Copyright 1982 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0033-2909/82/9103-0540500.75
Psychological Bulletin
1982, Vol. 91, No. 3, 540-572
Sojourner Adjustment
Austin T. Church
University of Minnesota
Literature related to the psychological adjustment of relatively short-term visitors
or sojourners to new cultures is critically reviewed. Descriptive approaches
(stages, curves of adjustment, types, culture learning), the nature and extent of
problems encountered, and the background, situational, personality, and outcome
variables related to sojourner adjustment are covered. Issues and barriers in
effective cross-cultural counseling of sojourner problems are discussed. Criticisms
of the sojourner literature focus on limited, global methodologies, the nonlongitudinal nature of most studies, and a failure to attend to and apply contributions
and implications of the literature on cross-cultural research and methodology.
This article reviews research dealing with
the psychological adjustment of relatively
short-term visitors to new cultures where
permanent settlement is not the purpose of
the sojourn. Reflecting the emphasis in the
published literature, the review deals primarily with the adjustment of foreign students to their host cultures. Where relevant,
however, studies involving cross-cultural experience of groups such as Peace Corps volunteers, missionaries, technical assistants,
businessmen, and professional scholars are
also cited. Such adjustment is referred to as
"sojourner adjustment" (Brein & David,
1971) because other terms (e.g., cultural or
cross-cultural adjustment, cultural or ethnic assimilation, cultural adaptation) are
ambiguous or suggest a more permanent
assimilation to the host culture,
Sojourner Adjustment: Definition and
Related Concepts
Oberg (1960) is generally credited with
introducing the term culture shock, viewing
it as an "occupational disease" suffered by
people who are introduced suddenly to a culture that is very different from their own.
Oberg felt that "culture shock is precipitated
by the anxiety that results from losing all
our familiar signs and symbols of social inRequests for reprints should be sent to Austin T.
Church, who is now at the Department of Guidance and
Counseling, Graduate School of Education, De La Salle
University, 2401 Taft Avenue, D-406, Manila, Philippines.
540
tercourse" (p. 177), such as customs, gestures, facial expressions, or words.
Culture shock is most commonly viewed
as a normal process of adaptation to cultural
stress involving such symptoms as anxiety,
helplessness, irritability, and a longing for
a more predictable and gratifying environment (Adler, 1975; Arensberg & Niehoff,
1964; Foster, 1962; Gullahorn & Gullahorn,
1963; Lundstedt, 1963; Oberg, 1960). Anxiety may manifest itself in such behavior as
excessive preoccupation with the drinking
water, the food, and minor pains, excessive
fears of being cheated or robbed, fits of anger
toward or avoidance of local people, and a
longing to be with fellow nationals,
A clear definition of sojourner adjustment
is complicated by the introduction of additional terminology to describe cross-cultural
phenomena related to but not identical with
the concept of culture shock. Guthrie (1966,
1975) preferred the term culture fatigue to
describe sojourner symptoms such as irritability, impatience, depression, loss of appetite, poor sleep, and vague physical complaints. Smalley (1963) viewed language
shock as one of the basic elements of culture
shock because it is in the language domain
where many of the cues to social relations
lie. Other writers have used the term role
shock (Byrnes, 1966; Higbee, 1969) to describe the role ambiguity and loss of personal
status that are often experienced by technical assistants or management personnel
overseas.
The majority of studies of educational ex-
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
change make little or no reference to the
culture shock concept. Instead, they operationalize sojourner adjustment in terms of
such variables as academic/professional performance and satisfaction, problems and satisfaction with the personal and social aspects
of the sojourn, degree of social interaction
with host nationals, and various outcomes
of the sojourn experience such as positive
attitudes toward the host country, an international perspective, and personal and
professional growth. Because early "classic"
studies (e.g., Seals & Humphrey, 1957; Bennett, Passin, & McKnight, 1958; Coelho,
1958; Lambert & Bressler, 1956; Scott,
1956; Selltiz, Christ, Havel, & Cook, 1963;
Sewell & Davidsen, 1961) suggested that
many of these indices of adjustment were
interrelated as part of the same adjustment
process, studies that are relevant to sojourner
adjustment in this broader sense—encompassing not only the culture shock and the
emotional well-being of the sojourner but
also the attitudinal, academic/professional,
and social adjustments and outcomes in the
host culture—are reviewed.
Descriptive Approaches
Stage Descriptions
Several writers (Adler, 1975; DuBois,
1956;Garza-Guerrero, 1974; Jacobson, 1963;
Lesser & Peter, 1957; Oberg, 1960; Smalley,
1963) have described stages of adjustment
that sojourners go through in the host culture and/or on return to the home culture.
Oberg (1960) described four stages: a "honeymoon" stage characterized by fascination,
elation, and optimism lasting from a few
days to 6 months depending on how soon
real everyday coping and communication
with the new culture must begin; a second
stage characterized by hostile and emotionally stereotyped attitudes toward the host
country and increased association with fellow sojourners; a recovery stage characterized by increased language knowledge and
ability to get around in the new culture, a
superior attitude toward the host people, and
an increased sense of humor; and a fourth
stage in which adjustment is about as complete as possible, anxiety is largely gone, and
new customs are accepted and enjoyed.
541
Adler (1975) viewed the adjustment of the
sojourner as a transitional experience, reflecting "a movement from a state of low
self- and cultural awareness to a state of high
self- and cultural awareness" (p. 15). Adler
described five phases of encompassing and
progressive changes in identity and experiential learning: a contact phase characterized by excitement and euphoria during
which the individual views the new environment ethnocentrically, is more attuned to
cultural similarities, and perceptually deselects cultural differences; a disintegration
phase—marked by tension, confusion, alienation, depression, and withdrawal—during
which cultural differences become increasingly noticeable, and interpersonal prediction is deflated; a reintegration phase characterized by a strong rejection of the second
culture, defensive projection of personal difficulties, limitation of relationships to fellow
nationals, and an existential choice to regress
to earlier phases or to move closer to resolution and personal growth; an autonomy
stage marked by increasing sensitivity, skill
and understanding of the host nationals and
culture, and a (perhaps overestimated) feeling of expertise; and a final independence
stage marked by a cherishing of cultural
differences and relativism, behavior that is
expressive, creative, mutually trusting, and
sensitive, and, most important, increased
self- and cultural awareness enabling the individual to undergo further life transitions
and to discover additional ways to explore
human diversity. Although Adler's stages
show strong resemblances to earlier conceptualizations, the self-actualizing nature of
Adler's final transitional step implies that
the individual who has reached the final
stage should be better prepared for a third
cross-cultural experience. Oberg's (1960)
stages make no explicit prediction of facilitated adjustment in future cross-cultural experiences.
Stage models of sojourner adjustment encounter inherent conceptual and methodological difficulties in classifying individuals.
Is the order of stages invariant? Must all
stages be passed through or can some be
skipped by some individuals? In order to
classify individuals, key indicators of each
stage are needed, indicators that may vary
542
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
with the culture of origin or be indicative of
more than one stage, reflecting superficial
adjustment in an early stage but a true
"coming-to-terms" with the new culture in
a later stage. Such difficulties must be resolved if stages of adjustment are to be predictive and useful for other than post hoc,
descriptive purposes.
U Curve of Adjustment
Some researchers have found support for
what has been described as a U curve of
adjustment (Lysgaard, 1955), which describes the sojourner's level of adjustment
as a function of time in the new culture. The
U curve depicts the initial optimism and
elation in the host culture, the subsequent
dip or "trough" in the level of adjustment,
followed by a gradual recovery to higher
adjustment levels. Gullahorn and Gullahorn
(1963) proposed a W curve, indicating that
sojourners often undergo a reacculturation
process (a second U curve in their home environments similar to that experienced
abroad).
The earliest study on which the U curve
hypothesis is based was Lysgaard's (1955)
retrospective study of 200 Norwegians who
had previously studied in the United States
for 0-6 months, 6-18 months, or 18 months
and over. Using several items indexing both
professional-educational and personal-social
adjustment, Lysgaard found that "good"
adjustment was reported by the first and
third group, whereas the second group was
"less well'" adjusted. Other early studies
extended the U curve to cover trends in attitudes and social interaction patterns over
time (Sewell & Davidsen, 1961), favorability of images of the host culture (Coelho,
1958), and academic adjustment over time
(Scott, 1956). Some other early studies (e.g.,
Deutsch & Won, 1963; Morris, 1960) that
claimed to provide evidence for the hypothesis appear on closer inspection to provide
minimal, if any, support.
The early purported "success" of the U
curve hypothesis led other investigators to
examine their data for such trends. Chang
(1973), Davis (1963, 1971), Greenblat
(1971), Heath (1970), and Shepard (1970)
all found varying degrees of support for a
U curve for favorability of attitudes toward
the United States, although some of these
studies suggest that the recovery of favorable
attitudes after the lowest period of adjustment is not to the original level of the early
sojourn period (e.g., Chang, 1973; Coelho,
1958).
Not all investigators have confirmed the
U curve hypothesis. Selby and Woods (1966),
in a study of 68 non-European foreign students at Stanford University, found that
both academic and social morale rise and
fall with the stages of the academic year
rather than in a U curve. Golden (1973), in
a psychiatric study of American Junior-Year
Abroad students, reported a similar pattern.
Becker (1968) found support that the U
curve may be more relevant for sojourners
from European rather than from less developed countries. Finally, a recent large scale
international study of foreign students in 11
countries (Hull, 1978; Klineberg & Hull,
1979) found little support for the U curve
hypothesis. Klineberg and Hull (1979) broke
up sojourn length in several ways and looked
for evidence of a U curve for several different
variables (e.g., number of problems reported, personal depression, loneliness,
homesickness, opinion regarding the local
people) but concluded that there was almost
no cross-sectional support for the hypothesis.
Further, longitudinal study over an academic year of a subsample of 20 foreign students in each host country indicated that the
U curve occurs in only a small minority of
cases.
In summary, support for the U curve hypothesis must be considered weak (Breitenbach, 1970), inconclusive (Spaulding &
Flack, 1976), and overgeneralized (Becker,
1968). Not all students begin the sojourn
with a "honeymoon phase" or with a period
of elation and optimism (Becker, 1968;
Golden, 1973; Klineberg & Ben Brika, 1972;
Selby & Woods, 1966), and although
depression occurs with some frequency, it is
not universal (Klineberg & Hull, 1979).
Even those studies supporting the hypothesis
show marked differences in the time parameters of the curve (e.g., from 9 months,
Deutsch & Won, 1963; Scott, 1956; Sewell
& Davidsen, 1961; to 4 or 5 years, Davis,
1963, 1971; Shepard, 1970), making the U
SOJOURNER
ADJUSTMENT
543
curve description so flexible as to be meaningless. Finally, although both stage and U
curve descriptions of adjustment imply a
within-individual longitudinal adjustment
process, almost all of the data on which these
descriptions are based are cross-sectional.
Longitudinal studies of individuals over time
are required to specify the "shape" of an
individual's curve of adjustment.
see Useem, 1966). Small numbers of types
undoubtedly belie the wide range of stresses
that impinge on sojourners and the possibly
equally wide range of adaptation and coping
methods that are utilized (Klein, Alexander,
& Tseng, 1971).
Types or Patterns of Adjustment
A relatively recent conceptual framework
casts sojourner adjustment in terms of culture learning using operant conditioning and
social learning principles (Bochner, 1972;
David, 1973, 1976; Guthrie, 1975; Schild,
1962). Sojourner adjustment is interpreted
in terms of the removal of positive reinforcements (e.g., customary food, approval and
other social rewards, usual friends and entertainment) and the presentation of aversive
stimuli (e.g., novel situations, language difficulties, unfamiliar and anxious social encounters). Being placed in a new culture results in new reinforcers, new discriminative
and aversive stimuli, and changes in response-reinforcement contingencies. Transfer of home culture learning, both positive
and negative, will depend on the similarity
of the home and host cultures (Bochner,
1972).
Conceptualizing sojourner adjustment in
terms of learning principles implies procedures for reducing maladjustment such as
transfer of home culture reinforcers, development of new reinforcers that are compatible with the new culture, modeling of successful sojourners, and vicarious reinforcement (David, 1976), The potential
effectiveness of more "culture-specific" orientation programs (Brislin & Pedersen,
1976) and culture assimilators (e.g., Fiedler,
Mitchell, & Triandis, 1971) may be in helping the sojourner to identify relevant reinforcers, aversive and discriminative stimuli,
as well as additional aspects of the host country's "subjective culture" (Triandis, 1975;
Triandis, Vassiliou, Tanaka, & Shanmugam, 1972).
Schild (1962) hypothesized that learning
of new cues and norms can occur through
observation, participation, and explicit communication. Unfortunately, participant
learning in sojourners is often trial-and-error
Some investigators have attempted to describe typical sets of characteristics or patterns of adjustment in sojourners they have
studied. A consistent dimension emerges in
these typologies representing at one end of
a continuum the sojourner who is more traditional, conservative, and conforming in social behavior, interaction, and outlook, and
who identifies strongly with the home culture—for example, "detached observers"
(Sewell & Davidsen, 1956), "constrictors"
(Bennett et al., 1958), and "old-style" types
(Gandhi, 1972)—and at the other end of the
continuum the sojourner who is characterized by reduced identification with the home
culture, a less conservative social outlook,
and more involved social interaction with
host nationals—for example, "enthusiastic
participants" (Sewell & Davidsen, 1956),
"idealists" (Bennett et al., 1958), and "newstyle" types (Gandhi, 1972). Intermediate
to these two "extremes" are individuals—for
example, "adjusters" (Bennett et al., 1958)—
who represent a more integrative approach
to the new culture, who are open to the host
culture but who integrate new behavior,
norms, and roles into the foundation provided by the home culture.
The usefulness of typologies is limited.
Such typologies tend to be largely impressionistic, post hoc rather than predictive, and
have not been empirically cross-validated or
related to other sources of data for consistency (Brein & David, 1971). They are generally based on small samples and single
national groups making their generalizability questionable. Such types probably represent tendencies rather than discrete groupings of individuals (Lesser & Peter, 1957)
and may not even reflect consistent tendencies within single individuals over time (e.g.,
Culture Learning and Sojourner
Adjustment
544
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
and may lead to adverse consequences and
encounters, inhibiting subsequent interactions (Bochner, 1972; Hull, 1978), and the
social isolation of many sojourners makes
culture learning through accurate, explicit
communication less probable (Bochner,
1972). Learning may also fail to occur when
attitudes to be learned contradict deep-seated
personality orientations (e.g., authoritarianism), when defensive stereotypes exist, or
at points where the home and host cultures
differ widely in values or in conceptual frame
of reference (Watson & Lippitt, 1955).
The Nature and Extent of
Problems Encountered
Foreign Students
The problems reported by foreign students
in a variety of host countries have remained
essentially the same over the last 30 years.
Students from different cultures, however,
differ in the degree to which they experience
certain problems (e.g., see Hull, 1978). On
the basis of consistency of mention and expressed importance in various studies (see
the Appendix), the most important problems
appear to be language difficulties, financial
problems, adjusting to a new educational
system, homesickness, adjusting to social
customs and norms, and for some students,
racial discrimination. In recent studies
financial problems seem to predominate
(e.g., see Klineberg & Hull, 1979). One
study (Chu, Yeh, Klein, Alexander, &
Miller, 1971) suggests that whereas the actual degree of difficulty experienced in a few
areas (e.g., academic work, homesickness,
difficulty in meeting host nationals) may be
greater than expected, the nature or kinds
of difficulties encountered are fairly well anticipated.
