REVERSE CULTURE SHOCK AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
IN COLLEGE STUDENTS REENTERING AFTER STUDY ABROAD
Natsuko Tohyama
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green
State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
May 2008
Committee:
Michael Coomes, Advisor
Michael Dannells
Patricia Kubow
ii
ABSTRACT
Michael Coomes, Advisor
This study’s purpose was to examine if there were significant differences in reverse
culture shock levels experienced by study abroad returnees who remained together with their
romantic partners through the reentry experience and those who separated from partners, by male
and female returnees, and by returnees with short-term, mid-term, or long-term study abroad
experiences. To measure reverse culture shock levels, the study used a modified version of J. S.
Fray’s (1988) Homecomer Culture Shock Scales (HCSS) questionnaire with four subscales:
Cultural Distance (CD), Interpersonal Distance (ID), Grief (G), and Moral Distance (MD). It
included an open-ended question about participants’ readjustment experiences. The survey was
distributed to past study abroad students at Bowling Green State University, yielding 85
participants. Quantitative data were analyzed using two-way analyses of variance and post-hoc
tests (α = .05). Qualitative data from the open-ended question were analyzed categorically and
thematically. There were no main effects of gender or interaction effects of study abroad
duration and relationship change for any of the scales. Participants who broke up with their
romantic intimate partners demonstrated significantly higher levels of reverse culture shock
overall and Cultural Distance and Moral Distance compared to participants who did not break
up. Women who experienced break up reported significantly higher levels of Interpersonal
Distance only. Returnees from long-term study abroad scored higher on the HCSS and the Grief
subscale compared to returnees from short-term experiences only. Responses to the open-ended
question about readjustment were classified as predominantly positive (14), predominantly
iii
negative (32), mixed positive and negative (31), and neither positive nor negative (7). Themes
found were structural readjustment, readjustment to way of life in the US, comparisons of
American and study abroad location’s cultures, boredom at lack of adventure, homesickness for
study abroad location, being misunderstood by others, confronting changes at home and in
relationships, happiness at returning to the familiar, and challenge and growth. The results
indicate that students must often renegotiate romantic relationships upon reentry and this
readjustment process can be problematic. Study abroad and international student services offices
should address romantic relationships and close relationships in general in reentry assistance.
iv
For my mother, father, and little sister
To whom I am eternally grateful
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to thank Dr. Michael Comes, Dr. Michael Dannells, and Dr. Patricia Kubow for
being a very helpful thesis committee to me. Thank you also to the College Student Personnel
program at Bowling Green State University for pushing me to develop to the point where I could
successfully complete this thesis. I will carry the many things I gained in the program throughout
my professional and personal life. Thank you to my friends and classmates who supported me
emotionally and logistically throughout this process. I wish everyone the best in life.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................
1
Research Questions....................................................................................................
3
Definitions of Key Terms ..........................................................................................
4
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................
5
Study Abroad ............................................................................................................
5
Culture Shock ............................................................................................................
6
Definitions of Culture Shock .........................................................................
6
Descriptive Theories of Culture Shock..........................................................
9
Explaining the Why of Culture Shock ...........................................................
11
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. ...................................................
11
Piaget’s Equilibrium Theory of Cognitive Structure. ........................
12
Challenge to identity. .........................................................................
13
Variables of Culture Shock............................................................................
14
Strategies for Coping with Culture Shock .....................................................
15
Western Assumptions about Culture Shock ..................................................
16
Reverse Culture Shock ..............................................................................................
17
Symptoms of Reverse Culture Shock ............................................................
18
Variables of Reverse Culture Shock ..............................................................
19
Strategies for Coping with Reverse Culture Shock .......................................
20
Reverse Culture Shock and Romantic Relationships.....................................
21
Romantic relationships ..............................................................................................
22
vii
In Search of the Best Outcome ......................................................................
22
Attraction .......................................................................................................
23
Communication..............................................................................................
23
Relationship Dissolution, Maintenance, and Repair......................................
24
Summary
............................................................................................................
25
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................
27
Research Questions....................................................................................................
27
Hypotheses
............................................................................................................
27
Hypotheses Regarding Gender and Relationship Change .............................
27
Hypotheses Regarding Study Abroad Duration and Relationship Change ...
28
Rationale for Hypotheses...............................................................................
28
Instrument
............................................................................................................
29
Sample and Distribution ............................................................................................
31
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................
36
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS....................................................................................................
37
Reverse Culture Shock Level Scale Scores ..............................................................
37
Means ............................................................................................................
37
Gender and Relationship Change...................................................................
37
Study Abroad Duration and Relationship Change.........................................
41
Open-Ended Responses about Readjustment Experience .........................................
47
Categorization ................................................................................................
47
In-Depth Thematic Analysis ..........................................................................
50
Summary
............................................................................................................
54
viii
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION...............................................................................................
Means
56
............................................................................................................
56
Reverse Culture Shock Level Scale Scores ...............................................................
56
Open-Ended Responses About Readjustment Experience ........................................
58
Implications
............................................................................................................
59
Limitations
............................................................................................................
62
Further Research Directions .....................................................................................
63
Conclusion ................................................................................................................
64
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................
66
APPENDIX A. INSTRUMENT ...........................................................................................
73
APPENDIX B. CONSENT LETTER...................................................................................
78
ix
LIST OF FIGURES/TABLES
Figure/Table
1
Page
Table 1: Gender, Relationship Change, and Study Abroad Duration (SA Time)
of Participants ............................................................................................................
34
2
Table 2: Class Standing of Participants .....................................................................
35
3
Table 3: Age Distribution of Participants ..................................................................
35
4
Table 4: Means for Gender and Relationship Change ...............................................
40
5
Table 5: Analysis of Variance for Gender and Relationship Change........................
41
6
Table 6: Means for Study Abroad Duration and Relationship Change .....................
43
7
Table 7: Analysis of Variance for Study Abroad Duration (SA Time) and
Relationship Change ..................................................................................................
45
8
Table 8: Post-Hoc Tests for Study Abroad Duration and Relationship Change........
46
9
Table 9: Open-Ended Responses about Readjustment Experience ...........................
48
10
Figure 1: Black and Mendenhall’s (1991)
11
U-Curve of Cross-Cultural Adjustment. ....................................................................
71
Figure 2: Berry’s (1997) Acculturation Strategies.....................................................
72
1
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
Study abroad, an increasingly popular activity in higher education today, actually enjoys
a very long history. Breitenbach (1970) as cited in Klineberg (1981) found evidence of
international student enrollment in schools of philosophy and rhetoric in fourth century B.C.
Greece. Intercultural travel has an even longer history, but it was normally limited to the elite
social ranks and to specific groups such as traders, missionaries, military personnel, and
explorers. Three developments, however, have greatly increased the role of intercultural travel in
the modern world. These changes include technological advances, changes in the attitudes and
legal restrictions of nations, as well as the increase in natural and human made disasters, the
latter entailing phenomena such as civil wars, famines, and floods. Such changes have promoted,
freed, and at times even forced global migration. Study abroad itself enjoyed the beginnings of
its boom at the end of the Second World War (Klineberg).
According to the latest Open Doors Report, 223, 534 United States (US) students studied
abroad during the 2005-2006 academic year, an 8.5% increase from the previous year. Study
abroad participation has been increasing steadily within the past decades, and the number of US
students who studied abroad in 2005-2006 was more than double that in 1995-1996 (Institute of
International Education [IIE], 2007c). The top five destinations for US students studying abroad
remained the traditionally popular United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, France, and Australia.
However, there were significant increases in students studying abroad in more nontraditional
countries such as China, Greece, and Argentina (IIE, 2007a).
The rise of study abroad was and continues to be predictable. In a rapidly globalizing
world, educating global citizens who both understand and function well in intercultural settings
has become crucial. Phrases such as “internationalization of the institution and curriculum” and
2
“preparing global citizens” have found their way into the mission statements of countless
colleges and universities in the US. Study abroad is embraced as one of the primary methods
through which this process of internationalization can be implemented (Casteen, 2006).
Culture shock and reverse culture shock are important parts of the process of study
abroad, especially in the development of the person and of international understanding. Also
crucial to the development of the whole person, a fundamental concept in the college student
affairs and study abroad fields, are healthy, positive, and loving close relationships. Baumeister
and Leary (1995) theorize that humans need frequent and pleasant interaction with intimate
others in lasting, loving relationships in order to function normally. The human need to belong is
well recognized in the fields of psychology and human development. In fact, a substantial
amount of research has shown that when this need to belong is not satisfied, both mental and
physical health is negatively affected. Furthermore, research shows that it is the quality of
relationships developed which matters, not the quantity (Brehm, Miller, Perlman, & Campbell,
2002). Clearly, romantic relationships are a category of close relationships which can fulfill the
human need to belong.
Reentry research has shown that one key variable of reentry is interaction with friends
and family. For example, Uehara (1983) found that satisfaction with family and friend
relationships was negatively correlated with reentry culture shock in returning study abroad
students. Martin (1983) also reported that satisfied and dissatisfied returnees could be
differentiated by success in interpersonal relationships, including romantic relationships. Close
relationships serve as reference points through which returning sojourners understand the ways
they may have changed through their time abroad (Martin, 1986). The communication centered
perspective on reentry, which views communication and interpersonal interaction as central to
3
the experiences of sojourning and reentering, assumes that, “It is through communication with
others that the sojourner reenters…” (Martin, 1986, p. 5).
Despite the importance of intimate relationships in reentry adjustment and human
development and the reality that romantic relationships form an essential category of intimate
relationships, there is minimal research addressing how romantic relationships and the reentry
experience influence each other. An extensive search found no published studies which were
dedicated in their entirety to this topic, and only a few studies which included romantic
relationships as a subset of another category of close relationships that was researched. The aim
of the present study is to address this gap in the literature.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between reverse culture shock
and relationship change, gender, and study abroad duration. In conducting this study, I assumed
that reverse culture shock is measurable.
1. Are there significant differences in levels of reentry culture shock experienced by
study abroad returnees who remain together with their romantic partners through the
experience of reentry culture shock and those who separate from their partners during
the experience?
2. Are there significant differences in levels of reentry culture shock experienced by
study abroad returnees who identify as men and those who identify as women?
3. Are there significant differences in levels of reentry culture shock experienced by
returnees who had short-term, mid-term, or long-term study abroad experiences?
4
Definitions of Key Terms
Culture: A dynamic set of shared attitudes, values, beliefs, goals, and practices which
characterizes a group of individuals
Culture Shock: The psychological and physiological adjustment process which people
experience upon firsthand contact with a different culture
Reverse Culture Shock: The psychological and physiological readjustment process which people
experience when they reenter their home culture after a prolonged period in a different
culture
Romantic relationships: Close relationships which are romantic in nature
5
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to create a framework for understanding the topic of the study, reverse culture
shock and romantic relationships, this section begins by discussing study abroad, culture shock,
then reverse culture shock. Romantic relationships and reverse culture shock are addressed lastly
in this section.
Study Abroad
The modern goals of study abroad, such as preparing citizens to be successful in an
increasingly globalizing world, have their roots in ancient times. Historically, international
student exchange had geo-political and socio-cultural purposes. In terms of geo-politics, study
abroad was seen as a foreign policy of sorts, as a method of expanding political influence. At the
same time, these international student ambassadors served to spread the values and beliefs of the
dominant culture. In earlier times, this often entailed religious influence. Later, values such as
democracy and international harmony took the place of religious ideas (Bochner, 2006).
These geo-political and socio-cultural goals of study abroad are very much alive today.
After the Second World War, programs such as the Fulbright Program and East-West Center at
the University of Hawaii were established to accelerate post-war reconstruction in damaged
countries as well as to assure US influence in these areas. They were also founded with the
laudable goal of bettering international relations, thereby preventing future global conflicts
(Bochner, 2006). Klineberg (1981) wrote of the role of study abroad students as intercultural
mediators. Through experiencing, understanding, and accepting different ways of life as well as
sharing cultural differences with host and home countries, study abroad students have the ability
to promote international understanding and positive international relations. Klineberg debated
how and to what extent study abroad students take on this enormous responsibility. From the
6
students’ viewpoint, study abroad offers opportunities for personal enrichment, travel, greater
chances of graduate school acceptance, an advantage in the job market, and increased awareness
of global issues and cultural differences (Langley & Breese, 2005).
The benefits of study abroad are numerous. According to Hadis (2005), increases in
concern for international affairs, appreciation of diverse cultures, maturity, self-awareness, and
independence are some of the positive outcomes of study abroad that US educators report. The
research has shown that global-mindedness, intellectual growth, personal development, and
acquisition of language skills are benefits of international study exchange (Hadis).
