Personality and Social Psychology Review
2000, Vol. 4, No. 4, 355–373
Copyright © 2000 by
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
The Dynamic Nature of Cultural Identity Throughout Cultural
Transitions: Why Home Is Not So Sweet
Nan M. Sussman
Department of Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work
College of Staten Island, City University of New York
This article describes the social psychological process that underlies the cultural transition of sojourners. Herein the empirical and theoretical literature on cultural transitions
(and in particular cultural repatriation and the relevant literature on self-concept and
identity) is analyzed, critiqued, and synthesized in an attempt to understand the near
ubiquitous distress experienced during repatriation. The relation among self-concept,
cultural identity, and cultural transitions is explored, and in light of the paucity of comprehensive repatriation models, a new predictive model is proposed that explicates
these relations. Shifts in cultural identity are classified as subtractive, additive, affirmative, or intercultural, and research directions are suggested.
all who participate in cultural transitions are subject to
a dizzying array of experiences collectively labeled as
culture shock, adjustment, cross-cultural adaptation, or
acculturation. Although these concepts frequently are
used interchangeably, they differ both structurally and
temporally vis-à-vis the transition process. These concepts can be defined summarily as follows: (a) Culture
shock is an intense, negative affective response, both
psychological and physiological, experienced by new
expatriates when faced with unfamiliar symbols, roles,
relationships, social cognitions, and behavior; (b) Adjustment is the motivational process whereby sojourners attempt to modify both cognitions and behaviors to
decrease negatively valenced interactions and experiences and increase positive ones; (c) Cross-cultural adaptation is the positive consequence of the adjustment
process in which cognitions and behavioral modifications produce neutral or positive affect and successful
social interactions; and (d) Acculturation is the process
of long-term adaptation of indigenous groups within
plural societies or immigrants to a new culture. These
concepts are described more fully as this article unfolds. In addition, within this article, the terms culture
and country are used interchangeably. Whereas many
countries are culturally heterogeneous (e.g., the United
States, the People’s Republic of China, India), a majority culture often exists that influences public behavior,
discourse, and language choice. Thus, when I speak of
entering a new country or a new culture, I refer to the
majority culture of that country.
Substantial sociological and anthropological literature exists exploring the long-term adaptation of individuals to a new culture under the conceptual
framework of immigration and migration. For hun-
And, now that life had so much human promise in it,
they resolved to go back to their own land; because the
years after all, have a kind of emptiness, when we
spend too many of them on a foreign shore. We defer
the reality of life, in such cases, until a future moment,
when we shall again breathe our native air; but
by-and-by, there are no future moments; or, if we do
return, we find that the native air has lost its invigorating quality, and that life has shifted its reality to the
spot where we have deemed ourselves only temporary
residents. Thus, between two countries, we have none
at all, or only that little space of either, in which we finally lay down our discontented bones. It is wise,
therefore, to come back betimes, or never.
—Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Marble Faun (1860/1990)
Historical accounts and contemporary events underscore that either as individuals or in groups, people
are continually on the move. Individuals’ movements
between countries may be voluntary or forced; sojourns may last 1 week or a lifetime; and rationale may
be economic, political, evangelical, or pleasure seeking. The outcomes may influence present or future careers, marriage partners, relationships with extended
families, and leisure pursuits. Regardless of outcome,
I am grateful to Marilynn Brewer, Ira Caplan, Richard Krupinski,
Sheldon Solomon, Harry Triandis, Kaiyoko Yokoyama, an anonymous National Science Foundation panelist, and three Personality
and Social Psychology Review reviewers for their valuable comments on preliminary conceptualizations of the model and on earlier
drafts of this article.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Nan M. Sussman, Department of Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work,
College of Staten Island, City University of New York, 2800 Victory
Boulevard, Staten Island, NY 10314. E-mail: [email protected]
355
SUSSMAN
dreds of years, movement to a new culture was more
permanent than transitory. The long trek across borders seldom was followed by much contact or visits to
the “old country.” The late 20th century, in contrast,
has witnessed an explosion of shorter term cultural
transitions of individuals for study, evangelism, business, government, economic and humanitarian aid, or
temporary refuge. Investigations of adjustment to
short-term cultural transitions, known as sojourner
studies, have been viewed primary through the lens of
intercultural communication and anthropology.
A logical temporal extension of short-term cultural
transition is the return to one’s country of origin, labeled reentry (Werkman, 1979), reacculturation (Martin, 1984), or repatriation (Howard, 1980a). I use the
latter term herein; it is arguably more descriptive of the
construct and carries with it fewer negative associations (e.g., the term reentry was borrowed from the
early days of the space program in which entry into the
earth’s atmosphere by hurtling rockets and satellites
led to the disintegration of the vehicle).
A Social Psychological Perspective:
Self, Self-Concept, and Cultural
Identity
Social psychology, until recently, has added few insights to our understanding of the nature, process, and
consequences of cultural transitions at any point along
the permanency continuum from sojourn to migration.
A discipline foundation does exist, however, through
which to base explanatory and predictive theory and
research on cultural transitions within a broader context of shifts of cultural frames.
Explorations into the role of culture on self and
groups has historical roots in psychology, although research efforts were not sustained over time. Wilhelm
Wundt, for example, devoted much of his professional
life to developing volkenpsychologie, or cultural psychology. Yet, subsequent research programs, particularly in the United States, were devoid of cultural
frameworks. Perhaps the century-long oversight by the
U.S. psychological community of culture as a primary
shaper of the self and behavior might be attributed to a
U.S. predilection to focus on individual differences
and a preoccupation with ethnic differences as opposed to overarching U.S. similarities (Betancourt &
Lopez, 1993). It is not surprising, in fact, that U.S. social psychology focuses on the self, whereas European
and Asian psychological research focuses more on
group and social membership.
Culture and Self
Despite the growing literature establishing the relation between cultural repatriation and psychological
356
distress, we lack a broad psychosocial framework for
understanding this phenomenon. Theoretical writings
on self, self-concept, and in particular cultural identity
may provide insight into the repatriation problem and
contribute to an emerging social psychological analysis of cultural transitions.
One’s culture imperceptibly forms a mental framework through which individuals define their ontology,
motivate and select their behaviors, and judge and
evaluate the actions of others. Berry (1980) suggested
that culture provides both a frame of reference for
self-definition and a frame of reference for ordering
social relationships.
In daily interactions with culturally similar others,
cultural identity remains unformed or unrecognized.
Nevertheless, cultural scripts regarding the self and interpersonal behavior are active and become the normative and expected standard. Formal education systems
and diverse media reinforce these shared meanings,
symbols, and values. One, for example, is outspoken
and participative in a classroom not because one is
American, the script dictates, but because that is how
any good student should behave.
Triandis (1989) provided an insightful and integrative analysis of the link among the self, culture, and behavior. In a structural framework of the self, he
proposed three aspects of the self that are differentiated
by the types of cognitions held—either private (“I am
athletic”), public (“People think that I am athletic”), or
collective (“My family and friends think that I am athletic”). The probability of referencing each of these
three self-aspects is mediated by cultural variation in
three cultural dimensions: cultural complexity (e.g., reflected in the number of potential relationships and
ingroups available to individuals), individualism and
collectivism (reflected in the balance maintained between personal goals and the needs of the group), and
tightness and looseness (reflecting the priority given to
adherence to group norms). Thus, for example, within
tight, individualistic cultures we find more elements of
the private self and therefore more sampling of the private self and less of the public or collective self. Consequently, social behavior is activated through the
differential sampling of the private, public, or collective
selves that have been influenced by the cultural dimensions of complexity, individualism and collectivism,
and tightness and looseness.
Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) comprehensive article, in exploring the role of the self in mediating and
regulating behavior, focused on the primacy of culture
in shaping self-construal—in particular, the role of culture in defining the relationship between the self and
the other. Although additional self–other relationships
no doubt can be found, Markus and Kitayama examined the independent self, that self which is distinctive
and focused on self-needs, and they contrasted it with
CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CULTURAL TRANSITIONS
the interdependent self that is connected and focused
on the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others. The
self-schemata of those favoring independent as opposed to interdependent selves would result in differential self-relevant processes that in turn would
influence cognitions, emotions, and motivation. In a
recent article, Heine, Lehman, Markus, and Kitayama
(1999) moved beyond noting the existence of the relation between self and culture to an exploration of the
psychological functions of culture and self-esteem. In
a comprehensive review and comparison of the self-esteem literature in North America and Japan, they deduced that both self and self-regard are constructions
that differ across cultures and concluded that positive
self-regard is not a universal motivation.
