudents in American colleges and universities:Comments on the literature 1960-1967, with bibli-ography. Unpublished manuscript, University of Il-linois—Urbana, Office of Instructional Resources,Measurement and Research Division, 1967,

9. Cussler, M. T. Review of selected studies affectinginternational and cultural affairs. Unpublishedmanuscript prepared for the United States AdvisoryCommission on International and Cultural Affairs,November 1962. (Available from the Department ofSociology, University of Maryland, College Park,Maryland 20742.)

References

Adler, P. S. The transitional experience: An alternativeview of culture shock. Journal of Humanistic Psy-chology, 1975, 15, 13-23.

Adler, P. S. Beyond cultural identity: Reflections uponcultural and multicultural man. In R. W. Brislin(Ed.), Culture learning: Concepts, applications, andresearch. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1977.

Adorrio, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J.,& Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality.New York: Harper, 1950.

Aich, P. Asian and African students in the West Ger-man university. Minerva, 1963, 1, 439-452.


Akhun, I. I. Turkish engineering students studying inthe United States (Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Missouri, 1961). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-tional, 1961, 22, 2726A. (University Microfilms No.61-6, 028)

Akka, R. I. The Middle Eastern student on the Amer-ican campus. Journal of American College HealthAssociation, 1967, 15, 251-254.

Al-Shama, N. Problems of adjustment of Iraqi studentsin the United States. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1959.

Alexander, A. A., Workneh, F., Klein, M. H., & Miller,M. H. Psychotherapy and the foreign student. In P.Pedersen, W. S. Lonner, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.),Counseling across cultures. Honolulu: University ofHawaii Press, 1976.

Allen, D. E., & Arafat, I. S. Procreativc family attitudesof American and foreign students. InternationalJournal of Comparative Sociology, 1971, 12, 134-139.

Amir, Y. Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psy-chological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 319-342.

Angell, R. C. Peace on the march: Transnational par-ticipation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1969.

Antler, L. Correlates of home and host country ac-quaintanceship among foreign medical residents inthe United States. Journal of Social Psychology,1970, 80, 49-57.

Arensberg, C. M., & Niehoff, A. H. Introducing socialchange: A manual for Americans overseas. Chicago:Aldine, 1964.

Arkoff, A., Thaver, F., & Elkind, L. Mental health andcounseling ideas of Asian and American students.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 13, 219-223.

Arsenian, J., & Arsenian, J. M. Tough and easy cul-tures. Psychiatry, 1948, / / , 377-385.

Bailyn, L., & Kelman, H. C. The effects of a year'sexperience in America on the self-image of Scandi-navians. Journal of Social Issues, 1962, 18(\), 30-40.

Bandura, A. The self-system in reciprocal determinism.American Psychologist, 1978, 33, 344-358.

Banham, M. The Nigerian student in Britian. Univer-sities Quarterly, 1958, 12, 363-366.

Barna, L. M. Stumbling blocks in interpersonal inter-cultural communications. In D. Hoopes (Ed.), Read-ings in intercultural communication (Vol. 1). Pitts-burgh, Penn.: University of Pittsburgh InterculturalCommunication Network of the Regional Council forInternational Education, 1970.

Basu, A. K., & Ames, R. G. Cross-cultural contact andattitude formation. Sociology and Social Research,1970, 55, 5-16.

Seals, R. L., & Humphrey, N. D. No frontier to learn-ing: The Mexican student in the United States. Min-neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1957.

Beck, R. H. Professional training in education for for-eign students in the United States. In I. T. Sanders(Ed.), The professional education of students fromother lands. New York: Council on Social Work Ed-ucation, 1963.

Becker, T. Patterns of attitudinal changes among for-eign students. American Journal of Sociology, 1968,73, 431-442.

Becker, T. Cultural patterns and nationalistic commit-ment among foreign students in the United States.Sociology and Social Research, 1971, 55, 467-481.

Becker, T. Black Africans and Black Americans on anAmerican campus: The African view. Sociology andSocial Research, 1973, 57, 168-181.

Bern, D. J., & Allen, A. On predicting some of thepeople some of the time: The search for cross-situa-tional consistencies in behavior. Psychological Re-view, 1974, 81, 506-520.

Bennett, J., Passin, H., & McKnight, R. K. In searchof identity: The Japanese overseas scholar in Amer-ica and Japan. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 1958.

Berry, J. W. Ecology, cultural adaptation, and psycho-logical differentiation: Traditional patterning and ac-culturative stress. In R. W. Brislin, S. Bochner, &W. J. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives onlearning. New York: Wiley, 1975.

Berry, J. W. Introduction to methodology. In H. C.Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon,1980.

Blegen, T. Counseling foreign students. Washington,D.C.: American Council on Education, 1950.

Block, J. Advancing the psychology of personality: Par-adigmatic shift or improving the quality of research?In N. S. Endler & D. Magnusson (Eds.), Personalityat the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psy-chology. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.

Blood, R. O., & Nicholson, S. O. The experiences offoreign students in dating American women. Mar-riage and Family Living, 1962, 24, 241-248.

Bochner, S. Problems in culture learning. In S. Bochner& P. Wicks (Eds.), Overseas students in Australia. •Randwick, N.S.W.: New South Wales UniversityPress, 1972.

Bochner, S. The mediating man and cultural diversity.In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Culture learning: Concepts,applications, and research. Honolulu: University ofHawaii Press, 1977.

Bochner, S. Unobtrusive methods in cross-cultural ex-perimentation. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol.2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.

Bochner, S., Lin, A., & McLeod, B. M. Cross-culturalcontact and the development of an international per-spective. Journal of Social Psychology, 1979, 107,29-41.

