mind the gap: application-based analysis of cultural adjustment models

Mind the gap: Application-based analysis of culturaladjustment models

Miriam Sobre-Denton *, Dan Hart

Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State University, Stauffer Hall Building A, Room 410, P.O. Box 871205,

Tempe, AZ 85287-1205, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Accepted 18 June 2008

Keywords:

Cross-cultural adaptation

Study abroad

Anxiety/Uncertainty Management model

Stress-Adaptation-Growth model

Cross-cultural training

A B S T R A C T

Cross-cultural adaptation literature describes multiple theories and models for

addressing culture shock. However, the applicability of such theoretical constructs to

intercultural trainers and sojourners is at times difficult to assess. The current research

explores the communication strategies used by study abroad professionals to prepare

sojourners for culture shock through a qualitative comparison to existing models of cross-

cultural adaptation as a means of assessing how such theoretical constructs may inform

the applied field of cross-cultural training. Specifically, study abroad advisors at a large

Southwestern university were interviewed and observed during interactions with pre-

departure sojourners traveling to six different locations around the world (Spain, South

Korea, Australia, Senegal, and the UK/Ireland). A collaborative review of the transcriptions

was then conducted, including in-depth, qualitative, line-by-line coding. Findings indicate

that program coordinators use several communication techniques that reflect theoretical

constructions of adaptation when discussing cross-cultural transitions with sojourners,

including self-disclosure, uncertainty reduction, fear/efficacy appeals, and linguistic/

cultural immersion strategies. Further, the results reveal that one model in particular

(Gudykunst’s Anxiety-Uncertainty Management model) emerges as the most relevant in

the study abroad professionals’ narratives. Interestingly, the study further shows that

Witte’s Extended Parallel Process Model is also consistently used to communicate about

culture shock with potential sojourners. The paper concludes with implications for future

research given the preliminary nature of the study.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Cross-cultural adaptation, or the process by which ‘‘individuals who, on relocating to an unfamiliar socio-culturalenvironment, strive to establish and maintain a relatively stable, reciprocal, and functional relationship with [that]environment’’ (Kim, 2005), has often been used interchangeably with the term culture shock. Culture shock is considered bysome theorists to be a stage in the cross-cultural adaptation process (see Lysgaard, 1955; Oberg, 1960), and is defined as ‘‘. . .acrisis characterized by feelings of inadequacy, frustration, and anxiety [that goes]. . .hand-and-hand with the realization thatthe new environment may be ‘difficult’ and requires considerable effort to negotiate’’ (Ward, 2004, p. 187). While theaffective and physiological impact of the transition experience has been measured and analyzed in myriad studies (seeamongst others, Adler, 1975; Berry, 2005; Furnham & Bochner, 1986; Kashmina & Loh, 2006; Yang, Noels, & Saumure, 2006)the goal of the present work is to examine how such theories compare to the strategies that study abroad professionals use tocommunicate with sojourners about the transitions they will encounter during the intercultural experience.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 538–552

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 480 727 8272; fax: +1 480 965 4291.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Sobre-Denton), [email protected] (D. Hart).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / i j in t re l

0147-1767/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.06.008

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01471767

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.06.008

University study abroad offices are established, in part, to help students prepare for the sojourn experience and to assistinternational students in the transition to their new culture. Study abroad professionals must be equipped withcommunication strategies through which to communicate with students about culture shock. Due to the very nature ofpsychological stress that can be caused by culture shock, it is reasonable to posit that if study abroad professionals do notadequately prepare their students for the culture shock likely to occur during the sojourn, those students are at risk of havinga negative experience abroad. Indeed, in some cases, inadequately prepared sojourners may even end their sojourn beforeallowing themselves an opportunity to feel at home in the host culture (Gudykunst, 1995). Within pre-departure orientationsessions, study abroad professionals can employ various techniques and strategies to encourage cross-cultural adaptationand help sojourners reduce uncertainty and increase agency. However, as intercultural training is considered a relativelynew field of study (Landis, Bennett, & Bennett, 2003, p. 1), it is possible that many cross-cultural trainers communicate aboutcultural adaptation with little or no knowledge of the extant research on the subject.

The present study compares several existing models of cross-cultural adaptation to observations of communicationstrategies applied in practice by professionals working to prepare students for their pending sojourn abroad. In other words,this research examines how well current theory parallels practical application, in an effort to explore gaps between theoryand practice. To begin, a review of several existing theories and models of cross-cultural adaptation is provided. Next, adiscussion of the study’s methods is offered, including observations of study abroad orientations that took place at a large,Southwestern university in spring, 2006, and interviews with the study abroad professionals at that university. After resultsare described and interpreted, the paper closes with a discussion of possible practical implications of the findings of thispreliminary study and offers suggestions for future directions of the research.

2. Theoretical models

In the literature, there appears to be four overriding theories or models of cross-cultural adaptation. These four models arealso the most often taught in intercultural theory classes for undergraduates (Martin & Nakayama, 2004). Sections 2.1–2.4provide a discussion of these prevailing theories, including a brief evaluation of the strengths and limitations of each theory.

2.1. The U-Curve Model

The most common theory of cultural adaptation is the U-Curve Model (Hottola, 2004, p. 449; Lysgaard, 1955; Oberg,1960). This model was designed to explain the emotional curve that many sojourners experience upon entering into andimmersing themselves in a new culture (Hottola, p. 448). The model bases itself around predictability; it states that thesojourner will go through anywhere from three to five stages of emotional adaptation throughout his or her time abroad: (1)the honeymoon stage, leading to feelings of initial euphoria; (2) culture shock, resulting from feelings of disorientation; (3)hostility towards the host culture, leading to feelings of resentment; (4) initial adaptation, leading to a sense of autonomywithin the host culture; and finally (5) assimilation into the host culture, leading to a sense of belonging to both the host andhome culture (Adler, 1975; Furnham & Bochner, 1986; Hottola, 2004; Pederson, 1995).

One strength of this model is its intuitive appeal; it allows for and explains the emotional ups and downs of immersion ina country far from home (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001). The fluidity of a model that can have stages added and removedprobably accounts for much of its use today, 45 years after its inception. However, Hottola (2004) notes that the model‘‘. . .cannot be regarded as a comprehensive explanation of intercultural adaptation’’ (p. 450). To begin with, the model isoverly simplified, and does not allow for the uniqueness of individual experience: many individuals do not go through all ofthese stages, go through them out of order, or skip one or two altogether (Adler, 1975). Indeed, the model has had to bereworked repeatedly since its introduction to fit varying circumstances, moving from as few as three to as many as sevenstages and changing shape from ‘U’ to ‘V’ to ‘W’ to ‘roller coaster’ (Hottola, p. 449). It is possible that human behavior is not aseasily predictive as the model indicates.

Research indicates that Ward, Okura, Kennedy, and Kojima’s (1998) reconceptualization of the U-Curve Theory into amore linear stress and coping model may represent a more accurate stage model of transition. In Ward et al.’s model,psychological distress is highest upon initial entry into a different culture and steadily improves (creating a positive linearmodel of psychological adaptation over time, rather than a U-shaped model). And yet, as Ward (2004) notes, despite 20 yearsof ‘‘. . .dubious U-Curve research, this popular, intuitively appealing model is still with us’’ (p. 188).