The broadest and most comprehensive theory to explore the psychological functions of culture and evaluation of the self is that proffered by terror management
(Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991). According to the theory, culture functions in part to assuage
the terror associated with our uncontrollable demise by
creating order and stability and by describing the parameters of the “good and valuable” self. Furthermore,
terror management theory hypothesizes that threats to
one’s cultural worldview, perhaps as a consequence of
cultural sojourns, result in increased anxiety.
These and other theories of culture and self underscore the social construction of self and self-concept
through the meaning system of culture (Rohner, 1984)
and the psychological functions of cultural worldview.
Recent social psychological thinking has broadened
the scope of the investigation of the relationship between the self and group from one that focused on individual behavior within the group to one that examined
the group within the self with the current assumption
being that the study of the collective is a necessary
companion to the study of the self (Miller & Prentice,
1994). In contrast to anthropology’s traditional search
for distal antecedents and consequences of culture, social psychological investigations are searching for
more proximal ones (Kashima, 1995).
Self and Self-Concept
The self and the ideas we have about ourselves
(self-concept) are rich and complex (see Baumeister,
1998; Cross & Madson, 1997, for recent reviews) with
wide-ranging implications for behavior. The self-concept performs important social and personal functions
by providing goals to direct behavior and processing
self-relevant information (Baumeister, 1986). A brief
review of contemporary self theories provide helpful
models that can be applied later in this article to the
analysis of cultural identity and transitions. Current
theories of self-concept have departed from
unidimensional models of the self in which the self was
measured primarily through self-esteem ratings to
ones that embrace research paradigms that treat
self-concept as a multifaceted construct (Markus &
Wurf, 1987), broadly classified into two categories:
content of self-concept and structure of self-concept
and self-knowledge.
Content research investigates knowledge of self,
self-beliefs, and the extent to which the contents of
self-concepts are clearly defined, consistent, and stable. Campbell’s (1990) work exemplifies this approach. In particular, Campbell identified a strong
relation between self-clarity and self-esteem and, in a
discussion of the direction of the relation, postulates
that self-concept uncertainty could lead to lower
self-esteem. This, in turn, might increase one’s susceptibility to negative information in the social environment. Self-content theorists also are concerned with
evaluation of the self-beliefs and studies on self-enhancement, self-deprecation, and self-esteem explore
these themes. Kernis and colleagues (Kernis,
Granneman, & Barclay, 1989, 1992; Kernis, Cornell,
Sun, Berry, & Harlow, 1993), for example, focused on
the stability or instability of self-esteem, defined as the
magnitude of short-term fluctuations in global self-esteem. Inconsistent findings indicate that either stability
and level of self-esteem are unrelated (Kernis et al.,
1989) or moderately related (Kernis et al., 1992). Of
relevance to the model proposed in this article, however, is the consistent finding that among high–self-esteem individuals, instability was related to
substantially greater tendencies to experience anger
and hostility (Kernis et al., 1989) and greater defensiveness and adverse reactions in response to negative
events (Kernis et al., 1993). Kernis and his colleagues
suggested that self-esteem instability might be an outcome of variations in perceived competence and variations in perceived social acceptance.
The companion dimension of self research focuses
on the structure of self-concept. Several theories of
self-knowledge structure are pertinent to current concepts of self-concept and cultural transitions. Among
these are the extent of the integration of dimensions of
self-knowledge (Donahue, Robins, Roberts, & John,
1993), self-complexity (Linville, 1985), and the
compartmentalization of negative and positive selves
(Showers, 1992). Of particular interest is the finding
that self-concept complexity and flexibility were positively related to self-esteem such that high–self-esteem
individuals claimed they were capable of a wide range
of behaviors when required by the situation (Campbell,
Chew, & Scratchley, 1991; Paulhus & Martin, 1988).
Self-Concept and Cultural Identity
Both content and structure theories of self reveal
that people hold multiple beliefs about them357
SUSSMAN
selves—that is, many self-schemas. Those
self-schemas include personal attributes about the self
(e.g., traits, characteristics, dispositions) and thoughts
about membership in social groups such as those
formed around gender, ethnicity, social class, religion,
and culture. Lewin (1948), in an early comment on the
relationship between the self and the collective, indicated that individuals need a firm sense of group identification to develop a sense of well-being. Tajfel
(1981, 1982) and colleagues later expanded this notion
developing a theory of social identity in which identification with a social group adds to one’s positive
self-concept. Tajfel (1981) defined the social or collective self as an “aspect of an individual’s self-concept
which derives from his knowledge of his membership
in a social group (or groups) together with the value
and emotional significance attached to that membership” (p. 255). Thus, the content of our self-perceptions reflect not only our personal traits and
characteristics, but also meaningful social groups to
which we belong. One element of the collective
self-concept is derived from membership in a cultural
group defined as one’s cultural identity but possessing
properties distinct from other collective identities.
Cultural identity, often conceptualized as
coterminus with national identity (i.e., thinking of oneself as American or Japanese or Italian), more accurately can be considered the psychological counterpoint
to national identity—the identity that describes the cultural self in content, evaluation, and structure.
Triandis’s (1989) definition of (subjective) culture, for
example, includes geographic localization as a basic element as well as shared language and shared notions of
the self. Segall, Dasen, Berry, and Poortinga (1999) suggested that although the nation-state is a relatively recent political phenomenon, national identity is a
fundamental component of identity.
Although Hermans and Kempen (1998) highlighted
the global trend toward cultural mixing and, by implication, the limitations of the concept of cultural identity,
culture retains a convenient tendency to differ across
geographic regions (Hofstede, 1980). Tweed, Conway,
and Ryder (1999) argued that global mixing, although
evident to some extent in the economically developed
world, is less evident in most of the world where daily
communication consists of interactions among those
who have personal contact and shared beliefs and behaviors. More than 25 years ago, Brewer and Campbell
(1976), in testing 30 East African societies, reported
similar results. In response to interview queries about
their own group and 13 other groups, high liking and familiarity were most likely to be assigned to groups who
were similar in culture and language to the ingroup and
who were geographically proximal; that is, groups had
contact with others who were similar. Holdstock
(1999), in underscoring the central role of cultural iden358
tity in people’s everyday lives, proposed a countertrend
to the cultural globalization notion: that of the strengthening of cultural identity.
As Tajfel (1982) and Deaux (1993) described in a
later formulation, social identity has one element that
may not be essential to the operation of cultural identity: awareness of membership in this particular social
group. Self-beliefs, evaluation, structure, and self-motivated social behavior all may be shaped by culture,
yet culture’s consequences and thus the cultural identity itself may be unrecognized by its members, an idea
I explore in detail later in this article. Although the
identity is unrecognized, its effect is in play.
Cultural identity has an additional element to be considered: An individual’s self-defined cultural identity
may differ from the perception of others. Traditional social cognitive paradigms, attribution theory, or person
perception models, for example, might be particularly
useful in exploring the parameters of identity judgments
applied by others. Immigrants to New York from the
Philippines and Korea report they are now referred to
collectively as Asian Americans. Both groups indicate
that although they do not consider themselves “Asian
American” and are unsure of the cultural attributes of
such a category, they are labeled as such by the wider
U.S. public. Interestingly, they have found adopting this
nomenclature politically expedient.
Other-defined cultural identity also may be linked
to evaluation of goals and behaviors. Albert Einstein
(cited in Segall, Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1999) said,
If the theory of relativity is found to be correct, the Germans may claim that I am German, the Swiss that I am a
Swiss citizen, and the French that I am a great man of
science. But, if the theory is found to be false, the French
are likely to say that I am Swiss, the Swiss that I am German, and the Germans … that I am a Jew. (p. 274)
Collective self-aspects frequently coexist with cultural identity, including gender, ethnicity, and race.
Without crossing national borders, some individuals
live at the intersection of several cultural groups
(Gurin, Hurtado, & Peng, 1994; Phinney, 1990, 1991).
Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, and Chavous (1998)
described a new multidimensional model of racial
identity that explores both the content, evaluation, and
meaning of self-beliefs African Americans hold regarding racial identity independent of White culture.
Culture Contact and Cultural Identity
As cultural groups come into contact, what are the
consequences for the individual’s cultural self and cultural identity? Cross-cultural contact historically has
resulted in a variety of identity responses that, at its ex-
CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CULTURAL TRANSITIONS
treme, led to genocide, ethnic cleansing, or assimilation (Smith & Bond, 1998). Four theories either
tangentially or directly address the link between culture contact and cultural identity but with differing predictions regarding identity change.