Bochner, S., & Perks, R. W. National role evocationas a function of cross-national interaction. Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1971, 2, 157-164.

Bowers, K. S. Situationism in psychology: An analysisand a critique. Psychological Review, 1973, SO, 307-336.

Brammer, L. M. Informal helping systems in selectedsubcultures. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1978,56, 476-479.

Brein, M., & David, K. Intercultural communicationand the adjustment of the sojourner. PsychologicalBulletin, 1971, 76, 215-230.

Breitenbach, D. The evaluation of study abroad. In I.Eide (Ed.), Students as links between cultures. Paris:UNESCO and the International Peace Research Insti-tute (Oslo), 1970.


Brislin, R. Back translation for cross-cultural research.Journal of'Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1970, /, 185-216.

Brislin, R. W. Translation and content analysis of oraland written material. In H. C, Triandis & J. W. Berry(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol.2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.

Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J,, & Thorndike, R. M.Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Wiley,1973.

Brislin, R. W., & Pedersen, P. Cross-cultural orien-tation programs. New York: Wiley, 1976.

Brown, E. D,, & Sechrest, L. Experiments in cross-cul-tural research. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol.2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.

Buss, A. R. The trait-situation controversy and the con-cept of interaction. Personality and Social Psychol-ogy Bulletin, 1977, 3, 196-201.

Butcher, J. N., & Garcia, R. E. Cross-national appli-cation of psychological tests. Personnel and GuidanceJournal, 1978, 56, 472-475.

Butcher, J. N., & Pancheri, P. Handbook of cross-na-tional MMPI research. Chicago: Rand McNally,1968.

Byrnes, F. C. Role shock: An occupational hazard ofAmerican technical assistants abroad. The Annals,1966, 368, 95-108.

Calhoun, T. W. Culture shock and its effects on Amer-ican teachers in overseas schools: An exploratorystudy (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massa-chusetts, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International,1977, 38, 1764A. (University Microfilms No. 77-21,985)

Carey, A. T. Colonial students: A study of the socialadaptation of colonial students in London. London:

• Seeker & Warburg, 1956.Caudill, W., & Lin, T. J. (Eds.). Menial health research

in Asia and the Pacific. Honolulu, Hawaii: East-WestCenter Press, 1969.

Chang, H-B. Attitudes of Chinese students in the UnitedStates. Sociology and Social Research, 1973, 58, 66-77.

Chu, H-M., Yeh, E-K,, Klein, M. H., Alexander,A. A., & Miller, M. H. A study of Chinese students'adjustment in the U.S.A. Acta Psychologica Tai-wanica, 1971, 13, 206-218.

Chun, K. T., Campbell, J. B., & Yoo, J. H. Extremeresponse style in cross-cultural research: A reminder.Journal of Cross-Culiural Psychology, i 974, 5, 465-480.

Chunnual, N., & Marsella, A. J. Convergent and di-vergent validation of a traditionalism—modernismattitude questionnaire for Thai exchange students.Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 96, 21-26.

Ciborowski, T. The role of context, skill, and transferin cross-cultural experimentation. In H. C. Triandis& J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-culturalpsychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.

Cieslak, E. C. The foreign student in American colleges.Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 1955.

Cleveland, H., Mangone, G. J., & Adams, T. G. Theoverseas Americans. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

Coelho, G. V. Changing images of America: A study

of Indian students' perceptions. Glencoe, III.: FreePress, 1958.

Coelho, G. V. Personal growth and educational devel-opment through working and studying abroad. Jour-nal of Social Issues, 1962, 18(\), 55-67.

Coelho-Oudegeest, M. Cross-cultural counseling: Astudy of some variables in the counseling of foreignstudents (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wis-consin, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International,1971, 31, 6340A. (University Microfilms No. 71-12,683)

Colacicco, M. G. A comparison of item responses onthe MMPI by selected American and foreign students(Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1970).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 31, 1572A.(University Microfilms No. 70-18, 616)

Cormack, M. The wandering scholar. InternationalEducational and Cultural Exchange, 1968, 3(4), 44-51.

David, K. H, Culture shock and the development of self-awareness. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy,1971,4,44-48.

David, K. H. Intercultural adjustment, cross-culturaltraining, and reinforcement theory. JSAS Catalog ofSelected Documents in Psychology, 1973, 3, 45. (Ms.No. 348)

David, K. H. The use of social learning theory in pre-venting intercultural adjustment problems. In P. Ped-ersen, W. J. Lonner, & J. Draguns (Eds.),' Counselingacross cultures. Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress, 1976.

Davis, F. J. American minorities as seen by Turkishstudents in the United States. Sociology and SocialResearch, 1961, 46, 48-54.

Davis, F. J. Perspectives of Turkish students in theUnited States. Sociology and Social Research, 1963,48, 47-57.

Davis, F. J. The two-way mirror and the U-curve:America as seen by Turkish students returned home.Sociology and Social Research, 1971, 56, 29-43.

Davis, J. M., Hanson, R., & Burner, D. The Africanstudent: His achievements and his problems. NewYork: Institute of International Education, 1961.

Deutsch, S. E. International education and exchange.Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Reserve UniversityPress, 1970.

Deutsch, S. E., & Won, G. Y. M. Some factors in theadjustment of foreign nationals in the United States.Journal of Social Issues, 1963, 19(3), 115-122.

Dicken, C. Predicting the success of Peace Corps com-munity development workers. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 597-606.

Di Marco, N. Stress and adaptation in cross-culturaltransition. Psychological Reports, 1974, 35, 279-285.

Dorjahn, V. R. Transcultural perceptions and misper-ceptions in Sierra Leone. In R. B. Textor (Ed.), Cul-tural frontiers of the Peace Corps. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press, 1966.