2.2. The Anxiety/Uncertainty Management model

Gudykunst (1995, 1998, 2005) introduced the Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) model, which is informed byBerger and Calebrese’s (1975) Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT). Gudykunst (2005) notes that uncertainty is a cognitivephenomenon, in which sojourners feel a lack of control in their host cultures due to lack of predictive ability (p. 421). Whensojourners feel too little ability to predict or explain the behavior of host nationals, they will experience anxiety. In order toreduce uncertainty, manage anxiety, and adapt effectively, a sojourner must have the communicative tools to gatherinformation and navigate the adjustment process (p. 424). The AUM model is also predictive in nature; it expects that thesojourners most likely to adapt with the least difficulty will have a solid sense of self-awareness, adaptable attitudes andbehavior and a high tolerance for ambiguity (Gudykunst, 2005).

M. Sobre-Denton, D. Hart / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 538–552 539

A particular strength of the AUM model lies in its suggestion that a certain amount of uncertainty and anxiety are actuallynecessary for positive acculturation. No longer is ‘shock’ conceptualized as a problem to be cured, but as a necessary steptowards intercultural communicative competence. Another strength in the model is that it accounts for cultural variability;it is designed to be adapted based on the cultural context of the individual and the situation. However, the model can beviewed as overly complex, with its 47 separate axioms (Gudykunst, 2005). Critics also point out that this model espouses aparticular Western cultural bias.

2.3. The Transition Model

The Transition Model of cultural adaptation views cultural adaptation as a natural process that exists within the humanexperience. Ease of cross-cultural adaptation varies depending on the psychological personality traits of the individual, thusthe experiences and reactions are, rather than predictable stages, unique to the sojourner (Bennett, 1998). According to theTransition Model, most individuals tend towards either a ‘fight’ or ‘flight’ response to managing cross-cultural adaptation.The ‘fight’ response involves jumping into the new cultural situation immediately in order to immerse in the new culture;the ‘flight’ response is characterized as holding back and observing to see how things work before plunging in (Bennett,1998).

One strong point of the Transition Model lies in its suggestion that because there are so many variables at play, culturaladaptation training should be catered specifically to each unique sojourner. Intellectual learning tools can be combined withpersonality variables to choose what will work the best for each individual in a given situation. An additional asset is theconceptualization of culture shock as a natural psychological phenomenon, evoking a feeling that sojourners are not alone intheir experiences. On the other hand, one notable limitation of this model is the fact that it may be too person-specific to beapplied to larger group training sessions.

2.4. The Stress-Adaptation-Growth model

Kim’s (2001, 2005) Stress-Adaptation-Growth model is the first to specifically take language immersion andcommunication into account in its application. Kim asserts that adaptation actually occurs through communication and thebuilding of social networks (2005, pp. 342–343) and that cultural immersion is generally positively related with fluency inthe language of the host culture (p. 342). Rather than a linear, stage model of adaptation (as provided by U- and W-CurveModels), Kim’s model posits a spiraling of three stages of adjustment: stress, adaptation, and growth (Kim, 2001). Immersioncan be viewed as a combination of communication adaptability and interaction involvement (Chen, 1992, p. 34). This modelmaintains that sojourners acquire host-cultural practices through acculturation; simultaneously, deculturation, or the‘unlearning of some of the old cultural elements’ (Kim, 2005, p. 340) occurs. Through both of these processes, Kim suggeststhat an adaptive change to a state of ‘‘maximum possible convergence. . . to those of members of the host culture’’ (p. 340)leads to the overall goal of the intercultural experience: assimilation.

One major limitation of this model in its applicability to real-life situations is its lack of attention to the individual. Ifa potential sojourner is not fluent in the host language, or tends towards introversion, he or she might not respond toentreaties to ‘learn by doing’. In addition, it is important to note that ease of cultural adaptation may actually not bepositively related to the level of immersion with the host culture. Indeed, the more sojourners interact with hostnationals, the more their perspectives on cultural frameworks and identity will be challenged, and the more potentialthey have for experiencing culture shock (Rohrlich & Martin, 1991). The trade-off, however, is an increase incultural learning that allows for more tolerance and open-mindedness in the sojourner, ideally leading tomulticulturalism.

Each of the models discussed in Sections 2.1–2.4 posits a different manner of approaching the pre-departure trainingprocess; the choice of model used by the trainer is important, as there are so many different ways of examining and workingthrough the challenges of the adaptation process. While much literature has examined the impact of this process onsojourners’ psychological, social, communicative, and physical health and well-being (see, among others: Furnham &Bochner, 1986; Ward, 2001; Ward & Kennedy, 2001), little research has been conducted to examine how these modelscompare with strategies that are currently being used by trainers, and which models may be the most effective in preparingsojourners — and in training study abroad professionals who prepare those sojourners — for their cross-cultural experience.Additionally, there is a significant amount of research outlining recommended strategies that cross-cultural trainers may useto prepare sojourners for culture shock, including some studies focusing specifically on the study abroad student sojourn(see LaBrack, 1993; Martin & Harrell, 1996). These studies are useful, but only inasmuch as cross-cultural trainers are awareof the research and apply the strategies in practice.

The following research represents a preliminary attempt to bridge the gaps between adaptation theory and practiceamong cross-cultural trainers. This study is intended to be the first in a series that examine current practices and theoriesused, consciously and unconsciously, by cross-cultural trainers when communicating to students about adaptation. Becauseit is possible that many cross-cultural trainers have not, themselves, received any training on how to prepare theirsojourners, it is critical that the present line of research explore what strategies are being practiced by current cross-culturaltrainers as well as which models of cross-cultural adjustment may be useful in their training. This study seeks to begin a newline of research to establish a link between strategizing models of applied communication and theoretical models of

M. Sobre-Denton, D. Hart / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 538–552540

adjustment to improve effectiveness of communicators/messages in an effort to better prepare sojourners for cross-culturaladaptation. With these parameters in mind, the following research questions have been posed:

RQ1: What strategies are used by program coordinators to communicate with student sojourners about the culturaladaptation process?

RQ2: How do the strategies used by program coordinators compare to the popular theories of adaptation discussed inSection 2?

RQ3: Are there particular theories of adaptation that could be relevant to program coordinators as they teach sojournersabout transitions?

3. Method

The studies discussed in Section 2 delineate several theories and models of cross-cultural adaptation. However, it isimportant to now place a focus on how study abroad professionals communicate about adaptation in practice, within thefield of intercultural training. The present study seeks to determine what models of intercultural adaptation may best informthe cross-cultural training process, by observing how the various models compare to communication strategies used bycurrent cross-cultural trainers.

3.1. Participants

The director of the International Programs Office (IPO) at a large, Southwestern public university was initially approachedvia email and informed of the study’s purpose and methods. He offered his support by encouraging his staff to participate. Atthe researchers’ request, he then arranged a meeting with the participants and the researchers, at which time all theparticipants were recruited. No compensation was provided. Participants included one male and four female programcoordinators employed by this office. Ages ranged from 29 to 34. Time employed at the IPO ranged from 21/2 to 5 years. Twoadditional session leaders were present at various observation sessions and were therefore briefed at the time of theobservation. One is the associate director of a national study abroad program provider (male in his mid-40s), and the other isan undergraduate teaching assistant who had studied abroad in the location observed (26-year-old male). As neither of theseindividuals are employed as program coordinators at the IPO, they are not the focus of the current study and are, therefore,not included in the analysis. To protect confidentiality and anonymity, all participant names have been changed.