Contact hypothesis. This theory (Stephan,
1987) is aimed at understanding the conditions under
which contact has improved intergroup relations—in
particular, whether contact leads to prejudice reduction through attitude change, especially as it pertains to
racism and anti-Semitism. Although cultural transitions are not generally addressed in the contact literature, transitions might lead to changes in cultural
self-construals and behavior, all of which might facilitate effective interaction between groups. Amir (1976)
reported that individuals in culture contact do rate each
other as more similar to each other and more favorably
evaluate the outgroup. However, it is an empirical leap
from a demonstration that cultural contact results in decreased prejudice or increased effectiveness to indicating that cultural transitions lead to cultural identity
shifts. Currently, the premise that cross-cultural contact alone—in particular, that which results from cultural transitions—will result in cultural identity
change remains untested.
Cultural hybridization. As a result of ever-increasing cultural connections and recombinations of cultural practices and forms, Hermans and Kempen (1998)
suggested the resulting phenomenon of cultural hybridization, and they speculated that hybridization would lead
to the development of new forms of cultural identities.
Similarly, Oyserman (1993) and colleagues
(Oyserman & Markus, 1993; Oyserman, Sakamoto, &
Lauffer, 1998) examined the layering of opposing cultural dimensions within one culture. Their focus has
been on the self, socialized into both individualist and
collectivist worldviews, which then is conceived as a
cultural hybrid or bicultural. To activate one cultural
dimension rather than another, the social situation becomes the prime. Thus, cultural selves and identities
may have permeable borders that respond to situational contexts.
Acculturation theorists. The acculturation theorists directly addressed the notion of change in cultural attitudes, behaviors, and cultural identity as a consequence of cultural contact (Berry, 1990; Graves,
1967). Note that Berry’s theory was developed primarily to explain effects of colonization on indigenous
groups through cultural contact (e.g., aboriginal population in Australia, native populations in Canada) and
later was expanded to predict acculturation strategies of
immigrants, one category of permanent cultural transition (Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987). Empirical
support has been confined for the most part to these
populations. Berry (1980) concluded that an identity
shift away from the home (or native) cultural identity
may occur when individuals have prolonged culture
contact. These acculturative changes have been categorized as integrated or assimilated. Cultural transitions
for the traditional immigrant, who has few or infrequent contacts with country of origin, transform one
cultural identity (e.g., Irish) into a new one (e.g., Canadian or Irish Canadian). Alternatively, sustained contact with the new culture may result in strengthening
home (or native) culture identity, resulting in a separated or marginal identity relative to the dominant culture. In turn, each of these psychological responses is
linked to attitudinal and behavioral changes.
Although on initial reading of acculturation theory,
it appears pertinent to the process of cultural transitions of sojourners, the premises on which the theory is
based limit its explanatory and predictive value
vis-à-vis the sojourner experience. For example, acculturation theory posits both an individual and collective
response to permanent culture contact; sojourn transitions are temporary and primarily an individual encounter. Acculturation theory examines the interplay
between dominant and nondominant groups within
one society; sojourns juxtapose the individual’s journey into a different sociocultural environment with
their reentry to the home culture. Motivation for the
cultural transition is significantly different for the immigrant compared to the sojourner. Whereas immigrants or long-term transitors frequently are motivated
by economic or political hardship, the cultural transition of sojourners reflect a more narrowly defined instrumental purpose such as work assignment or study.
Empirically, outcomes differ as well. For example,
women (compared to men) are more at risk during acculturation transitions (Beiser, Johnson, & Turner,
1993), whereas female sojourners appear to adapt as
well as (Searle & Ward, 1990), or more successfully
than, male sojourners (N. Adler, 1987).
Social identity theorists. Social identity theory
speaks most directly to the cultural transition in which
the individual physically moves between regions in that
it suggests that becoming a member of an outgroup
(e.g., an expatriate in new country) heightens the sense
of salience of one’s identity vis-à-vis the out-group
(e.g., home culture). Turner, Oakes, Haslam, and
McGarty (1994) concluded that social identity tends to
become more salient in intergroup contact (again, an
expatriate living among host nationals, for instance),
whereas personal identity is more salient in intragroup
contexts (repatriate among compatriots, perhaps).
Members’ group stereotypes (autostereotypes) also appear to be strengthened in intergroup relations. In a
study of self-concept, Hogg and Turner (1987) found
359
SUSSMAN
that men and women described themselves in more
gender-stereotypic terms under intergroup rather than
intragroup situations.
However, social identity theory does not address
the identity effects of sustained contact. What of the
experience of temporary but close cultural contact, one
in which the sojourner lives several years in another
country? A 5-year sojourn in Japan or Chile might not
shift an identity completely; that is, the sojourner may
not consider themselves to be Japanese or Chilean.
However, as Anderson (1994) pointed out, during cultural transitions,
All the familiar underpinnings of one’s sense of self
are said to be torn away, depriving persons of most of
the familiar reference points that provide the cues for
their behavior as well as the substrate for their sense of
identity. (p. 294)
The sense of self is altered and one seeks to understand
the new self.
Cross-Cultural Transitions
Psychologists sporadically have studied the cultural
transitions of sojourners (Brein & David, 1971) and suggested methods for minimizing the stress associated
with it (Brislin & Pedersen, 1976), although constructs
often have been vague and confusing. Since Oberg
(1960) coined the term culture shock, researchers have
grappled with using a concept that describes both the
process of cross-cultural transition and its outcomes.
Researchers have suggested that cultural adaptation or
adjustment, as the outcome of cross-cultural transitions,
be used as a descriptive term. Searle and Ward (1990)
further suggested the distinction between two interrelated types of adjustment—that of psychological adjustment (feelings of well-being and satisfaction) or
sociocultural competence (ability to fit in to the new culture and interact effectively). Similarly, Black (1988)
proposed three distinctions: general adjustment, interaction with host nationals, and work adjustment.
I prefer the conceptually neutral term cultural adaptation to refer to the outcome in which individuals
modify their cognitions, behaviors, and interpretations
of behaviors to match the new cultural environment
better. Adaptation emphasizes proactive attempts to be
culturally flexible and resilient within the new cultural
environment.
Sojourner Experience
Within the extensive and largely descriptive sojourner literature, researchers have focused on individ360
ual difference and cultural variation factors. One useful
system of categorizing cross-cultural transitions and
cultural-adjustment research corresponds to the chronology of the experience (see Anderson, 1994; Church,
1982, for other classifications): (a) antecedent variables, or those that temporally precede the cross-cultural encounter, and (b) consequent variables, or those
that describe consequences of cultural adaptation.
Antecedent variables that have been shown to effect
the adjustment process include personality variables
(Ditchburn, 1996; Hawes & Kealey, 1981), behavioral
skills (Church, 1982), previous overseas experience
(Black, 1988; Torbiorn, 1982), organizational variables (Howard, 1980b; Mendenhall, Dunbar, &
Oddou, 1987), cultural distance (Church, 1982; Searle
& Ward, 1990; Triandis, 1994; Ward & Searle, 1991)
or cultural novelty (Torbiorn, 1982), cultural knowledge and cultural identity (Ward & Searle, 1991), and
discrepancies between expectations and experience
overseas (Weissman & Furnham, 1987).
Consequent variables that result from cultural transitions include negative ones such as personal shock
(Winkelman, 1994), loss of personal intimacy
(Adelman, 1988), role shock (Berry, 1980), or to a less
frequently reported consequence, growthful, positive
experiences (P. S. Adler, 1987).
Despite the generally atheoretical body of literature, several authors have suggested theoretical frameworks within which a significant portion of these
studies fall including (a) stage models of transitions
(Grove & Torbiorn, 1985; Lysgaard, 1955; Zapf,
1991), (b) a clinical approach (Ward & Searle, 1991),
(c) a social learning approach (Bochner, 1982; David,
1976; Gutherie, 1975), and (d) a social cognition approach (Ward & Searle, 1991). The latter perspective
has been the least investigated of the three and is discussed in detail in the following section.
Cultural Repatriation
Overview of Empirical Literature
One might reasonably assume that repatriation is
simply the closure of the transition cycle, psychologically similar to cultural adjustment. Reviews of the literature (Black, Gregersen, & Mendenhall, 1992;
Sussman, 1986) and repatriate anecdotes suggest otherwise. Different cognitive processes appear to make
repatriation psychologically distinct from behavioral,
cognitive, and sociocultural adaptation, which individuals undergo during cultural adaptation to another
country. However, consonant with the overseas transition literature, empirical findings consistently report
high levels of repatriate distress on returning home.