Doughty, P. L. Pitfalls and progress in the PeruvianSierra. In R. B. Textor (Ed.), Cultural frontiers ofthe Peace Corps. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,1966.

Draguns, J. G. Counseling across cultures: Commonthemes and distinct approaches. In P. Pedersen,W. J. Lonner, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling


across cultures. Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress, 1976,

Draguns, J. G. Culture and personality. In A. Marsella,R. Tharp, & T. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives incross-cultural psychology. New York: AcademicPress, 1979.

DuBois, C. A. Foreign students and higher educationin the United Stales. Washington, D.C.: AmericanCouncil on Education, 1956.

Edgerton, R. B. Some dimensions of disillusionment inculture contact. Southwestern Journal of Anthro-pology, 1965, 21, 231-243.

Ekman, P. Universals and cultural differences in facialexpressions of emotion. In J. K. Cole (Ed.), NebraskaSymposium on Motivation (Vol. 19). Lincoln: Uni-versity of Nebraska Press, 1972.

Eldridge, J. E. T. Overseas students at Leicester Uni-versity. Race, 1960, 2, 50-59.

Endler, N. S., & Hunt, J. McV. Sources of behavioralvariance as measured by the S-R Inventory of Anx-iousness. Psychological Bulletin, 1966, 65, 336-346.

Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. Toward an interac-tional psychology of personality. Psychological Bul-letin, 1976, 83, 956-971.

Ezekiel, R. The personal future and Peace Corps com-petence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy Monograph, 1968, 8(2, Pt. 2).

Fiedler, F. E., Mitchell, T., & Triandis, H. C. The cul-ture assimilator: An approach to cross-cultural train-ing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 95-102.

Flack, M. J. Results and effects of study abroad. Annalsof the American Academy of Political and SocialScience, 1976, 424, 107-fl7.

Fong, S., & Peskin, H. Sex-role strain and personalityadjustment of China-born students in America: Apilot study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969,74, 563-568.

Forstat, R. Adjustment problems of international stu-dents. Sociology and Social Research, 1951, 36, 25-30.

Foster, G. M. Traditional cultures and the impact oftechnological change. New York: Harper & Row,1962.

French, J. R., & Zajonc, R. B. An experimental studyof cross-cultural norm conflict. Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 218-224.

Galtung, I. E. The impact of study abroad: A three-by-three nation study of cross-cultural contact. Journalof Peace Research, 1965, 2, 258-275.

Gandhi, R. S. Conflict and cohesion in an Indian studentcommunity. Human Organization, 1970, 29, 95-102.

Gandhi, R. S. Some contrast in the foreign student life-styles. International Journal of Contemporary So-ciology, 1972, 9, 34-43.

Gardner, G. H. Cross-cultural communication. Journalof Social Psychology, 1962, 58, 241-256.

Gardner, J. The foreign student in America. ForeignAffairs, 1952, 4, 637-650.

Garraty, J. A., &. Adams, W. From Main Street to theLeft Bank: Students and scholars abroad. East Lan-sing: Michigan State University Press, 1959.

Garza-Guerrero, A. C. Culture shock: Its mourning andthe vicissitudes of identity. Journal of the AmericanPsychoanalytic Association, 1974, 22, 408-429.

Gezi, K. I. The acculturation of Middle Eastern Arabstudents in selected American colleges and univer-sities. New York: American Friends of the MiddleEast, 1959.

Gezi, K. I. Arab students' perceptions of American stu-dents. Sociology and Social Research, 1961, 45, 441-447.

Glenn, E. S. Meaning and behavior: Communicationand culture. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.),Intercuhural communication: A reader. Belmont,Calif.: Wadsworth, 1972.

Golden, J. S. Student adjustment abroad: A psychia-trist's view. International Educational and CulturalExchange, 1973, 8(4), 28-36.

Gollin, A. E. The transfer and use of development skills(Bureau of Social Science Research). Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

Gonzalez-Reigosa, F. The anxiety-arousing effect of ta-boo words in bilinguals. In C. D. Spielberger & R.Diaz-Guerrero (Eds.), Cross-cultural anxiety. NewYork: Wiley, 1976.

Gordon, L. V. Clinical, psychometric, and work-sampleapproaches in the prediction of success in Peace Corpstraining. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 51,111-119.

Gordon, L. V., & Kikuchi, A. American personalitytests in cross-cultural research—A caution. Journalof Social Psychology, 1966,69, 179-183.

Grande, P. P. The use of self and peer ratings in a PeaceCorps training program. Vocational Guidance Quar-terly, 1966, 14, 244-246.

Greenblat, C. Foreign students in the United States: Astudy of attitudes and orientation. Sociological Fo-cus, 1971, 4(3), 17-35.

Gullahorn, J. E., & Gullahorn, J. T. American studentsabroad: Professional versus personal development.The Annals, 1966, 368, 43-59.

Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. The role of theacademic man as a cross-cultural mediator. AmericanSociological Review, 1960, 25, 414-417.

Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. Visiting Fulbrightprofessors as agents of cross-cultural communication.Sociology and Social Research, 1962, 46, 282-293.

Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. An extension ofthe U-curve hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues,1963, 79(3), 33-47.

Guskin, A. E. Tradition and change in a Thai university.In R. B. Textor (Ed.), Cultural frontiers of the PeaceCorps. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966.

Guthrie, G. M. Cultural preparation for the Philippines.In R. B. Textor (Ed.), Cultural frontiers of the PeaceCorps. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966.

Guthrie, G. M. A behavioral analysis of culture learn-ing. In R. W. Brislin, S. Bochner, & W. J. Lonner(Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on learning. NewYork: Wiley, 1975.

Guthrie, G. M., & Zektick, I. N. Predicting perfor-mance in the Peace Corps. Journal of Social Psy-chology, 1967, 71, 11-21.