3.2. Design

This study is a preliminary analysis, and is comprised of observational and interview data collected by the researchersover a period of 4 weeks. The study is designed to be part of a larger series, which will eventually involve focus groups of thestudy abroad staff, interviews with program coordinators working with international students coming to the US, interviewsof students, and interviews/observations of program coordinators from overseas programs with enrolled American students.

3.3. Qualitative method

This is an exploratory study that combines the qualitative methods of interviewing and observation. The researchers areunsure of the nature of the training and enactment of adaptation theories given to the study participants, as well as their ownperceptions of how they communicate with their students and their actual communication strategies, so these qualitativemethods will allow us to get at both how the trainers perceive their communication with the sojourners, and how thetrainers communicate in situ (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). By using a combination of interviews and observation, we intend todiscover some initial strategies, which we can later compare with strategies used by other trainers at other universities infollow-up studies. Once agreement among trainers in different environments has been found (if, indeed, it does exist), wecan pair qualitative studies with quantitative work in order to establish patterns on a larger scale.

3.4. Program coordinator interviews

Interviews were conducted in an effort to compare the perceptions of the program coordinators’ own communicationstrategies to those observed in pre-departure orientation sessions with sojourners — i.e., to provide a link between whatprogram coordinators intend to communicate (based on experience, training, and communication style) and how they actuallycommunicate it. Interview data were collected from four of the five participating IPO program coordinators. One coordinator,Jen, was not available during the interview period. The interviews took place over the course of 2 weeks and each lasted about1 h. The time and location of the interviews were arranged based on the time availability of each program coordinator. Theresearchers recorded each interview on audiotape and notes were maintained to complement the recordings. The interviewswere semi-structured, ensuring that specific themes were addressed, but also allowing enough flexibility so that otherpertinent information may emerge.


3.5. Pre-departure orientation observations

Observations were arranged in order for the researchers to gain an understanding of the program coordinators’communication strategies used in practice, as compared to their own conceptualizations of the individual communicationstyles and strategies discussed in the preliminary interviews. It is important to note that the observations followed theinterviews, and therefore themes from the interviews were used to create a framework through which the observations wereconducted; as such, the observations and interviews work to inform one another. Observational data were collected duringpre-departure orientation sessions given by IPO program coordinators preparing US students to study abroad during the2006–2007 academic year. The observations each lasted from 1 to 2 h. Sessions for observation were chosen based ondiversity of location and demographics of students attending, and were observed for three of the four program coordinatorsinterviewed, as well as one additional program coordinator, Jen, who was not available during the initial interview period.The fourth program coordinator interviewed did not conduct any orientation sessions during this study, and was thereforenot included in the analysis. The following site-specific sessions were observed (in order by date observed): Alicante, Spain;the UK and Ireland; Senegal; Australia/New Zealand; and South Korea.

4. Analysis

4.1. Interviews

Once the interviews were completed, the researchers transcribed each interview in its entirety. One researchertranscribed two of the four interviews; the other transcribed the remaining two. After a collaborative review of thetranscriptions, the researchers then developed a coding scheme, based on several themes emerging from the researchquestions. The following themes were generated from the interview sessions for coding:

Theme 1a: What is the relationship between the program coordinators’ own education and/or professional training and howthey communicate to students about culture shock?

Theme 1b: What is the relationship between the program coordinators’ personal experience and how they communicate tostudents about culture shock?

Theme 2: What strategies do program coordinators use to communicate to students about culture shock?Theme 3a: How do program coordinators manage students’ uncertainty about going abroad?Theme 3b: How do program coordinators manage students’ anxiety about going abroad?

Theme 4: What strategies for immersion do program coordinators suggest to students?Theme 5: How do program coordinators describe culture shock to their students (e.g. U-Curve, roller coaster, linear, etc.)?Theme 6: How do program coordinators manage fear appeals with perceived efficacy?Theme 7: How is the use of any of these strategies dependent on the coordinators’ perceptions of the students/audience?

After developing a coding scheme based on the above themes, the researchers then individually coded each interview. Because theinterviews were coded separately by each researcher, it was necessary to measure inter-coder reliability before moving forward inour analysis. In order to assess inter-coder reliability, the researchers first generated Cohen’s (1960) Kappa, a measure designed toindicate the degree of agreement between the two coders not due to chance. Having generated this value, inter-coder reliabilitywas then coded using a formula offered by Perreault and Leigh (1989). These values are presented in Table 1.

Based on benchmarks set by Landis and Koch (1977) to indicate the strength of agreement between coders, theresearchers then collaboratively recoded each interview with an initial Cohen’s Kappa below 0.60 (indicating only moderateinter-coder reliability). Once recoding (where necessary) was complete, the interviews were then entered into a spreadsheetmatrix, allowing the researchers to note similarities and differences across the interviews. Examples representing the codingthemes in all interviews are presented in Table 2 and the frequency of these themes in the interviews is presented in Table 3.

4.2. Pre-departure orientation observations

During the observations, the researchers made notes based on a framework designed to focus on the key themes of thestudy (see Appendix A); however, there was ample room for digressions if they seemed important and/or relevant. Nomaterial was audiotaped during the observations. Immediately after each observation, the hand-written pages of notes weretranscribed to a thematic grid using key words and phrases (to reduce the loss of key details from memory over time), afterwhich thick description (Geertz, 1973) of each key word/phrase was added. Once completed, the observations were enteredinto an Excel coding file and collaboratively coded by the researchers based on the same themes used to code the earlierinterviews. As interviews and observations were used in combination to create a more holistic sense of communicationstrategies used, and as the observations were carried out primarily according to the emergent themes from the interviews,the researchers decided to code these observations together, ensuring the reliability of the coding scheme as applied to theobservations. The coded observations were then entered into a spreadsheet to allow the researchers to note similarities anddifferences in strategies and content across the various pre-departure orientation sessions. Choosing to observe sessionsbased on program destination and program coordinator availability allowed for the researchers to witness a wide range of


approaches to cultural adaptation. A detailed account of the research themes represented in the observations is provided inTable 4.

5. Results/discussion

Results will be discussed in relation to the research questions, and presented in order of the interview schedule with IPOprogram coordinators. As program coordinator responsibilities are based on geographic regions, and the observed pre-departure orientations are organized by region, this approach allows us to also draw on data coded from the observations toinform our analysis.

5.1. RQ1: What strategies are used by program coordinators to communicate with student sojourners about the cultural

adaptation process?

5.1.1. Sandy’s interview and observation results

In her interview, Sandy mentions that, during the pre-departure orientation process, she tries to walk students throughwhat they are about to do, including the process of securing housing upon arrival, registering for course, etc. and remindingthem that the process of getting settled in may be more complicated than they anticipate because they may be suffering fromjet-lag in their first few days in the host country. To reduce their anxiety and ‘calm their fears,’ Sandy notes that she tries toreiterate to students that ‘they are not by themselves.’ Emphasizing this point, Sandy discusses both the on-site supportnetwork, as well as the support network back at their home university. Sandy always shares personal anecdotes to relate herexperiences as a student to the experiences her students might expect to encounter, but strongly prefers to use ‘peerexamples’ (i.e., bringing in past participants to her advising sessions). Sandy talks about a number of experiences in whichher student sojourners seem to look at her ‘like she has three heads’ when sharing her own personal anecdotes, so shebelieves that students respond better to their peers than to being ‘‘lectured’’ to by a program coordinator. Sandy says that sheencourages a ‘fight’ approach to immersion by suggesting that students ‘branch out,’ as well as advising students to limittheir time online and on the phone with friends and family back home. To improve efficacy, Sandy says that she insists thatstudents take responsibility for their own decisions. In terms of strategies, she notes that the choice of advising strategy doesdepend on the individual student.