Most frequently, the problems of foreign
students have been elicited with problem
checklists or questionnaires where the student merely endorses or rates his or her degree of difficulty with such problems as
"financial difficulties" or "adjusting to local
customs." In their usual form these checklists tell us little about the cross-cultural
basis, if any, of these problems, leading several writers to conclude that the problems
of foreign students are essentially similar to
those of American students (Cormack, 1968;
Spaulding & Flack, 1976) and that the foreign student is actually more "student" than
"foreign" in his or her modes of adjustment
(Coelho-Oudegeest, 1971; Walton, 1967,
1968). Contributing to the controversy over
the extent to which foreign student problems
are unique or more severe than those of host
students (e.g., Blegen, 1950; Klein et al,
1971;Klinger, 1967; Otis, 1955) is the small
number of studies that have compared the
nature and degree of adjustment problems
of foreign and host students (Walton, 1968).
Survey studies that have made direct comparisons tend to find differences between foreign and host students in values (e.g., Klinger, 1961; Singh, Huang, & Thompson,
1962) and in the extent to which certain
adjustment problems are experienced (e.g.,
Colacicco, 1970; Jarrahi-Zadeh & Eichman,
1970). Studies in a psychiatric setting provide mixed support for the view that foreign
students suffer from unique culture-based
adjustment problems (Klein et al., 1971;
Nelson, 1956; Nickelly, Sugita, & Otis,
1964; Zurin & Rubin, 1967).
It seems most reasonable to conclude that
foreign students have many problems similar
to those of other students, but in some cases
they also experience problems that are more
uniquely culture-based or are at least aggravated by the stresses of the new cultural
experience (Nickelly et al., 1964; Zurin &
Rubin, 1967). This multiple nature of the
foreign student's adjustment is well summarized by Bochner (1972), who sees the
foreign student as needing to attain adjustment to four different roles: as a foreigner
with special cultural learning problems; as
a student adjusting to the stress common to
all beginning students; as a maturing, developing person concerned about purposes,
meaning, and goals; and as a national representative sensitive about his or her ethnic
background and national status.
Estimating the extent of adjustment difficulties of foreign students is difficult, and
considerable disagreement exists. Many
studies have reported the overall level of adjustment and global satisfaction to be high,
with severe culture shock rare (e.g., Akhun,
1961; Beals & Humphrey, 1957; Deutsch,
1970; Deutsch & Won, 1963; Gollin, 1966;
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
Hull, 1978; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; PhelpsStokes Fund, 1949; Political & Economic
Planning, 1965; Scott, 1956; Sewell & Davidsen, 1961; Sharma, 1969; Shepard, 1970;
Susskind & Schell, 1968; U.S. Advisory
Commission on International Educational
and Cultural Affairs, 1966). The percentage
of satisfied students, however, varies to some
extent in different host countries (Klineberg
& Ben Brika, 1972; Klineberg & Hull,
1979), and satisfaction with academic or
professional aspects is generally somewhat
higher than satisfaction with nonacademic
or social aspects (Hull, 1978; Klineberg &
Hull, 1979; Shepard, 1970). Some writers
have expressed a less optimistic view (e.g.,
Bennett et -al., 1958; Gardner, 1952; Jammaz, 1973). Klineberg (1970) concluded
that "at least a temporary period of maladjustment and depression occurs so frequently as to be almost normal" (p. 46).
Studies that have asked students directly
about the degree of difficulty they experienced in adjusting to the new environment
(Jammaz, 1973; Shepard, 1970) or the frequency of feelings of homesickness, loneliness, or depression (e.g., Akhun, 1961; Hull,
1978; Jammaz, 1973; Klineberg & Hull,
1979; Shepard, 1970) indicate a similar percentage (15%-25%) of foreign students who
have significant adjustment difficulties, although somewhat higher or lower percentages are reported depending on sojourner
nationality and the host country involved
(e.g., Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Political &
Economic Planning, 1965).
In summary, although it is perhaps safest
to conclude that the precise number of these
sojourners who do not cope positively is still
unknown (Hull, 1978), it appears, based on
studies such as those cited here, that the
majority (perhaps about 80%) of the students make reasonable adjustments to their
new cultural and institutional demands.
Comparison against similar adjustment figures for host students would be informative.
Other Sojourner Groups
Cleveland, Mangone, and Adams (1960)
described many of the cultural differences
to which Peace Corps volunteers, missionaries, technical assistance personnel, and
545
businessmen overseas must adjust, including
widely different conceptions of time; the
added importance of human relations and
social niceties; less emphasis on such American "virtues" as clarity of expression, equality of treatment, and informality of manner;
the seriousness of racial differences overseas;
the greater importance of saving face than
telling the truth; and the use of indirection
and innuendo rather than directness. [For
further discussion of problems experienced
by Peace Corps volunteers see Dorjahn
(1966), Doughty (1966), Mahony (1966),
and Szanton (1966); for adjustment difficulties of overseas businessmen see Harris
& Moran (1979) and Stessin (1973).] Unfortunately, there is relatively little published data on the prevalence of adjustment
problems of these sojourn groups. Further,
the prevalence of adjustment problems will
probably vary for different groups. Cleveland et al. (1960) reported that for missionaries, adjustment problems are considerable,
with about 25% failing to complete their
overseas assignments. A study completed in
1974 by the Center for Research and Education (cited in Harris & Moran, 1979, p.
164) reported a figure of about 33% for premature return of families of Americans
working overseas.
Studies of Peace Corps volunteers suggest
that high levels of anxiety are experienced
by nearly all volunteers during the first few
weeks in the host country (Guthrie & Zektick, 1967; Thomson & English, 1964), and
the fairly large percentages of premature
terminations of service (35%-40% in some
years; see David, 1973; Harris, 1973, for tabulated figures) suggest that the extent of
adjustment difficulties for Peace Corps volunteers is somewhat greater than for foreign
students. The rate of severe psychiatric casualty may be small; however, with one early
study (Menninger & English, 1965) estimating it at only .7%, with the common difficulty being depression. Menninger and English (1965) found two periods of clustering
of psychiatric returnees: the first 4 months
and between the 8th and 12th months.
Although data on the extent of sojourner
adjustment difficulties with overseas businessmen are rare and difficult to obtain
(Harris & Moran, 1979), these sojourners
546
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
may be more satisfied and adjusted for several reasons: (a) simpler aims and more specific concerns with technical skills as opposed
to attitudinal changes and culture learning,
(b) the frequent presence of strong sponsorship, (c) secure financing and opportunities
on return, (d) the sojourners are generally
older and more mature, (e) the business organization provides an "enclave" that insulates the sojourner from conflict between
home and host culture reference groups, (f)
the experience is more highly structured and
scheduled with less dependence on the sojourner's own resources, and (g) social relationships are more likely to be characterized by equal status and common goals
(Lesser & Peter, 1957),
Academic scholars abroad also typically
share certain elements considered conducive
to favorable overseas adjustment, including
high and equal status, common academic
values and goals, and the sanction of the
community in which their common tasks are
performed (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1960).
Although they have not been frequently
studied, the wives of overseas workers may
experience adjustment difficulties greater
than those of their husbands (Useem, 1966;
Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry,
Note 1). Useem (1966) interviewed wives of
married men working abroad in India and
concluded that there was more continuity in
the professional roles of the men from the
old to the new culture than in the wife and
mother roles of the women.
In summary, exact statistics concerning
the number of sojourners who fail to adjust
overseas are difficult to determine and vary
from country to country (Harris & Moran,
1979, p, 164). Firm comparisons between
different sojourner groups are even more
difficult, given the available data. One might
predict, however, that sojourner adjustment
will be easiest for groups undergoing more
structured, professional experiences (e.g.,
some businessmen and scholars) and most
difficult for those sojourners assuming more
ambiguous, less supported roles (e.g., Peace
Corps volunteers, missionaries, and some
technical assistants), with the adjustment
difficulties of the average foreign student
falling somewhere in-between. Considerable
overlap and variation within each sojourner
group will exist, however, based on such factors as nationality, host country, and individual differences in coping and in stress
reactivity.
Background Variables and
Sojourner Adjustment
Some success has been obtained in predicting indices of sojourner adjustment from
background or demographic characteristics
of the sojourner. Numerous variables have
been studied (e.g., see DuBois, 1956; Hill,
1966; Hountras, 1957; Hull, 1978; Ibrahim,
1970; Morris, 1960; Sewell & Davidsen,
1961; Shepard, 1970; Suedfeld, 1967) but
with results sometimes contradictory and
unreplicated. The most widely studied background variables are nationality, status, language proficiency, age, educational level,
and previous cross-cultural experience.
With regard to the language variable,
there is substantial support for a positive
relationship between language proficiency
and the amount of social interaction with
host nationals (Blood & Nicholson, 1962;
Deutsch, 1970; Gullahorn & Gullahorn,
1966; Morris, 1960; Sewell & Davidsen,
1961; Shattuck, Note 2) and to a lesser degree with general indices of satisfaction and
adjustment (Calhoun, 1977; Deutsch &
Won, 1963; Di Marco, 1974; Gullahorn &
Gullahorn, 1966; Morris, 1960; Sewell &
Davidsen, 1961; Ursua, 1969). A limitation
of all of these studies is that language proficiency is based on interview ratings of unknown reliability and validity (e.g, Di Marco,
1974; Morris, 1960; Sewell & .Davidsen,
1961; Shattuck, Note 2) or on the sojourner's own fluency estimates (e.g., Deutsch,
1970; Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1966) obtained during rather than prior to the sojourn. Beyond a certain minimal level of
competence, the relationship between language fluency and social interaction is most
likely a reciprocal one with greater language
confidence leading to greater participation
that in turn leads to improved command of
the host language (Gullahorn & Gullahorn,
1966; Selltizet al., 1963).
When the relationship between age and
academic level and various indices of sojourner adjustment is examined, the most
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
consistent finding is that younger sojourners
and undergraduate students have more social contact with host nationals both as
friends and in their living arrangements
(Deutsch, 1970; Gullahorn & Gullahorn,
1966; Hull, 1978; Ibrahim, 1970; Johnson,
1970; Sewell & Davidsen, 1961; U.S. Advisory Commission, 1966). On the other
hand, older sojourners and graduate students
generally report greater academic and general satisfaction with the outcome of the sojourn (Gezi, 1959; Gullahorn & Gullahorn,
1966; Hull, 1978; Melby & Wolf, 1961),
although the results are more consistent for
the graduate/undergraduate distinction than
for the age variable. This rinding is consistent with the different sojourn motivations
of younger, primarily undergraduate students (more personal development goals)
and older, primarily graduate students (more
professional goals; Gezi, 1959; U.S. Advisory Commission, 1966).
Surprisingly few studies have examined
sex differences in adjustment. Some studies
of foreign students that do show significant
sex differences (e.g., Fong & Peskin, 1969;
Hill, 1966; Porter, 1963) suggest that female
foreign students may report a greater number of adjustment problems than do male
foreign students. With Peace Corps volunteers, two studies suggest that women are
slightly more likely to suffer psychiatric casualties and return early (Menninger & English, 1965; Thomson & English, 1964).
More careful studies of sex differences in
sojourner adjustment are needed. One interesting study (Fong & Peskin, 1969) indicated that special problems may exist for
women from more traditional cultures where
social roles may be defined more restrictively
than in the United States.
Nationality
It became evident from early studies of
foreign student adjustment that nationality
was an important variable. Whereas early
studies of Scandinavian students in the
United States (Lysgaard, 1955; Scott, 1956;
Sewell & Davidsen, 1961) indicated that
these students have minimal adjustment difficulties, studies by Lambert and Dressier
(1956) and Bennett et al. (1958) indicated
547
that Indian and especially Japanese students
may have considerable difficulties. These
studies also suggested that there are cultural
patterns in the typical defense mechanisms
used by sojourners from different cultures
to handle culture shock.
Studies that examine differences in the
adjustment of sojourners from different nationalities often make reference to "cultural
distance," with most writers assuming that
adjustment will be more difficult for visitors
coming from home cultures that are very
different from the host culture (Beck, 1963;
David, 1971; Morris, 1960). Empirical studies have generally supported this notion (e.g.,
Hull, 1978). When national origin, or any
other variable, is examined as a determinant
of sojourner adjustment, however, it is important to distinguish different indices of
adjustment. Four adjustment indices (nature
and extent of social interaction with host
nationals, general adjustment, attitudes toward the host country, and sojourner satisfaction) have been most frequently discussed
in the literature. The results relating national origin to social interaction and general
adjustment (generally the number of problems endorsed) are quite consistent. Although it is not possible to rank order all
geopolitical areas or national groups, Canadians and West Europeans are consistently
found to be more socially involved with U.S.
nationals and to report fewer adjustment
problems; students from the Far East are
least involved socially and report the greatest
number of adjustment difficulties. Indians,
Black Africans, Latin Americans, and Middle Easterners appear to fall in-between
these two extremes (e.g., Deutsch, 1970;
Forstat, 1951; Galtung, 1965; Hassan, 1962;
Hegazy, 1969; Hull, 1978; Selltiz et al.,
1963; Shepard, 1970; U.S. Advisory Commission, 1966; Ursua, 1969; Markham, Note
3). Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine to what extent these results will hold
for host countries other than the United
States.
The results of studies relating nationality
to attitudes toward the host country (e.g.,
Heath, 1970; Hegazy, 1969; Hull, 1978;
Ibrahim, 1970; Morris, 1960; U.S. Advisory
Commission, 1963) are less consistent, although there is some evidence that West
548
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
Europeans express more negative attitudes
toward the United States than do students
from other areas (Heath, 1970; Morris,
1960; Markham, Note 3). This finding illustrates the importance of specifying one's
operationalization of adjustment. Although
Europeans appear to suffer fewer adjustment
problems in the United States and have
greater interaction with host nationals, they
may also express relatively less favorable
attitudes toward the United States. A major
difficulty, however, with studies that examine overall favorability of attitudes is that
they ignore the highly differentiated nature
of attitudes that sojourners develop toward
different aspects of the host culture (Mishler, 1965). Europeans and other groups differ in what aspects of American life they
approve and disapprove of (U.S. Advisory
Commission, 1963). The European/non-European distinction is also confounded with
many other factors that have been related
to general adjustment and to increased social
interaction with host nationals. European
students are more likely to be younger, single, studying pure humanities or social sciences, interested in associating with Americans and living abroad, well traveled, and
more likely to express their primary sojourn
motive as getting to know another country
(Hull, 1978; Selltiz et al., 1963). Thus, in
addition to the more obvious explanations
for the differences between Europeans and
non-Europeans in adjustment, such as better
English language fluency, more similar cultural patterns, and the increased comfort of
Americans with students from Western cultures, a variety of other confounding factors
makes it difficult to determine the importance of nationality per se.
Studies relating nationality and sojourn
satisfaction (e.g., Hegazy, 1969; Hull, 1978;
Morris, 1960; Shepard, 1970; U.S. Advisory
Commission, 1966) are quite inconsistent
and probably reflect the multidimensional
nature of the "satisfaction" construct.
There is a notable absence of studies that
compare adjustment of sojourners of a given
nationality in different host cultures. One
study (Galtung, 1965) looked at this question using a design that crossed three sojourn
groups (Egyptians, Iranians, and Indians)
with three host countries (United States,
United Kingdom, and West Germany). By
looking at variability of responses to
questions relating to satisfaction, adjustment problems, perceived personal change,
impressions of host country, need for assistance, and so forth, Galtung concluded that
home nationality explains response variability much better than does the host country
of sojourn.
Status
Several studies have found a relationship
between perceived loss of personal status and
sojourner adjustment in a variety of host
countries (Aich, 1963; Banham, 1958; GolIjn, 1966; Jammaz, 1973; Lambert & Bressler, 1956; Morris, 1960). Although there is
some controversy over the nature of the typical relationship between Black Americans
and Black Africans (Davis, Hanson, & Burner, 1961; Nielsen, Bryant, & Wyatt, 1962;
Phelps-Stokes Fund, 1949), Odenyo (1971)
reported that many high-status Black African foreign students experience an ambivalence toward Black Americans due in part
to their fear of identifying with an underprivileged, lower status American minority
(also see Becker, 1973).