Culture Shock
Culture shock and reverse culture shock are essential parts of the process of study abroad,
especially in the development of the person and of international understanding. Because the
research on reverse culture shock is grounded in that on culture shock and there is vastly more
information available about culture shock, this paper will discuss culture shock before addressing
the true focus of the study, reverse culture shock.
Definitions of Culture Shock
Culture shock, or a subset of cultural adjustment, can only be understood with an
understanding of culture. Many authors provide many variations of what culture is, exactly.
However, for the purposes of this thesis, I define culture as a dynamic set of shared attitudes,
values, beliefs, goals, and practices which characterizes a group of individuals.
Related to culture shock is the concept of acculturation. The classic definition by
Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits (1936) states that “acculturation comprehends those phenomena
which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous firsthand contact with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups”
7
(p. 145-146). Although originally understood as a group phenomenon, acculturation is now also
viewed to have an impact on the individual. While “group-level acculturation” brings to mind
images of ethnic groups coming together, such as the meeting of the English and the indigenous
Maori in eighteenth century New Zealand, “psychological acculturation” is an apt term to
describe the cultural change processes that students undergo when studying in a foreign country.
Both levels of acculturation involve five partially overlapping categories of changes:
psychological changes, social and relational changes, cultural changes, physical changes, such as
new habitats, and biological changes, such as nutritional and health status changes (Berry, Kim,
Minde, & Mok, 1987).
Berry (1997) suggested that there are three general viewpoints of psychological
acculturation in the field’s literature. According to the first, psychological acculturation is a
rather undemanding process, and is referred to as “behavioral shifts,” “culture learning,” or
“social skills acquisition.” The second viewpoint is that psychological acculturation involves
significant conflict which seeks resolution. The term “culture shock” has its place in this point of
view. A close synonym is “acculturative stress.” Berry et al. (1987) define “stress” as:
…a generalized physiological and psychological states of the organism, brought about by
the experience of stressors in the environment, and which requires some reduction (for
normal functioning to occur), through a process of coping until some satisfactory
adaptation to the new situation is achieved. (p. 492)
Acculturative stress, then, is the stress that individuals experience when confronted with a
culturally different environment. In the third point of view, psychological acculturation is a
“psychopathology” or “mental disease.” In his landmark article in the field, Oberg (1960)
described culture shock as an “occupational disease” or “ailment” (p. 177).
8
The concept of culture shock was heavily researched through predominantly qualitative
methods in the 1950s and 1960s (Gaw, 2000). According to Gaw, Lysgaard (1955), Oberg
(1960), and Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963) were the first to frame culture shock as intercultural
adjustment. Swagler and Jome (2005) wrote,
Often referred to as culture shock, the adjustment process is a stressful life event (Ward,
1996) that requires a variety of affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses to the new
environment (Ward et al., 2001). Sojourners must cope with obstacles in the new
environment such as vast differences in values and belief systems, differences in
communication and interpersonal relationships, and standing out because of physical
appearance (Anderson, 1994). (p. 527)
This definition of culture shock is strikingly similar to Berry’s (1997) concept of acculturative
stress.
Swagler and Jome (2005) distinguished between psychological adjustment and
sociocultural adjustment. Psychological adjustment is the emotional component of intercultural
adjustment, and is measured by mental and physical well-being. Sociocultural adjustment is the
cognitive and behavioral component. Persons who exhibit good sociocultural adjustment are able
to function well in the new environment. According to Berry (1997), psychological adjustment is
variable throughout time, and is determined by social support and personality variables.
Sociocultural adjustment, on the other hand, increases linearly with time and is predicted by
cultural knowledge, amount of contact with host culture, and intergroup attitudes.
Research has shown that some of the symptoms of culture shock include challenges to
sense of identity, frustration, anger, withdrawal, depression, exhaustion, and numbness. If left
unresolved, culture shock can result in premature return to home culture, functional difficulties,
9
and prolonged psychological distress (Swagler & Jome, 2005).
However, the literature suggests that the process of culture shock has positive and even
transformative aspects. For example, Boyle, Nackerud, and Kilpatrick (1999) framed culture
shock as an experience which helps reduce ethnocentrism and increase acceptance of cultural
diversity and appreciation of cultural integrity. They wrote, “When students experience the
accumulated strains of relating to the challenges of an unfamiliar environment, they experience
culture shock. It is important for students to grow through this discomfort in order to understand
themselves better and to gain new sensitivities” (p. 201). In a study involving 212 participants of
the Japan Exchange and Teaching Program, 95.5% of the sample retrospectively self-reported
increases in communication self-efficacy (Milstein, 2005). In a study involving nursing students,
Ruddock and De Sales Turner (2007) found that study abroad was an effective way to increase
cultural sensitivity. The participants seemed to come to the understanding that cultural sensitivity
required being open to different cultures, accepting social and political structures as well as other
people’s beliefs regarding health and illness. The research suggests that although culture shock
may bring some challenges, it is also a process which encourages personal and intercultural
competency developments.
Descriptive Theories of Culture Shock
There are two general theories of culture shock in circulation: the U-Curve Theory and
the J-Curve or Linear Progression Perspective. Lysgaard (1955) is credited for initiating
investigations on the U-Curve Theory. In his study of 200 Norwegian Fulbright grantees, he
wrote, “As a process over time, adjustment seems to follow a ‘U-shaped’ curve: to begin with,
adjustment is felt to be good; then comes a period in which adjustment is not so good; later,
however, adjustment is again felt to be good” (p. 190). Oberg’s (1960) well-known description
10
of cultural adjustment in stages can also be depicted by a U-shape.
Many different authors have given numerous different names to the U-curve stages of
cultural adjustment. However, most descriptions include four stages, which Black and
Mendenhall (1991) summarized well in Figure 1 on page 38. Individuals in the honeymoon stage
are at the arrival stage of their sojourn and are excited by the new sights, smells, and sounds of
the host culture. In the second stage, or the culture shock stage, sojourners experience
disillusionment and negative emotions as they face the arduous task learning to live in the new
culture. In the subsequent adjustment stage, individuals gradually adapt to the new environment
as they learn appropriate cultural behaviors and norms. In the mastery stage, individuals have
nearly completed their adjustment, and display only incremental increases in cultural adaptation.
This final stage is characterized by physical and psychological well-being.
Although the U-Curve Theory is the most popular and oft-cited theory of culture shock,
there is little solid empirical support for it. What support exists tends to be narrative or
qualitative, and the theory has not been tested sufficiently through rigorous statistical methods.
In a computerized search for research articles on the theory, Black and Mendenhall (1991) found
that 12 of the 18 studies they obtained had found support for the U-Curve Theory. However, 10
of the 12 studies presented statistically insignificant findings or did not employ statistical
analysis. Only 2 of the 18 total studies were longitudinal, and 6 used retrospective recall, a less
rigorous and less appropriate research method. Of these 6 studies, 3 failed to give information
about how much time had passed after reentry or utilized samples with inconsistent time
durations after reentry. In addition, the 18 total studies used very different definitions of
adjustment in their measurements, such as academic morale, satisfaction, and contact with host
nationals.
11
The second perspective of culture shock describes the process as a J-curve or an upward
sloping linear graph (Black & Mendenhall, 1991; Ward, Okura, Kennedy, & Kojima, 1998).
These empirical studies which reject the U-curve theory did not find support for an initial
honeymoon stage. For example, Ward et al. found that Japanese students in New Zealand
experienced the highest degree of adjustment problems upon entry into the new culture and that
these issues were ameliorated over time.
Explaining the Why of Culture Shock
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory and Piaget’s Equilibrium Theory of Cognitive
Structure have both been used to explain why culture shock occurs and why it occurs in the way
it does. The author offers challenge to identity as another explanation for culture shock.
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. Black and Mendenhall (1991) applied Bandura’s
(1977) Social Learning Theory to explain why and how the phenomenon of culture shock occurs.
Social Learning Theory integrates the historically opposing cognitive and behavioral theories of
human learning. Bandura posits that learning occurs through two modes: experiencing the
consequences of one’s actions and observing others’ behaviors and associated consequences. For
learning to occur through the last mode, individuals must attend to behavioral models, retain
their observations, and reproduce the behaviors. The consequences of models’ behaviors serve as
incentives and play a role in the motivational processes for reproducing actions.
The function of Black and Mendenhall’s (1991) article was not to provide empirical
proof that social learning theory in fact accurately explains culture shock, but to demonstrate a
way the process might possibly be understood. The authors posited that the honeymoon stage
occurs because upon arrival, sojourners employ selective perception. Rather than view the vast
differences between their host and home cultures, they focus on the similarities and thus only
12
perceive slight dissimilarities between the cultures. Because they have not yet learned the new
cultural norms and culturally appropriate behaviors, individuals exhibit inappropriate behaviors,
which likely entail negative consequences. However, at this point in the sojourn, not enough time
has passed for the negative consequences of the culturally inappropriate behaviors to build up
sufficiently to affect psychological well-being.
By the culture shock stage, these negative consequences of culturally inappropriate
behaviors have built up, and individuals realize that “there is something wrong.” Although they
understand that they are behaving outside of cultural norms, they have not yet learned what
behaviors are appropriate in the new cultural context. They have yet to benefit from sufficient
modeling of appropriate behaviors. Frustration, anger, and psychological distress result. Black
and Mendenhall (1991) posited that the larger the distance between the home and host cultures,
the greater will be the incongruence between displayed and expected behaviors and the more
severe the culture shock.
In the adjustment stage, sojourners attend more to modeling by host country nationals. As
they retain and reproduce more culturally appropriate behaviors, positive consequences increase
and negative consequences decrease. The more individuals pay attention to models of behavior,
the quicker and smoother will be their adjustment process.
Sojourners in the mastery stage have undergone sufficient adjustment, and have a good
understanding of the norms of the host culture. They are able to reproduce learned behaviors
with ease. Although cultural learning continues to occur at this stage, it is at a much more
gradual pace.
Piaget’s Equilibrium Theory of Cognitive Structure. Christofi and Thompson (2007)
applied Piaget’s (1952) Equilibrium Theory of Cognitive Structure to explain why the process of
13
culture shock occurs. According to Piaget’s theory, all living things strive for equilibrium. Upon
entering a new culture, individuals find themselves in a state of disequilibrium. The schemes or
understandings of how things work which they brought with them no longer apply in their
entirety. In order to restore equilibrium, they must employ assimilation and accommodation.
Assimilation is defined as “the interpretation of new experiences of existing schemes or
structures” and accommodation as “the creation of new schemes or structures to accommodate
new learning and information” (Christofi & Thompson, p. 54).
Challenge to identity. Although I found no theory directly discussing this viewpoint, I
argue that culture shock can be understood as a challenge to identity or as a transformation of
how an individual views him or herself. Through exposure to very different ways of living,
thinking, and being, sojourners may feel the need to reevaluate not only understandings of the
world, but understandings of the self. Through my work with international students and study
abroad students, I noticed that a great number of international exchange participants left or
returned to the US with changed values, academic and career interests, and physical appearance.
There is also empirical evidence which suggests that cross-cultural encounters challenge
identity. Dolby (2004) wrote that US students experience an “encounter with the American self”
through study abroad. Their understandings of national identity are challenged in the face of
differing international views of the US as a country. Austin (2007) reported that foreign
pharmacy professionals in Ontario, Canada experienced reformations of professional identity
during their enculturation experience. Marsella and Pedersen (2004) included identity conflict
and confusion as a rapidly emerging area of interest in the counseling profession within the
globalizing economy. Cross-cultural encounters and the resultant culture shock touch on
individuals’ understandings of themselves.
14
Variables of Culture Shock
Berry (1997) wrote,
The long-term psychological consequences of this process of acculturation are highly
variable, depending on social and personal variables that reside in the society of origin,
the society of settlement, and phenomena that both exist prior to, and arise during, the
course of acculturation. (p. 5)
In simpler terms, the experience of culture shock differs from individual to individual; it is a
continuum of reactions from severe to relatively harmless. There are numerous variables which
influence the cultural adjustment experience, which can be grouped into environmental variables
and individual variables.
Some environmental variables include the host and home cultures, contact with host
culture, social support, and duration of residency. Studies have found that the greater the
differences between the host and home cultures, the more difficult the adjustment process (Berry,
1997). Differences in language and inability to communicate are also predictors of a more
stressful adjustment process. However, greater contact with the host culture smoothes this
process. In particular, participation in the host community helps (Berry et al., 1987). However,
Berry et al. suggested that this participation and contact must be positive in quality.
Individual-level variables include anticipatory adjustment, personal background,
demographics such as age, gender, and personality. According to Black and Mendenhall (1991),
individuals can facilitate the process of cultural adjustment by anticipating and preparing for it.