Sandy facilitated the pre-departure orientation session for students preparing to study in Australia and New Zealand,which was the largest pre-departure orientation session observed (15 total students were present: seven men and eightwomen). The student participants appeared to represent ‘typical’ American university students: primarily of Caucasiandescent, late teens to early 20s, and all business and liberal arts majors. In Sandy’s orientation session the focus was less onproblem-solving and more on informative communication. While the bulk of information was designed to reduceuncertainty, students exhibited little anxiety and therefore Sandy used few strategies to address it. Immersion wasencouraged, albeit subtly; the potentiality of working in Australia was given as a tactic for meeting more Australians ofdifferent socio-economic statuses. Interestingly, Sandy used a number of fear appeals to manage the group, particularlyregarding financial issues and alcohol consumption. For example, a story was told in which two students were mugged by acab driver, because they were drunk and did not pay attention to their surroundings or the cab itself. Efficacy was encouragedthrough the U-Curve and AUM strategy of researching the country before departure. Students were encouraged to researchthe country they were traveling to prior to departure, in order to increase their ability to predict and explain culturaldifferences upon their arrival. Finally, much mention of the negative stereotypes of American students as privileged wasgiven, both pertaining to culture shock and expectancy violations; students were very firmly told that they would be seen asrepresentatives of their countries, and to behave as such. In the use of these strategies, it seemed like Sandy was trying toincrease anxiety in order to encourage proactive responses in pre-departure cultural research.

There are some noteworthy similarities and differences between the strategies Sandy describes in her interview andthose strategies observed in practice at the Australia/New Zealand orientation session that are worth sharing here. One keysimilarity between the strategies Sandy describes in her interview and the strategies observed by the researchers in theorientation has to do with Sandy’s encouragement of a ‘fight’ approach to integration in the host culture. In her interview,Sandy states that she encourages a ‘fight’ approach by suggesting that students branch out and limit their interactions withfriends and family back home. During the observation, the ‘fight’ approach to immersion is encouraged, for example, throughencouraging students to find jobs in their host culture as a way to meet locals from various socio-economic groups. On theother hand, one key difference relates to Sandy’s approach to reducing her students’ anxiety and/or uncertainty. In Sandy’s

Table 1

Cohen’s Kappa and inter-coder reliability

Program coordinator Cohen’s Kappa Inter-coder reliability (%)

Cathy S. 0.52 72

Maggie M. 0.64 80

Sandy P. 0.45 69

Mark H. 0.5 71


Table 2

Key examples of themes in interviews

Participant 1a Education/

training

1b Personal

experience

2 Strategies 3a Uncertainty 3b Anxiety 4 Immersion 5 Culture shock 6 Fear appeals 7 Audience

perception

Cathy I came out here to

do my practicum

for and then it turned

into a full-time job

I spent a semester

in Leeds and then

went on a study

abroad program to

Arondale

I don’t want to

bore them with

my stories, but

I’ll give them

examples

Make sure you

read the handbook

and follow these

directions

We try to reduce

their anxiety by

telling them as

much as possible

about the

program

I always encourage

students to watch

films from that

country and read

the online

newspapers

I would describe

culture shock as

all of the

experience that

a person has

living in another

culture

Visa status, legal

status as a

student in a

foreign country

It depends on

how receptive

they seem to be

I don’t know if

we’ve all been

educated in

[cross-cultural

training]

I was in the Peace

Corps for 21/2 years

in Slovakia

These [host]

families are used

to hosting students

You have to make

sure to follow

up on this and

that

I have had

students where

they’ve struck

me as needing

more help

I experienced aspects

of culture shock even

as I was about to leave

the country

Maggie I went to the UK

and did my

Masters in

international

relations

I never was able to

study abroad as an

undergraduate

I try to give them

some examples

of the experiences

that I had

Just giving them

information

definitely alleviates

the stress

They need

information about

the location,

who’s picking

them up from

the airport, etc.

The main thing is

learning the

language; being

able to

communicate

We know that

there’s going to

be the curve;

this is the

honeymoon phase

I got robbed in

Valencia, so I tell

people ‘don’t fall

asleep in the park’

Every student is

different

I went to the

Czech Republic

to teach English

After I graduated

from college, the

gift to myself was

that I traveled

overseas

We use the past

participants

You’re going to

need to make

some friends

It’s great to hear

that ‘I don’t

wanna come

home’ – that’s one

of the last stages

You distinguish

between different

types of students,

but they all should

have the same type

of orientation

I worked at another

study abroad place

for 2 years

Sandy I did an internship

in the International

Education Office at

my college

I studied German

in high school and

did a 3-week

exchange program

to Austria

I try to use

teachable

moments

You walk them

through what

they’re

going to do

I try to calm their

fears by reiterating

that they’re not

by themselves

Branch out and

get to know

people from the

host culture

The roller coaster’s

the first thing that

comes to mind

because that’s

what I was told

You need to take

responsibility for

your decisions

You notice there’s

a difference in the

types of students

related to

programs they

choose

I worked for a private

study abroad provider

in Boston and was

an intern in Australia

In college, I spent

one semester in

Germany and

another in Scotland

We watched a

DVD that a

student had

made from a past

voyage

Use your own

experiences

Don’t stay in your

room; don’t spend

too much time on

the internet or on

the phone with

people back home

It’s just kind of an

extension of the U

or the W concepts

it is important

for you to still

follow through

It’s completely

dependent on the

assistance that

the student needs,

what their

comfort level is, etc.

The only international

education class I had

didn’t really deal with

student orientation

If you’re having

culture shock then

exercise helps your

sense of well-being.

Mark I watched as my

assistant director led

a session on adaptation

once or twice before

I took over

When I was in high

school, I went on

an exchange

program to France

I try to treat my

students as

adults, I try to

reason with

them as adults

Throughout this

entire process

you’re going to

feel a lot of

uncertainty about

a lot of things

I tried to get her

into things that

would lift her spirits,

focus her energy on

positives, and reduce

her anxiety

Do what you can

do to get involved

as much as possible

What we would

talk about is

basically this

5 stage process

I do try to present

some worst case

scenarios

There’s lots of red

flags with certain

types of students

I worked for 31/2

years for a study

abroad program

provider

When I was in

college, I spent

a semester in Israel

I don’t usually

give them

answers to a

lot of questions

I try to advise them

ahead to expect that

something is going

to go wrong

Approach the

student that sits next

to you and ask to join

their study group

I had culture

shock in the sense

that I got a little

homesick

I try to make them

find the answers

to the problems

M.

Sob

re-Den

ton

,D

.H

art

/Intern

atio

na

lJo

urn

al

of

Intercu

ltura

lR

elatio

ns

32

(20

08

)5

38

–5

52

54

4

interview, she describes herself as reducing anxiety by reinforcing that students have a social support system in place ifneeded, yet in her orientation session, she employs a number of fear appeals and pays little attention to reducing herstudents’ anxiety (i.e., through increasing efficacy). Perhaps the absence of strategies used to reduce uncertainty and manageanxiety in the group setting can be explained by Sandy’s claim in the interview that she uses a unique, student-centeredapproach honing in on individual issues with each sojourner.