The criteria for personal status may change
substantially in a new culture with the status
accorded the sojourner's home nation by the
host country being an important determinant of personal status, self-esteem, and sojourner adjustment. For this to be the case,
cultural or ethnic identity would have to be
evoked during the sojourner's cross-national
interactions. Bochner and Perks (1971)
demonstrated in an experimental setting that
sojourners are in fact likely to feel that their
hosts perceive them in ethnic terms.
A study of attitudes and experiences of
Indian and Pakistani students led Lambert
and Bressler (1955) to conclude that sojourners from "low-status" countries (the
authors classified India and Pakistan as lowstatus based on what they felt was the
American point of view of the time) form
their attitudes toward the United States
largely as the result of a "looking-glass"
process based on the visitors' perceptions of
American attitudes toward their country and
by extension toward them. Low status is
often inferred from inadvertent reference to
certain national status-rooted "sensitive
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
areas" (e.g., the caste system, religion, population, and [previous] colonial rule). 1 This
relationship between the sojourner's perceptions of accorded national status and his or
her attitudes toward the host country has
been referred to most frequently as the "twoway mirror" hypothesis (e.g., Davis, 1963,
1971; Morris, 1960) but also as the "perceptual-reciprocity" hypothesis (Ibrahim,
1970) or "status-deprivation" hypothesis
(Mishler, 1965).
Several studies (Davis, 1963, 1971; Gezi,
1959; Ibrahim, 1970, 1971; Klineberg &
Ben Brika, 1972; Lambert & Bressler, 1956)
have found from moderate to strong support
for the two-way mirror hypothesis. Some
other studies suggest that the hypothesized
relationship between the sojourner's perception of accorded status and favorability of
attitudes toward the host country may be
moderated by the sojourner's involvement or
identification with his or her home culture
and/or whether the sojourner experiences a
gain or a loss in accorded status (Chang,
1973; Morris, 1960; Shattuck, Note 2). Unlike the simpler two-way mirror hypothesis,
however, these findings have not been firmly
replicated (Selltiz et al., 1963). When these
studies are taken as a whole, support for the
relationship between accorded national status and attitudes toward host country is
strongest for sojourners from "lower status"
countries.
Previous Cross-Cultural Experience
A common assumption is that previous
cross-cultural experience with other cultures
or prior exposure to the host culture should
facilitate adjustment, although some culture
shock may still occur (e.g., Arensberg &
Niehoff, 1964). On the other hand, previous
cultural exposure may serve to reinforce stereotypes and defenses, which inhibit adjustment (DuBois, 1956). Thus, the nature and
quality—for example, the depth, intimacy
(Amir, 1969; Peterson & Neumeyer, 1948),
accuracy (Basu & Ames, 1970), and similarity (Bochner, 1972; David, 1973)—of the
previous cultural experience or host culture
exposure may be more important than the
quantitative amount of previous exposure.
Empirical findings support the importance
of accurate prior cultural experience or prior
549
exposure to the United States for sojourner
adjustment (Deutsch, 1970; Hull, 1978;
Klineberg & Ben Brika, 1972; Klineberg
& Hull, 1979; Peterson & Neumeyer, 1948;
Selltiz et al., 1963; Sewell & Davidsen,
1961), with the relationship more consistent
for increased social interaction and more
general adjustment than for reported satisfaction or attitudes. Studies that have examined the effects of cross-cultural training
and simulation exercises on subsequent sojourner adjustment (e.g., Fiedler et al., 1971;
Mitchell, Dossett, Fiedler, &Triandis, 1972;
Worchel & Mitchell, 1972) also support the
value of accurate prior knowledge of norms,
customs, and values of the host culture for
adjustment.
It is not possible, however, to eliminate
the possibility that those sojourners who are
more traveled are a select group. Those who
could not cope in earlier sojourns may not
sojourn again, and the most well traveled
tend to be Western Europeans of urban
background and are more likely to be studying arts and humanities. The least traveled
are more likely to be Asians and to have
come from more rural areas (Hull, 1978).
Thus, nationality, language, cultural distance, and field of study are confounded and
may underlie the increased interaction and
decreased adjustment problems of sojourners with previous cross-cultural experience.
Previous cross-cultural experience needs to
be studied within national groups to unconfound these variables.
Situational Variables and
Sojourner Adjustment
The actual conditions to which the individual is exposed in the new culture would
seem to be of paramount importance for
emotional well-being and satisfaction. Re1
Several other writers have described the presence
of various status-rooted "sensitive areas" in sojourners
from India (Coelho, 1958; Useem & Useem, 1955), the
Middle East (Hegazy, 1969; Parker, 1976), former colonials in Britain (Livingstone, 1960), and among Germans sojourning in the United States after World War
II (Watson & Lippitt, 1955). The perceived ignorance
of Americans about their home cultures is an almost
universal finding in studies of foreign students in the
United States (Mishler, 1965) and is often interpreted
as low accorded national status by these sojourners.
550
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
lating specific situational events or combi- justment difficulties to be manifested in the
nations of events to sojourner stress and ad- form of physical ailments (e.g., Akka, 1967;
justment difficulties, however, is a difficult Alexander, Workneh, Klein, & Miller, 1976;
task, with the sum of experiences and ad- Nickelly et al., 1964).
justment reported in an interview or quesSpecifying the important aspects of diftionnaire being acquired in time sequences ferent living arrangements for adjustment
that do not lend themselves easily to causal is difficult. One dimension that has been used
interpretation (Galtung, 1965). Such rela- is the urban-rural distinction. A frequent
tionships are especially difficult to infer from Peace Corps finding is that morale and satthe usual point-in-time interviews or ques- isfaction among volunteers is higher in more
tionnaires covering long periods of time in rural locales where the more indigenous culthe host country.
ture is more consistently found (Guskin,
Many situational variables have been 1966; Maryanov, 1966; Textor, 1966). Sellstudied or hypothesized as relevant for so- tiz et al. (1963) found that small colleges,
journer adjustment (e.g., see DuBois, 1956; nonmetropolitan universities, and metropolGollin, 1966; MacFarlane, 1958; Peterson itan universities showed both decreasing po& Neumeyer, 1948; Pool, 1965; Shepard, tential for and decreasing actual amounts of
1970). Sewell and Davidsen (1956) found social interaction between host and foreign
that more positive student affect was asso- students in both living arrangements and
ciated with more favorable arrival percep- extracurricular opportunities (see also Carey,
tions of the United States, with the students 1956; Jammaz, 1973; U.S. Advisory Comhaving received more informal guidance, mission, 1966; Major, Note 5; Barry, Note
greater contact with Americans during the 6). It is difficult to interpret the significance
sojourn, less frequent and severe frustrating of some of these studies, however, because
experiences, greater academic success in the they cut across different national groups or
United States, and sojourns of long or short other confounding variables (e.g., age, field
rather than intermediate duration. Selltiz et of study, sojourn motivations) related to soal. (1963) found that participation in a 6- cial interaction and adjustment. Urban-ruweek orientation had a marked effect on the ral and other living distinctions also ignore
subsequent amount of social interaction (but individual differences in preferred living and
not general adjustment) of Asians in the institutional arrangements (David, 1973).
For individuals whose sojourn goals are
United States but had no effect on the social
interaction of Europeans. Although others significantly job related, adjustment may be
have mentioned the importance of formal strongly influenced by job conditions and
orientation programs (e.g., Klineberg, 1970; satisfaction. Byrnes (1966) discussed several
Livingstone, 1960; Torre, 1963), there are studies showing that for many American
few systematic studies of their effectiveness professionals working overseas for the
in aiding adjustment (Moran, Mestenhau- Agency for International Development
ser, & Pedersen, 1974; Walton, 1968; Cor- (AID), the major adjustment problems were
associated with their jobs. Gullahorn and
mack, Note 4).
Few investigators have studied what would Gullahorn (1962, 1966) studied over 5,000
seem to be an important relationship be- Fulbright and Smith-Mundt American
tween the sojourner's physical health and his grantees who were research and teaching
or her adjustment, Useem (1966), in a year- professors abroad. They, too, found a posilong study of American wives in India, found tive relationship between professional outthat approximately one-fourth of the fami- come (job role) and sojourn satisfaction.
Because the primary goals of many forlies reported that they were either continuously ill or had serious health problems dur- eign students are academic, one would exing their sojourn. Cleveland et al. (1960) pect adjustment for these sojourners to be
suggested that anticipation or fear of illness influenced by academic adjustment and permay be even more detrimental to adjustment formance. Selby and Woods (1966) found
than illness per se. Some studies have dis- that the major determinant of student adcussed the tendency of foreign student ad- justment at a "high pressure" institution is
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
academic success, with morale following the
ups and downs of the academic year (see also
Hountras, 1955, 1957; Hull, 1978; Jammaz,
1973; Morris, 1960; Shattuck, Note 2).
Social Interaction
Nature and extent. The number, variety,
and depth of social encounters with host-nationals may be the most important yet complex variables related to sojourner adjustment. Many researchers consider positive
social interaction with host nationals a necessary condition for effective sojourner adjustment (e.g., Arensberg & Niehoff, 1964;
Bennett et al, 1958; Brein & David, 1971;
Cieslak, 1955; Hull, 1978; Klineberg, 1970;
Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Morris, 1960;
Oberg, 1960; Selltiz et al., 1963; Sewell &
Davidsen, 1961); for some writers it is the
"crucial" or "decisive" factor in adjustment
(Colacicco, 1970; Garraty & Adams, 1959;
MacFarlane, 1958).
Writers in the area of intercultural communication have indicated many of the barriers to effective and positive communication
between members of different cultures, both
verbal—for example, knowledge of latent
and connotative meanings in the host language (Glenn, 1972; Porter, 1972), language-conditioned differences in categories
of experience (Hoijer, 1972; Mandelbaum,
1949—and nonverbal—for example, body
movements, posture, facial expressions, gestures, eye movement, physical appearance,
and proxemics, the use and organization of
space (Ekman, 1972; Hall, 1959; Hall &
Whyte, 1963; Sitaram, 1972). Status differentials, ethnocentric attitudes and stereotypes, evaluative or judgmental perceptions,
cultural ignorance, different definitions and
norms for friendships, fear of rejection from
conationals, and the high level of anxiety and
threat to self-esteem frequently associated
with intercultural encounters also inhibit
positive social interaction with host nationals
(Barna, 1970; Edgerton, 1965; Garraty &
Adams, 1959; Miller et al., 1971; Porter,
1972; Wedge, 1972).
Because of the anxieties associated with
immersing oneself in the social environment
of the host culture, many sojourners form
enclaves of fellow nationals that largely de-
551
termine the living arrangements, friendship
patterns, and organizational affiliations of
the sojourners involved. Such enclaves have
been reported for a variety of national
groups including Indians (Becker, 1971;
Gandhi, 1970; Lambert & Bressler, 1956),
East Asians (Bennett et al., 1958; Johnson,
1970; Kang, 1972; Miller et al., 1971; Sunder Das, 1972), Americans (Gullahorn &
Gullahorn, 1966; Simon & Schild, 1961;
Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry,
Note 1), former colonials in Britain (Carey,
1956; Eldridge, 1960), and a variety of other
nationalities (Becker, 1971; Hegazy, 1969).
The formation of such enclaves, at least in
the United States, appears to be most typical
of Indians and Asians and less frequent
among Canadians and some Western Europeans (Becker, 1971; Galtung, 1965; Hull,
1978; Klein et al., 1971; Sewell & Davidsen,
1961). Klein et al. (1971) concluded on the
basis of questionnaires and interviews with
100 Far Eastern students that social isolation from Americans is a way of life for the
majority of these students, This isolation
comes to be accepted and is highly resistant
to change, with many students finding reasons and rationalizations to support it. The
authors noted a noticeable lack of tolerance
within the subgroup for those who deviate
or become too "Americanized" (see also
Miller et al., 1971). Many Peace Corps volunteers also fail to achieve good informal
social relationships with non-English speaking host nationals (Dorjahn, 1966; Hautaluoma & Kaman, 1977; Szanton, 1966),
Many reasons have been offered for why
cultural subcommittees are established (Eldridge, 1960; Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1966;
Kang, 1972; Klein et al., 1971; Lundstedt,
1963; Simon & Schild, 1961; Siu, 1952;
Spaulding & Flack, 1976). Such enclaves
allow the sojourner to reestablish primary
group relations and maintain familiar, traditional values and belief systems while minimizing psychological and behavioral adjustments. A protective function is served
whereby psychological security, self-esteem,
and a sense of belonging are provided, and
anxiety, feelings of powerlessness, and social
stresses are reduced. Such enclaves also
serve as reference groups with whom the new
environment can be discussed, compared,
552
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
and interpreted. In some instances inaccurate prearrival perceptions may be maintained and conformed to as a result of restrictive in-group referral patterns (Simon
& Schild, 1961). Most writers acknowledge
the positive benefits of such enclaves, but the
majority of these writers also feel that restricting social interaction with host nationals to superficial encounters is self-defeating
in the long run because it inhibits learning
the language, values, and customs of the new
culture and can reinforce a sense of alienation (Arensberg & Niehoff, 1964; Garraty
& Adams, 1959; Gullahorn & Gullahorn,
1966; Kang, 1972; Lundstedt, 1963; Group
for the Advancement of Psychiatry, Note 1).
Ironically, although the amount of contact
between foreign and host nationals is generally not very extensive (Hull, 1978; Klineberg & Hull, 1979), and hosts often view
sojourners as not seeking host friendships,
many sojourners report wishing to have more
interaction with host nationals (Garraty &
Adams, 1959; Hull, 1978; Johnson, 1970;
Susskind & Schell, 1968; U.S. Advisory
Commission, 1963). Sojourners from some
cultures tend to wait for host nationals to
initiate contact (Gezi, 1961).
Relationship between social interaction
and adjustment. Empirical studies have
tested the hypothesis that increased interaction with host nationals would lead to improved sojourner adjustment. Several have
found support for an "association hypothesis" where more social interaction with host
nationals is associated with more favorable
attitudes toward the hosts (Basu & Ames,
1970; Chang, 1973; Hassan, 1962; Heath,
1970; Hofman & Zak, 1969; Ibrahim, 1970).
The "association hypothesis," however, is
probably oversimplified. Triandis and Vassiliou (1967) found that increased contact
led to more favorable stereotypes of Americans for Greeks sojourning in the United
States, but increased contact led to less favorable stereotypes of Greeks by Americans
sojourning in Greece. On the basis of his
review of literature relevant to the "contact"
or "association hypothesis" in ethnic relations, Amir (1969) concluded that conditions favorable for reducing prejudice and
increasing favorable attitudes include such
considerations as the status relationships
between the ethnic groups, the intimacy and
pleasantness of the intergroup contact, and
the opportunities for working on common or
superordinate goals that are important for
each group (also see Kelman & Bailyn,
1962). The studies reviewed in this article
suggest that these principles can be well applied to the situation where the ethnic contact consists of interaction between foreign
sojourners and host nationals.
Hull (1978) and Klineberg and Hull
(1979) found support for a general "modified culture contact" hypothesis that relates
increased social interaction not only to more
favorable attitudes ("association hypothesis") but also to better personal adjustment
and general sojourn satisfaction. In Hull's
study those sojourners who were more satisfied with their frequency of contact with
Americans were more likely to be found with
host students, to report having made good
friends, to report less loneliness and homesickness, and to have more favorable sojourn
attitudes in general. Those sojourners who
reported loneliness and homesickness very
often were found to be isolated from Americans as indexed by several contact variables
used in the study. Deutsch (1970), Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1960), Lysgaard
(1955), Morris (1960), and Selltiz et al.
(1963) also reported relationships between
amount of social interaction with host nationals and more general adjustment or sojourn satisfaction. Gullahorn and Gullahorn
and Selltiz et al. pointed out the reciprocal
nature of this social interaction - positive
adjustment relationship whereby "social relations and adjustment reinforce each other,
with social relations easing adjustment, and
greater adjustment freeing the student to
enter more fully into social relations" (Selltiz et al., 1963, p. 159).