The positive influence of anticipation has been widely accepted in the field of international
education, and it is now common practice for US university study abroad offices and third-party
providers of study abroad programs to organize programming to assist students in preparing for
15
culture shock. Personality characteristics, such as willingness to communicate and to establish
relationships, tolerance for ambiguity, degree of ethnocentricity, or the degree to which
individuals believe their culture is better than other cultures, and willingness to substitute
reinforcers also facilitate cultural adjustment (Black & Mendenhall).
Swagler and Jome (2005) applied the Five Factor Model of Personality developed by
numerous researchers in the 1980s to investigate what and how personality characteristics
influence cultural adjustment. This model describes each individual’s personality make-up using
five independent personality characteristics. “Neuroticism” refers to the degree to which
individuals experience negative emotions and how susceptible they are to stress. “Extraversion”
involves tendencies toward interpersonal interaction, sociability, assertiveness, and warmth.
Those who score high on “Openness to Experience” seek out and enjoy new experiences.
“Agreeableness” refers to characteristics including sympathy, trust, and the ability to work
cooperatively with others. Individuals who score highly on “Conscientiousness” tend to be
attracted to order, control, and achievement. Swagler and Jome found that low levels of
neuroticism and high levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and acculturation to host culture
were correlated with high levels of psychological adjustment. High scores on extraversion and
acculturation to host culture as well as being male were correlated with high levels of
sociocultural adjustment. Openness to experience was not correlated with either type of
adjustment.
Strategies for Coping with Culture Shock
Berry (1997) identified two major issues which influence how individuals and groups
cope with acculturation. These issues can be related to coping strategies for culture shock. The
first issue, which he called “cultural maintenance,” asks the question “Is it considered to be of
16
value to maintain one’s identity and characteristics?” (p. 10). The second, “contact and
participation,” asks, “Is it considered to be of value to maintain relationships with the larger
society?” (p. 10). The answers to these two questions intersect to form four acculturation
strategies: assimilation, separation/segregation, marginalization, and integration. Please see
Figure 2. When individuals do not desire to maintain their original cultural identity but seek high
levels of contact with and participation in the new culture(s), they employ an assimilationist
acculturation strategy. In contrast, if they highly value maintaining cultural traditions and ties
and want little contact with the new culture(s), they demonstrate the separation/segregation
strategy. Those who choose the acculturation strategy labeled marginalization do not make
efforts to keep original cultural ties nor to create new linkages with the host culture(s). Without a
support network, these individuals become marginalized. At the opposite side of the spectrum
lies the integration strategy, in which individuals maintain original culture(s) while at the same
time being open to new ways of living. Research has shown that integration of original and new
cultures reflects the most growth. It is important to note that both personal and environmental
factors influence which acculturation strategy individuals or groups assume. For example, an
individual cannot choose to employ the integration strategy if the host culture does not permit the
individual’s participation in it.
Western Assumptions about Culture Shock
All of the theorists and scholars discussed above attempted to understand culture shock
through the lens of a modern Western scientific and critical perspective. A thorough computer
and library search produced no documents detailing non-Western views of culture shock.
However, it is important to take the time to tease out assumptions which may underlie the
Western understandings. The majority of the literature found discussed culture shock as an
17
obstacle or a challenge to be overcome. Through this view, culture shock inhibits normal levels
of functioning for a period, but through effort and time, it can result in learning outcomes.
However, some non-Western cultures in which the concept of time and life are both cyclical
might see culture shock as a normal transition period. If the course of life is seen as having dips
and peaks, as being naturally uneven, then culture shock may be understood not as “shock” but
as “transition.”
Reverse Culture Shock
After a thorough discussion of culture shock, reverse culture shock can now be
addressed. Bochner, Lin, and McLeod (1980) and more currently, Christofi and Thompson
(2007) pointed out that there is very little research on reverse culture shock. However, research
on this topic does date back to 1944 with Schuetz, who investigated reverse cultural adjustment
in returning armed forces veterans. Reverse culture shock is currently embraced as a basic study
abroad concept by many US program providers. Although study abroad offices tend not to
prepare or assist students with reverse culture shock as much as they do with initial culture
shock, multiple institutions offer workshops, newsletters, emails, and websites directed at
assisting returning study abroad students. The concept has even reached audiences at large
through popular culture books such as The Art of Coming Home by Craig Storti (1997).
But what exactly is reverse culture shock? Gaw (2000) defined the phenomenon as “the
process of readjusting, reacculturating, and reassimilating into one’s home culture after living in
a different culture for a significant period of time” (p. 84). According to him, it is a continuum of
reaction which occurs because of a lack of consensus between behaviors and attitudes newly
learned in the host culture and the norms of the home culture. By residing abroad for an extended
period of time, individuals submit themselves to a process of resocialization and perhaps even
18
changes in identity. When they return home, these individuals must face the gaps created
between themselves and their home environment. Gaw also wrote that although the theoretical
literature puts forward that no individual is exempt from reverse culture shock, there is little
empirical evidence to suggest that this is true.
Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1958) found that the reacculturation process is very similar to
the primary acculturation process. In 1963, they proposed a W-curve theory of culture shock to
address just this point. The first dip of the “W” represents the adjustment phase during primary
acculturation, and the second dip represents that during reacculturation. Findings of Bochner et
al. (1980) suggest that the middle of the W-curve is not as high as the outer ends of the curve,
adding to Gullahorn and Gullahorn’s previous findings.
Symptoms of Reverse Culture Shock
The symptoms of reverse culture shock are many, to say the least. Gaw (2000) found that
reverse culture shock was correlated to personal adjustment and shyness. In his literature review,
he also includes a long list of symptoms of reverse culture shock, such as academic problems,
cultural identity conflict, social withdrawal, depression, anxiety, interpersonal difficulties,
feelings of alienation, disorientation, stress, value confusion, anger, hostility, compulsive fears,
helplessness, disenchantment, and discrimination. Martin (1984) found that relationships with
friends are negatively influenced through study abroad. In her research of American expatriates
who had reentered the US after residing overseas for a year or longer, Sicola (2005) found that
“communicative behaviors and perceptions learned abroad continued to manifest themselves
after re-entry” (p. 157). She named these unintentional utterances and nonverbal foreign
expressions “communicative lingerings.”
Although there is little empirical support for this claim, many believe that the reverse
19
culture shock process is much more difficult than the initial cultural adjustment process
(Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963; Huff, 2001). Martin (1984) identified three main differences
between the two processes which may serve to explain why one is more arduous than the other
for study abroad students. First, while most individuals anticipate a period of cultural adjustment
when initially going abroad, they do not expect that they will have to readjust to their home
culture upon return. Second, students tend to study abroad during an age period when they are
forming their core values, beliefs, lifestyle habits, and sense of identity. Gullahorn and
Gullahorn’s (1963) findings that children and adolescents are more susceptible to reverse culture
shock than adults support Martin’s hypothesis. This seems to make sense when one considers
that going abroad for extended periods of time tends to influence sense of identity, lifestyle, and
values. It is likely that children and adolescents experience the greatest alterations in these core
formations while abroad. When returning home, they must reconcile their newly gained
identities, lifestyles, and values with the demands and realities of their home cultures. Lastly,
Martin posited that study abroad students are often not fully conscious of the changes which
have taken place inside themselves until they return home.
Variables of Reverse Culture Shock
In general, variables which affect the experience of reverse culture shock are strongly
related to those which affect culture shock. Martin (1984) identified three variable categories
which determine reverse culture shock: background variables, sojourn variables, and re-entry
variables. Background variables may include factors such as gender (Christofi & Thompson,
2007), personality characteristics, preparation for a culturally transitive lifestyle, and home
culture characteristics (Huff, 2001). Sojourn variables include location and duration of sojourn
(Christofi & Thompson) expectations of reverse culture shock, how much individuals identify
20
with the host country, and cultural distance, or the degree of difference between the host and
home cultures (Huff). For missionary children, reentry variables include social support, readiness
for reentry, time after reentry, and age (Christofi & Thompson). Younger children fare relatively
well upon reentry, while 13- and 14-year-olds experience the greatest readjustment difficulties
(Huff).
Although a substantial amount of research suggests that individuals who adjust most
drastically overseas have more difficulty with readjustment (Christofi & Thompson, 2007), Gaw
(2000) found that this was not the case. He cites Stowe (2003), who found that out of ten
returned Peace Corps volunteers interviewed, only five reported successful readjustment. All five
of these successful readjusters had found meaningful friends and work, while those who
continued to experience difficulties with readjustment had not.
Research of the reentry experiences of missionaries’ children has found that reverse
culture shock in this population is predicted by trauma, social self-concept, number of
repatriations, and time spent in counseling (Roberts, 2006). Family dynamics and mobility, or
the frequency of geographic dislocations are important determinants of the degree of reverse
culture shock which missionaries’ children experience (Huff, 2001).
Strategies for Coping with Reverse Culture Shock
It seems logical to assume that Berry’s (1997) four acculturation strategies apply not only
to culture shock, but also to reverse culture shock. In fact, Adler (1981) identified four coping
styles in readjustment in his study of returning Peace Corps volunteers, four coping styles which
almost mirror the four acculturation strategies that Berry proposed. Adler’s theory is also
composed of two dimensions. The first, overall attitude, ranges from pessimistic to optimistic.
The second, specific attitude can be active or passive. The two dimensions intersect to form the
21
four coping styles: resocialized, rebellious, alienated, and proactive. Adler’s resocialized coping
style can be related to Berry’s assimilation strategy. Resocialized reenterers have a high need for
external validation, and perceive the reentry experience in a positive light. However, they see
reentry as merely a period of adjustment and not a process of growth. Rebellious reenterers are
similar to individuals who employ the separation/segregation strategy. These individuals reject
their home culture and environment, acting aggressively against them. The alienated coping style
seems comparable to the marginalization strategy. Like rebellious reenterers, alienated reenterers
reject the home environment and reentry experience, but they do so in a more passive manner.
Proactive reenterers, like those who use the integration strategy, enjoy the greatest extent of
personal development. Able to provide themselves with internal validation, they see the reentry
process as a positive opportunity for growth. They use their intercultural know-how to integrate
aspects of the host and home cultures in their daily lives.
In application of Piaget’s (1952) Equilibration Theory of Cognitive Structure, Christofi
and Thompson (2007) suggested that upon reentry, students may adapt using assimilation, trying
to understand new experiences in the home culture through the lenses which they have gained
abroad. They propose that assimilation alone will not suffice to engender an effective reentry
experience and that students must also use accommodation, or the generation of new ways of
understanding the world.
Reverse Culture Shock and Romantic relationships
Because of the scarcity in research addressing the specific topic, the author reviews
related research on the reentry process and close relationships in general.
Studies have found that intimate (close, not necessarily sexual) relationships change as a
result of sojourn and reentry. Not only do sojourners return changed, but close family and friends
22
left behind in the home culture also change. The majority of the existing research shows that this
change is problematic, and that sojourners and their significant others must renegotiate their
relationships upon reentry. For example, Gama and Pedersen (1977), Glaser (1974) , and
Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963) as cited in Martin (1986) found that returning sojourners
perceived family relationships as problematic. Asuncione-Lande (1976) as cited in Martin (1986)
also listed “social relationships” in her “Inventory of Reentry Problems.” However, Martin’s
(1986) findings went against the grain. In a quantitative study employing statistics, she found
that student sojourners perceived that their relationships with parents and siblings had changed
more positively than negatively and that their relationships with friends had changed both
positively and negatively.
Martin (1986) also included romantic relationships as a subgroup of a subgroup of close
relationships which she studied. Within the friendships category of her study, she found that the
subgroup of relationships which were reported to have changed most negatively were romantic
relationships. Martin suggests that these markedly negative relationship changes may occur
because changes in individuals are especially not tolerated in romantic relationships. She
continues to comment that such relationships tend to enjoy less stability than family relationships
in adolescence.
Romantic Relationships
The existing literature on romantic relationships is vast, to say the least. Here I highlight
some points which seem most relevant to the present study’s topic, all taken from Brehm, Miller,
Perlman, and Campbell’s (2002) textbook on intimate relationships.
In Search of the Best Outcome
Most relationship science is based on the fundamental principle that individuals seek to
23
maximize rewards and minimize costs in intimate relationships. Taken a step further, Social
Exchange Theory or Interdependence Theory states that people seek the best outcome, which
equals rewards minus costs. Although this viewpoint of relationships as an exchange of benefits
seems rather cold and inhuman, it does form the basis of much of the inquiry on romantic
relationships.