Hall, E. T. The silent language. New York: Doubleday,1959.

Hall, E. T., & Whyte, W. F. Intercultural communi-cation: A guide to men of action. Practical Anthro-pology, 1963, 10, 216-299.

Hare, A. P. Factors associated with Peace Corps vol-


unteer success in the Philippines. Human Organiza-tion, 1966, 25, 150-153.

Harris, J. G., Jr. Prediction of success on a distant Pa-cific island: Peace Corps style. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 1972, 38, 181-190.

Harris, J. G., Jr. A science of the South Pacific: Analysisof the character structure of the Peace Corps vol-unteer. American Psychologist, 1973, 28, 232-247.

Harris, J. G., Jr. Identification of cross-cultural talent:The empirical approach of the Peace Corps. In R.Brislin (Ed.), Culture learning: Concepts, applica-tions, and research. Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress, 1977.

Harris, P. R., & Moran, R. T. Managing cultural dif-ferences. Houston, Tex.: Gulf, 1979,

Harrison, R., & Hopkins, R. The design of cross-cul-tural training: An alternative to the university model.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1967, 3, 431 -460.

Hassan, A. Attitudes of American-educated foreign stu-dents toward American democratic orientation. Jour-nal of Social Psychology, 1962, 57, 265-275.

Hautaluoma, J. E., & Kaman, V. Description of PeaceCorps volunteers' experience in Afghanistan. In R.Brislin (Ed.), Culture learning: Concepts, applica-tions, and research. Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress, 1977.

Heath, G. L. Foreign student attitudes at InternationalHouse, Berkeley. International Educational and Cul-tural Exchange, 1970, 5(3), 66-70.

Hegazy, M. E. Cross-cultural experience and socialchange: The case of foreign study (Doctoral disser-tation, University of Minnesota, 1968). DissertationAbstracts International, 1969, 29, 3679A. (Univer-sity Microfilms No. 69-6, 853)

Higbee, H. Role shock—A new concept. InternationalEducational and Cultural Exchange, 1969, 4(4), 71-81.

Higginbotham, H. N. Cultural issues in providing psy-chological sevices for foreign students in the UnitedStates. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-tions, 1979, 3, 49-85.

Hill, J. H. An analysis of a group of Indonesian, Thai,Pakistani, and Indian students' perceptions of theirproblems while enrolled at Indiana University (Doc-toral dissertation, Indiana University, 1966). Disser-tation Abstracts International, 1966, 27, 2007A.(University Microfilms No. 66-12, 657)

Hofman, J. E., & Zak, I. Interpersonal contact andattitude change in a cross-cultural situation. Journalof Social Psychology, 1969, 78, 165-171.

Hoijer, H. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In L. A. Sa-movar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural com-munication: A reader. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth,1972.

Holzman, P. S., & Gardner, R. W. Leveling-sharpeningand memory organization. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 1960, 61, 176-180.

Holzman, P. S., & Klein, G. S. Cognitive system-prin-ciples of leveling and sharpening: Individual differ-ences in assimilation effects of visual time error. Jour-nal of Psychology, 1954, 37, 105-122.

Hountras, P. T. Factors associated with the academicachievement of foreign graduate students at the Uni-versity of Michigan, 1947-1949 (Doctoral disserta-

tion, University of Michigan, 1955). DissertationAbstracts, 1955, 15, 762. (University Microfilms No.00-11,297)

Hountras, P. T. Factors related to academic probationamong foreign graduate students. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 1957, <«, 157-163.

Hull, W. F. Foreign students in the United States ofAmerica: Coping behavior within the educationalenvironment. New York: Praeger, 1978.

Ibrahim, S. E. M. Interaction, perception, and attitudesof Arab students toward Americans. Sociology andSocial Research, 1970, 55, 29-46.

Ibrahim, S. E. M. Cross-cultural interaction and atti-tude formation before and after a major crisis. So-ciological Focus, 1971,4(3), 1-16.

lisager, H. An evaluation of an attempt to form inter-national attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology,1949, 30, 207-216.

Irvine, S. H., & Carroll, W. K. Testing and assessmentacross cultures: Issues in methodology and theory. InH. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook ofcross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn& Bacon, 1980.

Iwawaki, S., & Cowen, E. L. The social desirability oftrait-descriptive terms: Applications to a Japanesesample. Journal of Social Psychology, 1964,65, 199-205.

Iwawaki, S., & Zax, M. Personality dimensions andextreme response tendency. Psychological Reports,1969,25,31-34.

Jacobson, E. H. Sojourn research: A definition of thefield. Journal of Social Issues, 1963,79(3), 123-129.

Jammaz, A. I. A. Saudi students in the United States:A study of their adjustment problems (Doctoral dis-sertation, Michigan State University, 1972). Disser-tation Abstracts International, 1973, 33, 4879A.(University Microfilms No. 73-5, 407)

Jarrahi-Zadeh, A., & Eichman, W. J. The impact ofsocio-cultural factors on Middle Eastern students inthe United States. International Educational andCultural Exchange, 1970, 5(3), 82-94.

Johnson, D. C. Asian alumni look back on their Amer-ican experiences. International Educational and Cul-tural Exchange, 1970, 6(1), 77-81.

Johnson, D. C. Problems of foreign students. Interna-tional Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1971,7(2), 61-68.

Jones, R. R., & Popper, R. Characteristics of PeaceCorps host countries and the behavior of volunteers.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1972,5, 233-235.

Kang, T. S. Name changes and acculturation: Chinesestudents on an American campus. Pacific Sociolog-ical Review, 1971, 14, 403-412.