A difficulty with social interaction studies
is the numerous ways in which this variable
has been quantified. Results have been found
to differ depending on whether the amount
of social interaction is operationalized in
terms of frequency, range, or depth of encounters or by such indices as the number
of close host friends (e.g., Morris, 1960; Selltiz et al., 1963). Terms such as friends and
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
acquaintances mean different things in different cultures, making the usual self-ratings
and interviewer judgments of the intimacy
or depth of social contacts 'difficult to interpret and compare across cultural groups.
Finally, there is no guarantee that such indices adequately assess the degree of true
cross-cultural understanding or communication developing during these social interactions (Brein & David, 1971). Given the
verbal, nonverbal, and other cultural differences (e.g., Samovar & Porter, 1972, 1976)
that make real understanding between individuals of different cultures difficult, cultural understanding will not follow automatically as a function of the mere quantity
of social interaction.
Overlapping Membership Conflict
Several writers have described the potential dangers of overidentifying with the host
culture, including the inhibition of objective
discrimination of cultural cues, inhibition of
relaxed social adjustment due to overly ambitious attempts to be like the hosts, reduced
professional effectiveness, increased adverse
reactions to perceived rejection or discrimination, and increased alienation from the
home culture with a concomitant difficulty
in readjusting on return (Bennett et al.,
1958; Livingstone, 1960; McEvoy, 1968;
Political & Economic Planning, 1965; Torre,
1963). Such overidentification with the host
culture may be precipitated by unresolved
emotional conflict with one's own social
group at home (Group for the Advancement
of Psychiatry, Note 1; also see Perlmutter,
1954, 1957).
The sojourner's difficulty in'defining the
optimal balance between identification with
home and host culture values ("overlapping
membership conflict") results from the sojourner's desire to behave in a way that is
consistent with host culture acceptance, mores, and values, combined with the desire to
retain identification with his or her own culture and its mores and values (Lesser &
Peter, 1957). Alternative ways of resolving
this conflict have been described by some
authors in terms of descriptive typologies
(Bailyn & Kelman, 1962; McEvoy, 1968;
553
Watson & Lippitt, 1955). For example,
"overidentifiers" have a self-image that is
less anchored in the home culture, abandon
many cultural values, and adopt the behavior
and values of the new culture uncritically;
"rejectors" have preexisting prejudices that
result in selective perceptions allowing the
rejection of the new culture, and they interact superficially and less effectively; "viable
integrators" take an objective, discriminating, and balanced approach to resolving the
overlapping membership conflict, integrating new experiences and values into a selfimage based on the values and behavior of
the home culture. The implied optimal nature of this third approach to sojourner adjustment is suggested by Coelho's (1958)
contention that "genuinely cosmopolitan
orientations are achieved by the visiting student not through an uncritical conformity
with foreign perspectives but, rather, through
a broadening and differentiation of domestic
ones" (p. 105).
Two studies in an experimental setting
have examined the process by which the
overlapping membership conflict may be resolved. French and Zajonc(1957) found limited support for their hypothesis that this
norm conflict would be resolved on a situation-by-situation basis in the direction of the
ideal behavior appropriate to the group with
the greater situational potency for the individual. Zajonc (1952) found moderate experimental support for his explanation of the
defensive reactions of some sojourners in
terms of a frustration-aggression hypothesis.
According to this hypothesis the need to conform to host norms in opposition to, one's
own norms arouses frustration that leads to
attitudinal aggression.
The extent to which the overlapping membership conflict is resolved in the direction
of increased identification with the host culture has implications for the amount of social interaction and involvement with the
host culture. McClintock and Davis (1958)
found a decline in the importance of home
nationality for self-percept associated with
greater social interaction with host nationals, less involvement with home country and
fellow nationals, and higher general sojourn
satisfaction. This finding is consistent with
554
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
Kang's (1971) finding that Chinese students
who anglicize their names associate more
with Americans, are more likely to live with
Americans, and are less likely to read Chinese
publications.
Sojourner adjustment, however, is not
characterized by a static resolution of the
overlapping membership conflict for most
individuals. Rather, the normal process of
acculturation involves gradual changes in
the home and host culture identifications
with successive stages of the sojourn characterized by increasingly clear and differentiated images of host country reference
groups, accompanied by more discriminating and finally more vague and undifferentiated images of home culture reference
groups (Coelho, 1958).
In summary, although adaptation to the
new culture generally involves gradual
changes in home and host culture identifications, individual differences exist in the
balance of these identifications and have implications for both social interaction patterns
and adjustment. Although overidentifying
with host values, norms, and reference groups
can inhibit adjustment and alienate the sojourner from his or her own culture, rejection
of the host culture results in a defensive and
superficial adjustment.
Personality Variables and
Sojourner Adjustment
Early investigators of sojourner adjustment (e.g., Lundstedt, 1963; Torre, 1963)
hypothesized that attitudes reflecting a closed
mind (Rokeach, 1960) and the ethnocentric
tendencies described in the authoritarian
studies (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) would inhibit the
sojourner in coping effectively with new social norms, values, and language forms.
Gardner (1962) described the "universal
communicator" as having a well-integrated
personality, a central organization of the
extroverted type, a value system that includes the "values of all," a socialization of
cultural universals, and a high degree of sensitivity toward others. He suggested that the
universal communicator would have the
least difficulty in adjusting to another culture. More recently, the "multi-cultural"
(Adler, 1977) or "mediating" person (Boch-
ner, 1977) has been described as having the
cultural sensitivity, resiliency, and pattern
of identity that allows him or her to adjust
to and serve as a link between multiple cultures. Numerous other personal characteristics have been described as important for
sojourner adjustment (e.g., see Cleveland et
al., 1960; Harris, 1977; Harrison & Hopkins, 1967; Hautaluoma & Kaman, 1977;
Klein et al., 1971; Lambert & Bressler,
1956; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Thomson &
English, 1964; Group for the Advancement
of Psychiatry, Note 1), but although personality descriptions of the potentially good
adjuster are commonly accepted in the literature, they are based primarily on face
validity rather than on empirical data (Brein
& David, 1971). For example, Byrnes (1966)
described several studies of overseas American technicians and concluded that there
was no support for an "overseas type" or any
consistent personality patterns distinguishing successful from unsuccessful technicians.
Table 1 summarizes several studies involving personality prediction of Peace Corps
volunteers' performance. The majority of the
studies (e.g., Grande, 1966; Guthrie & Zektick, 1967; Hare, 1966; Smith, 1965, 1966;
Stein, 1966; Wrigley, Cobb, & Klein [cited
in David, 1973]) provide little or no evidence
for the prediction of field performance with
a variety of personality, interest, and value
measures. Three of the moderately predictive studies (Di Marco, 1974; Gordon, 1967;
Uhes & Shybut, 1971) predict training
rather than field criteria. Four other studies
(Dicken, 1969; Ezekiel, 1968; Harris, 1972;
Mischel, 1965) show moderate prediction of
field performance ratings (correlations in the
.30s and .40s) for such measures as authoritarianism (Mischel, 1965), ego strength
(Dicken, 1969; Mischel, 1965), manifest
anxiety (Mischel, 1965), several Gough sociability and tolerance scales for women
(Dicken, 1969), and various perceived characteristics of one's personal future (Ezekiel,
1968). Findings in these few moderately successful prediction studies are limited, however, by lack of replication (David, 1973;
Harris, 1972).
Because studies of Peace Corps volunteers
have heavily emphasized others' global ratings of performance made by staff with vary-
555
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
Table 1
Summary of Peace Corps Studies Relevant to Personality Prediction of Performance
Author
Predictor variable
Criterion
Results
Mischel (1965)
California F scale
Barren's Ego Strength
Taylor Manifest Anxiety
Composite field performance ratings
F scale (r = —.45)
Ego strength (/• = .34)
Manifest anxiety (r = -.34)
Smith (1965,
1966)
Two measures of authoritarianism
General competence factor
(Q-oriented factor analysis)
Field performance ratings
"Essentially null correlations"
Psychiatric ratings of
predicted psychological effectiveness
Grande(1966)
During 2nd week of
training:
Measure of self-esteem
Measure of self-acceptance (from Bills's
Index of Adjustment
and Values)
Field and training performance ratings
No significant differences between "superior" and "ineffective" performers
Hare (1966)
Final training ratings
Various personality
measures and background variables
Field performance ratings
Final training ratings vs. performance (r = —.20)
Only significant correlations
(-.17 to -.19, teaching
experience, extroversion,
and aggression) were in
opposite direction from
prediction
Stein (1966)
Barren's Ego Strength
Taylor Manifest Anxiety
Levinson's F scale
Field performance ratings
of overall effectiveness
No statistically significant
prediction
Wrigley, Cobb,
& Kline
(cited in
David, 1973)
Barton's Ego Strength
Levinson's F scale
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
(EPPS; 16 scales)
MMPK14 scales)
Ratings of job competence,
leadership skills, maturity, overall evaluation
A total of 128 correlations
ranged from .12 to -.11,
most nonsignificant
Gordon (1967)
Gordon Personal Profile
Gordon Personal Inventory
Survey of Interpersonal
Values
Survey of Personal Val-
Final selection or rejection
for overseas duty
Tetrachoric correlation coefficient between dichotomous prediction of selection/nonselection based on
intuitive weighting of predictor scales vs. criteria
(r, = .34,p<.01)
Guthrie &
Zektick
(1967)
Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB)
Allport, Vernon, Lindzey Study of Values
MMPI
Taylor Manifest Anxiety
Barren's Ego Strength
Performance ratings by
Peace Corps staff and
hosts
For SVIB, Study of Values,
and MMPI, no significant
correlations; Manifest
Anxiety (r = -.09), Ego
Strength (r = .18)
(table continued)
556
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
Table 1 (continued)
Author
Predictor variable
Ezekiel (1968)
Differentiation (complex, detailed map of
personal future)
Demand (perceives
long-term, continuing
effort in personal future)
Agency (perceives self
as prime agent in
personal future)
Field performance ratings
Peer nominations of best
performers
Moderate correlations (.28.41); when divided into
Protestants and Catholics,
Protestant rs = .50-.60,
Catholic rs were near zero
Dicken (1969)
MMPI Ego Strength
Crutchfleld Figures
Peer ratings of leadership during training
13 Gough scales
Composite field performance rating
Ego Strength (r = .32)
Crutchfield Figures (r = .31)
Peer ratings (r = .50)
For Gough scales, only one
significant correlation for
men; for women (/V = 27),
dominance (.41), psychological-mindedness (.44),
social responsibility (.45),
social participation (.46),
tolerance (.45)
Uhes & Shybut (1971)
Personal Orientation
Inventory (POI; selfactualization)
Final Selection Board rating at end of training
(composite of language,
technical, cross-cultural
studies, interpersonal
skills, motivation, cultural adaptation)
Women more predictable (7
POI scales vs. 4 for men
had significant moderate
correlations)
Inner-directedness best overall predictor (.40 for men,
.46 for women)
For women, time-competence
(.52) and existentiality
(.48) best predictors
Harris (1972)
Final Selection Board
ratings at end of
training
End-of-service performance
ratings
Lowest Board rater (r = .33)
Composite of raters (r = .37)
Di Marco
(1974)
Personal Orientation
Inventory (self-actualization) during
10th week of training
in host country
Stern's Activities Index & Organizational
Climate Index
Training staff rating of
stage of adjustment during 10th week of training in host country
PCVs in poorest adjusted
"defensive retreat" stage
had lowest self-actualization scores (concurrent validity)
"Defensive retreat" PCVs
moved toward greater
need-press agreement implying perceptual distortion in direction of needs
Criterion
Results
Note. PCV = Peace Corps volunteer.
ing degrees of direct contact and familiarity,
research to improve the criterion of performance may improve the predictive ability of
personality measures in the Peace Corps setting (Guthrie & Zektick, 1967; Harris,
1973; Jones & Popper, 1972). Personality
variables may relate more strongly to more
specific indices of personal adjustment and
satisfaction rather than performance, especially if these assessments are made by the
individuals themselves (e.g., Smith, Fawcett,
Ezekiel, & Roth, 1963).
Somewhat more encouraging results have
been obtained in studies of foreign student
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
adjustment. More positive sojourner adjustment or favorability of attitudes has been
related to less authoritarianism (Basu &
Ames, 1970; Chang, 1973), increased personal flexibility (Gullahorn & Gullahorn,
1962; Sewell & Davidsen, 1961), increased
modernism (Chunnual & Ma r sella, 1975),
sociability and assertiveness (Antler, 1970;
Selltiz et al., 1963), and more realistic sojourn goals and expectations (Carey, 1956;
Davis, 1971; DuBois, 1956; Hull, 1978; Kelman, 1963; Klineberg, 1970; Livingstone,
1960; Marshall, 1970; Pool, 1965; Watson
& Lippitt, 1955; Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, Note 1), and the perceptual sharpener versus perceptual, leveler
distinction (Holzman & Gardner, 1960;
Holzman & Klein, 1954) has been related
to more differentiated, qualified sojourner
attitude change versus more undifferentiated, global attitude change, respectively
(Kelman & Bailyn, 1962; also see Bennett
et al., 1958).
Thus, although consistent successful prediction of sojourner adjustment with personality variables has not yet been demonstrated, it appears premature to give up on
such efforts. Central to the problem of predicting adjustment from personality measures is the person-situation interaction controversy (e.g., Block, 1977; Bowers, 1973;
Endler & Hunt, 1966; Mischel, 1968, 1977;
Wachtel, 1977). Findings suggest that individual differences exist in how stressors
and situations are perceived (Di Marco,
1974; Kelman & Bailyn, 1962; Spradley
& Phillips, 1972). Thus, personal dispositions may interact with situational factors
in a reciprocal or transactional manner to
influence the adjustment of the sojourner
(Bandura, 1978; Buss, 1977; Draguns, 1979;
Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Mischel, 1973;
Wachtel, 1977). It may be possible to predict
the level of adjustment of some sojourners
(e.g., those with strong ethnocentrism) better than of others and in some host cultures
(e.g., "tough" vs. "easy" cultures; Arsehian
& Arsenian, 1948) better than in others
(Bern & Allen, 1974).
Sojourner Outcomes
Several desired outcomes of a successful
sojourn have been mentioned in the litera-
557
ture, including more favorable or objective
attitudes toward the host culture; an increased appreciation of the home culture ("patriotic reinforcement"); a broader
worldview or perspective (e.g., internationalmindedness, cultural relativism, biculturalism); a reduction of ethnocentrism, intolerance, and stereotypes; increased cognitive
complexity; and greater personal self-awareness, self-esteem, confidence, and creativity
(Adler, 1975; Angell, 1969; Coelho, 1962;
David, 1971; Flack, 1976; Mishler, 1965;
Pace, 1959; Sampson & Smith, 1957; H. P.
Smith, 1955; Triandis, 1975; Useem &
Useem, 1955; Watson & Lippitt, 1955; Niyekawa-Howard, Note 7). Personal outcomes such as increased self-confidence and
self-reliance and changes in more superficial
habits (e.g., dress, eating, drinking) appear
to be more consistent sojourn outcomes than
do changes in primary cultural values related
to family, interpersonal, and community relations, religious and political beliefs, and
sexual norms (Allen & Arafat, 1971; Becker,
1971; Hull, 1978; Klineberg & Hull, 1979;
Useem & Useem, 1955). Religious beliefs
seem to remain particularly stable (Hegazy,
1969; Hull, 1978; Klineberg & Hull, 1979;
Barry, Note 6).
The relationship between adjustment and
outcome is not a simple one. For example,
in Hull's (1978) study, foreign students from
more culturally different countries interacted less with Americans and were less well
adjusted but generally reported the most
positive personal change, supporting David's
(1971) contention that increases in selfawareness will be greatest for sojourners
from very different cultures whose experience of culture shock will be severe enough
to induce the self-questioning and culture
analysis required for increased self-awareness.