Attraction
Attraction is one of the basic building blocks of romantic relationships, and proximity is
an important variable in stimulating attraction. Studies have shown that mere repeated contact
which is not unpleasant, even without interaction, increases feelings of liking. Researchers
theorize that proximity is positively correlated with attraction because proximity is rewarding
and distance is costly. It may take more effort to maintain a long-distance relationship, and
benefits such as comfort may be more easily available in relationships unimpeded by distance.
The above information seems to suggest that when one partner studies abroad while the other
stays in the home country, the couple may increase their chances of breaking up.
Similarity is another stimulant of attraction. The literature demonstrates that humans tend
to be attracted to others who are similar to them in just about any and every aspect, including
those such as physical attractiveness, social status, opinions and thought-processes, likes and
dislikes, and religion. Researchers believe that similarity is so important in attraction because it
is rewarding. A partnership between similar individuals may be reassuring, comforting, and
smooth, and require less effort. When applying this perspective, study abroad would again seem
to decrease attraction. The sojourning partner may return home very changed, and the partners
may be less similar to each other than they were before study abroad.
Communication
24
Intimate relationships professionals view good communication as essential to building
healthy relationships. In fact, there are a multitude of programs designed to help couples
maintain or repair their relationships through improving communication (e.g. Couples
Communication Program, Premarital Relationship Improvement by Maximizing Empathy and
Self-Disclosure). Communication can be separated into nonverbal and verbal communication.
Both are influenced by multiple factors such as gender, culture, personality, personal
background, and situation. With regard to verbal communication, couples who self-disclose to
each other more tend to score higher on attraction. Social Penetration Theory goes further to
theorize that relationship development is closely related to changes in the breadth and depth of
communication. The literature on communication and romantic relationships suggests that
couples who communicate with each other regularly and at broader and deeper levels while one
partner is abroad may enjoy the healthiest relationships during and after study abroad.
Relationship Dissolution, Maintenance, and Repair
According to Levinger’s (1976) model for conceptualizing the dissolution of
relationships, there are three factors which determine relationship outcome: attraction,
alternatives, and barriers. It seems logical that couples in which both members are highly
attracted to each other are less likely to break up. However, if there are many tempting
alternative partners or choices, the likelihood that the couple will survive decreases. Even when
both attraction and alternatives are low, there may be high barriers preventing couples from
separating, such as moral, family, social, or religious restrictions. In reality, the three factors
interact and influence each other to determine whether a relationship continues or not.
Research has determined a great number of specific factors associated with divorce.
Although the following information comes from research on marital relationships, I assume that
25
much of the literature is also applicable to premarital relationships. Brehm et al. (2002) wrote,
“Some of the diverse types of influences used to predict marital outcomes include broad societal
forces, demographic factors, life course factors, personality attributes, interactional variables,
and evaluation of the relationship itself” (p. 377). Specifically, spouses who have similar
attitudes, spend more time together, share positive interactions, experience less stressful life
events, and enjoy a high degree of marital satisfaction are less likely to divorce. Although marital
satisfaction is the most powerful predictor of marital stability, it is far from being a perfect one.
Some of the strategies which people use to maintain their relationships include positive
attitudes and interactions, openness and self-disclosure, assurances, social networking, sharing
tasks, engaging in joint-activities, mediated communication (via letters, email, telephone, etc.),
avoidance, antisocial behaviors, and humor. Strategies which individuals employ to repair
damaged relationships overlap greatly with those they employ to maintain relationships.
However, talking about the problem and spending time together are two heavily used strategies
to repair relationships. Giving in, expressing warmth and affection, and giving gifts are also
common tactics.
Summary
Although study abroad has a long history, it is an increasingly popular activity in higher
education today. More and more college students are studying abroad, encountering experiences
of culture shock and reverse culture shock. These two adjustment processes have many
similarities, but reverse culture shock is less anticipated than culture shock and has also been less
studied. Although there are few studies on relationships and reverse culture shock, the existing
research seems to suggest that relationships must often be renegotiated upon reentry and that this
renegotiation is problematic. Because relationships are so important to human wellbeing and
26
development, it is important to examine their roles in reverse culture shock.
27
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to examine relationships between reverse culture shock
and relationship change, gender, and study abroad duration.
Research Questions
1. Are there significant differences in levels of reentry culture shock experienced by
study abroad returnees who remain together with their romantic partners through the
experience of reentry culture shock and those who separate from their partners during
the experience?
2. Are there significant differences in levels of reentry culture shock experienced by
study abroad returnees who identify as men and those who identify as women?
3. Are there significant differences in levels of reentry culture shock experienced by
returnees who had short-term, mid-term, or long-term study abroad experiences?
Hypotheses
I hypothesized that there would be main effects for all the independent variables,
including gender, study abroad duration, and relationship change. I also hypothesized that there
would be an interaction effect between gender and relationship change but not between study
abroad duration and relationship change. The hypotheses, divided into two sets corresponding
with the two sets of ANOVAs, are outlined in greater detail below.
Hypotheses Regarding Gender and Relationship Change
A1. Women will score significantly higher than men on each of the four factors of the HCSS as
well as on the total HCSS questionnaire.
A2. Participants who separated from their romantic intimate partners during the reentry
adjustment process will score significantly higher than participants who did not separate from
28
their romantic intimate partners on each of the four factors of the HCSS as well as on the total
HCSS questionnaire.
A3. There will be an interaction effect between gender and relationship change. Women who
experienced break up will score significantly higher than the other participants on each of the
four factors of the HCSS as well as on the total HCSS questionnaire.
Hypotheses Regarding Study Abroad Duration and Relationship Change
B1. Participants who had long-term study abroad experiences will score significantly higher than
participants who had mid-term study abroad experiences, and participants who had mid-term
study abroad experiences will score significantly higher than participants who had short-term
study abroad experiences on each of the four factors of the HCSS as well as on the total HCSS
questionnaire.
B2. There will be no interaction effect between study abroad duration and relationship change.
Rationale for Hypotheses
Hypothesis A1 was formed based on the literature which suggests women tend to process
events more emotionally than men (Dorset Research and Development Support Unit, 2003).
Since the HCSS items inquire about emotional processes rather than physical processes, I
hypothesized that women would score higher on the HCSS and its subscales. Hypothesis A2 was
developed because the existing research indicates that these intimate relationships change
problematically with sojourn and reentry (Asuncione-Lande, 1976; Gama & Pederson, 1977;
Glaser, 1974; Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963 as cited in Martin, 1986). Sojourners and their
significant others must renegotiate their relationships upon reentry. It seems to make sense that
reentering students who must renegotiate romantic relationships would demonstrate higher levels
of reverse culture shock. Hypothesis A3 was based on the commonly held idea that women are
29
more concerned with relationships than are men. Women who must face readjustment into home
culture and renegotiate romantic relationships at the same time will probably have especially
high levels of reverse culture shock.
Hypothesis B1 was based on the literature which suggests that duration of residency is a
variable of both culture shock (Berry, 1997) and reverse culture shock (Christofi & Thompson,
2007). Those who have been abroad for longer periods tend to experience more readjustment
difficulties than those who have been abroad for shorter periods. Hypothesis of B2 was formed
because I could not identify any potential relationship between study abroad duration and
relationship change. I believed that whether students were abroad for short-term, mid-term, or
long-term experiences, relationship change would still affect their readjustment experiences
equally.
Instrument
This study used a modified version of the Homecomer Culture Shock Scales (HCSS), a
questionnaire consisting of 23 Likert-type items developed by J. S. Fray (1988). See Appendix A
for the instrument used in this study. The items originally included four factors, which Fray
labeled Cultural Distance (CD), Interpersonal Distance (ID), Grief (G), and Moral Distance
(MD). The CD scale consists of 10 items (numbered 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17) associated
with general cultural customs. The ID scale consists of 6 items (numbered 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, and
20) which are intended to assess the interpersonal dimensions of the reentry experience. The G
scale consists of 4 items (numbered 3, 5, 8, 22) surrounding separation, homesickness, and
feelings of loss for the way of life experienced abroad. Finally, the MD scale has 2 items
(numbered 6, 21) which aim to measure the extent of difference that reentering individuals
experience in terms of moral values and dimensions. Each item has a scale from one to five, one
30
signifying “Not true of me” and five signifying “Very true of me.” In developing this instrument
to measure levels of reentry adjustment difficulty, Fray found that, over an average 20 day
period, it had test-retest reliability coefficients from .60 to .80. He also found significant
correlations between the HCSS and measures of anxiety, depression, and alienation, lending
support to the view that it is a valid instrument.
Because the questionnaire was originally developed to assess reentry adjustment
difficulty in missionaries’ children who had spent multiple years abroad, some of the language
was changed to apply to study abroad students, who by definition of this study have been abroad
for a shorter period of time. For example, the recurring phrases “overseas home” and “overseas
residence” were changed to “study abroad location.” Because some respondents may be
experiencing reentry adjustment at the time they participate while some may have experienced it
in the past, both present and past forms of verbs were included. In comparison, the original
HCSS only included verbs in the present tense. In addition, item 23 was deleted because it did
not belong in any of the four categorical scales. After this deletion, the maximum number of
points which could be scored on the HCSS was 110. For the CD subscale, it was 50, for ID, 30,
for G, 20, and for MD, 10. Several demographic questions, a qualitative, open-ended question
about thoughts and emotions regarding participants’ reentry experiences, and questions about
romantic involvement were added before the original Likert-type items.
The question about participants’ thoughts and emotions regarding reentry experiences
(question five) was left open-ended in order to assess whether participants viewed their
experiences negatively or positively before encountering and possibly being influenced by the
HCSS questionnaire. The HCSS tended to frame reverse culture shock in terms of negative
experiences, and I wished to assess whether this was an accurate assumption or not.
31
Sample and Distribution
The participants in this study were undergraduate and graduate students at Bowling
Green State University (BGSU), a public Midwestern university of about 21,000 students. This
institution was chosen out of convenience; the author had the necessary contacts at BGSU to
make this study feasible. Although a larger scale study involving more institutions would have
increased generalizability, such a study was not possible given the limited amount of time and
resources.
The HCSS was distributed as a weblink through email to all 1,331 students of BGSU who
had studied abroad for one month or more within the past three years. The time frame of one
month was chosen in order to exclude past participants of very short-term programs who may
have not been influenced sufficiently by the host culture to experience significant difficulty with
readjustment upon return to the US. The first email message was sent in early January, a few
days after the beginning of Spring semester classes. A reminder email was sent two weeks later
to invite more participation. In order to encourage study participation, the email with the survey
link informed readers that if they submitted the survey, they would be entered into a random
lottery to win $25. The email also included informed consent information. (See Appendix B.)
Of the 1,331 students who received the emails, a surprisingly even number of 100
students responded to the survey. Although the response rate of 7.51% seems low, it may not be
in actuality. Since there was no way to determine relationship status in advance, emails were sent
to students who had partners while abroad and students who did not. However, only students
who had romantic intimate partners while studying abroad were eligible to participate in the
study. Thus, it is highly likely that of the 1,331 students to whom the emails were sent out, some
were not eligible to participate. With this factor taken into consideration, 7.51% is probably not a
32
low response rate.
Of the 100 surveys received, 15 were discarded in total, yielding 85 final participants and
a final response rate of 6.39%. Fourteen surveys were discarded because of missing data or
because participants indicated that they did not have a boyfriend, girlfriend, or significant other
while studying abroad. Although the email sent out stated that only students who had romantic
partners while studying abroad should respond to the survey, the question about romantic
involvement was included because I predicted that students would not read the email in detail.
This prediction was accurate. One additional survey was discarded because the participant had
studied abroad for less than a month.
Table 1 presents information on gender, relationship change experiences, and study
abroad duration for the final study participants. Of the final study participants, 70 were women
(82.4%) and 15 were men (17.6%). The sample roughly reflects a trend in the population of US
study abroad students. Between the 1995 to 1996 academic year and the 2005 to 2006 academic
year, the percentage of study abroad students from the US who were women has remained
between 64.6 to 65.6% (IIE, 2007d). Although the study sample has a higher percentage of
women than the US study abroad population, it reflects the trend of more women compared to
men studying abroad. It should also be noted that there are more women (57.4%) who attend
college in the US than men (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2007).
Thirty students, or 35.3% of the 85 final participants, responded that they had broken up
with their “boyfriend, girlfriend, or significant other” while they were “readjusting to the US
after returning from study abroad” and 55 students, or 64.7% of the participants, responded that
they had not broken up.
The length of participants’ study abroad experiences very loosely reflected duration of
33
study abroad for US students in the 2005 to 2006 academic year reported in the most recent
Open Doors report (IIE, 2007b). Of the study participants, 37.6% studied abroad from one to
three months, which represents the short-term, usually summer abroad experience. The same
percentage was abroad for more than three months to less than six months, representing those
who studied abroad for a semester or a middle length period. Approximately 23.5% studied
abroad for six months or more, which represents the academic year abroad or a long-term
experience. This last percentage includes the two students who studied abroad for more than a
full year. One student’s response had confusing typos, so the data were not included for this
question. According to the IIE’s Open Doors Report, 52.8% of students had short-term study
abroad experiences, 41.7% had mid-term experiences, and 5.5% had long-term experiences.