5.1.2. Mark’s interview and observation results

When advising his students, Mark says in his interview, he tries to treat his students as adults, implying that they shouldtake responsibility for their own actions. Mark says that he always encourages them to find the answers to their ownquestions rather than relying on him to provide answers. In order to manage his students’ anxiety, create manageableexpectations and improve their efficacy, Mark says that he advises them to anticipate that ‘something will go wrong’ so thatthey will prepared to adjust as necessary; they will need to learn to ‘roll with it.’ Mark says that he generally does not engagein fear appeals, though he does occasionally present some worst-case scenarios like students who lose their wallet orpassport soon after arrival. Mark advises students to anticipate some uncertainty and that if they are not prepared for that,they can expect to experience a great deal of anxiety. In order to reduce uncertainty about the new academic environment,for example, Mark advises students to seek out local students and ask questions about how to succeed within that newenvironment. In terms of his strategy for encouraging immersion in the host culture, Mark says that he encourages studentsto get involved as much as possible in activities that interest them (e.g. sports clubs, theatre, etc.), and to link up with otherstudents in the host environment.

Mark facilitated the pre-departure orientation session for students preparing to study abroad in the UK and Ireland. Onlythree students attended the session: all females, ranging in age from 19 to 23 years old (two were going to Dublin; the thirdwas going to London). In order to reduce uncertainty among the participants in the session, Mark engaged the participants ina extensive discussion of the differences in the academic cultures of the US and UK. Issues of American students beingstereotyped as spoiled were brought up, as was the need to improve efficacy by learning about the both US and UK politicsprior to departure (in order to engage in discussions with their more informed British counterparts). In addressing cultureshock, Mark indicated that though the US and the UK share a common language, they are distinctly different cultures. In fact,the overconfidence of many sojourners in the similarities between the US and the UK can create an inflated sense ofoptimism (or optimistic bias, Weinstein, 1989) which can potentially backfire and lead to double shock (i.e., the usual stagesof the U-Curve Model become intensified due to feelings of betrayal by the host culture because of a lack of perceivedsimilarities). This worked well as one of Mark’s few fear appeals.

As with Sandy, there are some key similarities and differences between comments made by Mark in his interview andthose strategies observed in his pre-departure orientation for students going to study in the UK and Ireland. One keydifference is a complete lack of discussion regarding strategies for immersion in the orientation observation, despite Mark’sclaim in his interview that he encourages students to take a ‘fight’ approach by getting involved as much as possible in thehost environment. However, there are some consistencies between Mark’s claims in his interview and the orientationsessions observed by the researchers. One example is Mark’s strategy of encouraging students to find answers to their ownquestions; he mentions that in his interview and addresses this in his orientation by advising his students to learn aboutwhere they are going in the orientation as well. In addition, Mark stated in the interview that he tells students to anticipateproblems before they occur, so that they are prepared to deal with adversity and stress; in his orientation, Mark tells studentsto expect differences in cultures, even when they may not be obvious, and to plan for them.

5.1.3. Maggie’s interview and observation results

In her interview, Maggie says that she tries to draw on her own experiences as well as those of past participants whenconducting her pre-departure orientation sessions. While she notes that ‘every student is different,’ she does seem toencourage various strategies to promote adjustment when advising her student sojourners (e.g. using ‘real life’ examplesrather than ‘droning on’ as the ‘authority’). Maggie feels that providing information to students is the best way to reduce theiruncertainty and anxiety, particularly by involving past participants in her orientation sessions. Maggie encourages studentsto use their language skills as much as possible and to get out, make friends, and ‘assimilate.’ She does confess to using fearappeals when advising students, drawing on personal experiences like the time she was robbed in a Spanish park after fallingasleep there, or the time she god pick pocketed while with a group of friends in Madrid. She says that she draws on theseexperiences not to scare her students, but to help them make sure that they are always aware of their surroundings so that

Table 3

Frequency of themes in interviews

Frequency of themes in interviews

1a 1b 2 3a 3b 4 5 6 7

Cathy S. 7 8 4 5 6 6 8 5 5

Maggie M. 7 10 4 1 2 5 4 4 5

Sandy P. 12 11 3 5 5 3 7 4 1

Mark H. 8 6 3 3 3 3 11 6 3


Table 4

Key examples of themes in observations

Country/

participant

1a Language 1b Strategies 2 Com. Style 3a Uncertainty 3b Anxiety 4 Immersion 5 Culture shock 6 Fear/efficacy

Australia/

New Zealand

(Sandy)

Students did not

seem to be

engaged in

attempts at

story-telling and

relating

Direct

communication

style

Focus on differences

in academic systems

Informed students

of a 24-h hotline

available for

problems they

might encounter

Australians are east

to meet and

culturally similar to

themselves

Students will be seen as

representatives of their

countries, so behave as such

Be prepared to do your research

Negative stereotypes of American

students as ‘privileged’

Don’t spend too much money

or time drinking alcohol

UK/Ireland

(Mark)

Laid back,

reassuring style

Focus on differences

in academic systems

Discussion of

money, safety,

transportation,

etc.

Take the initiative

to get out and

meet Brits

Life in Britain is

much more

different than

expected

Avoid being the stereotypical

American

Wear similar clothes so you

don’t stand out

Be aware of cultural differences

Alicante, Spain

(Maggie)

Direct style,

focusing

primarily on

fear appeals

Prepare as much as

possible before your

trip

Focus on first

steps after arrival

Stay with a host

family

Avoid getting wiped out from

medical bills

Shares information

on processes that

cause uncertainty

(e.g. visas)

Homestay families

can be changed

in case of problems

Make friends with

locals

Visa process will be extremely

difficult

Join an intercambio

conversation

exchange

Spaniards know a lot about

America, so you should learn

as much as possible about them

Senegal (Jen S) Discloses lack

of experience

with Senegal

program

Reserved

communication

style

Expect less access to

communication

technology

Emphasis on

safety of the

homestay

environment

Students will learn

language quickly if

immersed in culture

Be prepared for

language barrier

to contribute to

culture shock

Focus on safety and how to

handle emergencies

Discussion of ‘

Africa time’

Assurance of a

secure support

system

Plunge right in’ Emphasizes importance of

mandatory on-site orientation

South Korea

(Jen)

Speaks a little

Korean during

session

Draws on own

experiences

in Korea

Very helpful,

affirming

communication

style

Focus on pragmatic

issues like securing

a visa

Be proactive, but

not too nervous

Tell everyone that

you are an

international student

Just because you

look Korean

doesn’t mean you

will blend in

You can fail classes

Lots of humor Hold back a bit and

observe before diving in

Sufficient health insurance is

vital ‘just in case’

You should have little problem

accomplishing your goals

M.

Sob

re-Den

ton

,D

.H

art

/Intern

atio

na

lJo

urn

al

of

Intercu

ltura

lR

elatio

ns

32

(20

08

)5

38

–5

52

54

6

they can avoid the same pitfalls. In conclusion, Maggie notes that there is only so much she can do to prepare her students forthe cross-cultural adjustment process; they are all going to have their own unique experiences and will each have to ‘go outand experience’ life in their host culture.