This robust result has been reported among diverse
CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CULTURAL TRANSITIONS
North American population samples including adolescents and high school students (Werkman, 1979;
Werkman & Johnson, 1976), college students
(Brabant, Palmer, & Gramling, 1990; Rohrlich & Martin, 1991; Uehara, 1986), business employees (N.
Adler, 1981; Black, 1992; Black & Gregersen, 1991;
Briody & Baba, 1991; Harvey, 1989; Howard, 1980b),
missionaries (Moore, Van Jones, & Austin, 1987;
Stringham, 1993), and remigrants (Lucca-Irizarry &
Pacheco, 1992).
Cross-cultural research with non-Americans indicated repatriation distress in at least some domains
among returned foreign students at the high school
(Ferguson, 1989, Japanese students returning home;
Wilson, 1993, students from Australia, Ecuador, Norway, and Sweden returning home) and college level
(Basu & Ames, 1970; Gama & Pedersen, 1977, returning to Brazil from the United States; Bochner,
Lin, & McLeod, 1980, Asian students leaving the
United States), among business employees (Black,
1994, Japanese repatriates; Gregersen & Black, 1996;
Gregersen & Stroh, 1997, Finnish repatriates;
Sussman, 1985; Tung, 1988), and among returned exiles (Sundquist & Johansson, 1996, Latin American
repatriates from Sweden).
Researchers have suggested that repatriation does
not result in uniformly negative responses. Several
studies indicated positive changes among repatriates
including being more aware of and accepting of cultural differences in general (Wilson, 1986), more appreciation of the host culture (Grove & Hansel, 1983),
and for repatriated college students improved relationships with parents (Martin, 1986). Findings such as
these, however, might serve more as an outcome of an
intercultural experience that becomes salient on return
to one’s home country rather than the consequence of
repatriation itself. Differential outcomes also might reflect differences in cultural identity shifts as described
in the section detailing the proposed paradigm.
Theoretical Models
Since 1963 (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963), the social science community has recognized that psychological distress accompanies the return home, yet
research remained largely descriptive. Those models
that have been proffered might be categorized into
three types. One school of thought, the reductionists,
considers all transitions, adjustments, and adaptations
as variants of the same process, so that the underlying
mechanisms for overseas transitions, repatriation transitions, or domestic geographic transitions are equivalent. Black, Gregersen, and Mendenhall (1992)
suggested, for example, prevalence of this notion
among investigations of corporate sojourners. A varia-
tion of the reductionist theme is one suggested by theorists who consider cultural transitions reflective of any
stressful environment in which psychological adjustments and coping strategies emerge (Anderson, 1994;
Bennett, 1977). This approach, for instance, might
psychologically cluster cultural repatriates with
1st-year college students or newlyweds.
A second perspective allows for the distinctiveness
of cultural transitions from all others but views overseas and repatriation as similar. The emphasis here is
the response to changing environments and the
sociocultural contexts. Storti’s (1997) work exemplifies this paradigm with his discussion of the changing
nature and meaning of home. The repatriation experience, as with overseas transitions, becomes a response
to an unfamiliar environment, the loss of social cues,
new communication system, and different relational
rules. Ample theoretical and empirical support is extant pertaining to overseas transitions and the stressful
response to new cultural environments and the lack of
social support (Harris & Moran, 1979), the importance
of sociocultural learning (Furnham & Bochner, 1986;
Taft, 1977), or social-cognitive learning (Armes &
Ward, 1989; Weissman & Furnham, 1987) as a way of
facilitating adjustment.
No clear evidence is available for applying this cultural environment model to repatriation, however.
Could the home environment have changed so radically as to plunge the repatriate into reverse culture
shock? Perhaps for several narrowly defined repatriation populations, this model might predict their repatriation experience. In the case of lengthy sojourns (e.g.,
20 years) or a return to a dramatically altered country
(e.g., postapartheid South Africa), the changing home
model might apply (see Weschler, 1998, for three case
studies of repatriated exiles). Similarly with adolescent
repatriates, for whom substantial segments of their social context change quickly, repatriation distress might
be a response to a home that is now an unfamiliar
sociocultural environment (Strangers at Home, 1996).
However, for the hundreds of thousands of adult sojourners who move between countries for moderate
periods of time, the unfamiliar cultural environment
model that predicts overseas psychological and
sociocultural adjustment might not be sufficiently explanatory when applied to the repatriation experience.
A third perspective recognizes the unique qualities of
the repatriation process and three models represent the
psychological distinctiveness of repatriation transitions. N. Adler (1981), for example, suggested a predictive model of repatriate coping styles but does not
provide sufficient detail about the psychometric properties of the measures nor the theoretical underpinnings.
Black, Gregersen, and Mendenhall (1992) proposed
a broad theory of repatriation based on control theory
(Bell & Straw, 1989; cited in Black, Gregersen, &
361
SUSSMAN
Mendenhall, 1992) in which repatriates make both anticipatory and in-country repatriation adjustments.
However, anticipatory adjustments assume that expatriates are aware of and prepared for the repatriation
process, an assumption not supported by the literature.
In addition, although the four variables that they propose as informing anticipatory and in-country (home)
adjustment cover several domains, none focus on psychological or sociocultural factors. Their theory does
acknowledge the complexity of the repatriation and allows for multiple indices of repatriation adjustment,
which include general, interpersonal, and work-related
readjustments.
In another repatriation-unique model, Rogers and
Ward (1993) proposed a social-cognitive framework
in which the central variable is that the discrepancy between expectations of the reentry experience held by
sojourners and their actual reentry experience affects
the psychological adjustment. Their results indicated
that experienced, but not expected, social difficulties
were associated with reentry adjustment problems. Expectations contributed to predicting difficulties only
when they were unrealistic—that is, when experiences
were more difficult than originally anticipated.
In sum, repatriation, distinct from overseas adjustment, typically does not involve speaking a new language, finding new support networks, learning to
move about in an unfamiliar environment, struggling
to make culturally isomorphic attributions (interpreting a social situation in a way similar to those in the
host culture; Triandis, 1975), or learning new cognitive schemas. Yet, in addition to the robust findings
that repatriation is psychologically distressing, several studies indicated that repatriation adjustment is
more difficult than initial overseas adjustment (N.
Adler, 1981; Clague & Krupp, 1978; Howard,
1980b). Although the variables tested in the repatriation studies measure multiple domains of repatriation
distress and accurately might predict severity of repatriation adjustment, they still do not further our understanding of the construct; that is, why is coming
home so difficult?
The previous reviews of two disparate bodies of research, the social psychological and the intercultural,
provided constructs on which to build an explanatory
model of individual-level responses to cultural transitions and repatriation. With the self a product of and located within a culture, cultural identity emerges as
critical element of the self-concept whose saliency increases with the unique situational context of sojourn-related intergroup contact. Both individual and
cultural variability factors influence the extent of adaptation to the sojourn culture and ergo the range of stability, clarity, and complexity of the changing self.
Subsequent cultural identity shifts inform the repatriate’s affective response.
362
A New Model: Cultural Identity and
Cultural Transition
This paradigm seeks to provide a parsimonious explanation to several unanswered questions or contradictory findings: First, why is repatriation a distressing
segment of cultural transitions? Second, why is culture
learning not a theoretically satisfactory explanation in
light of equivocal empirical findings? Third, how does
active understanding of cultural identity changes mediate affective responses to those changes?
It is proposed here that self-concept disturbances
and subsequent shifts in cultural identity throughout
the cross-cultural transitions process are the critical
mediating factors in explaining and predicting psychological responses to these transitions, whether conceptualized as psychological adjustment, cultural anxiety,
sociocultural competence, or growthful development.
This explanatory model argues for three fundamental
elements: identity salience, sociocultural adaptation,
and self-concept–cultural identity changes. These features interact within a larger cyclical framework of cultural transition to predict consequences for the
transition process made evident during repatriation.
Figure 1 illustrates the cyclical model.
Identity Salience
This model suggests that whereas self-construal,
emotion, and motivation might be shaped by the cultural context, few individuals are cognizant of cul-
Figure 1. Shifts in cultural identity throughout the cultural transition.
CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CULTURAL TRANSITIONS
ture’s influence. Culture might be part of the self, but
cultural identity is not explicitly recognized. Like a
fish in water, culture surrounds an individual, albeit its
impact is seldom a salient feature of an individual’s
self-concept; individuals rarely recognize the imprint
of their own culture and its ubiquitous nature. In my
social psychology classroom in New York, few students in describing themselves ever list “American”
among their top 20 attributes in the classic Kuhn and
McPartland (1954) self-description exercise.