When compared one-to-one, the percentages of study abroad duration in the present study and in
the Open Doors Report are dissimilar. However, in both cases, the greatest percentages of
students had short-term and mid-term abroad experiences and a much smaller percentage of
students had long-term experiences. See Table 1 for a simpler representation of the gender,
relationship change, and study abroad duration data of the sample.
34
Table 1
Gender, Relationship Change, and Study Abroad Duration (SA Time) of Participants
________________________________________________________
Category
n
%
____________________________________________________________________________________
Gender
Male
Female
15
70
17.6
82.4
Relationship Change
Broke Up
Did Not Break Up
30
55
35.3
64.7
SA Time
Short-Term
32
37.6
Mid-term
32
37.6
Long-Term
20
23.8
_________________________________________________________
There were not any participants who were freshmen or sophomores (see Table 2). A
handful were juniors, almost half seniors, 12.9% 5th or 6th year seniors, and 28.2% graduate
students. Four respondents did not indicate class standing. It makes sense that seniors and 5th or
6th year seniors made up over half of the participants because junior year is when US students
traditionally study abroad. The survey was also distributed immediately after winter break, when
most students studying abroad during their junior year probably had not yet returned to the US.
Because of issues such as the transferability of course credits and the limited course options open
to US students when abroad, study abroad often influences students to stay beyond the traditional
four years in college. This may explain the significant number of 5th or 6th year seniors who
responded to this survey. See Table 2 below for a simpler representation of class standing
divisions.
35
Table 2
Class Standing of Participants
_________________________________________________________
Year in School
n
%
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Freshmen
0
0
Sophomores
0
0
Juniors
5
5.9
Seniors
41
48.2
5th/6th Year Seniors
11
12.9
Graduate Students
24
28.2
No Response
4
4.7
_________________________________________________________
The age breakdown of the participants roughly mirrors the breakdown by class standing
(see Table 3). Only a few of the participants were 20 years old and a great number were between
21 and 23. It seems likely that there were so many 21 to 23 year old participants because there
were also a great number of juniors, seniors, and 5th or 6th year seniors in the participant pool.
There were also a noteworthy percentage of participants aged 24 to 29 and participants aged 30
or older. Together these two groups make up 27.1% of the sample. It seems likely that this
percentage of participants aged 24 and older roughly represents the 28.2% of graduate students
in the participant pool.
Table 3
Age Distribution of Participants
_________________________________________________________
Age
n
%
_____________________________________________________________________________________
20
4
4.7
21
24
28.2
22
26
30.6
23
8
9.4
24-29
18
21.2
30 or older
5
5.9
_________________________________________________________
36
Data Analysis
I analyzed the data using the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to find if there
were significant differences in means of levels of reverse culture shock (dependent variable). The
significance level was set at α = .05. Two-way ANOVAs were employed to compare means for
each of the four HCSS subscale scores (CD, ID, G, and MD) as well as for the total HCSS
scores. In the first set of two-way ANOVAs, the independent variables were gender and
relationship change, or whether or not participants had broken up with their romantic intimate
partners during the reentry process. In the second set of two-way ANOVAs, the independent
variables were study abroad duration (short-term, mid-term, or long-term) and relationship
change. Post hoc tests were used to further examine differences in reverse culture shock levels
depending on study abroad duration for the HCSS as well as each of its four factors. The
Bonferroni test was chosen because it is a commonly used post hoc test which is powerful for
mean comparisons of small numbers of pairs. The significance level for the post hoc tests was
also set at α = .05.
37
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS
This section begins with a report of means on the Homecomer Culture Shock Scales
(HCSS) and its subscales for all participants as a group. It goes on to discuss ANOVA results
organized by hypothesis, and then presents both categorical and thematic analyses of responses
to the open-ended question regarding readjustment experiences.
Reverse Culture Shock Level Scale Scores
In general, participants scored close to the midpoint reverse culture shock levels. Only
Hypothesis A1 dealing with main effects of gender was rejected for the HCSS and all subscale
scores. Also, Hypothesis B2 dealing with interaction effects of study abroad duration and
relationship change was correct for the HCSS and all subscale scores. Results for all of the other
hypotheses depended upon the scale scores.
Means
Because I could not locate any studies using the HCSS with study abroad students, a
comparison of reverse culture shock level with other groups or with an established norm was not
possible. However, I attempt to interpret the means based on the HCSS test itself only.
The mean total HCSS score for all participants was 53.85 out of 110 possible points. The
score of 53.85 is very close to the midpoint of the HCSS scale, demonstrating that as a group,
participants had moderate levels of reverse culture shock. Results were similarly close to the
midpoint for each of the subscales (Cultural Distance (CD): 25.47 out of 50, Interpersonal
Distance (ID): 13.14 out of 30, Grief (G): 11.66 out of 20) except for Moral Distance (MD), in
which the average score was 3.58 out of the possible 10. Participants did not require as much
readjustment for moral distance during the reentry process.
Gender and Relationship Change
38
Hypothesis A1, which read “Women will score significantly higher than men on each of
the four factors of the HCSS as well as on the total HCSS questionnaire,” dealt with the main
effects of gender. This hypothesis was rejected for the HCSS (F = .20, p > .659) and for each of
the four factors of the HCSS, including CD (F = .02, p > .05), ID (F = .76, p > .05), G (F = .09, p
> .05), and MD (F = .77, p > .05) (data from Tables 4 and 5). Men and women did not score
significantly differently on any of these scales, suggesting that gender alone is not a significant
factor of reverse culture shock level.
Hypothesis A2, which read “Participants who separated from their romantic intimate
partners during the reentry adjustment process will score significantly higher than participants
who did not separate from their romantic intimate partners on each of the four factors of the
HCSS as well as on the total HCSS questionnaire,” dealt with main effects of relationship
change. As is apparent in Table 4, this hypothesis was correct for the total HCSS (F = 6.72, p <
.05), CD (F = 5.35, p < .05), and MD (F = 9.43, p < .05), but was rejected for ID (F = 2.41, p >
.05) and G (F = 2.55, p > .05). Although participants who experienced break up demonstrated
significantly higher levels of reverse culture shock overall and CD and MD compared to
participants who did not experience break up, they did not report significantly different levels of
ID or G.
Hypothesis A3 dealt with interaction effects and read “There will be an interaction effect
between gender and relationship change. Women who experienced break up will score
significantly higher than the other participants on each of the four factors of the HCSS as well as
on the total HCSS questionnaire.” The two-way ANOVAs revealed no interaction effects in the
HCSS (F = .91, p > .05) or any of the subscales (CD: F = .04, p > .05, G: F = .29, p > .05, MD: F
= .15, p > .05) except for ID (F = 4.46, p < .05). Except for ID, gender and relationship change
39
did not seem to interact to finally result in significantly higher levels of reverse culture shock.
40
Table 4
Means for Gender and Relationship Change
__________________________________________________
Scale
M
SD
___________________________________________________________________________
HCSS
Man
Break Up
No Break Up
Woman
Break Up
No Break Up
CD
Man
Break Up
No Break Up
Woman
Break Up
No Break Up
58.00
50.60
16.90
11.04
64.32
48.29
16.80
14.51
29.00
24.10
8.46
5.43
29.12
23.36
8.12
7.72
12.20
13.10
5.26
4.46
17.00
11.11
6.67
4.66
12.40
11.00
3.78
4.94
13.52
10.69
5.00
3.98
ID
Man
Break Up
No Break Up
Woman
Break Up
No Break Up
G
Man
Break Up
No Break Up
Woman
Break Up
No Break Up
MD
Man
Break Up
4.40
3.05
No Break Up
2.40
1.26
Woman
Break Up
4.68
2.30
No Break Up
3.13
1.65
___________________________________________________
41
Table 5
Analyses of Variance for Gender and Relationship Change
______________________________________________________________________________
Scale
df
F
p
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HCSS
Relationship Change
Gender
Relationship Change & Gender
1
1
1
6.72
.20
.91
.011*
.659
.343
CD
Relationship Change
Gender
Relationship Change & Gender
1
1
1
5.35
.02
.04
.023*
.893
.852
Relationship Change
Gender
Relationship Change & Gender
1
1
1
2.41
.76
4.46
.125
.385
.038*
Relationship Change
Gender
Relationship Change & Gender
1
1
1
2.55
.09
.29
.115
.761
.591
ID
G
MD
Relationship Change
1
9.43
.003*
Gender
1
.77
.383
Relationship Change & Gender
1
.15
.696
______________________________________________________________________________
Note 1: (*) is significant at α = .05
Study Abroad Duration and Relationship Change
Hypothesis B1 read, “Participants who had long-term study abroad experiences will score
significantly higher than participants who had mid-term study abroad experiences, and
participants who had mid-term study abroad experiences will score significantly higher than
participants who had short-term study abroad experiences on each of the four factors of the
HCSS as well as on the total HCSS questionnaire.” Data in Table 6 and 7 indicate that this
42
hypothesis was correct just for the total HCSS score and G subscale score, and even then only
partially.
Although the two-way ANOVA had not revealed significant differences for total HCSS
scores, post hoc tests (data presented in Table 8) found a significant difference (p < .05) between
participants who had short-term study abroad experiences (M = 49.13) and those who had longterm study abroad experiences (M = 61.35). Specifically, those with short-term study abroad
experiences scored significantly lower on the HCSS, demonstrating lower levels of reverse
culture shock overall. There was no significant difference (p > .05) between those with mid-term
study abroad experiences (M = 54.03) and the other two possible groups. The two-way ANOVAs
and the post hoc tests both failed to reveal significant differences in any of the four HCSS
subscales except in the G scale. In the latter scale, participants with short-term study abroad
experiences (M = 9.84) scored significantly lower (p < .05) than participants with long-term
study abroad experiences (M = 13.95). There was no significant difference (p > .05) between
those with mid-term study abroad experiences (M = 12.19) and the other two groups.
Hypothesis B2 read, “There will be no interaction effect between study abroad duration
and relationship change.” According to the data in Table 7, this hypothesis was correct for the
total HCSS score as well as each of the subscale scores including CD (F = 1.18, p > .05), ID (F =
.95, p > .05), G (F = 1.50, p > .05), and MD (F = .59, p > .05). Study abroad length and
relationship change did not interact to ameliorate or worsen reverse culture shock levels.
43
Table 6
Means for Study Abroad Duration and Relationship Change
______________________________________________________________________________
Scale
M
SD
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HCSS
Short-term
Break Up
No Break Up
Mid-term
Break Up
No Break Up
Long-term
Break Up
No Break Up
CD
Short-term
Break Up
No Break Up
Mid-term
Break Up
No Break Up
Long-term
Break Up
No Break Up
54.67
47.85
13.03
12.31
65.50
48.82
17.65
16.26
66.62
51.57
17.28
12.82
54.67
47.85
13.03
12.31
65.50
48.82
17.65
16.26
66.62
51.57
17.28
12.82
54.67
47.85
13.03
12.31
65.50
48.82
17.65
16.26
66.62
51.57
17.28
12.82
54.67
47.85
13.03
12.31
65.50
48.82
17.65
16.26
ID
Short-term
Break Up
No Break Up
Mid-term
Break Up
No Break Up
Long-term
Break Up
No Break Up
G
Short-term
Break Up
No Break Up
Mid-term
Break Up
No Break Up
44
______________________________________________________________________________
Scale
M
SD
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Long-term
Break Up
No Break Up
66.62
51.57
17.28
12.82
MD
Short-term
Break Up
4.50
2.74
No Break Up
3.35
1.94
Mid-term
Break Up
4.90
2.47
No Break Up
2.59
.96
Long-term
Break Up
4.38
2.40
No Break Up
3.00
1.73
______________________________________________________________________________
45
Table 7
Analyses of Variance for Study Abroad Duration (SA Time) and Relationship Change
______________________________________________________________________________
Scale
df
F
p
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HCSS
Relationship Change
SA Time
Relationship Change & SATime
1
2
2
11.57
1.44
.66
.001*
.243
.520
CD
Relationship Change
SA Time
Relationship Change & SATime
1
2
2
7.84
.26
1.18
.006*
.776
.312
Relationship Change
SA Time
Relationship Change & SATime
1
2
2
9.76
1.17
.95
.003*
.316
.393
Relationship Change
SA Time
Relationship Change & SATime
1
2
2
2.26
4.92
1.50
.137
.010*
.230
ID
G
MD
Relationship Change
1
10.98
.001*
SA Time
2
.08
.927
Relationship Change & SATime
2
.59
.555
______________________________________________________________________________
Note 1: (*) is significant at α = .05
46
Table 8
Post-Hoc Tests for Study Abroad Duration and Relationship Change
__________________________________________________
Scale
M Diff.