Although an early goal of successful cultural exchange was the development of favorable attitudes toward the host country,
early and subsequent studies indicate that
this goal was simplistic. Sojourners are more
likely to develop highly differentiated images, being favorable toward some aspects
of the host culture and not toward others
(Beals & Humphrey, 1957; Gardner, 1952;
Heath, 1970; Loomis & Schuler, 1948;
558
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
Mishler, 1965; Riegel, 1953; Selltiz et al.,
1963).2
Although many sojourners report a more
international outlook or increased international understanding as a result of their sojourn (e.g., Garraty & Adams, 1959; lisager,
1949; U. S. Advisory Commission, 1963;
Watson & Lippitt, 1955), controlled studies
that have compared measures of international-mindedness between sojourners and
control groups have provided only mixed evidence for increased international-mindedness as a sojourn outcome (e.g., MacGuigan,
1958; H. P. Smith, 1955, 1957). Some evidence suggests that a sojourn experience
may lead more to increased interest and participation in activities of an international or
cultural nature rather than to an increase in
international versus nationalistic attitudes
per se (Bochner, Lin, & McLeod, 1979;
Pace, 1959).
The contention that sojourn experiences
would result in a liberalizing effect on attitudes has also not received strong support
(Leonard, 1964; Pool, Keller, & Bauer,
1956; H. P. Smith, 1955; Useem & Useem,
1955; Major, Note 5). Rather, some studies
suggest a moderation of both liberal and
conservative attitudes in the direction of the
sojourner's national mean (Pool et al., 1956;
Useem & Useem, 1955; Major, Note 5).
Again, how liberalism is operationalized
may be important. Pool et al. (1956) found
that although highly traveled businessmen
did not take a more liberal or international
stand on tariff issues, they did introduce
more international considerations into their
thinking (see, however, Angell's [1969] reanalysis of these data). The movement of
attitudes toward the sojourner's national
mean may reflect an increased identification
with the home country as a result of the sojourn. Several writers have found evidence
for such a "patriotic reinforcement" (Becker,
1971; Garraty & Adams, 1959; Hull, 1978;
Pace, 1959; Useem & Useem, 1955; Veroff,
1963), although the process is not a universal
one (Becker, 1971; Coelho, 1958; Sharma,
1969).
In summary, personal growth in terms of
self-reliance and self-awareness appears to
be a more consistent sojourn outcome than
do changes in more value-laden, culture-
based ideologies and norms, at least as perceived by the sojourners themselves. Crosscultural experience is more likely to lead to
an increased interest in international activities and an increased ability to view problems from multiple perspectives than to result in the endorsement of more international
versus nationalistic attitudes on specific issues. Controlled studies involving longer and
more varied time periods, however, are
needed. Attitudes toward both the home and
host cultures tend to become more differentiated, but sojourners differ in how positively or negatively they come to see the two
cultures.
Cross-Cultural Counseling and
Sojourner Adjustment
Several factors are likely to mediate
against the effectiveness of cross-cultural
counseling aimed at dealing with sojourner
adjustment problems. Counselors often depend on fluent verbalization by the client of
feelings, motivations, and so forth, and will
be handicapped when counseling in the
client's nonnative language. Furthermore,
the client's emotional experience and expression may be aroused to a lesser degree in a
nonnative tongue (Gonzalez-Reigosa, 1976).
The feeling of being unlike the counselor, or
stereotypes about the counselor's cultural
group, may hinder rapport and counselor
"influencibility" (Higginbotham, 1979; Vontress, 1969, 1976). Other barriers to effective counseling with the sojourner include
ignorance of the client's culture (Pedersen,
1976; Vontress, 1969), the dangers of stereotyping the client as "cross-cultural" rather
than viewing him or her as an individual
2
The number of studies of foreign student attitudes
toward the United States is immense, this being one of
the most heavily studied topics on educational exchange,
especially during the 1950s and early 1960s. See, for
example, Akhun, 1961; Beals and Humphrey, 1957;
Becker, 1973; Coelho, 1958; Davis, 1961, 1963; Gezi,
1961; Heath, 1970; Kiell, 1951; Lambert and Bressler,
1956; Loomis and Schuler, 1948; Melby and Wolf,
1961; Morris, 1960; Riegel, 1953; Scott, 1956; Selltiz
et al., 1963; Sewell and Davidsen, 1961; Sharma, 1969;
Shepard, 1970; U.S. Advisory Commission, 1963; Veroff, 1963; Barry, Note 6. The aspects of U.S. society
most often praised and criticized have remained quite
stable over time. For summaries see Spaulding and
Flack, 1976; Walton, 1968.
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
within a culture (Barna, 1970; Draguns,
1976; Sundberg, 1976), the danger of allowing one's curiosity about the client's culture
to interfere with the purposes of counseling
(Wohl, 1976), a tendency to be excessively
sympathetic or indulgent with cross-cultural
clients (Vontress, 1976), less valid bases
for psychometric evaluation (Coelho-Oudegeest, 1971; Lonner, 1976), and differing
cultural conceptions of positive mental health
(Arkoff, Thaver, & Elkind, 1966; Nickelly
et al., 1964; Sue, 1978).
The reticence of foreign students from
many cultures to use psychological services,
their tendency to experience psychological
difficulties in physical terms, and their lesser
psychological sophistication in relating emotional difficulties to physical complaints has
been reported by several investigators (Alexander et al., 1976; Arkhoff et al., 1966;
Nickelly et al., 1964; Vontress, 1969). These
tendencies reflect in part the fewer psychological resources available in, their home societies and a greater dependence on extended
family, peer, and other social networks for
emotional support and problem solving (Alexander et al., 1976; Brammer, 1978). Use
of formal counseling may also be associated
with shame, loss of status, and fear of being
sent home as a failure (Higginbotham,
1979), Such clients are likely to be relatively
unfamiliar with the counseling process, making clarification of roles and structuring of
the counseling relationship more important
than usual (Vontress, 1969, 1976).
The specific form that a counseling intervention takes must consider the sojourner's
worldview with respect to the etiology of
emotional problems, normal or optimal behavior, and the locus of control for behavioral change and decision making (Higginbotham, 1979; Sue, 1978; Wohl, 1976). For
example, different cultures vary in the degree of individual responsibility for choice
and decision making (Sundberg, 1976; Vontress, 1976). An internal control - internal
responsibility worldview may be less appropriate for more situation- and group-centered cultures in which the individual is defined less separately from family and society
and where a more external orientation is
valued and accepted as reflecting good personal adjustment (Sue, 1978).
559
Because of the uncertain appropriateness
of certain counseling interventions and techniques common in our culture, nonspecific
factors such as the quality of the client/
counselor relationship may be even more important in cross-cultural counseling (Draguns, 1976; Wohl, 1976). American conceptions of the good therapeutic relationship,
however, may not be culturally universal
(Wohl, 1976). Openness, genuineness, and
honesty may be construed by clients from
cultures valuing reserve and modesty in selfdisclosure as an invasion of privacy or as an
affront to one's dignity (Alexander et al.,
1976; Coelho-Oudegeest, 1971; Klein et al.,
1971; Vontress, 1969, 1976), and clients
from some (e.g., Oriental) cultures may expect a more authoritative, directive role for
the counselor than current American views
of counseling dictate (Alexander et al., 1976;
Arkoff et al., 1966; Draguns, 1976; Pedersen, 1976; Sundberg, 1976).
Several qualities have been suggested as
important for the cross-cultural counselor,
including cultural relativism and empathy,
a knowledge of the common adjustment-related experiences encountered by sojourners,
a sound knowledge and awareness of one's
own culture, and, ideally, a knowledge of the
client's culture (Cieslak, 1955; David, 1976;
DuBois, 1956; Lesser & Peter, 1957; Linton,
1948; Pedersen, 1976; M. B. Smith, 1955;
Stewart, 1976; Sundberg, 1976; Wohl, 1976).
Pedersen (1976) defined the "culturally encapsulated counselor" as one who assumes
he or she can deal with clients from other
cultures without modifications in counseling
style or who is unwilling or unable to accommodate to the cultural differences between themselves and the client. Some writers (e.g., Higginbotham, 1979; Vontress,
1976; Wintrob, 1976) have argued that having lived in another culture oneself is one of
the most important qualifications for a crosscultural counselor because one is forced to
undergo one's own culture shock and subsequent self-analysis, and so one will be able
to transmit to others strategies for adjustment to new cultural environments.
A final ethical and practical issue for the
cross-cultural counselor concerns how much
the sojourner should be encouraged to assimilate the host culture. The counselor and
560
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
client may feel that optimal adjustment in
the host culture, especially for lengthy sojourns, will be facilitated by the adoption of
certain host norms and behavior. Previous
research suggests, however, that overidentification with or accommodation to the host
culture may result in poorer adjustment and
alienation from the home culture on return.
Cross-cultural counseling with sojourners
may involve helping the sojourner define his
or her own balance of cultural identifications
in resolving this conflict (Draguns, 1976).
Methodological Considerations and
General Critique
Previous reviewers of the sojourn literature have been critical of both the conceptual
and methodological bases of studies in this
area (Breitenbach, 1970; Coelho-Oudegeest,
1971; David, 1973; Spaulding & Flack,
1976; Walton, 1967, 1968; Cormack, Note
4; Spencer, Note 8; Cussler, Note 9), including the frequent overgeneralization from
limited sample sizes and national groups, the
predominance of studies dealing with American sojourners or persons from other cultures sojourning in the United States, an
absence of studies comparing the adjustment
process of particular national groups in different host countries (e.g., see Galtung,
1965), and the need for more international
collaboration of both home and host culture
scientists in studies of sojourner adjustment
(Klineberg & Hull, 1979).
Another problem with most studies is the
absence of baseline data or adequate control
groups (Breitenbach, 1970; David, 1973;
Cormack, Note 4; Spencer, Note 8). What
level of adjustment is "typical" of persons
not undergoing a cross-cultural experience?
Should we compare new sojourners' curves
of adjustment to experienced individuals of
their own nationality, to the adjustment of
host culture individuals, or both? A possible
solution would be to consider the relative
adjustment of a sojourner over time compared with his or her initial adjustment level
if one can assume that the assessments made
at different times are comparable. Without
adequate control groups it is difficult to attribute sojourn outcomes such as attitude
change and personal development to the so-
journ experience itself rather than to normal
maturation processes (Useem & Useem,
1955).
Related to baselines of adjustment is the
question whether certain cultures, as a result
of their relatively distinct ecological evolution (e.g., "tough" vs. "easy" cultures; Arsenian & Arsenian, 1948), will be easier or
more difficult to adjust to for sojourners from
all or most cultures, or whether interactions
exist between culture of origin and host culture in adjustment. Studies in social and
transcultural psychiatry (e.g., Caudill &
Lin, 1969; Lebra, 1972; Marsella, 1980) relating culture to differential incidence and
manifestation of mental disorder suggest
that some cultures make more stressful demands on its members than do others. Also,
because cultures differ in their level of differentiation (e.g., in job roles and social hierarchies) and the individual's degree of psychological differentiation is influenced by
culture of origin (Berry, 1975; Witkin &
Berry, 1975) one might hypothesize better
adjustment for individuals sojourning in cultures characterized by a level of differentiation analogous to their own.
These issues have been virtually ignored
in the sojourner adjustment literature. Although multiple host cultures have been used
in some studies (e.g., Klineberg & Hull,
1979), only one study (Galtung, 1965) has
systematically compared the adjustment of
sojourners from specific cultures in more
than one host culture. Studies aimed at determining if it is more difficult to move from
more developed to less developed, from more
differentiated to less differentiated, or more
autonomous to more socially restrictive cultures, or vice-versa in each case (or along
any other relevant dimensions of cultural
differences), would be of substantial interest.
The varied and ambiguous use of the term
adjustment has complicated the sojourner
adjustment literature (Coelho-Oudegeest,
1971; Spaulding & Flack, 1976; Cormack,
Note 4; Spencer, Note 8) and made integration of findings more difficult. Estimates
of the extent of maladjustment will vary depending on the index of adjustment used as
will the relationship between adjustment and
other sojourn variables. Operationalization
of adjustment in terms of several distinct but
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
related dependent variables is probably necessary, however, because adjustment indices
do not always covary substantially.
Research on sojourner adjustment has
been characterized by limited methodologies, and rarely have multiple methods been
used in individual studies. Studies have depended largely on survey questionnaires and
problem checklists, sometimes supplemented
by interviews (Hull, 1978; Spaulding &
Flack, 1976; Walton, 1968; Cormack, Note
4; Cussler, Note 9). Such studies tend to be
superficial and generally fail to relate sojourn behavior and adjustment difficulties to
specific sojourn experiences or cultural differences. Where problem checklists are used
there are likely to be cultural differences in
the tendencies to endorse less-than-salient
problems and to deny certain problems (e.g.,
Al-Shama, 1959; Jarrahi-Zadeh & Eichman, 1970; Pareek & Rao, 1980), and the
relationship between the number of problems endorsed and the extent to which such
problems are actually debilitating is uncertain.
Other methodologies that have been suggested for use in studies of sojourner adjustment include more in-depth interviews,
intensive case studies of successful sojourners, autobiographies, naturalistic and participant observation, cultural distance scales,
small group experiments, and various unobtrusive measures (Bochner, 1980; David,
1973; Hull, 1978; Spaulding & Flack, 1976;
Cussler, Note 9). Experimental approaches
(e.g., Bochner & Perks, 1971; French &
Zajonc, 1957; Zajonc, 1952) have rarely
been used but potentially provide more controlled tests of specific hypotheses. Brislin,
Lonner, and Thorndike (1973), Brown and
Sechrest (1980), and Ciborowski (1980)
provided useful discussions of problems and
suggested solutions involved in cross-cultural
experimentation. In general, increased attention to more psychological rather than
sociological approaches, including assessments of such adjustment-related variables
as mood, self-esteem, and anxiety, would
seem promising.
An important limitation of most previous
studies is the nonlongitudinal nature of the
designs (Spaulding & Flack, 1976; Walton,
1967). Most studies are conducted at a single
561
point in time during the sojourn or retrospectively, with few studies making multiple
assessments throughout the sojourn or even
before and after the sojourn (Breitenbach,
1970; Cormack, Note 4). For example, U
curves of adjustment have generally derived
from cross-sectional data or by post hoc inference from predeparture interviews of individuals. Unfortunately, predeparture (e.g.,
Selby & Woods, 1966) and postreturn (e.g.,
Lysgaard, 1955; Scott, 1956) interviews and
questionnaires are subject to unknown and
differential memory effects. Systematic assessment of psychological well-being is
needed within individuals over time to verify
curves of adjustment. Such longitudinal designs, however, are not without problems.
The meaning of scores on attitude and adjustment measures may change over time
partly as a result of increasing language
fluency with individuals endorsing or listing
more culture shock symptoms as their language proficiency increases. This will be a
greater problem if special care is not taken
to determine the adequacy of the language
level or translation of materials used in the
study.
Notably absent from previous reviews of
the sojourner adjustment literature is application of conceptual and methodological
considerations discussed in the cross-cultural
psychology literature (e.g., Brislin et al.,
1973; Butcher & Pancheri, 1968; Draguns,
1979; Triandis & Berry, 1980; Triandis,
Malpass, & Davidson, 1973). Many methodological problems inherent in cross-cultural research are relevant to studies of sojourner adjustment despite the fact that the
studies generally take place in the host culture rather than in the individual's own
country. The danger of assuming the relevance or equivalence of theoretical concepts
cross-culturally is perhaps even greater in
sojourner studies because the sojourner's
presence in the host country and facility in
the host language may make basic cultural
differences in meaning appear to be less than
they actually are.
The etic/emic distinction is a common one
in discussions of cross-cultural methodology
(e.g., Berry, 1980; Brislin et al., 1973; Draguns, 1979). Studies of sojourner adjustment
are almost invariably pseudoetic, using con-
562
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
cepts drawn from the host culture and ap- Butcher & Pancheri, 1968; Gordon & Kiplying them to sojourners from other cul- kuchi, 1966; Sechrest, Fay, & Zaidi, 1972)
tures. In such studies the criteria of by assuming adequate host language profiadjustment may themselves be culture bound. ciency and using English language measures.