Baumeister (1986) pointed out that not all beliefs
about oneself are simultaneously part of our
self-awareness. The lack of identity awareness may be
explained conceptually through the phenomenal self or
the working self concept (Markus & Kunda, 1986),
which referred to a part of self-knowledge present or
not present in our awareness at a particular time.
There are exceptions to the general lack of cultural
identity awareness. For some groups, cultural identity
is salient or explicit. McGuire, McGuire, Child, and
Fujioka (1978), in a study of gender and racial identities, concluded that social distinctiveness increased saliency of one’s social identity; their minority status
allowed for that identity to be more salient or more
central to their working self-concept. This might be
particularly noticeable when aspects of the dominant
and minority cultures conflict. A Korean American
child, for example, might be taught by parents and
family to be respectful and obedient toward the elderly; this collectivist goal clashing with the individualistic and youth-centered lessons taught by
mainstream U.S. culture. In such cases, one’s cultural
identity is painfully evident. Groups whose cultural
identity is externally threatened might also experience
heightened salience such that in Kosovo or in the
Basque region of Spain, individuals are willing to die
to maintain their cultural identity and separateness.
Members of dominant groups within culturally heterogeneous entities, although not experiencing increased saliency of identity, might experience identity
confusion. Triandis (1989) suggested that clarity of social identity and the type of self-cognitions are related.
Both low sampling of the collective self and high cultural complexity could result in increased confusion of
the social identity. Social identity, therefore, might focus on ethnic or racial identity differences rather than
on cultural similarities.
The proposed model predicts that one situation in
which one’s cultural identity will emerge and become
salient is during the commencement of a cultural transition. Enveloped in a new social environment where
behavior and thinking diverge from one’s familiar cultural context, awareness of the profound influence of
our culture on behavior begins to grow. Dorothy noticed it immediately on stepping out of her fallen house
into the Land of Oz, when she exclaimed, “Toto, I’ve a
feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore” (LeRoy &
Fleming, 1939). Embedded in the literature on
cross-cultural training (Stewart, 1966) is the assumption that awareness of home cultural identity is important to psychologically positive cultural transitions.
Juxtaposed to the emerging cultural identity salience, a new social identity status emerges—that of
outgroup member, an expatriate in a new cultural environment. These twin cognitions, that of cultural identity salience and outgroup membership, appear to
strengthen, at least initially, our identification with our
home culture. Although not designed as a test of the
transition-identity model, a recent study (Kosmitzki,
1996) supported the model’s first premise. Home culture affirmations were reported by both German and
U.S. expatriates as compared to same-culture individuals who had no expatriate experience. Germans living
in the United States and Americans living in Germany
described themselves as more similar to their compatriots than did German or U.S. monoculturals.
Similarly, in a study of European managers who
worked within either a monocultural organization or a
multinational one, Laurent (1983) found that those
working within a multinational corporation with a
wide range of other Europeans experienced a resurgence of values associated with their own country’s
values. Stryker and Serpe (1982) also noted that identity salience leads to behavior consistent with that
identity. Anecdotal evidence confirms as well the effects of cultural identity salience. A frequent U.S. sojourner reported to me that he jubilantly celebrates the
4th of July only when living in other countries. Thus,
cultural identity salience coincides with the primary
step in transition-induced self-concept disturbance.
Sociocultural Adaptation
Following the cultural reaffirmation phase, the
model posits that sojourners recognize the discrepancy
between their cultural selves (and the goals that direct
behavior and thought) and the new cultural context.
Higgins (1996) suggested that self-knowledge is pursued for practical reasons in part for the adaptive benefits of improving the person–environment fit. This is
precisely the context in which cultural sojourners find
themselves. Cultural readjustments, prompted by the
lack of fit between one set of cultural cognitions and behavior no longer appropriate within the new cultural
context, may lead individuals to modify behavior,
cognitions, or both and, consequently, cultural identity.
Sojourners are faced with a continuum of accommodation choices that range from maintenance of the
cultural self and its behavioral repertoire at one anchor
to transposition to a new cultural self and a new behav363
SUSSMAN
ioral and cognitive repertoire at the other, the latter colloquially described as “going native.”
The process of selecting a cultural accommodation
mode is complex and dependent on several variables,
three of which are internal or self-variables. One such
factor is task centrality—the motivation to succeed at
the assigned overseas task. The proposed model makes
the assumption that sojourners are motivated to succeed
at their task—workers to conduct business, students to
learn, development workers to distribute aid, missionaries to convert. For sojourners who have low motivation
to succeed, the sociocultural adaptation phase is subverted at the stage of cultural identity salience.
The model suggested two other factors that influence the sociocultural adaptation process: cultural
identity centrality and cultural flexibility. Identity centrality refers to the significance of cultural identity to
the sojourner. The more central the identity, the less
likely that extreme cultural accommodation will take
place and the more likely that the familiar cultural self,
newly reaffirmed in its identity, will be maintained.
If cultural identity centrality is low and intention to
succeed at the overseas task is high, the question remains whether the sojourner has the ability to recognize the culturally appropriate behaviors, to learn them
and to engage in them in appropriate situations—in
short, is the sojourner able to adapt? Cultural flexibility
refers to the sojourner’s ability to make the necessary
modifications in behavior and thought. Existing individual difference constructs that measure awareness of
and adaptability to the social environment might be
used as a valid measure of cultural flexibility.
Self-monitoring (Snyder, 1987), for example, has been
shown to have low but significant correlation with both
general cultural adjustment and interpersonal interaction adjustment in that high self-monitors expressed
higher degrees of adjustment (Harrison, Chadwick, &
Scales, 1996). Sojourners low on cultural flexibility
might find they are unable to discern or emulate the
necessary cultural behaviors that would improve the
self–culture fit. They might also find the new culture
too difficult to understand, suffering from what
Shweder (1991) referred to as confusionism, a sojourner’s honest assessment that cultures can be so diverse that even comprehending the framework of
another culture is impossible.
The period of adjustment or accommodation is one
in which the sojourner makes the person–environment
fit. These modifications also mark the beginning of
self-knowledge pursuit (Higgins, 1996) and self-concept disturbances. Triandis (1975) referred to the cognitive attempts to think like the locals as the process of
learning to make isomorphic attributions. His model of
cross-cultural training, the culture assimilator, is based
on the assumption that thinking like the locals hastens
cultural adaptation. Suggested here is that much of the
364
transition-related psychological stress described earlier occurs during the adjustment process.
Distinct from adjustment, however, adaptation is
conceptualized as the successful endpoint of the accommodation process. Sojourners have adapted to the
host culture if they use to some extent the behavioral
repertoire, beliefs, and attributional conventions of the
host culture to smoothly engage in social relationships,
understand and utilize the cultural rules of social and
professional life to appropriately lead, motivate, negotiate, decide, and plan.
At the juncture in the sojourn experience in which
sojourners define themselves as reasonably well
adapted, researchers have suggested that they will experience less stress, less ambiguity, and more psychological comfort. Ward (1998), in describing the
development and use of an index of acculturation
(Ward’s terminology) of sojourners, reported data supportive of this explanation. For example, among
Singaporeans resident in the United States, length of
stay was positively related to identification with host
nationals. Furthermore, host culture identification was
clearly associated with better sociocultural adaptation
among four sojourner groups (multinational aid workers in Nepal, Singaporeans in the United States, Americans in Singapore, and Chinese in Singapore).
Adaptation is not only a continuous variable, but
also multivariate. Sojourners discover some scripts
more resistant to change or some behaviors more pliant. The extant literature on sojourner experiences provides little insight into what the critical threshold is of
behavioral and cognitive changes necessary for sojourners to feel that they have adapted successfully.
Similarly, we have scant empirical guidance to determine at what point members of the host culture perceive the sojourners as no longer dissimilar from
themselves but rather as someone with whom interpersonal encounters are predictable and comfortable; that
is, we lack reliable other-ratings of cultural adaptation.
In one study, Lee and Larwood (1983) found that the
more Americans working in Korea adopted behaviors
and attitudes similar to the Koreans, the more they
were accepted.
Repatriation
The sojourn experience ends at some point,
abruptly for some, deliberately for others, but the nature of the sojourn is to return to the home culture. Similar to the emergence or salience of home culture
identity at the commencement of the sojourn, the
model suggests that as a result of cultural accommodation and adaptation, the self-concept is disturbed and
consequent changes in cultural identity become salient
on commencement of repatriation.
CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CULTURAL TRANSITIONS
In a process parallel to culture identity awareness
when sojourning, although now against the backdrop
of the home culture, repatriates evaluate their personal
values, cognitive maps, and behavioral repertoires
against the prevailing cultural norms at home. For
many repatriates, they no longer find a fit between their
newly formed cultural identity and that of their home
culture environment. For most repatriates, the affective response is overwhelmingly negative. Cognitively, responses included errors of social cognition
and misattributions as to the cause of one’s negative affect state (Sussman, in press). Affectively, repatriates
report feelings of “not fitting in” with former colleagues, friends, and family. Behaviorally, actions that
were functional in the host country are blocked or opposed. Home cultural identity no longer matches and
the sojourner is now a member of a new outgroup
within the home country, that of repatriate.
The Relation Between Self-Concept
Disturbances and Cultural Identity
Change
This model proposes that as sojourners successfully
adapt to the new culture by modifying behaviors and social thought, cultural identity changed as well. New cultural scripts in which sojourners are now engaged and
that enabled them to fit more appropriately the host environment are not appropriate in the home culture.
Those trivial and profound aspects that in combination
create home culture identity are no longer actively engaged at the point in which we have adapted to a host culture. Acting Thai while in Thailand feels comfortable;
thinking like a Spaniard while in Spain results in productive encounters. Cultural adaptation is functional
and psychologically effective. However, thinking like a
Spaniard or acting like a Thai is distressing and uncomfortable when returning home to Denver, Paris, or Tokyo. It is on repatriation that the cultural identity shift
emerges and becomes salient. Sojourners experience
the most severe level of stress at any time during the cultural transition. Baumeister (1986) indicated that individuals experiencing identity confusion can encounter a
variety of social, emotional, and motivational deficits.
Note that an opposite prediction is derived from culture-learning theory, suggesting that successful overseas adaptation signals a sojourner’s success in
learning cultural coping skills. These skills, in turn,
would be transferred to the repatriation context resulting in an affectively positive experience. Empirical
studies, however, do not support this model because
repatriation has been shown to be overwhelmingly
linked to negative affect. Even for sojourners who have
experienced multiple cultural transitions, subsequent
repatriation occurrences remain difficult or occasion-
ally more distressing than the first repatriation (Suda,
1999; Sussman, in press).
The cultural identity model proposed here suggests
that as a consequence of the interaction of identity salience, the adjustment process, and adaptation outcome and self-concept changes, four distinct types of
identity shift might occur, the shift latent until repatriation makes it salient to the sojourner. These cultural
identity shifts have been labeled as subtractive, additive, affirmative, or intercultural. Each category of cultural identity shift reflects unique combinations of
self-concept disturbances. Each combination of disturbances also predicts differential psychological responses to repatriation.
Subtractive and additive identity shifts (see Figure
2) commence the transition cycle identically with an
obscured cultural identity (indicated as shaded in the
first box of the figure), which becomes salient as the
sojourn in another culture begins (now indicated as an
unshaded box). Home-culture and sojourn culture discrepancies are recognized and the adjustment process
is triggered.
The two identity shifts types diverge at this point,
distinguished from each other primarily by the individual differences variables of identity centrality and cultural flexibility. Sojourners for whom home-culture
identity centrality is low and cultural flexibility is low
to moderate (indicated in striped shading in the figure),
a track begins that leads to a subtractive identity shift.
Sojourners for whom home-cultural identity centrality
is moderate and cultural flexibility is high, additive
cultural identity becomes the repatriate response.
Subtractive and additive identity shifts both are associated with high sociocultural adaptation, and researchers predicted that sojourners will experience a
more difficult repatriation than those with low adaptation. Suda (1999) found that the more integrated the
sojourner was into the host culture, the more distressing the reentry and the more long-lasting the distress.
Empirical results on gender differences in cultural
transitions provide some tangential support as well.
Although no published longitudinal studies exist comparing male and female sojourners during the entire
transition cycle, with caution one can compare observations collected at different points in transition cycle.
N. Adler (1987), for example, indicated that female sojourners adapt more successfully than do male sojourners during initial cultural transitions; several
authors (Brabant, Palmer, & Gramling, 1990; Gama &
Pedersen, 1977) reported that women indicated more
difficult repatriations.
The model predicts further that as a consequence of
high adaptation, both subtractive and additive identity
shifters are associated with lower stability and clarity
of the self-concept, which is conceptualized as greater
fragmentation of the self-concept. These disturbances
365
SUSSMAN
Figure 2. Subtractive and additive identity shifts throughout the cultural transition. Shading in the initial block indicates a sojourner is
unaware of cultural identity. Note differences in self-variables during the cultural adjustment process that mediate final cultural identity
response. Sojourner experiences low stability and clarity of self-concept.
of the self-concept (Campbell, 1990; Donahue et al.,
1993) resulted in lower self-esteem, negative affective
responses, and higher repatriation distress. For sojourners with initially high self-esteem, the unstable
self-esteem would be associated with a tendency to experience anger, hostility, and adverse reactions (Kernis
et al., 1989, 1992). With regard to gender differences,
the model predicts that female sojourners will experience more self-concept disturbances and more
subtractive and additive identity shifts than will men.
The subtractive identity shift (in the striped shaded
box) results in repatriates feeling less comfortable with
their home culture’s values and norms and less similar
to their compatriots. Sussman (in press) noted that
among a sample of U.S. business sojourners, repatriates who reported feeling less American (subtractive
identity shift) experienced higher repatriation distress
than those who reported little identity change. Japanese women repatriates who accompanied their husbands on an overseas assignment reported “difficulty
in fitting into Japanese society” due to feeling “less
Japanese” as the most difficult repatriation adjustment
(Suda, 1999). Ward’s (1998) corroborative findings
supported the subtractive shift as well: For U.S. sojourners in Singapore, American identification weakened over time.
An additive cultural identity shift would result in repatriates feeling more similar to their host culture, such
that the repatriates’ cultural identity more closely resembles the host cultures values, norms, and behaviors.
One outcome of an extreme form of this shift category
found repatriates seeking opportunities to return to the
host culture as soon and as often as possible. A milder
variant of the additive shift was something I experi366
enced on returning to New York following a yearlong
sojourn in Japan, as I began insisting that visitors remove their shoes when entering my apartment, ate primarily in Japanese restaurants, and aided Japanese
tourists in New York to practice the Japanese language.
Although both subtractive and additive identity
shifters will experience similar negative affect, their
behavioral consequences will vary. For the subtractive
repatriate, response to the home collective might include seeking new ingroup members (in this situation,
other repatriates), whereas perceiving other compatriots as less similar in culturally shaped values and behavior. At the extreme, the subtractive repatriates feel
devoid of cultural identity. Park (1928) introduced the
concept of the marginal man, which might describe the
subtractive repatriate. In contrast, additive repatriates
might seek opportunities to interact with members of
the former host culture; participate or attend entertainment, sports, or culinary representations of the host
culture; or continue study of the host culture language.
The model allows repatriates to adopt both types of
identity shifts—subtractive and additive. Alatas
(1972) described this psychological state as the “captive mind syndrome,” whereby a sojourner rejects the
home culture identity and uncritically adopts the host
identity. In both identity shift categories, interaction
with the home-culture collective is minimized, exacerbating the isolation from the home culture and the perception of not fitting with conationals.
The third identity category of identity (see Figure
3), affirmative, can be described as one in which the
home-culture identity is maintained and strengthened
throughout the transition cycle. These sojourners also
begin with an obscured cultural identity (indicated by
CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CULTURAL TRANSITIONS
the shaded box in the figure) that becomes salient during the early stages of the cultural transition. In contrast to the subtractive and additive experience,
affirmative shifters largely ignore the cultural discrepancies. This reaction, coupled with the two critical internal variables, high cultural centrality and low
cultural flexibility, result in low adaptation to the host
culture environment. Cultural self-concept consequentially will be highly stable and unambiguous, which in
turn will result in a repatriation experience that is low
in repatriation distress. For affirmative sojourners who
neither adapted successfully overseas nor experienced
an identity change, researchers predicted that repatria-
tion comes as a welcome relief. Rather than feeling uncomfortable with a newly salient but changed identity,
the model predicts that these sojourners, who might
have been found congregating at the host country
American club, would find on repatriation a heightened identification with home country nationals and
positive affect: the grateful repatriate, in other words.
The intercultural or global identity shift (see Figure
4), a less common identity modification, enables repatriates to hold multiple cultural scripts simultaneously
and draw on each as the working self-concept requires.
The transition cycle commences for the sojourners
with an awareness of cultural identity (unshaded box in
Figure 3. Affirmative identity shift. Low adaptation does not disturb self-concept.