Kang, T. S. A foreign student group as an ethnic com-munity. International Review of Modern Sociology,1972, 2, 72-82,

Kelman, H. C. (with V. Steinitz). The reactions of par-ticipants in a foreign specialists seminar to theirAmerican experience. Journal of Social Issues, 1963,19(3), 61-114.

Kelman, H. C., & Bailyn, L. Effects of cross-culturalexperience on national images: A study of Scandi-navian students in America. Journal of Conflict Res-olution, 1962, 6, 319-334.


Kiell, N. Attitudes of foreign students. Journal ofHigher Education, 1951, 22(4), 188-194; 225.

Klein, M. H., Alexander, A. A., & Tseng, K-H. Theforeign student adaptation program: Social experi-ences of Asian students. International Educationaland Cultural Exchange, 1971, 6(3), 77-90.

Klineberg, O. Psychological aspects of student ex-change. In I, Eide (Ed.), Students as links betweencultures. Paris: UNESCO and the International PeaceResearch Institute (Oslo), 1970.

Klineberg, O., & Ben Brika, J. Etudiants du tiers-monde en Europe. The Hague, The Netherlands:Mouton, 1972.

Klineberg, O., Si Hull, W. F. At a foreign university:An international study of adaptation and coping.New York: Praeger, 1979.

Klinger, R. B. A comparison between American andforeign student groups on certain moral values (Doc-toral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1961).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1961, 22, 2690A.(University Microfilms No. 61-6, 379)

Klinger, R. B. Foreign student adviser: A necessaryprofession. International Educational and CulturalExchange, 1967, 2(1), 21-27.

Lambert, R. D., & Bressler, M. The sensitive area com-plex: A contribution to the theory of guided culturecontact. American Journal of Sociology, 1955, 60,583-592.

Lambert, R. D., & Bressler, M. Indian students on anAmerican campus. Minneapolis: University of Min-nesota Press, 1956.

Lebra, W. (Ed.). Transcultural research in mentalhealth. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1972.

Leonard, E. W. Attitude change in a college programof foreign study and travel. Educational Record,1964, 45. 173-181.

Lesser, S. O., & Peter, H. W. Training foreign nationalsin the United States. In R. Likert & S. P. Hayes, Jr.(Eds.), Some applications of behavioural research.Paris: UNESCO, 1957.

Linton, C. Counseling students from overseas. Educa-tional and Psychological Measurement, 1948, 8,501-522.

Livingstone, A. S. The overseas student in Britain withspecial reference to training courses in social welfare.Manchester, England: Manchester University Press,1960.

Longabaugh, R, The systematic observation of behaviorin naturalistic settings. In H. C. Triandis & J. W.Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology(Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.

Lonner, W. J. The use of Western-based tests in inter-cultural counseling. In P. Pedersen, W. J. Lonner,& J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling across cultures.Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1976.

Looinis, C. P., & Schuler, E. A. Acculturation of foreignstudents in the United States. Applied Anthropology,1948, 7(2), 17-34.

Lundstedt, S. An introduction to some evolving prob-lems in cross-cultural research. Journal of Social Is-sues, 1963, yp(3), 1-9.

Lysgaard, S. Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwe-gian Fulbright grantees visiting the United States.International Social Science Bulletin, 1955, 7, 45-51.

MacFarlane, R. The welfare of Commonwealth stu-dents. Universities Quarterly, 1958, 12, 360-363.

MacGuigan, F. J. Psychological changes related to in-tercultural experiences. Psychological Reports, 1958,4, 55-60.

Mahony, F. J. Success in Somalia. In R. B.Textor (Ed.),Cultural frontiers of the Peace Corps. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press, 1966.

Malpass, R. S. Theory and method in cross-culturalpsychology. American Psychologist, 1977,52, 1069-1079.

Mandelbaum, D. G. (Ed.). Selected writings of EdwardSapir. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949.

Marsella, A. J. Depressive experience and disorderacross cultures. In H. C. Triandis & J. G. Draguns(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol.6). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.

Marshall, T. The strategy of international exchange. InI. Eide (Ed.), Students as links between cultures.Paris: UNESCO and the International Peace ResearchInstitute (Oslo), 1970.

Maryanov, G. S. The representative staff as intercul-tural mediators in Malaya, In R. B. Textor (Ed.),Cultural frontiers of the Peace Corps. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press, 1966.

McClintock, C. G., & Davis, J. Changes in the attitudesof "nationality" in the self-perception of the "stranger".Journal of Social Psychology, 1958, 48, 183-193.

McCulIough, M. G., & Mestenhauser, J. A. Housingof foreign students—An educational experience?Journal of College Personnel, 1963, 5, 2-7.

McEvoy, T. L. Adjustment of American youth in cross-cultural programs. Journal of College Student Per-sonnel, 1968, 9, 2-8.

Melby, J. F. & Wolf, E. K. Looking glass for Ameri-cans: A study of the foreign students at the Universityof Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, Penn.: National Coun-cil on Asian Affairs, 1961.

Menninger, W. W., & English, J. T. Psychiatric cas-ualties from overseas Peace Corps service. Bulletinof the Menninger Clinic, 1965,29, 148-158.

Miller, M. H. et al. The cross-cultural student: Lessonsin human nature. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic,1971, 35, 128-131.

Mischel, W. Predicting the success of Peace Corps vol-unteers in Nigeria. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 1965, /, 510-517.

Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York:Wiley, 1968.

Mischel, W. Toward a cognitive social learning recon-ceptualization of personality. Psychological Review,1973,50, 252-283.

Mischel, W. The interaction of person and situation. InN. S. Endler & D. Magnusson (Eds.), Personalityat the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psy-chology. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.

Mishler, A. L. Personal contact in international ex-changes. In H. C. Kelman (Ed.), International be-havior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.