For example, cross-cultural research indi- This necessitates ensuring a reasonable level
cates that the concept of depression, an im- of English difficulty for any instruments
portant aspect of descriptions of culture used. It also raises the question of whether
shock or sojourner maladjustment, is not more reliable and valid assessments of adconceptually or experientially equivalent justment can be obtained using English lancross-culturally (Marsella, 1980). Further guage measures or measures in the sojourncomplicating assessment of sojourner ad- er's native tongue because language of prejustment is evidence that the manifestation sentation has been found to influence subject
and subjective experience of depression may responses (Gordon & Kikuchi, 1966; Spielchange over time during the sojourn as the berger & Sharma, 1976). In any case, resojourner becomes more acculturated to the searchers should be sensitive to the possibilhost culture (Marsella, 1980).
ity of interactions between cultural variables
Ascertaining the cross-cultural equiva- and measurement problems that make crosslence of measures and the extent to which cultural differences difficult to interpret
tools of research are appropriate for and/or (Berry, 1980). Butcher and Pancheri (1968)
an imposition on sojourners from different and Irvine and Carroll (1980) provided excultures are additional problems relevant to cellent discussions of statistical procedures
studies of sojourner adjustment. Interviews for investigating the equivalence of measures
may be received courteously or with hostil- used cross-culturally that are also relevant
ity, and the effectiveness of more authori- for studies of sojourner adjustment.
tative versus more polite research styles may
Malpass (1977) argued that the bases of
vary with the cultural group being studied. solution to many cross-cultural methodologFamiliarity with and willingness to complete ical difficulties lies in better developed themore structured tests and questionnaires also ory. Unfortunately, however, concepts and
vary (Draguns, 1979; Lonner, 1976), relat- theory remain underdeveloped in the soing in part to cultural variations in self-dis- journer adjustment literature (Breitenbach,
closure reserve (Alexander et al., 1976; 1970; Hull, 1978; Spaulding & Flack, 1976;
Sundberg, 1976; Vontress, 1969, 1976).
Walton, 1968; Cormack, Note 4; Major,
Differential susceptibility to response sets Note 5; Spencer, Note 8; Cussler, Note 9).
must be considered, with some studies find- Most concepts that are used were formulated
ing less (Chun, Campbell, & Yoo, 1974, in the early studies of the 1950s and early
with Koreans; Iwawaki & Cowen, 1964; Zax 1960s, including the U curve, two-way mir& Takahashi, 1967, with Japanese) or more ror, association and sensitive-area hy(Triandis & Vassiliou, 1967, with Greeks; potheses, and the notions of culture shock,
Klineberg & Hull, 1979, with Latin Amer- overlapping membership conflict, patriotic
icans) extreme response tendencies in dif- reinforcement, and cultural empathy. The
ferent cultural groups. Although these dif- development of theories of sojourner adjustferences in extreme response tendency seem ment has probably been inhibited by the freto make sense along some dimension of cul- quent emphasis in sojourner studies on identural reserve, it is uncertain to what extent tification of adjustment problems and sojourn
these tendencies are situation or instrument outcomes rather than on the dynamics or
specific (Iwawaki & Zax, 1969) or reflect process of adjustment (Hegazy, 1969). Most
actual meaningful differences in responding of the concepts used constitute not so much
to the constructs being assessed (Strieker, theories, allowing generation and tests of
Takahashi, & Zax, 1967).
predictive hypotheses, but rather post hoc
Virtually all sojourner adjustment studies descriptions or "explanations" of adjustment
have averted the numerous and subtle prob- data already obtained (David, 1973). With
lems of translation of measures (e.g., Brislin, few exceptions (e.g., role conflict, authori1970, 1980; Butcher & Garcia, 1978; tarian personality, frustration-aggression
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
563
hypothesis, culture contact hypothesis, iden- tural research and methodology to studies
tification), there has been a minimal attempt of sojourner adjustment.
to apply theoretical concepts already existing in the sociopsychological literature to the
Reference Notes
dynamics of sojourner adjustment (Walton, 1. Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. Working
1971; Cussler, Note 9). One relatively recent
abroad: A discussion of psychological attitudes and
exception is the utilization of operant conadaptation in new situations (GAP Report No. 41).
1958.
ditioning and social learning principles to
describe sojourner adjustment in terms of 2. Shattuck, G. M. Between two cultures: A study of
the social adaptation of foreign students to an
culture learning (e.g., Bochner, 1972; David,
American academic community. Unpublished manu1973, 1976; Guthrie, 1975).
script, Cornell University, Department of Rural Sociology, 1965.
Application of available intercultural
communication theory and principles to the 3. Markham, J. W. International images and mass
communication behavior (Mass Communication
understanding of sojourner adjustment is a
Research Bureau Monongraphs, 1). Iowa City: Unineglected but promising area. Effective crossversity of Iowa, School of Journalism, 1967.
cultural communication and understanding 4. Cormack, M. L. An evaluation of research on educational exchange. Unpublished manuscript prehas been mentioned as a key to sojourner
pared for the Bureau of Educational and Cultural
adjustment (Brein & David, 1971), but the
Affairs, August 1962. (Available from the Brooklyn
nature of sojourner-host interactions has
College Library, Brooklyn, New York 11201.)
typically been described in only static, quan- 5. Major, R. T., Jr. A review of the research on intertitative terms (e.g., the number and variety
national exchange. Unpublished manuscript, The
Experiment on International Living, Putney, Vt,
of social contacts). Naturalistic or more con1965.
trolled observation of actual ongoing dyadic 6. Barry,
J. Thai students in the United Stales: A study
communication between sojourners and their
in altitude change (Data Paper No. 66). Ithaca,
hosts should provide more information about
N.Y.: Cornell University, Southeast Asia Program,
Department of Asian Studies, May 1967.
the process and quality of social interaction
than the usual survey techniques used. Lon- 7. Niyekawa-Howard, A. M. Biculturality and cognitive growth: Theoretical foundations for basic and
gabaugh (1980) and Brislin (1980) provided
applied research (Occasional Papers of the Eastdiscussions of the use of systematic obserWest Culture Learning Institute No. 1). Honolulu,
Hawaii: East-West Center, July 1970.
vation and content analysis in cross-cultural
8. Spencer, R. The academic performance of foreign
research that would be relevant here.
students in American colleges and universities:
In summary, it should be noted that a sinComments on the literature 1960-1967, with bibligle, comprehensive theory of sojourner adography. Unpublished manuscript, University of Iljustment is not likely to be found. Rather
linois—Urbana, Office of Instructional Resources,
Measurement and Research Division, 1967,
than searching for a single theory of the dynamics of sojourner adjustment, several pro- 9. Cussler, M. T. Review of selected studies affecting
international and cultural affairs. Unpublished
cesses, each capable of theoretical formumanuscript prepared for the United States Advisory
lation in terms of existing or new concepts,
Commission on International and Cultural Affairs,
November 1962. (Available from the Department of
will probably be required for an adequate
Sociology, University of Maryland, College Park,
description of sojourner adjustment. UnderMaryland 20742.)
standing of the dynamics of sojourner adjustment will be facilitated by a deemphasis
References
on studies that enumerate sojourner problems and outcomes, especially through the Adler, P. S. The transitional experience: An alternative
view of culture shock. Journal of Humanistic Psyuse of superficial survey techniques, and by
chology, 1975, 15, 13-23.
increased emphasis on more intensive, lon- Adler,
P. S. Beyond cultural identity: Reflections upon
gitudinal studies of individual patterns of
cultural and multicultural man. In R. W. Brislin
adjustment and coping. In addition, the gen(Ed.), Culture learning: Concepts, applications, and
research. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1977.
erality and validity of findings will be increased with the use of more diverse meth- Adorrio, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J.,
& Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality.
odologies. Finally, much more attention
New York: Harper, 1950.
needs to be given to the contributions and Aich, P. Asian and African students in the West Gerimplications of the literature on cross-culman university. Minerva, 1963, 1, 439-452.
564
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
Akhun, I. I. Turkish engineering students studying in
the United States (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Missouri, 1961). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1961, 22, 2726A. (University Microfilms No.
61-6, 028)
Akka, R. I. The Middle Eastern student on the American campus. Journal of American College Health
Association, 1967, 15, 251-254.
Al-Shama, N. Problems of adjustment of Iraqi students
in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1959.
Alexander, A. A., Workneh, F., Klein, M. H., & Miller,
M. H. Psychotherapy and the foreign student. In P.
Pedersen, W. S. Lonner, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.),
Counseling across cultures. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 1976.
Allen, D. E., & Arafat, I. S. Procreativc family attitudes
of American and foreign students. International
Journal of Comparative Sociology, 1971, 12, 134139.
Amir, Y. Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 319-342.
Angell, R. C. Peace on the march: Transnational participation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1969.
Antler, L. Correlates of home and host country acquaintanceship among foreign medical residents in
the United States. Journal of Social Psychology,
1970, 80, 49-57.
Arensberg, C. M., & Niehoff, A. H. Introducing social
change: A manual for Americans overseas. Chicago:
Aldine, 1964.
Arkoff, A., Thaver, F., & Elkind, L. Mental health and
counseling ideas of Asian and American students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 13, 219223.
Arsenian, J., & Arsenian, J. M. Tough and easy cultures. Psychiatry, 1948, / / , 377-385.
Bailyn, L., & Kelman, H. C. The effects of a year's
experience in America on the self-image of Scandinavians. Journal of Social Issues, 1962, 18(\), 3040.
Bandura, A. The self-system in reciprocal determinism.
American Psychologist, 1978, 33, 344-358.
Banham, M. The Nigerian student in Britian. Universities Quarterly, 1958, 12, 363-366.
Barna, L. M. Stumbling blocks in interpersonal intercultural communications. In D. Hoopes (Ed.), Readings in intercultural communication (Vol. 1). Pittsburgh, Penn.: University of Pittsburgh Intercultural
Communication Network of the Regional Council for
International Education, 1970.
Basu, A. K., & Ames, R. G. Cross-cultural contact and
attitude formation. Sociology and Social Research,
1970, 55, 5-16.
Seals, R. L., & Humphrey, N. D. No frontier to learning: The Mexican student in the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1957.
Beck, R. H. Professional training in education for foreign students in the United States. In I. T. Sanders
(Ed.), The professional education of students from
other lands. New York: Council on Social Work Education, 1963.
Becker, T. Patterns of attitudinal changes among foreign students. American Journal of Sociology, 1968,
73, 431-442.
Becker, T. Cultural patterns and nationalistic commitment among foreign students in the United States.
Sociology and Social Research, 1971, 55, 467-481.
Becker, T. Black Africans and Black Americans on an
American campus: The African view. Sociology and
Social Research, 1973, 57, 168-181.
Bern, D. J., & Allen, A. On predicting some of the
people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 1974, 81, 506-520.
Bennett, J., Passin, H., & McKnight, R. K. In search
of identity: The Japanese overseas scholar in America and Japan. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1958.
Berry, J. W. Ecology, cultural adaptation, and psychological differentiation: Traditional patterning and acculturative stress. In R. W. Brislin, S. Bochner, &
W. J. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on
learning. New York: Wiley, 1975.
Berry, J. W. Introduction to methodology. In H. C.
Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of crosscultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
1980.
Blegen, T. Counseling foreign students. Washington,
D.C.: American Council on Education, 1950.
Block, J. Advancing the psychology of personality: Paradigmatic shift or improving the quality of research?
In N. S. Endler & D. Magnusson (Eds.), Personality
at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.
Blood, R. O., & Nicholson, S. O. The experiences of
foreign students in dating American women. Marriage and Family Living, 1962, 24, 241-248.
Bochner, S. Problems in culture learning. In S. Bochner
& P. Wicks (Eds.), Overseas students in Australia. •
Randwick, N.S.W.: New South Wales University
Press, 1972.
Bochner, S. The mediating man and cultural diversity.
In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Culture learning: Concepts,
applications, and research. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 1977.
Bochner, S. Unobtrusive methods in cross-cultural experimentation. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry
(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol.
2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.
Bochner, S., Lin, A., & McLeod, B. M. Cross-cultural
contact and the development of an international perspective. Journal of Social Psychology, 1979, 107,
29-41.
Bochner, S., & Perks, R. W. National role evocation
as a function of cross-national interaction. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1971, 2, 157-164.
Bowers, K. S. Situationism in psychology: An analysis
and a critique. Psychological Review, 1973, SO, 307336.
Brammer, L. M. Informal helping systems in selected
subcultures. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1978,
56, 476-479.
Brein, M., & David, K. Intercultural communication
and the adjustment of the sojourner. Psychological
Bulletin, 1971, 76, 215-230.
Breitenbach, D. The evaluation of study abroad. In I.
Eide (Ed.), Students as links between cultures. Paris:
UNESCO and the International Peace Research Institute (Oslo), 1970.
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
Brislin, R. Back translation for cross-cultural research.
Journal of'Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1970, /, 185216.
Brislin, R. W. Translation and content analysis of oral
and written material. In H. C, Triandis & J. W. Berry
(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol.
2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.
Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J,, & Thorndike, R. M.
Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Wiley,
1973.
Brislin, R. W., & Pedersen, P. Cross-cultural orientation programs. New York: Wiley, 1976.
Brown, E. D,, & Sechrest, L. Experiments in cross-cultural research. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry
(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol.
2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.
Buss, A. R. The trait-situation controversy and the concept of interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977, 3, 196-201.
Butcher, J. N., & Garcia, R. E. Cross-national application of psychological tests. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 1978, 56, 472-475.
Butcher, J. N., & Pancheri, P. Handbook of cross-national MMPI research. Chicago: Rand McNally,
1968.
Byrnes, F. C. Role shock: An occupational hazard of
American technical assistants abroad. The Annals,
1966, 368, 95-108.
Calhoun, T. W. Culture shock and its effects on American teachers in overseas schools: An exploratory
study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International,
1977, 38, 1764A. (University Microfilms No. 77-21,
985)
Carey, A. T. Colonial students: A study of the social
adaptation of colonial students in London. London:
• Seeker & Warburg, 1956.
Caudill, W., & Lin, T. J. (Eds.). Menial health research
in Asia and the Pacific. Honolulu, Hawaii: East-West
Center Press, 1969.
Chang, H-B. Attitudes of Chinese students in the United
States. Sociology and Social Research, 1973, 58, 6677.
Chu, H-M., Yeh, E-K,, Klein, M. H., Alexander,
A. A., & Miller, M. H. A study of Chinese students'
adjustment in the U.S.A. Acta Psychologica Taiwanica, 1971, 13, 206-218.
Chun, K. T., Campbell, J. B., & Yoo, J. H. Extreme
response style in cross-cultural research: A reminder.
Journal of Cross-Culiural Psychology, i 974, 5, 465480.
Chunnual, N., & Marsella, A. J. Convergent and divergent validation of a traditionalism—modernism
attitude questionnaire for Thai exchange students.
Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 96, 21-26.
Ciborowski, T. The role of context, skill, and transfer
in cross-cultural experimentation. In H. C. Triandis
& J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural
psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.
Cieslak, E. C. The foreign student in American colleges.
Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 1955.
Cleveland, H., Mangone, G. J., & Adams, T. G. The
overseas Americans. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
Coelho, G. V. Changing images of America: A study
565
of Indian students' perceptions. Glencoe, III.: Free
Press, 1958.
Coelho, G. V. Personal growth and educational development through working and studying abroad. Journal of Social Issues, 1962, 18(\), 55-67.
Coelho-Oudegeest, M. Cross-cultural counseling: A
study of some variables in the counseling of foreign
students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International,
1971, 31, 6340A. (University Microfilms No. 71-12,
683)
Colacicco, M. G. A comparison of item responses on
the MMPI by selected American and foreign students
(Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1970).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 31, 1572A.
(University Microfilms No. 70-18, 616)
Cormack, M. The wandering scholar. International
Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1968, 3(4), 4451.
David, K. H, Culture shock and the development of selfawareness. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy,
1971,4,44-48.