Sig.
___________________________________________________________________________
HCSS
Long-term – Short-term
Long-term – Mid-term
Mid-term – Short-term
12.23
7.32
4.91
.016*
.520
.585
CD
Long-term – Short-term
Long-term – Mid-term
Mid-term – Short-term
4.11
3.14
.97
.192
.465
1.000
Long-term – Short-term
Long-term – Mid-term
Mid-term – Short-term
3.68
1.83
1.84
.059
.715
.529
Long-term – Short-term
Long-term – Mid-term
Mid-term – Short-term
4.11
1.76
2.34
.003*
.427
.082
ID
G
MD
Long-term – Short-term
.38
1.000
Long-term – Mid-term
.59
.872
Mid-term – Short-term
-.25
1.000
____________________________________________________
Note 1: (*) is significant at α = .05
47
Open-Ended Responses about Readjustment Experience
Question five in the preliminary information section of the web questionnaire asked, “As
you reflect on your experience readjusting to the US after studying abroad, what thoughts or
emotions surface?” Before a discussion of responses to this open-ended question, it should be
noted that many of the responses were cut off because I left insufficient space for lengthy
responses. There was only space for brief answers because the open-ended question was
originally included to gauge whether participants viewed their experiences negatively or
positively before encountering and possibly being influenced by the HCSS questionnaire.
Although this open-ended, qualitative question was not meant to be a major section of this study,
it brought interesting results which need to be discussed in a more in-depth manner.
Categorization
In general, the HCSS uses a framework in which reverse culture shock is understood as a
negative experience. The items included in the questionnaire inquire about negative feelings such
as loss, anger, homesickness, and uncertainty. I included the open-ended question about
readjustment experience before the HCSS survey questions to find whether or not students
actually experience reentry culture shock as a negative transition. As can be seen in Table 9, the
answer was more complicated than expected.
Of the 85 participants, 84 responded to question five. Perceptions of reentry experiences
could not be simply categorized as either positive or negative. Many responses included both
positive and negative emotions while a handful of participants did not express either positive or
negative thoughts. Thus, I identified four different categories of reentry experience perceptions:
predominantly positive, predominantly negative, mixed positive and negative, and neither
positive nor negative.
48
Table 9
Open-Ended Responses about Readjustment Experience
____________________________________________________________________
Response Category
n
%
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly Positive
14
16.5
Predominantly Negative
32
37.7
Mixed Positive and Negative
31
36.5
Neither Positive nor Negative
7
8.2
____________________________________________________________________
Seven responses or 8.2% of the 85 responses comprised the neither positive nor negative
group. Participants in this section often detailed neutral observations about differences between
US culture and host culture. For example, one participant expressed,
Becoming once again accustomed to the way that Americans interact in comparison to
the rest of the world. In comparison to the countries that I have visited, there are a lot
more informal yet impersonal interactions between the citizens of the US.
Responses such as that above did not use phrases such as “I had a hard time,” “I appreciated,” or
“I disliked.” They were descriptions or observations untied to emotions.
There were more participants who voiced predominantly positive impressions of their
reentry experiences than those who expressed neither positive nor negative impressions.
However, there were only 14 such respondents, who comprised 16.5% percent of the group. The
reasons participants had for perceiving their reentry experiences to be positive seemed to vary
greatly. One student expressed that a previous abroad experience had made the most recent
reentry easier. “Easy, since I had studied abroad for a semester once before. I was happy to come
back and didn’t experience very much culture shock.” Other students remembered negative, even
traumatic experiences abroad which seemed to make reentry highly desirable and positive. One
student wrote,
49
My study abroad experience was not a “normal” one, and considering the situation I was
placed in, readjusting was not as difficult. When I was abroad I was in a dangerous
situation and so being home was a relief, although I miss my friends and familiar places
from abroad. I do not miss being in an unsafe and potentially threatening environment.
This participant clearly demonstrates how negative experiences abroad made reentry desirable
and positive.
It should be noted that even predominantly positive responses to question five such as the
one above often included longing for or missing people, places, and things abroad: emotions
which could be characterized as negative. For example, “Happiness to be home with my friends
and family, comfort of being in a familiar place, and a slight sense of longing to be back out on
an adventure.” However, human experiences are rarely black or white, and I grouped
predominantly positive responses together because doing so was helpful for analysis and
presenting results.
The great majority of participants described their reentry experiences as either
predominantly negative or mixed positive and negative; 32 responses or 37.7% were
predominantly negative and 31 responses or 36.5% were mixed positive and negative. Together,
nearly three fourths of the respondents expressed some negativity about their reentry
experiences.
The mixed positive and negative responses were exactly that: mixed. Many students
expressed elation and excitement for returning to familiar surroundings and seeing family and
friends but also noted the difficulties of readjustment.
The first week or so back in the US I was excited to see my family and fiancé, but I
deeply missed the independence I had during that month and the "new family" (the girls)
50
that I came to be very close with while there…
An example of a typical predominantly negative response to question five was, “It was
difficult to readjust to my life here. I had to return to the US school system, find a job, and
resume taking care of my home and reconnect with friends and family.”
In-Depth Thematic Analysis
Although the previous section hinted at some themes in participants’ responses, a more
in-depth thematic analysis is needed to more fully understand participants’ experiences of
reentry. It is noteworthy that one respondent specifically expressed that reentry did not involve a
readjustment process.
Everyone told me that adjusting to normal life would be so difficult and that I wouldn't
feel comfortable in my own home, but really I never felt that way. It felt as though I
never left. I don't feel like I went through a "readjustment" phase…
That only a single participant expressed such thoughts seems to indicate that reentry does
indeed involve readjustment. Responses such as, “It was almost like culture shock all over
again,” suggest that readjustment during reentry may be just as challenging a process as initial
adjustment during entry into the study abroad location.
However, there may only have been one participant who directly expressed that he or she
did not experience readjustment because of the wording of question five. The question, “As you
reflect on your experience readjusting to the US after studying abroad, what thoughts or
emotions surface?” makes it seem as though all study abroad returnees must experience
readjustment. If question five had been phrased differently, participant responses may have
reflected this difference.
Analysis revealed nine different themes embedded in participant responses. One theme
51
which could be characterized as neutral was structural readjustment. Themes denoting negativity
included readjustment to “how things are done” in the US, comparisons of American culture and
the study abroad location’s culture, boredom at the lack of adventure, feelings of homesickness
for study abroad location, being misunderstood by others, and confronting changes at home and
in relationships. Themes which denoted positive feelings included happiness at returning to the
familiar as well as challenge and growth.
Structural readjustments included aspects such as dealing with jetlag, differences in food,
and conversing in English again. For example, “My major adjustment was to the time change
and lack of sleep.” A related theme present in seven responses was recognition of or struggle
with the need to readjust to the American lifestyle in general, or how things are done in the US.
One rather comical example of this is, “The most frequent thought or emotion to surface is a
slight panic, especially when entering Meijer’s and being overwhelmed by its vastness.”
Although participant responses with this theme did not seem to consciously compare American
lifestyle with the lifestyles of different study abroad locations, they demonstrated a need to
readjust to US commodities and norms after reentry.
Another very common theme found in 20 responses was making comparisons between
US culture and the culture of the study abroad location. Although a few participants provided
neutral observations about differences between the countries, the majority expressed criticism
toward American life. Many were unable to accept aspects of American culture after returning
from a different setting. One respondent wrote, “I saw Americans and the United States in a new,
somewhat critical perspective.” Another was more direct about his or her dislike for the US.
“The food is nasty, we are lazy, attitude and appreciation for life is not the same.” Some
participants indicated that the experience of living in a country so different from their own
52
helped develop their understanding of the US. For example, “I learned more about my own
country than the country I was studying when I studied abroad. I appreciated how convenient
everything is in the U.S. but I think the style of life is much better in Europe.” Study abroad and
the reentry process seemed to have helped students develop their identities as Americans. “I
became a patriot during my time spent abroad.” Perhaps the responses above reflect a human
instinct to compare, contrast, and even deepen understanding when confronted with difference.
Being immersed in a different culture with its new sights, sounds, and smells can be
exciting, and four participants noted their struggles with boredom after returning from study
abroad. One participant wrote, “Deflation... Feeling like coming back to ‘regular life’ was
boring. The adventure was over, and I was sad.” Once home, returnees were no longer
bombarded by the continuous stream of new information, and the lack of adventure or challenge
seemed to create boredom.
Homesickness for study abroad location and relationships created abroad surfaced in 24
responses: more responses than for any other theme. Participants used words such as “longing,”
“sadness,” “missing” to express their emotions and thoughts regarding reentry. These students
also wrote that they wanted to return to their study abroad locations. People missed included
romantic partners, host families, friends, and roommates.
I am currently in the process of adjusting and it has been much harder than I had
expected. I have become much more unhappy with my own country and my
surroundings. I am seriously homesick for my study abroad country…
Although the word “homesickness” implies feelings of nostalgia for place of origin or
home, participants’ responses demonstrated that it is very possible to be “homesick” for other
places of great emotional or experiential significance.
53
Three participants felt misunderstood by friends, family, and others at home. They
expressed feelings of disconnect, even isolation from people at home. Study abroad experiences
were highly impressionable and important to these participants, and they felt that their friends
and family did not fully appreciate or understand these unforgettable moments. They expected or
wanted more interest about their time abroad than they received. One participant wrote,
“Readjusting was much harder than I thought. I was very frustrated, lonely. My friends and
family didn't understand and were not interested in my experience while, or return from being
abroad.” Another expressed, “People were very interested in my travels at first, but very quickly
became uninterested.”
Similarly, nine participants wrote about their struggles dealing with changes which had
occurred at home while abroad. Several felt that they had “missed out” on changes such as
developments in friends and US popular culture while studying abroad. Others found that they
had to put great effort into renegotiating relationships that had changed while abroad. One
participant wrote, “Disconnected feeling from family and friends now that I had returned home
…” It is interesting to note the lack of connection or action changes relationships.
That nine participants wrote about struggles renegotiating relationships during reentry in
an open-ended question is significant for this study. Even though participants were not asked
specifically about struggles with relationships after study abroad, this was significant enough for
them to mention in the brief writing space provided. However, participants may have felt
indirectly prompted to write about changing relationships. For example, several respondents
chose to write specifically about changing relationships with romantic intimate partners. This
may have been because the title of this study, “Reverse Culture Shock and Romantic
relationships,” was included in the emails sent out to the sample. “After returning from my study
54
abroad experience, I suffered from readjusting to my new status of being single. My boyfriend of
almost two and a half years broke up with me while I was abroad and it affected me very deeply.
I was emotionally depressed…”
On a more positive note, 14 responses included emotions of happiness and gladness to be
home. Many of these responses linked familiarity and comfort with happiness. For example,
“Happiness to be home with my friends and family, comfort of being in a familiar place…” Such
participants expressed happiness to return to a place where they were not constantly challenged
to learn new customs and norms, a place that was more predictable and safe.
Although 83 of the 84 respondents seemed to feel that readjustment was a part of the
reentry process and 63 of them or 74.2% expressed some negative emotions about reentry, a
significant number recognized reentry as a growth-promoting process. One of these twelve
participants wrote, “It was a life changing experience. I felt that I had a chance to develop my
own identity and become an independent woman.” One other respondent also mentioned
increasing in independence. Overall, these participants found that both study abroad and the
process of reentering spurred personal development.
It needs to be mentioned that three of the responses seemed to be addressing experiences
while studying abroad rather than reentry experiences. The clearest example is the following.
It was an unforgettable experience where I learned a lot about myself, and I got to see
more of the world. I wish I sometimes could go back and change how I spent some of
my time there, but overall it was a very positive experience.
Summary
Except for the Moral Distance subscale, participants as a group scored close to the
midpoint for the scales measuring reverse culture shock levels. There were no main effects of
55
gender or interaction effects of study abroad duration and relationship change on any of the
scales. Participants who broke up with their romantic intimate partners demonstrated
significantly higher levels of reverse culture shock overall and Cultural Distance and Moral
Distance compared to participants who did not experience break up, but they did not report
significantly different levels of Interpersonal Distance or Grief. There was only an interaction
effect of gender and relationship change for the Interpersonal Distance subscale, for which
women who had experienced break up reported significantly higher levels of reverse culture
shock. Participants who returned from long-term study abroad experiences scored higher on the
HCSS and the Grief subscale compared to those who returned from short-term experiences.