Mitchell, T. R., Dossett, D. L., Fiedler, F. E., & Trian-dis, H. C. Culture training: Validation evidence forthe culture assimilator. International Journal of Psy-chology, 1972, 7, 97-104.

Moore, F. G. Factors affecting the academic success offoreign students in American universities (Doctoral


dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1953). Disser-tation Abstracts, 1954, 14, 492. (University Micro-films No. 00-7, 252)

Moran, R., Mestenhauser, J., & Pedersen, P. Dress re-hearsal for a cross-cultural experience. InternationalEducational and Cultural Exchange, 1974, 70(1),23-27.

Morris, R. T. The two-way mirror: National status inforeign students' adjustment. Minneapolis: Univer-sity of Minnesota Press, 1960.

Nelson, R. L. The use of psychiatric facilities in a uni-versity setting by foreign students. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press, 1956.

Nickclly, A., Sugita, M., & Otis, J. Adjustment andmental health attitudes in foreign students. MentalHygiene, 1964, 48. 463-467.

Nielsen, W. A., Bryant, W. C., & Wyatt, D. W. OurAfrican students. Overseas: The magazine of edu-cational exchange, 1962, 7(6), 15-18.

Noesjirwan, J. Attitudes to learning of the Asian studentstudying in the West. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psy-chology, 1970, I, 393-397.

Oberg, K. Cultural shock: Adjustment to new culturalenvironments. Practical Anthropology, 1960,7, 177-182.

Odenyo, A. O. Africans and Afro-Americans on cam-pus: A study of some of the relationships between twominority sub-communities (Doctoral dissertation,University of Minnesota, 1970). Dissertation Ab-stracts International, 1971, 32, 555A. (UniversityMicrofilms No. 71-18, 887)

Otis, J. Psychotherapy with foreign students in a uni-versity. Mental Hygiene, 1955, 39, 581-594.

Pace, C. R. The junior year in France: An evaluationof the University of Delaware-Sweet Briar CollegeProgram. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press,1959.

Pareek, U., & Rao, T. V. Cross-cultural surveys andinterviewing. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.),Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2).Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.

Parker, O. D., & Educational Services Staff, AFME.Cultural clues to the Middle Eastern student. Inter-national Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1976,12(2), 12-18.

Pedersen, P. The field of intercultural counseling. In P.Pedersen, W. J. Lonner, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.),Counseling across cultures. Honolulu: University ofHawaii Press, 1976.

Perlmutter, H. V. Some characteristics of the xenophilicpersonality. Journal of Psychology, 1954, 38, 291-300.

Perlmutter, H. V. Some relationships between xeno-philic attitudes and authoritarianism among Ameri-cans abroad. Psychological Reports, 1957, 3, 78-87.

Peterson, J. A., & Neumeyer, M. H. Problems of foreignstudents. Sociology and Social Research, 1948, 32,787-792.

Phelps-Stokes Fund. A survey of African studentsstudying in the United States. New York: Authors,1949.

Political & Economic Planning. New commonwealthstudents in Britain, with special reference to studentsfrom East Africa. London: Allen & Unwin, 1965.

Pool, I,, de S. Effects of cross-national contact on na-

tional and international images. In H. C. Kelman(Ed.), International behavior. New York: Holt, Rine-hart & Winston, 1965.

Pool, L, de S., Keller, S., & Bauer, R. A. The influenceof foreign travel on political attitudes of Americanbusinessmen. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1956, 20,161-175.

Porter, R. D. A personnel study of 1,105 foreign grad-uate students at the University of Washington (Doc-toral dissertation, University of Washington, 1962).Dissertation Abstracts, 1963, 24, 164. (UniversityMicrofilms No. 63-4, 437)

Porter, R. E. An overview of intercultural communi-cation. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), In-tercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, Calif.:Wadsworth, 1972.

Pratt, D. The relation of culture-goals to the mentalhealth of students abroad, international Social Sci-ence Bulletin, 1956, 8, 597-604.

Putnam, I. Foreign student programs in Japan. Inter-national Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1968,3(4), 58-62.

Rao, G. L. Brain drain and foreign students. New York:St. Martin's Press, 1979.

Riegel, O. W. Residual effects of exchange-of-persons.Public Opinion Quarterly, 1953, 17. 319-327.

Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York:Basic Books, I960.

Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J. Behavioral assessmentof communication competency and the prediction ofcross-cultural adaptation. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 1979, 3, 15-47.

Samovar, L., & Porter, R. Intercultural communica-tion: A reader. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1972.

Samovar, L., & Porter, R. Intercultural communica-tion: A reader (2nd ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth,1976.

Sampson, D. L., & Smith, H. P. A scale to measureworld-minded attitudes. Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 1957, 45. 99-106.

Schild, E. O. The foreign student as a stranger learningthe norms of the host culture. Journal of Social Is-sues, 1962, 75(1), 41-54.

Scott, F. D. The American experience of Swedish stu-dents: Retrospect and aftermath. Minneapolis: Uni-versity of Minnesota Press, 1956.

Sechrest, L., Fay, T., & Zaidi, S. Problems of trans-lation in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1972, 7, 41-56.

Selby, H. A., & Woods, C. M. Foreign students at ahigh-pressure university. Sociology of Education,1966, 39, 138-154.

Selltiz, C., Christ, J. R., Havel, J., & Cook, S. W. At-titudes and social relations of foreign students in theUnited Slates. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 1963.

Sewell, W. H., & Davidsen, O. M. The adjustment ofScandinavian students. Journal of Social Issues,1956, 72(1), 9-19.

Sewell, W. H., & Davidsen, O. M. Scandinavian stu-dents on an American campus. Minneapolis: Univer-sity of Minnesota Press, 1961.