David, K. H. Intercultural adjustment, cross-cultural
training, and reinforcement theory. JSAS Catalog of
Selected Documents in Psychology, 1973, 3, 45. (Ms.
No. 348)
David, K. H. The use of social learning theory in preventing intercultural adjustment problems. In P. Pedersen, W. J. Lonner, & J. Draguns (Eds.),' Counseling
across cultures. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1976.
Davis, F. J. American minorities as seen by Turkish
students in the United States. Sociology and Social
Research, 1961, 46, 48-54.
Davis, F. J. Perspectives of Turkish students in the
United States. Sociology and Social Research, 1963,
48, 47-57.
Davis, F. J. The two-way mirror and the U-curve:
America as seen by Turkish students returned home.
Sociology and Social Research, 1971, 56, 29-43.
Davis, J. M., Hanson, R., & Burner, D. The African
student: His achievements and his problems. New
York: Institute of International Education, 1961.
Deutsch, S. E. International education and exchange.
Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Reserve University
Press, 1970.
Deutsch, S. E., & Won, G. Y. M. Some factors in the
adjustment of foreign nationals in the United States.
Journal of Social Issues, 1963, 19(3), 115-122.
Dicken, C. Predicting the success of Peace Corps community development workers. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 597-606.
Di Marco, N. Stress and adaptation in cross-cultural
transition. Psychological Reports, 1974, 35, 279-285.
Dorjahn, V. R. Transcultural perceptions and misperceptions in Sierra Leone. In R. B. Textor (Ed.), Cultural frontiers of the Peace Corps. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 1966.
Doughty, P. L. Pitfalls and progress in the Peruvian
Sierra. In R. B. Textor (Ed.), Cultural frontiers of
the Peace Corps. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
1966.
Draguns, J. G. Counseling across cultures: Common
themes and distinct approaches. In P. Pedersen,
W. J. Lonner, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling
566
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
across cultures. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1976,
Draguns, J. G. Culture and personality. In A. Marsella,
R. Tharp, & T. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives in
cross-cultural psychology. New York: Academic
Press, 1979.
DuBois, C. A. Foreign students and higher education
in the United Stales. Washington, D.C.: American
Council on Education, 1956.
Edgerton, R. B. Some dimensions of disillusionment in
culture contact. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 1965, 21, 231-243.
Ekman, P. Universals and cultural differences in facial
expressions of emotion. In J. K. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 19). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1972.
Eldridge, J. E. T. Overseas students at Leicester University. Race, 1960, 2, 50-59.
Endler, N. S., & Hunt, J. McV. Sources of behavioral
variance as measured by the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness. Psychological Bulletin, 1966, 65, 336-346.
Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. Toward an interactional psychology of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 1976, 83, 956-971.
Ezekiel, R. The personal future and Peace Corps competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph, 1968, 8(2, Pt. 2).
Fiedler, F. E., Mitchell, T., & Triandis, H. C. The culture assimilator: An approach to cross-cultural training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 95102.
Flack, M. J. Results and effects of study abroad. Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 1976, 424, 107-fl7.
Fong, S., & Peskin, H. Sex-role strain and personality
adjustment of China-born students in America: A
pilot study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969,
74, 563-568.
Forstat, R. Adjustment problems of international students. Sociology and Social Research, 1951, 36, 2530.
Foster, G. M. Traditional cultures and the impact of
technological change. New York: Harper & Row,
1962.
French, J. R., & Zajonc, R. B. An experimental study
of cross-cultural norm conflict. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 218-224.
Galtung, I. E. The impact of study abroad: A three-bythree nation study of cross-cultural contact. Journal
of Peace Research, 1965, 2, 258-275.
Gandhi, R. S. Conflict and cohesion in an Indian student
community. Human Organization, 1970, 29, 95-102.
Gandhi, R. S. Some contrast in the foreign student lifestyles. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 1972, 9, 34-43.
Gardner, G. H. Cross-cultural communication. Journal
of Social Psychology, 1962, 58, 241-256.
Gardner, J. The foreign student in America. Foreign
Affairs, 1952, 4, 637-650.
Garraty, J. A., &. Adams, W. From Main Street to the
Left Bank: Students and scholars abroad. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1959.
Garza-Guerrero, A. C. Culture shock: Its mourning and
the vicissitudes of identity. Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association, 1974, 22, 408-429.
Gezi, K. I. The acculturation of Middle Eastern Arab
students in selected American colleges and universities. New York: American Friends of the Middle
East, 1959.
Gezi, K. I. Arab students' perceptions of American students. Sociology and Social Research, 1961, 45, 441447.
Glenn, E. S. Meaning and behavior: Communication
and culture. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.),
Intercuhural communication: A reader. Belmont,
Calif.: Wadsworth, 1972.
Golden, J. S. Student adjustment abroad: A psychiatrist's view. International Educational and Cultural
Exchange, 1973, 8(4), 28-36.
Gollin, A. E. The transfer and use of development skills
(Bureau of Social Science Research). Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
Gonzalez-Reigosa, F. The anxiety-arousing effect of taboo words in bilinguals. In C. D. Spielberger & R.
Diaz-Guerrero (Eds.), Cross-cultural anxiety. New
York: Wiley, 1976.
Gordon, L. V. Clinical, psychometric, and work-sample
approaches in the prediction of success in Peace Corps
training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 51,
111-119.
Gordon, L. V., & Kikuchi, A. American personality
tests in cross-cultural research—A caution. Journal
of Social Psychology, 1966,69, 179-183.
Grande, P. P. The use of self and peer ratings in a Peace
Corps training program. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1966, 14, 244-246.
Greenblat, C. Foreign students in the United States: A
study of attitudes and orientation. Sociological Focus, 1971, 4(3), 17-35.
Gullahorn, J. E., & Gullahorn, J. T. American students
abroad: Professional versus personal development.
The Annals, 1966, 368, 43-59.
Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. The role of the
academic man as a cross-cultural mediator. American
Sociological Review, 1960, 25, 414-417.
Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. Visiting Fulbright
professors as agents of cross-cultural communication.
Sociology and Social Research, 1962, 46, 282-293.
Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. An extension of
the U-curve hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues,
1963, 79(3), 33-47.
Guskin, A. E. Tradition and change in a Thai university.
In R. B. Textor (Ed.), Cultural frontiers of the Peace
Corps. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966.
Guthrie, G. M. Cultural preparation for the Philippines.
In R. B. Textor (Ed.), Cultural frontiers of the Peace
Corps. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966.
Guthrie, G. M. A behavioral analysis of culture learning. In R. W. Brislin, S. Bochner, & W. J. Lonner
(Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on learning. New
York: Wiley, 1975.
Guthrie, G. M., & Zektick, I. N. Predicting performance in the Peace Corps. Journal of Social Psychology, 1967, 71, 11-21.
Hall, E. T. The silent language. New York: Doubleday,
1959.
Hall, E. T., & Whyte, W. F. Intercultural communication: A guide to men of action. Practical Anthropology, 1963, 10, 216-299.
Hare, A. P. Factors associated with Peace Corps vol-
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
unteer success in the Philippines. Human Organization, 1966, 25, 150-153.
Harris, J. G., Jr. Prediction of success on a distant Pacific island: Peace Corps style. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 38, 181-190.
Harris, J. G., Jr. A science of the South Pacific: Analysis
of the character structure of the Peace Corps volunteer. American Psychologist, 1973, 28, 232-247.
Harris, J. G., Jr. Identification of cross-cultural talent:
The empirical approach of the Peace Corps. In R.
Brislin (Ed.), Culture learning: Concepts, applications, and research. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1977.
Harris, P. R., & Moran, R. T. Managing cultural differences. Houston, Tex.: Gulf, 1979,
Harrison, R., & Hopkins, R. The design of cross-cultural training: An alternative to the university model.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1967, 3, 431 460.
Hassan, A. Attitudes of American-educated foreign students toward American democratic orientation. Journal of Social Psychology, 1962, 57, 265-275.
Hautaluoma, J. E., & Kaman, V. Description of Peace
Corps volunteers' experience in Afghanistan. In R.
Brislin (Ed.), Culture learning: Concepts, applications, and research. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1977.
Heath, G. L. Foreign student attitudes at International
House, Berkeley. International Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1970, 5(3), 66-70.
Hegazy, M. E. Cross-cultural experience and social
change: The case of foreign study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1969, 29, 3679A. (University Microfilms No. 69-6, 853)
Higbee, H. Role shock—A new concept. International
Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1969, 4(4), 7181.
Higginbotham, H. N. Cultural issues in providing psychological sevices for foreign students in the United
States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1979, 3, 49-85.
Hill, J. H. An analysis of a group of Indonesian, Thai,
Pakistani, and Indian students' perceptions of their
problems while enrolled at Indiana University (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1966). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1966, 27, 2007A.
(University Microfilms No. 66-12, 657)
Hofman, J. E., & Zak, I. Interpersonal contact and
attitude change in a cross-cultural situation. Journal
of Social Psychology, 1969, 78, 165-171.
Hoijer, H. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth,
1972.
Holzman, P. S., & Gardner, R. W. Leveling-sharpening
and memory organization. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 176-180.
Holzman, P. S., & Klein, G. S. Cognitive system-principles of leveling and sharpening: Individual differences in assimilation effects of visual time error. Journal of Psychology, 1954, 37, 105-122.
Hountras, P. T. Factors associated with the academic
achievement of foreign graduate students at the University of Michigan, 1947-1949 (Doctoral disserta-
567
tion, University of Michigan, 1955). Dissertation
Abstracts, 1955, 15, 762. (University Microfilms No.
00-11,297)
Hountras, P. T. Factors related to academic probation
among foreign graduate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1957, <«, 157-163.
Hull, W. F. Foreign students in the United States of
America: Coping behavior within the educational
environment. New York: Praeger, 1978.
Ibrahim, S. E. M. Interaction, perception, and attitudes
of Arab students toward Americans. Sociology and
Social Research, 1970, 55, 29-46.
Ibrahim, S. E. M. Cross-cultural interaction and attitude formation before and after a major crisis. Sociological Focus, 1971,4(3), 1-16.
lisager, H. An evaluation of an attempt to form international attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology,
1949, 30, 207-216.
Irvine, S. H., & Carroll, W. K. Testing and assessment
across cultures: Issues in methodology and theory. In
H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of
cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon, 1980.
Iwawaki, S., & Cowen, E. L. The social desirability of
trait-descriptive terms: Applications to a Japanese
sample. Journal of Social Psychology, 1964,65, 199205.
Iwawaki, S., & Zax, M. Personality dimensions and
extreme response tendency. Psychological Reports,
1969,25,31-34.
Jacobson, E. H. Sojourn research: A definition of the
field. Journal of Social Issues, 1963,79(3), 123-129.
Jammaz, A. I. A. Saudi students in the United States:
A study of their adjustment problems (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 33, 4879A.
(University Microfilms No. 73-5, 407)
Jarrahi-Zadeh, A., & Eichman, W. J. The impact of
socio-cultural factors on Middle Eastern students in
the United States. International Educational and
Cultural Exchange, 1970, 5(3), 82-94.
Johnson, D. C. Asian alumni look back on their American experiences. International Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1970, 6(1), 77-81.
Johnson, D. C. Problems of foreign students. International Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1971,
7(2), 61-68.
Jones, R. R., & Popper, R. Characteristics of Peace
Corps host countries and the behavior of volunteers.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1972,5, 233235.
Kang, T. S. Name changes and acculturation: Chinese
students on an American campus. Pacific Sociological Review, 1971, 14, 403-412.
Kang, T. S. A foreign student group as an ethnic community. International Review of Modern Sociology,
1972, 2, 72-82,
Kelman, H. C. (with V. Steinitz). The reactions of participants in a foreign specialists seminar to their
American experience. Journal of Social Issues, 1963,
19(3), 61-114.
Kelman, H. C., & Bailyn, L. Effects of cross-cultural
experience on national images: A study of Scandinavian students in America. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1962, 6, 319-334.
568
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
Kiell, N. Attitudes of foreign students. Journal of
Higher Education, 1951, 22(4), 188-194; 225.
Klein, M. H., Alexander, A. A., & Tseng, K-H. The
foreign student adaptation program: Social experiences of Asian students. International Educational
and Cultural Exchange, 1971, 6(3), 77-90.
Klineberg, O. Psychological aspects of student exchange. In I, Eide (Ed.), Students as links between
cultures. Paris: UNESCO and the International Peace
Research Institute (Oslo), 1970.
Klineberg, O., & Ben Brika, J. Etudiants du tiersmonde en Europe. The Hague, The Netherlands:
Mouton, 1972.
Klineberg, O., Si Hull, W. F. At a foreign university:
An international study of adaptation and coping.
New York: Praeger, 1979.
Klinger, R. B. A comparison between American and
foreign student groups on certain moral values (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1961).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1961, 22, 2690A.
(University Microfilms No. 61-6, 379)
Klinger, R. B. Foreign student adviser: A necessary
profession. International Educational and Cultural
Exchange, 1967, 2(1), 21-27.
Lambert, R. D., & Bressler, M. The sensitive area complex: A contribution to the theory of guided culture
contact. American Journal of Sociology, 1955, 60,
583-592.
Lambert, R. D., & Bressler, M. Indian students on an
American campus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956.
Lebra, W. (Ed.). Transcultural research in mental
health. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1972.
Leonard, E. W. Attitude change in a college program
of foreign study and travel. Educational Record,
1964, 45. 173-181.
Lesser, S. O., & Peter, H. W. Training foreign nationals
in the United States. In R. Likert & S. P. Hayes, Jr.
(Eds.), Some applications of behavioural research.
Paris: UNESCO, 1957.
Linton, C. Counseling students from overseas. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1948, 8,
501-522.
Livingstone, A. S. The overseas student in Britain with
special reference to training courses in social welfare.
Manchester, England: Manchester University Press,
1960.
Longabaugh, R, The systematic observation of behavior
in naturalistic settings. In H. C. Triandis & J. W.
Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology
(Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.
Lonner, W. J. The use of Western-based tests in intercultural counseling. In P. Pedersen, W. J. Lonner,
& J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling across cultures.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1976.
Looinis, C. P., & Schuler, E. A. Acculturation of foreign
students in the United States. Applied Anthropology,
1948, 7(2), 17-34.
Lundstedt, S. An introduction to some evolving problems in cross-cultural research. Journal of Social Issues, 1963, yp(3), 1-9.
Lysgaard, S. Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright grantees visiting the United States.
International Social Science Bulletin, 1955, 7, 4551.
MacFarlane, R. The welfare of Commonwealth students. Universities Quarterly, 1958, 12, 360-363.
MacGuigan, F. J. Psychological changes related to intercultural experiences. Psychological Reports, 1958,
4, 55-60.
Mahony, F. J. Success in Somalia. In R. B.Textor (Ed.),
Cultural frontiers of the Peace Corps. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 1966.
Malpass, R. S. Theory and method in cross-cultural
psychology. American Psychologist, 1977,52, 10691079.
Mandelbaum, D. G. (Ed.). Selected writings of Edward
Sapir. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949.
Marsella, A. J. Depressive experience and disorder
across cultures. In H. C. Triandis & J. G. Draguns
(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol.
6). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.
Marshall, T. The strategy of international exchange. In
I. Eide (Ed.), Students as links between cultures.
Paris: UNESCO and the International Peace Research
Institute (Oslo), 1970.
Maryanov, G. S. The representative staff as intercultural mediators in Malaya, In R. B. Textor (Ed.),
Cultural frontiers of the Peace Corps. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 1966.
McClintock, C. G., & Davis, J. Changes in the attitudes
of "nationality" in the self-perception of the "stranger".
Journal of Social Psychology, 1958, 48, 183-193.
McCulIough, M. G., & Mestenhauser, J. A. Housing
of foreign students—An educational experience?
Journal of College Personnel, 1963, 5, 2-7.
McEvoy, T. L. Adjustment of American youth in crosscultural programs. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1968, 9, 2-8.