However, there were no significant score differences between returnees from mid-term study
abroad experiences and short-term or long-term experiences.
Responses to the open-ended question about readjustment experiences could not be
simply classified as either negative or positive. Themes revealed through in-depth analysis
included structural readjustment, readjustment to “how things are done” in the US, comparisons
of American culture and the study abroad location’s culture, boredom at the lack of adventure,
feelings of homesickness for study abroad location, being misunderstood by others, confronting
changes at home and in relationships, happiness at returning to the familiar, and challenge and
growth.
56
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION
This study examined relationships between reverse culture shock and relationship
change, gender, and study abroad duration. The three research questions asked about significant
differences in levels of reentry culture shock experienced by study abroad returnees who remain
together with their romantic partners through the experience of reentry culture shock and those
who separate from their partners through the experience, by study abroad returnees who identify
as men and those who identify as women, and by returnees who had short-term, mid-term, or
long-term study abroad experiences.
Means
Although the mean scores for the 85 final participants on all of the reverse culture shock
scales were close to mid-point, the group scored particularly low on the Moral Distance subscale
(3.58 out of 10 possible). Perhaps study abroad experiences are too brief in duration or too
shallow in depth to significantly alter moral values and beliefs, making readjustment for this
aspect relatively facile during reentry.
Reverse Culture Shock Level Scale Scores
Participants who broke up with their romantic intimate partners during their reentry
experiences scored significantly higher on each of the Cultural Distance and Moral Distance
subscales as well as the entire Homecomer Culture Shock Scales (HCSS). Both analyses of
variants did not find significant differences in the Grief subscale, and one analysis of variance
did not find significant differences in the Interpersonal Distance subscales. Overall, participants
who experienced break up reported higher reverse culture shock levels than those who did not
break up with their romantic intimate partners, and Hypothesis A2 was upheld. These results are
in line with the literature in the field, the majority of which suggests that intimate relationships
57
change problematically and must be renegotiated upon reentry. However, it is puzzling that the
original hypothesis was rejected for Interpersonal Distance and Grief. It is possible participants
who experienced break up did not score significantly higher on the Interpersonal Distance
subscale on one analysis of variance than those who did not because other people such as close
family and friends stepped up to help them through their relationship crises. Perhaps other
relationships made up for the loss of romantic intimate partners, balancing out reenterers’
experiences of interpersonal distance. Analysis of variance results for the Grief subscale seem
easier to understand. Whether or not study abroad students experience relationship dissolution or
not, they must deal with the same feelings of separation, loss for a way of life, and
homesickness. It seems to make sense that relationship change does not effect or have relation to
feelings of homesickness for study abroad location.
In general, the results indicate that experiences of reverse culture shock and romantic
intimate partnerships are usually related. However, because this study was not focused on cause
and effect, it is not possible to determine whether difficulty with readjustment negatively
influences romantic relationships, increasing likelihood of separation, or the disintegration of
such relationships worsens individuals’ experiences with reverse culture shock. It is also possible
that other variables are involved.
This study also found that gender alone does not have an impact on reverse culture shock
levels (total HCSS and all HCSS subscale scores). According to these results, men and women
experience similar levels of reverse culture shock when returning from study abroad. However,
women who experience break up have an especially difficult time with the interpersonal aspects
of readjustment. One possible explanation is that relationships are more important to women, and
they struggle more than men with the interpersonal distance dimensions of reentry when they
58
lose important romantic relationships.
Finally, this study found that overall, study abroad duration does matter for reverse
culture shock levels, but it matters only when comparing reverse culture shock levels of
returnees who were abroad for short-term experiences and those abroad for long-term
experiences. It may be true that the longer students stay abroad, the more readjustment
difficulties they face when returning home, but there is no significant difference unless the
comparison involves substantial time differences such as three months. The Grief subscale
scores, measuring feelings of separation, homesickness, and loss were especially different with
study abroad duration. It seems logical that the longer students spend at their study abroad
locations, the more attached they become to their surroundings and the greater their feelings of
homesickness are when returning home. It was interesting that results indicated no interaction
effect between relationship change and study abroad duration. Overall, those who studied abroad
for longer periods had higher levels of reverse culture shock as did those who broke up with their
romantic intimate partners. Study abroad duration and relationship change did not interact to
produce especially high or low reverse culture shock levels.
Open-Ended Responses about Readjustment Experience
Although the HCSS was built upon the framework that reverse culture shock is a negative
experience, participants’ responses to open-ended question five about their thoughts and
emotions regarding the reentry experience demonstrated that reverse culture shock is much more
complicated. While 37.2% indicated that they perceived their reentry experiences to be
predominantly negative, almost an equal percentage (36.0%) had mixed positive and negative
feelings. The high numbers of respondents in the mixed negative and positive category and the
12 responses including portrayals of the readjustment process as promoting personal growth
59
together suggest that although reverse culture shock is a challenging experience, it is also a
developmental one. This is in keeping with the literature on culture shock (Boyle et al., 1999;
Milstein, 2005; Ruddock & De Sales, 2007), which suggests that cultural transitions promote
growth through challenge. It is also significant that 25.6% of respondents did not express any
negativity when asked to write about their reentry experiences. It seems readjustment is not
necessarily a negative experience. In fact, for 16.3% of the study participants, it was
predominantly positive.
If reverse culture shock is not a strictly negative experience but one which often involves
challenge and development, then it follows that the HCSS should be revised to reflect this newer
framework to provide more accurate measurements. It is possible that the negative wording of
the current HCSS leads questionnaire-takers to give negative responses about their reverse
culture shock experiences.
At the same time, the thematic analysis of question five responses spoke to the validity of
the HCSS instrument. Five of the nine themes found can be categorized into the HCSS subscales.
Homesickness would fall into G and feelings of being misunderstood and struggling with
changes in relationships at home would fall into ID. Readjusting to how things are done in the
US falls into CD, as does comparing US culture with the culture of the study abroad location.
Comparison also falls into MD for responses which compared moral values in the US and the
study abroad location. The four themes which cannot be categorized into the HCSS subscales
include structural readjustment and boredom at lack of adventure as well as the two positive
themes of happiness at the familiar and challenge and growth.
Implications
The results of this study indicate that romantic relationships are especially problematic
60
for study abroad returnees who experience higher levels of culture shock. Reverse culture shock
is especially problematic for study abroad returnees who experience break up. Because of the
great importance of intimate relationships for human health and development (Brehm et al.,
2002), study abroad and international student services offices should acknowledge the need to
assist returnees in this area of their lives. In some cases, assistance may mean help with
relationship maintenance and further development. In other cases, relationship dissolution may
be the most desirable and healthful option. Staff should take extra care with returnees
experiencing higher levels of reverse culture shock and be extra cautious for female reentering
students who experienced relationship dissolution. They should also keep an eye out for the
readjustment of returnees who were abroad for an academic year or more (long-term) whether or
not they broke up with their romantic intimate partners or not. In order to identify students who
might experience especially high reverse culture shock levels, institutions could require all study
abroad returnees to answer a short questionnaire about readjustment experiences and relationship
changes. Smaller institutions with less study abroad participants could require returnees to attend
a brief individual counseling session to personalize reentry services. International student
services offices should keep in touch with international students for at least a couple of months
after reentry to help them through this critical period.
Study abroad and international student services offices might address the relationships
issue by integrating it into reentry workshops, which are common practice in the field of
international education. Typically, students returning to the US receive some reentry information
both before and after reentry, while international students receive reentry information only
before returning home. In both cases, staff could present about and initiate a dialogue on the
impact of study abroad and reentry on romantic relationships and intimate relationships in
61
general. Especially at smaller institutions where personal touch is a motto, they might reach out
to especially troubled students such as women who experienced break up, and begin one-to-one
discussions. International education offices might also coordinate with campus counseling
centers to offer cross-cultural or couples counseling services to especially challenged students.
Even when cross-cultural or couples counseling is not an option, international education staff
should refer students with the greatest adjustment or relationships difficulties to counseling.
Another way to address the issue of reverse culture shock and romantic relationships is to
involve the partners of returning students. Currently, some study abroad offices such as the
Education Abroad office at Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea, Ohio (Baldwin Wallace College,
n.d.) and the International Studies Abroad office at Valparaiso, Chile (International Studies
Abroad, n.d.) provide their students’ parents and guardians with some information about study
abroad experiences and the difficulty of reentry. The newsletters, information packets, and
emails aimed to prepare those closest to the study abroad students could also be made available
to romantic intimate partners at the students’ choice. Because these text communications tend to
be indirect and less personal, partners could also be invited to attend reentry workshops with
returning study abroad students. At these workshops, a section could be devoted to
communication techniques and actual dialogue between returning students and their partners.
The results of this study also indicate that readjustment may be especially difficult for
students who participate in academic year or long-term programs. This group of students
probably need for support during the reentry process. Programs to facilitate readjustment such as
mentoring, or pairing students who reentered recently with those who successfully dealt with
reentry challenges in the past, could be effective. Staff at larger institutions with high numbers of
study abroad returnees may consider providing separate reentry workshops for students who
62
participated in shorter term programs and those who participated in longer term programs.
Separate sessions would allow staff to address the groups’ differing levels of concerns.
Results of the open-ended question about readjustment experiences imply that
intercultural educators and trainers should acknowledge the positive aspects and developmental
opportunities of reentry. Staff members should remember to ask returning students about both
the positive and negative aspects of their reentry experiences, perhaps steering students away
from focusing exclusively on the negatives. Furthermore, they should use the reverse culture
shock process as a tool to promote student development in one-on-one consultations as well as in
reentry workshops. If students understand readjustment as a challenging but ultimately rewarding
experience which will help them grow, then they might develop a more positive and conducive
approach toward reentry. They might ultimately graduate from college as more developed adults.
Limitations
All studies have limitations, and the present research is no exception. Limitations of this
study include those relating to instrumentation, study design, and question five.
First, the HCSS was created to measure reverse culture shock in children of missionary
parents returning from abroad and not in study abroad college students. Missionary families tend
to stay abroad for much longer periods of time than do study abroad students, and the levels of
reverse culture shock they experience are probably significantly higher. Missionaries’ children
also tend to be younger than most study abroad students, and age probably impacts their reentry
experiences. The open-ended responses also suggest that study abroad students do not experience
reverse culture shock as an exclusively negative experience as the HCSS suggests. The HCSS’
negative wording may have influenced participants’ responses to the questionnaire items.
Second, because of restrictions relating to finances, time, and personal contacts, the
63
participants were all drawn from a single Midwestern university, limiting generalizability.
Results may not be generalizable to students from different types of institutions or institutions in
different geographical areas. In addition, the study involved retrospective recall from past study
abroad students, and some respondents had studied abroad as many as three years ago. Some
accuracy in measuring reverse culture shock levels was probably lost because of the lengthy time
period between reentry and study participation.
Finally, the open-ended responses were grouped rather simplistically. In reality,
participants’ perceptions of their reentry experiences may have been better represented by a
continuum from positive to negative rather than by four groups. What was clear from the
responses, however, was that reentry is not necessarily a negative experience and individual
experiences are complex and vary greatly.
Future Research Directions
More research should be conducted to add to the scant literature on romantic
relationships and the reentry experience. This study was limited in sample selection and
generalizability, and larger scale studies drawing participants from different types of institutions
cross-nationally are needed. The development of a norm for study abroad provider to
systematically assess reverse culture shock levels of all returnees would greatly enhance research
in this field and benefit future study abroad students.
The present study found that students who broke up with their romantic intimate partners
during reentry after study abroad experienced higher levels of reverse culture shock compared to
those who did not. Women who experience break up have especially high levels of reverse
culture shock. Further research also needs to be conducted to determine why the differences in
reverse culture shock levels exist. Qualitative studies involving individual interviews and focus
64
groups may be most effective in finding what causes these differences. Studies which ask openended questions carefully constructed to eliminate leading will provide the most unbiased
answers.
When researchers understand the reason behind the difference in reverse culture shock
levels, they should investigate what approaches are effective for students who wish to maintain
strong romantic relationships while abroad and during reentry. Researchers may want to draw
from the literature on intercultural relationships, long distance relationships, and relationship
maintenance.
Another important question is why reverse culture shock levels vary with duration of
study abroad experience and what can be done to ease reentry for those who study abroad for
longer durations. Such research on reverse culture shock and time spent abroad could be
extended to encompass sojourners who are not college students, such as overseas volunteers and
business persons. This research could be applied to benefit individuals, institutions, and
corporations.
Because research on intimate relationships and reverse culture shock is relatively new,
there are numerous questions that have yet to be answered, and the above is certainly not an
exhaustive list.