Figure 4. Intercultural identity shift. Initial awareness of cultural identity, high adaptation, and high self-concept complexity are associated with intercultural identity shift.
367
SUSSMAN
the figure) whose salience might result from minority
status within their home country or from prior international sojourns. A recognition of the cultural discrepancies between the sojourner’s current cultural values
and behaviors and that of the new sojourn site triggers
the adjustment process. Researchers suggest that adjustment is facilitated by low cultural centrality and
high cultural flexibility resulting in high adaptation.
Structurally, the self-concept of the sojourner with
an intercultural identity can be described as more complex (Linville, 1987) or specialized (Donahue et al.,
1993), the content of the self-concept as clear (Campbell, 1990) and stable (Kernis et al., 1993). This identity shift paradigm is neither the integration of home
and host culture values (hybridization) nor the
bicultural strategy that result from the acculturation
experience, but rather an identity in which the repatriates define themselves as world citizens and are able to
interact appropriately and effectively in many countries or regions.
Intercultural identity shifts will result in positive affective response and little repatriation distress. Behaviorally, intercultural repatriates might seek to develop
friendships with individuals representing many cultures, selecting a wide range of international entertainment (e.g., movies, sports, television programming)
and reading material (e.g., books, newspapers), and
participating in international electronic discussion
groups and Web sites.
Recent events in Europe provide us with a
real-world setting in which to verify the intercultural
identity shift. The monetary union of Europe and the
blurring of national economic boundaries ease movement between countries and provide individuals with
changeable working self-concepts (Cinnirella, 1996),
which contain cultural self-conceptions currently active in thought and memory. The cultural identity
within the working self is determined by the core identity and the immediate cultural context (Markus &
Nurius, 1986). Rather than having one pair of cultural
glasses that defines and clarifies the world, these repatriates have multiple lenses through which to interpret
a variety of culturally influenced behavior. Bochner,
Lin, and McLeod (1979) reported that, following cultural contact, an international perspective occasionally
develops among sojourners.
Important to note, as well, is that multiple cultural
transition experiences are not sufficient to result in an
intercultural identity. As indicated in the previous review, often multiple repatriation occurrences result in
more distress rather than less. The model suggests
that self-concept complexity and subsequent positive
response to the return home is dependent on two features. First, prior to the commencement of the transition, the sojourner is actively aware of his or her
cultural identity and its consequences; that is, they
368
understand themselves as cultural beings. Second,
during the adaptation and repatriation phases, the sojourner also is actively cognitively processing cultural aspects of the self-concept and is aware of
changes in cultural identity. Physical movement
home, then, is not coupled with an unexplained negative affect, as is the situation with additive and
subtractive shifters. Rather, the intercultural identity
shift evokes a positive affective response.
For sojourners who experience subtractive or additive identity shifts, negative affect experienced during
both the sociocultural adaptation period and the repatriation period can be modulated through thoughtful
preparation prior to transition. N. Adler (1981) and
Sussman (1986) suggested that a critical mediating
variable that acts to intensify repatriation distress, and
one that distinguishes the affective response from
those that are experienced during overseas transitions,
is its unexpectedness. Repatriates appear to be unprepared for the abrupt salience of their self-concept
changes, identity shifts, and the accompanying psychological distress.
In measuring cross-cultural adjustment, researchers
have examined both the absolute discrepancy between
expectation and experience (Hawes & Kealey, 1981;
Searle & Ward, 1990; Weissman & Furnham, 1987)
and the direction of the discrepancy (undermet, met, or
overmet expectations and evaluation of the expectation–experience discrepancy; Black & Gregersen,
1990). Unexpectedness might account for a greater
portion of the variance in explaining repatriation outcomes because it does not seem immediately obvious
to sojourners that returning to one’s home country
should be accompanied by cognitive or behavioral discomfort. Supporting this notion, Black (1992), in a
sample of U.S. business repatriates, found that high
levels of repatriate adjustment and job performance
were predicated on accurate repatriation expectations.
Rogers and Ward (1993) found among secondary students returning to New Zealand that when experiences
were more difficult than expected, larger discrepancies
were associated with psychological distress. However,
results also revealed that realistic expectations were
unrelated to psychological adjustment.
In a recent study using two author-designed assessment instruments (the Repatriation Preparedness Scale
and the Repatriation Experience Assessment Scale),
Sussman (in press) found that among U.S. business
employees, repatriation preparedness (or the degree to
which individuals expected repatriation to the United
States to be psychologically distressful) predicted less
severity of psychological and work adjustment.
In summary, the transition-identity theory suggests
a model in which identity salience, cultural adaptation,
and self-concept disturbances combine in unique ways
to produce four types of cultural identity shifts:
CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CULTURAL TRANSITIONS
subtractive, additive, affirmative, and intercultural.
The identity shifts remain latent until activated by the
sojourners’ return home. Furthermore, each shift predicts affective, behavioral, and cognitive personal
functioning during the repatriation phase of the cultural transition cycle. Both the subtractive and additive
identity shifts, either singly or in combination, will be
accompanied by high repatriation distress. Sojourners
will experience high levels of discomfort with the
home culture, the high identification with the sojourn
culture, or both. Sojourners who undergo affirmative
identity shifts, by contrast, will experience low repatriation distress and a heightened home-culture identification. Behaviorally, affirmative repatriates will avoid
or not seek intercultural situations. For those experiencing intercultural identity shifts, the accompanying
affect will similarly be positive—that is, low repatriation distress. However, intercultural shifters will be
drawn to situations and interpersonal experiences with
significant intercultural or global content.
Directions for Future Research
Social psychology must attend not only to culture as
it moves and mixes but to individuals, as cultural beings, as they move and mix between cultures; to the
content, evaluation, and structure of the cultural self;
and to the awareness of identity in a cultural collective.
The proposed model suggests cultural identity as the
prime mediator of personal functioning during cultural
transitions and provides many opportunities for empirical verification at each point in the schemata. Chief
among the research needs is psychometric that focus
on the design and validation of measures of cultural
identity. Although we find a preponderance of measures on ethnic identity, few scales are available that
measure the dominant cultural identity of sojourners.
An additional psychometric need is the design of more
ecologically based methods to identify and measure
behavioral correlates of cultural adaptation and identity change.
A second category of variables that needs closer
attention relative to the model are those internal factors that effect cultural adaptation and self-concept
disturbances. Individual difference variables might
clarify our understanding of why some sojourners experience profound changes in cultural identity and
others return from an overseas sojourn with little
change in their cultural self-concept. Within the construct of cultural flexibility, measures of worldview,
tolerance, and cultural sensitivity might prove to be
relevant. Differences in independent and interdependent self-construal might yield some predictive value
relative to cross-cultural adjustment. Cross (1995),
for example, indicated a complex relationship regard-
ing self-construal and adjustment. Among East Asian
students, independent self-construal was positively
related to direct coping strategies that predicted reduced stress levels; for U.S. students, self-construal
was not predictive of stress. Clearly, additional research is indicated for this and other internal factors
that might affect cultural transitions.
A third set of factors, more external in origin, might
also influence the degree of cultural adaptation. For example, cultural accommodation and self-concept
change might be affected by the perceived cultural distance between home and host culture. One might argue
that the greater the cultural distance, the lower the adaptation and the more likely the sojourner will make an
affirmative identity shift; conversely, the smaller the
cultural distance between the home and host culture,
the more likely sojourners will adapt and experience a
subtractive or additive identity change.
A fourth set of research issues focuses on the intersection of lifespan changes and cultural transitions.
The creation and maintenance of cultural identity are
of increasing interest as the number of children temporarily living in other cultures is increasing (Lublin,
1999). Do the cultural transition patterns of adolescents and children differ from adults? One might speculate that the longer individuals are immersed in their
home culture, the more pervasive and less malleable is
the cultural identity. One would predict, therefore, that
children and adolescents, due to their less well-formed
cultural identity, experience greater cultural identity
shifts during cultural transitions. This trend would be
amplified in those countries in which adolescent home
subcultures change more rapidly than adult home culture. Teenage repatriates would then be exposed to
shifts both in cultural identity and in home culture.