A total of nine students were present in Maggie’s pre-departure orientation observation: six women and three men, all ofwhom appeared to be fairly ‘typical’ university students. All students present were all preparing to participate in the sameprogram, located in Alicante, Spain. Ages of the participants ranged from late teens to early 20s, and the students wereprimarily Caucasian business and liberal arts majors. Maggie’s pre-departure orientation session was interesting in that sheused more fear appeals and expectancy violations than the other session leaders. Immersion was encouraged, both throughthe host family environment, and through intercambio conversation exchanges with local students. A lot of ‘tit-for-tat’efficacy was provided, in a discussion of the requirement for students to fulfill certain administrative responsibilities asparticipants (e.g. if they do their part, IPO would assist the participants to maneuver through logistical red-tape socharacteristic of Spanish bureaucracy). While a discussion of the laborious visa application process reduced participants’uncertainty, it also seemed to increase anxiety among some of the participants. Maggie brought more culture-specificinformation to her session that did the other coordinators, in regard to both the administrative and cultural aspects of theprogram. She asked the students questions pertaining to Spanish culture, and the students’ lack of knowledge on this topicwas skillfully turned into both a tool for increasing anxiety/fear and reducing uncertainty/increasing efficacy, as Maggie bothilluminated the students’ ignorance and provided impetus for increasing their cultural understanding.

As opposed to the previous two program coordinators, there are almost no differences between Maggie’s purportedstrategies discussed in her interview and those observed in her pre-departure orientation session with students preparing tostudy in Alicante, Spain. She seems to be the most aware of the strategies she uses to assist students in preparing for theirupcoming sojourn, as there are a number of consistencies between the strategies described in her interview and thoseobserved by the researchers. For example, Maggie notes in her interview that providing practical information to students isthe best way to reduce uncertainty and anxiety. In her orientation she provides a wealth of information about the Spanishvisa process; this in particular reduces instrumental uncertainty, though not particularly social anxiety issues. Also, Maggiesays in her interview that she encourages students to use their language skills as a way to better understand to host culture,and to get out and make friends. In her orientation, she discusses exactly this by encouraging students to speak with theirhost families and to take part in intercambio language exchanges. Finally, Maggie suggests in her interview that she tends touse a lot of fear when advising students in order to keep them on their toes and from overly optimistic biases. In fact, theresearchers did observe Maggie engaging in a number of fear appeals in her orientation, including disclosures of her ownexperiences getting pick pocketed in Madrid and getting robbed in Valencia, Spain.

5.1.4. Jen’s observation results

Jen was not available for an interview during that phase of the study, so there is no data from which to draw comparisonswith the observations. For this reason, the researchers chose to observe two pre-departure orientation sessions. Only adiscussion of the results of those observations is included here. The first session facilitated by Jen was designed to preparestudents for their upcoming study abroad experience in South Korea. There were only three students present: two males andone female, all in their early 20s. All were of Asian descent and have at least some knowledge of the language. They are allstudying at the same program in Seoul, and all are business students completing an International Business Certificate. Inaddition, all of the participants have made at least one previous trip to the program location.

Much of this orientation session was devoted to reducing anxiety by addressing pragmatic issues, such as earninguniversity credits, registration concerns, and housing issues in Seoul. Less time was spent on cultural differences than inother sessions, as Jen assumed that the students were already familiar with Korean culture. However, Jen also pointed outthat looking Korean might make the students particularly susceptible to the symptoms of culture shock. Because others maywant to treat them like locals, the students might anticipate a ‘double’ feeling of culture shock as they may feel that theiridentities are displaced; they are neither sojourners nor locals. Fear appeals were largely limited to logistical issues, such asobtaining a visa and registering for classes. Jen encouraged efficacy by assuring students that they were farther ahead in theirapplication/registration processes than is typical, and that they should have little problem accomplishing their pre-departure goals.

Jen also led the smallest observed session, to prepare students heading to Senegal, despite never having been to thecountry nor having worked with this particular study abroad program in the past. Only two student participants werepresent at the session. Both were females in their third and fourth year of undergraduate study, respectively. One was ofAsian descent; the other was Caucasian. Both were at least partially fluent in French. Each professed an interest in acareer in global studies and service. The Senegal session was interesting due to its almost total lack of fear appeals;indeed, the session placed a primary focus on problem-solving and reducing uncertainty and anxiety. Jen immediatelydisclosed her lack of knowledge about the location and culture, but reassured the students several times during thesession that the IPO was available to them whenever needed. Uncertainty about the safety of the homestay environmentled to anxiety among some of the participants, so Jen spent some time addressing this issue. Jen discussed the screeningand evaluation procedure in place to ensure a safe environment, and noted that families in Africa often treat their guestsas they do their own children. This, along with discussions of the more circular ‘Africa time’ and the power structures inplace in the Senegalese university system, served to increase the students’ ability to explain and predict behavior in thehost culture.


In sum, and in response to RQ1, the researches discovered that program coordinators used a number of strategies tocommunicate with their student sojourners about cross-cultural adaptation, including a combination of their own pastexperiences, self-disclosure, nonverbal communication, and fear/efficacy appeals to communicate with students aboutadaptation. Strategies ranged from problem-solving techniques to direct, informational communication to question andanswer sessions. Communication approach varied by trainer personality, the amount of administrative issues to be covered,program location, and the amount of cultural knowledge both the students and the program coordinators had of the hostculture.

5.2. RQ2: How do the strategies used by program coordinators compare to the popular theories of adaptation discussed in Section 2?

It is important to note that, although most of the study abroad coordinators had received some basic training on the U-Curve Model, few had been actively trained in any of the models discussed in this paper, or even, for that matter, infacilitating cross-cultural adaptation training sessions. In their interviews, IPO program coordinators Sandy, Mark, andMaggie all disclose their extensive personal and professional experience, noting multiple sojourns, internships, and jobs ininternational education, but do not mention any practical training in culture shock or cross-cultural adaptation. Nonetheless,their narratives do reflect at least a tacit understanding of some prevalent models of adaptation. Sandy defines culture shockby using a ‘roller coaster’ metaphor, playing on the peaks and valleys of the adjustment curve in the U- and W-Curve Models,and says that she encourages students to stay physically active to help avoid the symptoms of culture shock. Mark discussesculture shock in reference to a ‘‘five stage process’’ during his interview and notes that he experienced it when feelinghomesick while on a sojourn in Israel.

In the orientation sessions, even without the program coordinators having received any formal training in theories ofadaptation, the researchers observed in their narratives evidence of comparable strategies to those found in popular models,which may in turn emphasize the applicability of some of the models in practice (i.e., beyond the academy). While the U-Curve Model is the only popular adaptation model the coordinators referenced in their interviews, and is the most accessiblemodel in the field (Ward, 2004) it is not referenced in any meaningful manner in the orientations observed. Occasionally it isreferred to by one of the session leaders (for example, double shock in the UK and the potential headaches of the Senegalesestudents), but at no point during the observations did the program coordinators or other ‘experts’ talk about the stage-modelof culture shock — thus illustrating Ward’s (2004) assertion that while the U-Curve Model is intuitively appealing, itsusefulness is not supported in practical application.

Bennett’s (1998) Transition Model of cultural adaptation was useful in drawing some conclusions across sessions. Theway that the program coordinators tailored their orientations to the number and type of students definitely speaks to amodel that varies depending on the psychological personality traits of the individual. The tendency to encourage ‘fight’versus ‘flight’ definitely seemed to depend on culture, program, and the student, situation, and coordinator in question. Forexample, Jen mentioned the necessity of a ‘fight’ response in Senegal in terms of homestays and necessary immersion.However, Sandy and Mark both encouraged more of a ‘flight’ response in Australia and the UK, respectively. This could be dueto an optimistic bias inherent in American students choosing to study in English-speaking countries. Finally, the crisis ofidentity that is treated through the Transition Model can be seen in the orientations to South Korea and the UK, in whichstudents are warned that they may be pulled in too many directions at once, with the possibility of incompatibility betweenhome and host-cultural identities. Both the UK and South Korea sessions were quite small as well, allowing for the individualattention required for the Transition Model to be enacted.