Melby, J. F. & Wolf, E. K. Looking glass for Americans: A study of the foreign students at the University
of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, Penn.: National Council on Asian Affairs, 1961.
Menninger, W. W., & English, J. T. Psychiatric casualties from overseas Peace Corps service. Bulletin
of the Menninger Clinic, 1965,29, 148-158.
Miller, M. H. et al. The cross-cultural student: Lessons
in human nature. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic,
1971, 35, 128-131.
Mischel, W. Predicting the success of Peace Corps volunteers in Nigeria. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1965, /, 510-517.
Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York:
Wiley, 1968.
Mischel, W. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review,
1973,50, 252-283.
Mischel, W. The interaction of person and situation. In
N. S. Endler & D. Magnusson (Eds.), Personality
at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.
Mishler, A. L. Personal contact in international exchanges. In H. C. Kelman (Ed.), International behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.
Mitchell, T. R., Dossett, D. L., Fiedler, F. E., & Triandis, H. C. Culture training: Validation evidence for
the culture assimilator. International Journal of Psychology, 1972, 7, 97-104.
Moore, F. G. Factors affecting the academic success of
foreign students in American universities (Doctoral
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1953). Dissertation Abstracts, 1954, 14, 492. (University Microfilms No. 00-7, 252)
Moran, R., Mestenhauser, J., & Pedersen, P. Dress rehearsal for a cross-cultural experience. International
Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1974, 70(1),
23-27.
Morris, R. T. The two-way mirror: National status in
foreign students' adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1960.
Nelson, R. L. The use of psychiatric facilities in a university setting by foreign students. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1956.
Nickclly, A., Sugita, M., & Otis, J. Adjustment and
mental health attitudes in foreign students. Mental
Hygiene, 1964, 48. 463-467.
Nielsen, W. A., Bryant, W. C., & Wyatt, D. W. Our
African students. Overseas: The magazine of educational exchange, 1962, 7(6), 15-18.
Noesjirwan, J. Attitudes to learning of the Asian student
studying in the West. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 1970, I, 393-397.
Oberg, K. Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural
environments. Practical Anthropology, 1960,7, 177182.
Odenyo, A. O. Africans and Afro-Americans on campus: A study of some of the relationships between two
minority sub-communities (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Minnesota, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 32, 555A. (University
Microfilms No. 71-18, 887)
Otis, J. Psychotherapy with foreign students in a university. Mental Hygiene, 1955, 39, 581-594.
Pace, C. R. The junior year in France: An evaluation
of the University of Delaware-Sweet Briar College
Program. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press,
1959.
Pareek, U., & Rao, T. V. Cross-cultural surveys and
interviewing. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.),
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.
Parker, O. D., & Educational Services Staff, AFME.
Cultural clues to the Middle Eastern student. International Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1976,
12(2), 12-18.
Pedersen, P. The field of intercultural counseling. In P.
Pedersen, W. J. Lonner, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.),
Counseling across cultures. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 1976.
Perlmutter, H. V. Some characteristics of the xenophilic
personality. Journal of Psychology, 1954, 38, 291300.
Perlmutter, H. V. Some relationships between xenophilic attitudes and authoritarianism among Americans abroad. Psychological Reports, 1957, 3, 78-87.
Peterson, J. A., & Neumeyer, M. H. Problems of foreign
students. Sociology and Social Research, 1948, 32,
787-792.
Phelps-Stokes Fund. A survey of African students
studying in the United States. New York: Authors,
1949.
Political & Economic Planning. New commonwealth
students in Britain, with special reference to students
from East Africa. London: Allen & Unwin, 1965.
Pool, I,, de S. Effects of cross-national contact on na-
569
tional and international images. In H. C. Kelman
(Ed.), International behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.
Pool, L, de S., Keller, S., & Bauer, R. A. The influence
of foreign travel on political attitudes of American
businessmen. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1956, 20,
161-175.
Porter, R. D. A personnel study of 1,105 foreign graduate students at the University of Washington (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1962).
Dissertation Abstracts, 1963, 24, 164. (University
Microfilms No. 63-4, 437)
Porter, R. E. An overview of intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth, 1972.
Pratt, D. The relation of culture-goals to the mental
health of students abroad, international Social Science Bulletin, 1956, 8, 597-604.
Putnam, I. Foreign student programs in Japan. International Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1968,
3(4), 58-62.
Rao, G. L. Brain drain and foreign students. New York:
St. Martin's Press, 1979.
Riegel, O. W. Residual effects of exchange-of-persons.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 1953, 17. 319-327.
Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York:
Basic Books, I960.
Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J. Behavioral assessment
of communication competency and the prediction of
cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 1979, 3, 15-47.
Samovar, L., & Porter, R. Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1972.
Samovar, L., & Porter, R. Intercultural communication: A reader (2nd ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth,
1976.
Sampson, D. L., & Smith, H. P. A scale to measure
world-minded attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 1957, 45. 99-106.
Schild, E. O. The foreign student as a stranger learning
the norms of the host culture. Journal of Social Issues, 1962, 75(1), 41-54.
Scott, F. D. The American experience of Swedish students: Retrospect and aftermath. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956.
Sechrest, L., Fay, T., & Zaidi, S. Problems of translation in cross-cultural research. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 1972, 7, 41-56.
Selby, H. A., & Woods, C. M. Foreign students at a
high-pressure university. Sociology of Education,
1966, 39, 138-154.
Selltiz, C., Christ, J. R., Havel, J., & Cook, S. W. Attitudes and social relations of foreign students in the
United Slates. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1963.
Sewell, W. H., & Davidsen, O. M. The adjustment of
Scandinavian students. Journal of Social Issues,
1956, 72(1), 9-19.
Sewell, W. H., & Davidsen, O. M. Scandinavian students on an American campus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1961.
Sharma, K. D. Indian students in the United States.
International Educational and Cultural Exchange,
1969, 4(4), 43-59.
570
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
Shepard, N. E. The acculturation of foreign students
in Southern colleges and universities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 31, 2624A. (University Microfilms No. 70-24, 337)
Simon, H. V., & Schild, E. O. The stranger-group in
a cross-cultural situation. Sociomelry, 1961, 24, 165176.
Singh, A. K. Indian students in Britain. London: Asia
Publishing House, 1963.
Singh, P. N., Huang, S. C, & Thompson, G. C. A
comparative study of selected attitudes, values, and
personality characteristics of American, Chinese, and
Indian students. Journal of Social Psychology, 1962,
57, 123-132.
Sitaram, K. S. What is intercultural communication?
In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Inlercullural
communication: A reader. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1972.
Siu, P. The sojourner. American Journal of Sociology,
1952, 58, 34-44.
Smalley, W. A. Culture shock, language shock, and the
shock of self-discovery. Practical Anthropology, 1963,
10, 49-56.
Smith, H. P. Do intercultural experiences affect attitudes? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1955, 57, 469-477.
Smith, H. P. The effects of intercultural experience—
A follow-up investigation. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 266-268.
Smith, M. B. Some features of foreign student adjustments. Journal of Higher Education, 1955, 26, 231241.
Smith, M. B. An analysis of two measures of "authoritarianism" among Peace Corps teachers. Journal of
Personality, 1965, 33, 513-535.
Smith, M. B. Explorations in competence: A study of
Peace Corps teachers in Ghana. American Psychologist. 1966, 21. 555-566.
Smith, M. B., Fawcett, J. T., Ezekiel, R., & Roth, S.
A factorial study of morale among Peace Corps teachers in Ghana. Journal of Social Issues, 1963, 79(3),
10-32.
Spaulding, S., & Flack, M. J. (with S. Tate, P. Mahon,
& C. Marshall). The world's students in the United
States: A review and evaluation of research on foreign students. New York: Praeger, 1976.
Spielberger, C. D., & Sharma, S. Cross-cultural measurement of anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger & R. DiazGuerrero, Cross-cultural anxiety. Washington, D.C.:
Hemisphere, 1976.
Spradley, J. P., & Phillips, M. Culture and stress: A
quantitative analysis. American Anthropologist, 1972,
74, 518-529.
Stein, M. I. Volunteers for peace: The first group of
Peace Corps volunteers in a rural community development program in Colombia, South America. New
York: Wiley, 1966.
Stessin, L. Culture shock and the American businessman overseas. International Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1973, 9(1) 23-35.
Stewart, E. Cultural sensitivities in counseling. In P.
Pedersen, W. J. Lonner, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.),
Counseling across cultures. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 1976.
Strain, W. H., Shank, D. J., Houlihan, M., Higbee, H.,
& Porter, R. D. Post-admission adjustment problems
of foreign students. College and University, 1962, 37,
414-443.
Strieker, G., Takahashi, S., & Zax, M. Semantic differential discriminability: A comparison of Japanese
and American students. Journal of Social Psychology, 1967, 71, 23-25.
Sue, D. W. World views and counseling. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 1978, 56, 458-462.
Suedfeld, P. Paternal absence and overseas success of
Peace Corps volunteers. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31, 424-425.
Sundberg, N. D. Toward research evaluating intercultural counseling. In P. Pedersen, W. J. Lonner, &
J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling across cultures.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1976.
Sunder Das, S. The psychological problems of the Eastern student. In S. Bochner & P. Wicks (Eds.), Overseas students in Australia. Randwick, N. S. W.: New
South Wales University Press, 1972.
Susskind, S., & Schell, L. Exporting technical education: A survey and case study of foreign professionals
with U. S. graduate degrees. New York: Institute of
International Education, 1968.
Szanton, D. L. Cultural confrontation in the Philippines.
In R. Textor (Ed.), Cultural frontiers of the Peace
Corps. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966.
Textor, R. B. Introduction. In R. B. Textor (Ed.), Cultural frontiers of the Peace Corps. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 1966.
Thomson, C. P., & English, J. T. Premature return of
Peace Corps volunteers. Public Health Reports, 1964,
79, 1065-1073.
Torre, M. The selection of personnel for international
service. Geneva, N.Y.: World Federation of Mental
Health, 1963.
Triandis, H. C. Culture training, cognitive complexity,
and interpersonal attitudes. In R. Brislin, S. Bochner,
& W. J. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives
on learning. New York: Wiley, 1975.
Triandis, H. C., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.). Handbook of
cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon, 1980.
Triandis, H. C., Malpass, R. S., & Davidson, A. R.
Psychology and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 1973, 24, 355-378.
Triandis, H. C., & Vassiliou, V. Frequency of contact
and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1967, 7, 316-328.
Triandis, H. C, Vassiliou, V., Tanaka, Y., & Shanmugam, A. (Eds.). The analysis of subjective culture.
New York: Wiley, 1972.
Uhes, M. J., & Shybut, J. Personal orientation inventory
as a predictor of success in Peace Corps training.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 498-499.
U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs. A beacon of hope: The
exchange-of-persons program. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963.
U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs. Foreign students in the
United Slates—A national survey. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
Ursua, A. R. The relationship between adeptness in the
SOJOURNER ADJUSTMENT
English language and social adjustment of foreign
graduate students (Doctoral dissertation, Catholic
University of America, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1969, 30, 2390A. (University Microfilms No. 69-19, 774)
Useem, R. H. The American family in India. The Annals, 1966, 368. 132-145.
Useem, J., & Useem, R. The Western educated man
in India. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1955.
Veroff, J. African students in the United States. Journal
of Social Issues, 1963, 19(3), 48-60.
Vontress, C. E. Cultural barriers in the counseling relationship. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1969,
•48. 11-17.
Vontress, C. E. Racial and ethnic barriers in counseling.
In P. Pedersen, W. J. Lonner, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.),
Counseling across cultures. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 1976.
Wachtel, P. L. Interaction cycles, unconscious processes, and the person-situation issue. In N. S. Endler
& D. Magnusson (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.
Walton, B. J. Foreign student exchange in perspective:
Research on foreign students in the United States
(Prepared for the Office of External Research, U.S.
Department of State Publication No. 8373). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.
Walton, B. J. Foreign student exchange in perspective:
What the research tells us. International Educational
and Cultural Exchange, 1968,3(4), 1-14.
Walton, B. J. Research on foreign graduate students.
International Educational and Cultural Exchange,
1971, 6(3), 17-29.
571
Watson, J., & Lippitt, R. Learning across cultures: A
study of Germans visiting America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1955.
Wedge, B. Nationality and social perception. In L. A.
Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Inlercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth,
1972.
Wintrob, R. M. Psychotherapy in intercultural perspective: Some personal reflections. In P. Pedersen,
W. J. Lonner, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling
across cultures. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1976.
Witkin, H. A., & Berry, J. W. Psychological differentiation in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 1975,5, 4-87.
Wohl, J. Intercultural psychotherapy: Issues, questions,
and reflections. In P. Pedersen, W. J. Lonner, &
J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling across cultures.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1976.
Worchel, S., & Mitchell, T. R. An evaluation of the
effectiveness of the culture assimilator in Thailand
and Greece. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972,
56, 472-479.
Zajonc, R. B. Aggressive attitudes of the "stranger" as
a function of conformity pfessures. Human Relations,
1952, 5, 205-216.
Zax, M., & Takahashi, S. Cultural influence on response style: Comparisons of Japanese and American
college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 1967,
71, 3-10.
Zurin, L. M., & Rubin, R. T. Paranoid psychotic reactions in foreign students from non-Western countries. Journal of the American College Health Association, 1967, 15. 220-226.
(Appendix follows on next page)
572
AUSTIN T. CHURCH
Appendix
Commonly Mentioned Problems of Foreign Students
Academic Problems
Language
Need to delay educational goals while studying
host language
Written and oral reports
Understanding lectures
Culture-bound professional vocabulary
Placement
Inadequate prior preparation
Inadequate academic orientation, advice
Inadequate placement or credit for previous
coursework
Selection of institution and coursework
Adjustment to new educational system
Frequent exams and assignments
Classroom and professor/student informality
Competitiveness
. Grading methods
Credit system
Personal Problems
Loneliness
Homesickness
Depression
Arrival confusion
Maintaining self-esteem
Lack of personal guidance and counseling
Overambitious goals to succeed
Inappropriate motivations for overseas study
Somatic complaints
Family problems or loss of loved ones
Time pressure
Decision to stay or return home
Religious problems
Staying current with events at home
Adjusting to food, climate
Financial/employment problems
Financial difficulties
Housing difficulties (cost, noise, privacy, getting along with roommates)
Difficulties obtaining employment
Concern over employment opportunities on return home
Visa, immigration problems
Sociocultural Problems
Adjusting to social customs and norms
Contrasting or conflicting values and assumptions
Balancing simultaneous culture group memberships
Defining role as a foreign student
Ignorance of host nationals about home culture
Political upheaval at home
Difficulty making social contacts
Problems with verbal and nonverbal communication
Superficial American friendships
Racial discrimination
Dating and sexual problems
Note. The above list of problem areas was drawn from the following sources: Akhun, 1961; Al-Shama, 1959;
Beck, 1963; Bennett et al., 1958; Carey, 1956; Cieslak, 1955; Deutsch, 1970; Eldridge, 1960; Forstat, 1951;
Gardner, 1952; Golden, 1973; Hegazy, 1969; Hill, 1966; Hull, 1978; Jammaz, 1973; Johnson, 1971; Klein et al.,
1971; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Lambert & Bressler, 1956; Livingstone, 1960; Marshall, 1970; McCullough &
Mestenhauser, 1963; Moore, 1954; Nickelly et al., 1964; Noesjirwan, 1970; Peterson & Neumeyer, 1948; PhelpsStokes Fund, 1949; Political & Economic Planning, 1965; Pratt, 1956; Putnam, 1968; Rao, 1979; Scott, 1956;
Sewell &Davidsen, 1961;Sharma, 1969; Shepard, 1970; Singh, 1963; M. B. Smith, 1955; Strain, Shank, Houlihan,
Higbee, & -Porter, 1962; Sunder Das, 1972; Susskind & Schell, 1968; U.S. Advisory Commission, 1966;
Ursua, 1969.
Received August 28, 1981