Sharma, K. D. Indian students in the United States.International Educational and Cultural Exchange,1969, 4(4), 43-59.


Shepard, N. E. The acculturation of foreign studentsin Southern colleges and universities (Doctoral dis-sertation, University of Mississippi, 1970). Disserta-tion Abstracts International, 1970, 31, 2624A. (Uni-versity Microfilms No. 70-24, 337)

Simon, H. V., & Schild, E. O. The stranger-group ina cross-cultural situation. Sociomelry, 1961, 24, 165-176.

Singh, A. K. Indian students in Britain. London: AsiaPublishing House, 1963.

Singh, P. N., Huang, S. C, & Thompson, G. C. Acomparative study of selected attitudes, values, andpersonality characteristics of American, Chinese, andIndian students. Journal of Social Psychology, 1962,57, 123-132.

Sitaram, K. S. What is intercultural communication?In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Inlerculluralcommunication: A reader. Belmont, Calif.: Wads-worth, 1972.

Siu, P. The sojourner. American Journal of Sociology,1952, 58, 34-44.

Smalley, W. A. Culture shock, language shock, and theshock of self-discovery. Practical Anthropology, 1963,10, 49-56.

Smith, H. P. Do intercultural experiences affect atti-tudes? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1955, 57, 469-477.

Smith, H. P. The effects of intercultural experience—A follow-up investigation. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 1957, 54, 266-268.

Smith, M. B. Some features of foreign student adjust-ments. Journal of Higher Education, 1955, 26, 231-241.

Smith, M. B. An analysis of two measures of "author-itarianism" among Peace Corps teachers. Journal ofPersonality, 1965, 33, 513-535.

Smith, M. B. Explorations in competence: A study ofPeace Corps teachers in Ghana. American Psychol-ogist. 1966, 21. 555-566.

Smith, M. B., Fawcett, J. T., Ezekiel, R., & Roth, S.A factorial study of morale among Peace Corps teach-ers in Ghana. Journal of Social Issues, 1963, 79(3),10-32.

Spaulding, S., & Flack, M. J. (with S. Tate, P. Mahon,& C. Marshall). The world's students in the UnitedStates: A review and evaluation of research on for-eign students. New York: Praeger, 1976.

Spielberger, C. D., & Sharma, S. Cross-cultural mea-surement of anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger & R. Diaz-Guerrero, Cross-cultural anxiety. Washington, D.C.:Hemisphere, 1976.

Spradley, J. P., & Phillips, M. Culture and stress: Aquantitative analysis. American Anthropologist, 1972,74, 518-529.

Stein, M. I. Volunteers for peace: The first group ofPeace Corps volunteers in a rural community devel-opment program in Colombia, South America. NewYork: Wiley, 1966.

Stessin, L. Culture shock and the American business-man overseas. International Educational and Cul-tural Exchange, 1973, 9(1) 23-35.

Stewart, E. Cultural sensitivities in counseling. In P.Pedersen, W. J. Lonner, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.),Counseling across cultures. Honolulu: University ofHawaii Press, 1976.

Strain, W. H., Shank, D. J., Houlihan, M., Higbee, H.,& Porter, R. D. Post-admission adjustment problemsof foreign students. College and University, 1962, 37,414-443.

Strieker, G., Takahashi, S., & Zax, M. Semantic dif-ferential discriminability: A comparison of Japaneseand American students. Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 1967, 71, 23-25.

Sue, D. W. World views and counseling. Personnel andGuidance Journal, 1978, 56, 458-462.

Suedfeld, P. Paternal absence and overseas success ofPeace Corps volunteers. Journal of Consulting Psy-chology, 1967, 31, 424-425.

Sundberg, N. D. Toward research evaluating intercul-tural counseling. In P. Pedersen, W. J. Lonner, &J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling across cultures.Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1976.

Sunder Das, S. The psychological problems of the East-ern student. In S. Bochner & P. Wicks (Eds.), Over-seas students in Australia. Randwick, N. S. W.: NewSouth Wales University Press, 1972.

Susskind, S., & Schell, L. Exporting technical educa-tion: A survey and case study of foreign professionalswith U. S. graduate degrees. New York: Institute ofInternational Education, 1968.

Szanton, D. L. Cultural confrontation in the Philippines.In R. Textor (Ed.), Cultural frontiers of the PeaceCorps. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966.

Textor, R. B. Introduction. In R. B. Textor (Ed.), Cul-tural frontiers of the Peace Corps. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press, 1966.

Thomson, C. P., & English, J. T. Premature return ofPeace Corps volunteers. Public Health Reports, 1964,79, 1065-1073.

Torre, M. The selection of personnel for internationalservice. Geneva, N.Y.: World Federation of MentalHealth, 1963.

Triandis, H. C. Culture training, cognitive complexity,and interpersonal attitudes. In R. Brislin, S. Bochner,& W. J. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectiveson learning. New York: Wiley, 1975.

Triandis, H. C., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.). Handbook ofcross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn& Bacon, 1980.

Triandis, H. C., Malpass, R. S., & Davidson, A. R.Psychology and culture. Annual Review of Psychol-ogy, 1973, 24, 355-378.

Triandis, H. C., & Vassiliou, V. Frequency of contactand stereotyping. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 1967, 7, 316-328.

Triandis, H. C, Vassiliou, V., Tanaka, Y., & Shan-mugam, A. (Eds.). The analysis of subjective culture.New York: Wiley, 1972.

Uhes, M. J., & Shybut, J. Personal orientation inventoryas a predictor of success in Peace Corps training.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 498-499.

U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educa-tional and Cultural Affairs. A beacon of hope: Theexchange-of-persons program. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963.