Kim’s (1977, 2001, 2005) Stress-Adaptation-Growth Model was evident in the narratives of all of the programcoordinators who encouraged immersion with host cultures and nationals. In particular, Maggie talked about both the hostfamilies and the intercambios as actual tools in place in the programs to encourage immersion and improve communicationwith host nationals. This may be a reason that the program coordinators for English-speaking countries warned againstoptimistic bias; while linguistic fluency is the key to Stress-Adaptation-Growth Model, it is imperative that the sojournerunderstands cultural differences embedded in linguistic systems. It is also important to remember that cultural adaptationmay not be positively related to level of immersion. The high level of immersion in Senegalese culture can potentially lead tocultural over-saturation, which can be explained through the Stress-Adaptation-Growth Model.

5.3. RQ3: Are there particular theories of adaptation that could be relevant to program coordinators as they teach sojourners about

transitions?

Overall, the AUM model (Gudykunst, 1998) was perceived by the researchers to be the adaptation theory mostrelevant to communication strategies observed in the pre-departure orientation sessions. In other words, we found thatthe AUM model most clearly reflects the kinds of discourses used by the study abroad coordinators in communicationwith their students. One interesting emergence from the data is the use of fear and efficacy appeals in conjunction withthe AUM model’s uncertainty and anxiety management strategies, leading the researchers to include an additionalcommunication theory in the analysis: Witte’s (1993) extension to the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM). Whilenot developed specifically in relation to cross-cultural adaptation, EPPM treats situations in which individuals are aboutto engage in risk-taking behavior, and was specifically applied to sojourner adaptation with regard to the AUM model(Witte, 1993).


When the heightened levels of explanatory uncertainty evolve into a perceived threat, the level of perceived efficacy overthat threat becomes crucial in managing uncertainty. In her discussion of EPPM, Witte (1992) emphasizes the balance betweenfear and danger control in communicating about uncertainty. According to EPPM the critical point is the moment at whichindividuals cannot handle being frightened of risk anymore and move from danger control to fear control. Witte (1993) appliesthis model to AUM, noting that the emotion lying behind anxiety is fear. In applying EPPM to AUM, Witte shows that perceiveduncertainty and anxiety influence the sojourner similarly to the way that [lack of] efficacy and fear affect the cognitive encoder(p. 206). In other words, sojourners measure anxiety against their perceived control over uncertainty in planning their sojourns.This application of EPPM to AUM has great potential to benefit cross-cultural trainers, if they can learn to use it in theirpersuasive messages. Generally speaking, it is necessary to instill some fear appeals in messages to students about to embark ona study abroad sojourn, in order to avoid optimistic bias (Weinstein, 1989). If sojourners do not take into account the culturaldifferences to which they are going to have to adapt, they will become doubly shocked by cultural differences. Messagesinforming sojourners of the impact of these discrepancies should increase their uncertainty without pushing them over thecritical point of anxiety. Some examples of the emergence of EPPM as applicable to the present data follow.

In the orientations to Australia, the UK, and Spain, the program coordinators discussed the possible stereotypes ofAmericans; this should give the students the ability to predict and explain behavior, as well as the agency to counteract thosestereotypes with positive cultural information. Also, in learning about differences in the educational systems and teachingstyles of host cultures, students are receiving information that can help them to explain potential expectancy violations. Theconstant emphasis on increasing knowledge of the host cultures and American politics and foreign policy prior to departureincreases efficacy. Awareness that host nationals may want to engage in debate can help students to explain behaviorwithout feeling attacked. This communication urges students to obtain information on their own to facilitate theiracculturation.

In moving the agency of cultural adaptation from the IPO program coordinators to the students, the combination of AUMand EPPM allows students to be influenced to engage in danger control rather than fear control. When communicating tostudents about potential risks to their sojourn, from being mugged by gypsies to being stereotyped as ignorant or privileged,the program coordinators were constantly providing strategies to increase efficacy over risk-control. For example, Maggieused EPPM to encourage proactive strategies through a competent use of fear appeals to avoid complacency. She increasedanxiety through cautions of negative outcomes in the following three areas: failure to obtain a visa, lack of knowledge ofSpain’s politics, and naivety of the strategies of petty thieves. She then countered this anxiety with easy efficacy strategieslike preparing the trip to LA, listing websites for Spanish cultural information, and keeping a credit card in an unusuallocation. The outcome of this session was an enthusiastic group of students who are aware of the risks of their sojourn butwho have agency in place to counteract them.

Jen, on the other hand, stressed efficacy first when leading the Senegal session. There was enough explanatoryuncertainty present in both the students and the program coordinator to potentially move past the critical point intocomplete lack of agency, causing the students to withdraw completely from the program (either of their own accord or theirparents). In this situation, however, Jen chose to decrease uncertainty with as much information as possible, and avoidanxiety by giving the students strategies for dealing with stress, explanations for physiological reactions, and the supportsystem of the IPO. The outcome of her session was students armed with agency and strategies for controlling danger onseveral different levels, increasing their efficacy through information and message-framing.

6. Limitations

It has been the aim of this study to provide an analysis of the communication strategies actually used by study abroadadvisors when preparing sojourners for cultural adaptation, and to show how such strategies in practice compare to existingtheories on adaptation. While some interesting patterns have emerged concerning current models of adaptation and theirpotential use to study abroad professionals, it is important to note that this paper is a preliminary analysis of a multifacetedconstruct, and therefore has several limitations. To begin with, the observations were conducted during orientation sessions,and therefore only deal primarily with administrative concerns of the IPO staff and study abroad candidates prior todeparture. Thus, there was not a large time allotment for cultural adaptation training. Secondly, as the program coordinatorsare not dealing with students in the field (i.e., actually studying abroad), they could only give preliminary or hypotheticalinformation based on their own and other students’ past experiences, rather than assisting with issues as they occur. Further,this preliminary analysis only provided data on four program coordinators across six geographic locations at a particular site,and requires much replication with a larger population of participants to make any theoretical claims about the strategiesused by study abroad professionals to communicate about adaptation. Finally, there are several other models of adaptationthat were not included in the study (see, among others, Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, & Senecal, 1997; Ellingsworth, 1983;McGuire & McDermott, 1988). It is quite possible that some of these other models of adaptation that could assist in bridgingthe gap between theory and practice that is the focal point of this paper.

7. Implications

There are several exciting implications emerging from this preliminary analysis. The present study will assist in theapplication of models of adaptation to the context of students about to sojourn abroad. From this point of view, some aspects


of the models seem to be more easily applicable to intercultural training than others. While the U-Curve Model provides aneasy-to-decipher, linear structure, it does not actually seem to inform the training sessions facilitated by study abroadprofessionals as much as its reputation may imply. It is the model that the most program coordinators in this preliminarystudy have been trained in, and yet, there are very few references to the U-Curve Model in the actual observations of thetraining sessions. This may be due to the lack of relevance of the theory to the more pragmatic information discussed at mostof the sessions, or perhaps we can hypothesize that the U-Curve Model is too unidimensional, giving relatively few strategiesfor handling the psychological risks inherent in the process that may not be applicable to the general sojourner. Further,many of the aspects of the U-Curve Model are incorporated within the other models, but in richer, more realistic ways. Futureresearch could focus more on the individual aspects of the U-Curve Model, in order to examine in more detail how they arelinked with the other models.