Conclusion
In this age of rapid globalization, institutions of higher education are called upon to
graduate citizens who can not only function but lead others in dynamic, multicultural settings.
Study abroad and the experiences of culture shock and reverse culture shock are important keys
to developing intercultural competence. As increasing numbers of college students participate in
study abroad, international educators must prepare themselves to assist students in the
65
developmental processes that these programs spur. The present study adds to the knowledge base
about cultural adjustment through addressing a gap in the literature. Romantic relationships and
reverse culture experiences seem to be related, and study abroad and international student
services staff should address students’ needs to renegotiate relationships upon reentry. Close
relationships in general are important for human development and wellbeing, and romantic
relationships are specifically important to college students, many of whom fall into the Young
Adult category of Erik Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development. According to Erikson,
young adults are faced with resolving the psychosocial crisis of intimacy versus isolation, often
through romantic relationships (Erikson, 1980). The results of this study and related literature
indicate that renegotiating or developing romantic relationships and relationships in general
should be included in reentry assistance.
66
REFERENCES
Adler, N. J. (1981). Re-entry: Managing cross-cultural transition. Group & Organization Studies,
6, 341-356.
Austin, Z. (2007). Geographical migration, psychological adjustment, and re-formation of
professional identity: The double-culture shock experience of international pharmacy
graduates in Ontario (Canada). Globalisation, Societies & Education, 5, 239-255.
Baldwin Wallace College. (n.d.). Explorations/Study Abroad. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from
http://www.bw.edu/academics/explor/
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 46, 5-68.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress.
International Migration Review, 21(3), 491-511.
Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1991). The U-curve adjustment hypothesis revisited: A review
and theoretical framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 225-247.
Bochner, S. (2006). Sojourners. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
acculturation psychology (pp. 181-197). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bochner, S., Lin, A., & McLeod, B. M. (1980). Anticipated role conflict of returning overseas
students. Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 265.
Boyle, D. P., Nackerud, L., & Kilpatrick, A. (1999). The road less traveled: Cross-cultural,
international experiential learning. International Social Work, 42, 201-214.
67
Brehm, S. S., Miller, R. S., Perlman, D., & Campbell, S. M. (2001). Intimate relationships [3rd
Rev. ed.]. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Casteen, L. D. (2006). Immersion and reentry: The undergraduate experience of foreign study.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 67(05), 0246. Abstract retrieved June 17, 2007 from Dissertation Abstracts
International database.
Christofi, V., & Thompson, C. L. (2007). You cannot go home again: A phenomenological
investigation of returning to the sojourn country after studying abroad. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 85, 53-63.
Dolby, N. (2004). Encountering an American self: Study abroad and national identity.
Comparative Education Review, 48, 150-173.
Dorset Research and Development Support Unit. (2003). Gender differences in emotional
processing as evidenced by scores on the Emotional Processing Scale (EPS). Retrieved
March 14, 2008 from
http://www.emotionalprocessing.org.uk/Emotional%20Processing%20&%20Gender/Gen
der%20differences%20in%20EP.htm
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.
Fray, J. S. (1988). An exploratory study of the culture shock experience of missionary children
homecomers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1988).
Gaw, K. F. (2000). Reverse culture shock in students returning from overseas. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 83-104.
Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1963). An extension of the U-curve hypothesis. Journal of
Social Issues, 19(3), 33-47.
68
Hadis, B. F. (2005). Gauging the impact of study abroad: How to overcome the limitations of a
single-cell design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 3-19.
Huff, J. L. (2001). Parental attachment, reverse culture shock, perceived social support, and
college adjustment of missionary children. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 29,
246-264.
Institute of International Education. (2007a). American students studying abroad at record
levels: Up 8.5%. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from
http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=113744
Institute of International Education. (2007b). Duration of study abroad. Retrieved December 1,
2007, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=113284
Institute of International Education. (2007c). Open doors 2007 fast facts. Retrieved March 14,
2008, from http://www.opendoors.iienetwork.org/file_depot/0-10000000/010000/3390/folder/58653/Fast+Facts+2007+Final.pdf
Institute of International Education. (2007d). Study abroad: U.S. student profile. Retrieved
December 1, 2007, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=113282
International Studies Abroad. (n.d.). International Studies Abroad. Retrieved March 14, 2008
from http://studiesabroad.com/
Klineberg, O. (1981). The role of international university exchanges. In S. Bochner (Ed.), The
mediating person: Bridges between cultures (pp. 113-135). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
Langley, C. S., & Breese, J. R. (2005). Interacting sojourners: A study of students studying
abroad. Social Science Journal, 42, 313-321.
Levinger, G. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Journal of Social
Issues, 32(1), 21-47.
69
Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright grantees visiting the
United States. Acta Psychologica, 11, 189-190.
Marsella, A. J., & Pedersen, P. (2004). Internationalizing the counseling psychology curriculum:
Toward new values, competencies, and directions. Counseling Psychology Quarterly,
17, 413-423.
Martin, J. N. (1983, May). The intercultural reentry: Critical variables. Paper presented to the
Annual Meeting of the Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research, San
Gimignano, Italy.
Martin, J. N. (1984). The intercultural reentry: Conceptualization and directions for future
research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 115-134.
Martin, J. N. (1986). Communication in the intercultural reentry: Student sojourners' perceptions
of change in reentry relationship. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 122.
Milstein, T. (2005). Transformation abroad: Sojourning and the perceived enhancement of selfefficacy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 217-238.
Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical
Anthropology, 7, 177-182.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children [Naissance de l'intelligence chez
l'enfant] (M. Cook Trans.). (2nd ed.). New York, NY: International Universities Press.
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). A memorandum for the study of
acculturation. Man: A Monthly Record of Anthropological Science, 35, 145-148.
Roberts, R. L. (2006). The effects of resources and experience on the self-concept of a group of
global nomads: Missionary kids. (Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University,
70
2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(06). Abstract retrieved June 17, 2007
from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.
Ruddock, H. C., & De Sales Turner. (2007). Developing cultural sensitivity: Nursing students’
experiences of a study abroad programme. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 59, 361-369.
Schuetz, A. (1944). The stranger: An essay in social psychology. The American Journal of
Sociology, 49, 499-507.
Sicola, L. (2005). 'Communicative lingerings': Exploring awareness of L2 influence on L1 in
American expatriates after re-entry. Language Awareness, 14, 153-169.
Storti, C. (1997). The art of coming home. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Students. (2007, August 31). The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 4.
Swagler, M. A., & Jome, L. M. (2005). The effects of personality and acculturation on the
adjustment of North American sojourners in Taiwan. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
52, 527-536.
Uehara, A. (1983, May). Survey research on American students’ reentry culture shock. Paper
presented to the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Dallas,
Texas.
Ward, C., Okura, Y., Kennedy, A., & Kojima, T. (1998). The U-curve on trial: A longitudinal
study of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transition.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 277-291.
71
Figure 1. Black and Mendenhall’s (1991) U-Curve of Cross-Cultural Adjustment
72
Figure 2. Berry’s (1997) Acculturation Strategies.
73
APPENDIX A: INSTRUMENT
Preliminary Information:
1. Gender:
___Woman
___Man
___Transgender Other (please list):________
2. Age: ___ years
3. Current class standing/status at BGSU:
___Freshman
___Sophomore
___Junior
___Graduate
___5th or 6th Year Senior
___Senior
4. Approximately when did you study abroad (choose most recent study abroad experience)?
From: Year ___
Month___
Date___
To: Year ___ Month___
Date___
5. As you reflect on your experience readjusting to the US after studying abroad, what thoughts
or emotions surface?
______________________________________________________________________________
6. Did you have a boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other (within or outside the US) while studying
abroad?
___Yes ___No
If you answered “No” to Question 6, please DO NOT fill out the rest of this survey and please
DO NOT submit it. If you answered “Yes” to Question 6, please continue.
7. Did you break up with your boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other while you were readjusting
to the US after returning from study abroad?
___Yes ___No
74
Directions: The following items represent experiences and feelings common to people who are
returning home after residing abroad. Rate each item on a scale of 1 to 5, indicating the degree to
which the following were or are true for you during your reentry experience.
(1 = Not true of me, 2 = Slightly true of me, 3 = Moderately true of me, 4 = Mostly true of me, 5 = Very true of me)
1. I feel or felt apprehensive about American dating practices.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
2. I experience or experienced difficulty with the overall pace of life.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
3. Homesickness/nostalgia for my study abroad location(s) is or was a common feeling for
me.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
4. I find or found that people relate on a more superficial level than I am used to.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
5. I feel or felt anger at having had to leave my study abroad location.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
6. I feel or felt uneasy with the sexual morals of people around me.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
7. I am or was bothered that things feel unreal to me in this country.
Very true of me
5
75
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
8. Feelings of loss hit me when I think of my study abroad residence.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
9. I find or found that there are many unspoken social customs that I no longer understand.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
4
Very true of me
5
10. I am or was overly critical about American lifestyle.
Not true of me
1
2
3
11. I seldom feel or felt understood by those who have not shared overseas experience.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
4
Very true of me
5
4
Very true of me
5
4
Very true of me
5
12. I feel or felt at odds with local religious standards.
Not true of me
1
2
3
13. Feelings of not “fitting in” are or were common to me.
Not true of me
1
2
3
14. I feel or felt uncertain about what people expect of me.
Not true of me
1
2
3
76
15. Americans’ wealth and spending habits upset me.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
4
Very true of me
5
16. I often feel or felt alienated and alone.
Not true of me
1
2
3
17. I experience or experienced difficulty identifying with the American way of life.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
18. I am or was uncomfortable with my day-to-day social interactions.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
3
4
Very true of me
5
4
Very true of me
5
19. I feel or felt confused about life.
Not true of me
1
2
20. I have or had fears of not being accepted.
Not true of me
1
2
3
21. I am or was uneasy with the drugs and alcohol morals of people around me.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
22. Most of the time I wish or wished I had never had to leave my study abroad residence.
Not true of me
1
2
3
4
Very true of me
5
77
Thank you for completing this survey! If you wish to be entered into the random lottery to win
$25, please provide your email address below. The email address you provide will be discarded
after the lottery is completed. ____________
Survey at: http://survey.bgsu.edu/surveys/HESA/thesisnt/thesisnt.htm
78
APPENDIX B: CONSENT LETTER
Dear BGSU past Education Abroad student,
You are invited to participate in a research study on reverse culture shock and romantic
relationships in college study abroad returnees. I am conducting this study for my Master’s thesis
in the Department of Higher Education and Student Affairs’ College Student Personnel program.
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship of reverse culture shock and romantic
partnerships. This study may add to existing knowledge about reverse culture shock and benefit
study abroad program providers.
This study will ask you to complete a simple survey, which should take about 5 to 10 minutes.
To participate in this study, you must be: 1) 18 years of age or older 2) have studied abroad for at
least one month within the past three years 3) and had a boyfriend, girlfriend, or significant other
while studying abroad. The anticipated risks to you in participating in this study are no greater
than those normally encountered in daily life, and participation may help you reflect about your
reentry experience.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and you can refrain from answering any
questions without penalty or explanation. Your decision to participate or not participate in this
study will not impact your grades, class standing, or relationship to BGSU in any way. You are
free to discontinue participation in the project at any time. By completing this survey and
submitting it, you are indicating your consent to participate in the study.
If you wish to participate, please submit the survey by January 22, 2008. By submitting this
survey and supplying an email address, you will be entered in a random lottery to win $25. I
estimate that roughly 30 to 60 students will submit this survey. Therefore, your chances of
winning this lottery may be about 1 in 30 to 1 in 60.
Information you provide will remain confidential and your identity will not be revealed. No
individual information will be shared; only aggregate results will be reported. Data will be stored
in a password protected database and will be destroyed after the study is completed. Please note
that e-mail is not 100% secure, so it is possible that someone intercepting your e-mail will gain
knowledge of your interest in the study. Please also remember to clear your browser’s cache and
page history after you submit the survey in order to protect your privacy. Some employers use
tracking software to monitor and record keystrokes, mouse clicks, and web sites visited. This
could impact the confidentiality of your responses. Therefore, you may wish to complete the
survey on your home computer or a public computer.
If you have any questions or comments about this study, you can contact me at
[email protected] or (608) 443-8459 or Dr. Michael Coomes, my project advisor, at
[email protected] or (419)372-7157. You may also contact the Chair, Human Subjects
Review Board, Bowling Green State University, (419) 372-7716 ([email protected]), if any
problems or concerns arise during the course of the study. If participation in this study leaves
you feeling distressed, BGSU’s Counseling Center is located at 422 Saddlemire at North Conklin
79
and can be contacted by phone at 419-372-2081.
Thank you very much,
Natsuko Tohyama