U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educa-tional and Cultural Affairs. Foreign students in theUnited Slates—A national survey. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

Ursua, A. R. The relationship between adeptness in the


English language and social adjustment of foreigngraduate students (Doctoral dissertation, CatholicUniversity of America, 1969). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 1969, 30, 2390A. (University Micro-films No. 69-19, 774)

Useem, R. H. The American family in India. The An-nals, 1966, 368. 132-145.

Useem, J., & Useem, R. The Western educated manin India. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1955.

Veroff, J. African students in the United States. Journalof Social Issues, 1963, 19(3), 48-60.

Vontress, C. E. Cultural barriers in the counseling re-lationship. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1969,•48. 11-17.

Vontress, C. E. Racial and ethnic barriers in counseling.In P. Pedersen, W. J. Lonner, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.),Counseling across cultures. Honolulu: University ofHawaii Press, 1976.

Wachtel, P. L. Interaction cycles, unconscious pro-cesses, and the person-situation issue. In N. S. Endler& D. Magnusson (Eds.), Personality at the cross-roads: Current issues in interactional psychology.Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.

Walton, B. J. Foreign student exchange in perspective:Research on foreign students in the United States(Prepared for the Office of External Research, U.S.Department of State Publication No. 8373). Wash-ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.

Walton, B. J. Foreign student exchange in perspective:What the research tells us. International Educationaland Cultural Exchange, 1968,3(4), 1-14.

Walton, B. J. Research on foreign graduate students.International Educational and Cultural Exchange,1971, 6(3), 17-29.

Watson, J., & Lippitt, R. Learning across cultures: Astudy of Germans visiting America. Ann Arbor: Uni-versity of Michigan Press, 1955.

Wedge, B. Nationality and social perception. In L. A.Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Inlercultural com-munication: A reader. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth,1972.

Wintrob, R. M. Psychotherapy in intercultural per-spective: Some personal reflections. In P. Pedersen,W. J. Lonner, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Counselingacross cultures. Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress, 1976.

Witkin, H. A., & Berry, J. W. Psychological differen-tiation in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1975,5, 4-87.

Wohl, J. Intercultural psychotherapy: Issues, questions,and reflections. In P. Pedersen, W. J. Lonner, &J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling across cultures.Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1976.

Worchel, S., & Mitchell, T. R. An evaluation of theeffectiveness of the culture assimilator in Thailandand Greece. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972,56, 472-479.

Zajonc, R. B. Aggressive attitudes of the "stranger" asa function of conformity pfessures. Human Relations,1952, 5, 205-216.

Zax, M., & Takahashi, S. Cultural influence on re-sponse style: Comparisons of Japanese and Americancollege students. Journal of Social Psychology, 1967,71, 3-10.

Zurin, L. M., & Rubin, R. T. Paranoid psychotic re-actions in foreign students from non-Western coun-tries. Journal of the American College Health As-sociation, 1967, 15. 220-226.

(Appendix follows on next page)


Appendix

Commonly Mentioned Problems of Foreign Students

Academic Problems

LanguageNeed to delay educational goals while studying

host languageWritten and oral reportsUnderstanding lecturesCulture-bound professional vocabulary

PlacementInadequate prior preparationInadequate academic orientation, adviceInadequate placement or credit for previous

courseworkSelection of institution and coursework

Adjustment to new educational systemFrequent exams and assignmentsClassroom and professor/student informalityCompetitiveness

. Grading methodsCredit system

Personal Problems

LonelinessHomesicknessDepressionArrival confusionMaintaining self-esteemLack of personal guidance and counselingOverambitious goals to succeedInappropriate motivations for overseas study

Somatic complaintsFamily problems or loss of loved onesTime pressureDecision to stay or return homeReligious problemsStaying current with events at homeAdjusting to food, climateFinancial/employment problems

Financial difficultiesHousing difficulties (cost, noise, privacy, get-

ting along with roommates)Difficulties obtaining employmentConcern over employment opportunities on re-

turn homeVisa, immigration problems

Sociocultural Problems

Adjusting to social customs and normsContrasting or conflicting values and assumptionsBalancing simultaneous culture group member-

shipsDefining role as a foreign studentIgnorance of host nationals about home culturePolitical upheaval at homeDifficulty making social contactsProblems with verbal and nonverbal communi-

cationSuperficial American friendshipsRacial discriminationDating and sexual problems

Note. The above list of problem areas was drawn from the following sources: Akhun, 1961; Al-Shama, 1959;Beck, 1963; Bennett et al., 1958; Carey, 1956; Cieslak, 1955; Deutsch, 1970; Eldridge, 1960; Forstat, 1951;Gardner, 1952; Golden, 1973; Hegazy, 1969; Hill, 1966; Hull, 1978; Jammaz, 1973; Johnson, 1971; Klein et al.,1971; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Lambert & Bressler, 1956; Livingstone, 1960; Marshall, 1970; McCullough &Mestenhauser, 1963; Moore, 1954; Nickelly et al., 1964; Noesjirwan, 1970; Peterson & Neumeyer, 1948; Phelps-Stokes Fund, 1949; Political & Economic Planning, 1965; Pratt, 1956; Putnam, 1968; Rao, 1979; Scott, 1956;Sewell &Davidsen, 1961;Sharma, 1969; Shepard, 1970; Singh, 1963; M. B. Smith, 1955; Strain, Shank, Houlihan,Higbee, & -Porter, 1962; Sunder Das, 1972; Susskind & Schell, 1968; U.S. Advisory Commission, 1966;Ursua, 1969.

Received August 28, 1981

c-church, austin t. (1982), sojourner adjustment

Documents

curves of adjustment

term culture shock

culture learning

sojourner adjustmentaustin

sojourner literature

crosscultural research

host cultures

psychological bulletin1982