The Transition Model, on the other hand, is underappreciated in its applicability to specific students and specific situations.This model allows for more idiosyncratic fluidity in sojourner response to psychological adaptive pressures; however, theidentity crises implied in this model may be more applicable in situations in which sojourners are traveling to more culturallychallenging locations. Perhaps this is evidenced by the increased use of this model in the Senegal and South Korea orientationsessions. Additionally, the Transition Model takes more time to enact; this time is not generally available in the sessionscoordinated by the International Programs Office. Perhaps this may explain why the sessions with fewer students present werethe ones to benefit from this model. Implications for future research here include a comparative study of sojourner locations todiscern whether the Transition Model is observed more among smaller groups and/or more culturally exotic locations.

Meanwhile the Stress-Adaptation-Growth Model shifts issues of cultural adaptation towards a communicative sphere,which is highly useful as many study abroad students are embarking on language immersion programs. This model isparticularly relevant for cross-cultural trainers (e.g. the program coordinators in this study), as this model can be used toprepare students for both long-term and short-term sojourns, allows for psychological flexibility, and can be applied tovaried host environments. Perhaps this more universal relevance to the student sojourner explains why all the programcoordinators observed in the study used this model to encourage student immersion in their host culture.

The most significant contribution of this preliminary study is discovering, in practice, current cross-cultural trainerstaking a combined approach to preparing students for cross-cultural adaptation that couples the AUM model with Witte’s(1992) EPPM strategy. By combining these two theoretical models, cross-cultural trainers are able to provide studentspreparing for a sojourn abroad with culturally relevant information, while simultaneously conveying to them a sense ofcontrol over their own situations. It is not enough for trainers to simply present to their sojourners a model of cross-culturaladaptation; one must also convey the information to participants in a meaningful way. Future research in this area mustcontinue to explore the utility of this combination of AUM and EPPM. It is important to examine whether other professionalsin similar positions at different universities prepare their students in a similar manner, with similar strategies. It is alsoimportant that future research seeks evidence that this training strategy is, in fact, useful to the student sojourners takingpart in the training. If continued support is found linking the application of EPPM to the AUM model, it will becomeimperative to develop new methods and materials for preparing both the trainers and the trainees for the cross-culturaltraining process. This information will assist professionals, who may not have otherwise received training on how to preparestudents for culture shock, to improve their strategies for preparing their students for citizenship in an increasinglyintercultural world. As a final note, the current work exists in order to bridge the gap between theorizing cross-culturaladaptation as a communicative phenomenon and actively applying such strategies to the forum in which they will be mostuseful — in the training of study abroad professionals so that they can more effectively prepare sojourners for internationalexperience and global citizenship.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank the Center for Global Education Services at Arizona State University, including its director andall study abroad coordinators, for their assistance in the collection and analysis of this research.

Appendix A. IPO observation framework

1. Description of scenea. Number of studentsb. Topic of meetingc. Description of students involved (age, gender, etc.)d. Locations representede. Staff member involved

i. Positionii. Age

iii. Genderf. Description of setting


g. Description of kind of interaction taking placei. Information session

ii. Orientation sessioniii. Group meetingiv. Meeting with student

h. Length of time of sessioni. How many people involved in session

2. Training/preparation given for seminar?3. What is the type of material being presented?4. Why is this material interesting?5. Types of questions asked6. Relevant verbal strategies for answering questions7. Types of interactions

a. Uncertainty reduction?b. Anxiety reduction?c. Self-disclosure?d. Immersion encouragement?e. Intrinsicly rewarding?

8. Communication strategies observeda. Problem-solvingb. Direct communicationc. Information communicationd. Q/Ae. Pamphlets/texts given

9. Information pertaining specifically to culture shock:10. Theories represented:

a. AUM/howb. U-Curve/howc. Transition: fight/flight/howd. Stress-adaptation-growth: immersion/howe. Other: theory/how

11. Describe the level of effectiveness in communicating12. Outcome of session

a. Student/audience responseb. Points of departure from script/agenda (if possible)c. Turning points leading to strategy changes

13. Similar to other sessions run by program coordinators or different? How so?14. Relevant comments/notes

References

Adler, P. S. (1975). The transitional experience: An alternative view of culture shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15, 13–23.Bennett, J. M. (1998). Transition shock: Putting culture shock in perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings

(pp. 215–224). Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human

Communication Research, 1, 99–112.Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 697–712.Bourhis, R., Moise, L., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386.Chen, G. M. (1992). Communication adaptability and interaction involvement as predictors of cross-cultural adjustment. Communication Research Reports, 9,

33–41.Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37–46.Ellingsworth, H. W. (1983). Adaptive intercultural communication. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 195–204). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture shock: Psychological reactions to unfamiliar environments. New York: Methuen.Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.Gudykunst, W. B. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory: Current status. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 8–58).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Applying anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory to intercultural adjustment training. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 22(2), 227–250.Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of strangers’ intercultural adjustment. Theorizing about intercultural communication

(pp. 419–457). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hottola, Petri. (2004). Culture confusion. Intercultural adaptation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 447–466.Kashmina, E. S., & Loh, E. (2006). International students’ acculturation: Effects of international, conational, and local ties and need for closure. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 30(4), 471–485.Kim, Y. Y. (1977). Communication patterns of foreign immigrants in the process of acculturation. Human Communication Research, 4, 70–77.Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Kim, Y. Y. (2005). Inquiry in intercultural and development communication. Journal of Communication, 55(3), 554–577.


LaBrack, B. (1993). The missing linkage: The process of integrating orientation and reentry. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 241–279). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Landis, D., Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (2003). Handbook of intercultural training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright grantees visiting the United States. International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 45–51.Martin, J. N., & Harrell, T. (1996). Re-entry training for intercultural sojourners. In D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp.

307–326). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2004). Intercultural communication in contexts (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.McGuire, M., & McDermott, S. (1988). Communication in assimilation, deviance, and alienation states. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural

adaptation (pp. 90–105). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustments to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropologist, 7, 177–182.Pederson, P. (1995). The five stages of culture shock. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Perreault, W. D., Jr., & Leigh, L. E. (1989). Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgements. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 135–148.Rohrlich, B., & Martin, J. (1991). Host country and reentry adjustment of student sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 163–182.Ward, C. (2001). The A, B, Cs of acculturation. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 411–446). New York: Oxford University Press.Ward, C. (2004). Psychological theories of culture contact and their implications for intercultural training and interventions. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J.

Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 185–216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. London: Routledge.Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (2001). Coping with cross-cultural transition. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(3), 293–311.Ward, C., Okura, Y., Kennedy, A., & Kojima, T. (1998). The U-curve on trial: A longitudinal study of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural

transition. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(3), 277–291.Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246, 1232–1233.Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329–349.Witte, K. (1993). A theory of cognition and negative affect: Extending Gudykunst and Hammer’s theory of uncertainty and anxiety. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 17, 197–216.Yang, R. P. J., Noels, K. A., & Saumure, K. D. (2006). Multiple routes to cross-cultural adaptation for international students: Mapping the paths between self-

construals, English language confidence, and adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(4), 487–506.


mind the gap: application-based analysis of cultural adjustment models

Documents