A fifth set of research factors that requires additional investigations are those in which ecological-level cultural variation might affect adaptation
levels. For example, cultures vary in their proscription
of adherence to cultural scripts. Some cultures confer
nationals with substantial latitude in following norms,
values, and behaviors. Other cultures value strict observance of normative behaviors; deviance is punished. Pelto (1968) and Triandis (1994) referred to
these cultures as loose or tight, respectively. Homogeneous, self-contained cultures are very tight and place
high value on uncertainty avoidance through adherence to many cultural rules and societal laws
(Hofstede, 1980). Examples of tight cultures are those
of Japan, Iran, and traditional Greece. Heterogeneous
cultures, conversely, have fewer rules, have more flexible normative standards, and are typically more tolerant of deviations from cultural norms. They often are
located at the geographic intersection of major cultures
(e.g., Thailand between India and China), are pluralistic (e.g., United States), or are sparsely populated.
369
SUSSMAN
Loose and tight cultures also might differ on clarity
of cultural identity and expected level of adherence to
identity and self-concept elements. For members of
loose cultures, cultural identity might be neither
clearly prescribed nor, as previously suggested, salient. The expectations of how members of the culture
must act are vague. The cultural identity model proposed herein reflects loose cultures such as that in the
United States where, among repatriates, little awareness exists of cultural identity and relatively low value
is placed on maintaining an American identity.
For members of tight cultures, cultural identity and
its elements are salient and clear. One would not expect
cultural identity discovery on the part of tight culture
sojourners, but rather a sustained cultural identity affirmation in the early phases of a cultural transition. Furthermore, as the expectations by the home culture are
clear and deviation from the home culture identity and
behaviors is not tolerated, the model would predict that
repatriates to tight cultures would experience either affirmative or intercultural identity shifts rather than
subtractive or additive shifts. Japan, for example,
scores high on Hofstede’s (1980) uncertainty avoidance index and is prototypical of a tight cultural response to cultural transitions. To ensure less
uncertainty and unpredictability in interpersonal relations, the transit home signals to sojourners the necessity to reshift one’s cultural focus and arrive home
apparently unchanged vis-à-vis cultural identity (e.g.,
Japanese repatriates again behaving as Japanese).
Sussman (1985) reported, in fact, that few Japanese
corporate repatriates experienced repatriation distress.
The occasional sojourners who did admit to additive
shifts were covert in their behavioral display. One research participant described hiding his copy of
Newsweek magazine within the covers of a Japanese
magazine. Kidder (1992), likewise, examined returning Japanese students and described the cultural scripts
or markers for being “real Japanese,” the standard
against which repatriates would be judged.
Cultural variations also might account for patterns
in the centrality of cultural identity within one’s
self-concept. Researchers suggest that some cultures
better prepare their members for the experience of being both an expatriate or a repatriate.
A third ecological variable to be considered is the
openness of the host culture to sojourners. Despite low
cultural identity and high cultural flexibility, a sojourner might find adaptation stymied without the cooperation, encouragement, or at a minimum, the lack
of hostility communicated by host individuals.
A sixth and final domain in which more extensive
research is required is that of preparation for cultural
transitions. Cognitive and behavioral training in the
area of cultural transitions can assist the hundreds of
thousands of sojourners who experience a range of
370
psychological distress, from minor annoyances to significant individual and family breakdowns. Perhaps
the negative effects of cultural salience, adjustment,
adaptation, identity shift, and repatriation could be attenuated and the intercultural resilience of possessing
an intercultural identity be encouraged through cultural education and training.
References
Adelman, M. B. (1988). Cross-cultural adjustment: A theoretical perspective on social support. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 12, 183–204.
Adler, N. (1981). Re-entry: Managing cross-cultural transitions.
Group and Organizational Studies, 6, 341–356.
Adler, N. (1987). Pacific Basin managers: A gaijin, not a woman. Human Resource Management, 26, 169–192.
Adler, P. S. (1987). Culture shock and the cross-cultural learning experience. In L. F. Luce & E. C. Smith (Eds.), Toward internationalism. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Alatas, S. H. (1972). The captive mind in development studies: Some
neglected problems and the need for an autonomous social science tradition in Asia. International Social Science Journal, 24,
9–25.
Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup-contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In P. Katz (Ed.), Toward the elimination of racism (pp. 245–308). New York: Pergamon.
Anderson, L. E. (1994). A new look at an old construct: Cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 293–328.
Armes, K., & Ward, C. (1989). Cross-cultural transitions and sojourn
adjustment in Singapore. Journal of Social Psychology, 129,
273–275.
Basu, A. K., & Ames, R. G. (1970). Cross-cultural contact and attitude formation. Sociology and Social Research, 55, 5–16.
Baumeister, R. F. (1986). Identity. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.,
Vol. 1, pp. 680–740). New York: Oxford University Press.
Beiser, M., Johnson, P., & Turner, J. (1993). Unemployment, underemployment, and depressive affect among Southeast Asian refugees. Psychological Medicine, 23, 731–743.
Bennett, J. (1977). Transition shock: Putting culture shock in perspective. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 4, 45–52.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Social and cultural change. In H. C. Triandis &
R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology:
Vol. 5. Social psychology (pp. 211–280). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation: Understanding individuals moving between cultures. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 232–253). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative
studies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review,
21, 491–511.
Betancourt, H., & Lopez, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity,
and race in American psychology. American Psychologist, 48,
629–637.
Black, J. S. (1988). Work role transitions: A study of American expatriate managers in Japan. Journal of International Business
Studies, 19, 277–294.
CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CULTURAL TRANSITIONS
Black, J. S. (1992). Coming home: The relationship of expatriate expectations with repatriation adjustment and job performance.
Human Relations, 45, 177–192.
Black, J. S. (1994). O Kaerinasai: Factors related to Japanese repatriation adjustment. Human Relations, 47, 1489–1508.
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1990). Expectations, satisfaction,
and intention to leave of American expatriate managers in Japan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14,
485–506.
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). When Yankee comes home:
Factors related to expatriate and spouse repatriation adjustment.
Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 671–694.
Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B., & Mendenhall, M. E. (1992). Toward a
theoretical framework of repatriation adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies, 23, 737–760.
Bochner, S. (Ed.). (1982). Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Bochner, S., Lin, A., & McLeod, B. M. (1979). Cross-cultural contact
and the development of an international perspective. Journal of
Social Psychology, 107, 29–41.
Bochner, S., Lin, A., & McLeod, B. M. (1980). Anticipated role conflict of returning overseas students. Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 265–272.
Brabant, S., Palmer, C. E., & Gramling, R. (1990). Returning home:
An empirical investigation of cross-cultural re-entry. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 387–404.
Brein, M., & David, K. H. (1971). Intercultural communication and
the adjustment of the sojourner. Psychological Bulletin, 76,
215–230.
Brewer, M., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes. New York: Halsted.
Briody, E. K., & Baba, M. L. (1991). Explaining differences in repatriation experiences: The discovery of coupled and decoupled
systems. American Anthropologist, 93, 324–344.
Brislin, R., & Pedersen, P. (1976). Cross-cultural orientation programs. New York: Wiley.
Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 538–549.
Campbell, J. D., Chew, B., & Scratchley, L. S. (1991). Cognitive and
emotional reactions to daily events: The effects of self-esteem
and self-complexity. Journal of Personality, 59, 473–505.
Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,
91, 540–572.
Cinnirella, M. (1996). A social identity perspective on European integration. In G. Breakwell & E. Lyons (Eds.), Changing European identities: Social psychological analyses of social change
(pp. 253–274). Oxford, England: Butterworth Heinemann.
Clague, L., & Krupp, N. (1978). International personnel: The repatriation problem. Personnel Administration, 23, 29–33.
Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress in cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26,
673–697.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals
and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.
David, K. H. (1976). The use of social learning theory in preventing
intercultural adjustment problems. In P. Pedersen, W. J. Lonner,
& J. Dragons (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (pp. 123–138).
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 4–12.
Ditchburn, G. J. (1996). Cross-cultural adjustment and psychoticism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 295–296.
Donahue, E. M., Robins, R. W., Roberts, B. W., & John, O. P. (1993).
The divided self: Concurrent and longitudinal effects of psychological adjustment and social roles on self-concept differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
834–846.
Ferguson, P. (1989). Stressful experiences of Japanese students returning from extended periods of residence in the United States.
Journal of Human Behavior and Learning, 6, 30–35.
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture shock: Psychological
reactions in unfamiliar environments. London: Metheun.
Gama, E., & Pedersen, P. (1977). Readjustment problems of Brazilian returnees from graduate studies in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Adjustment, 1, 46–59.
Graves, T. D. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 23, 337–350.
Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (1996). Multiple commitments upon
repatriation: The Japanese experience. Journal of Management,
22, 209–229.
Gregersen, H. B., & Stroh, L. K. (1997). Coming home to the Arctic
cold: Antecedents to Finnish expatriate and spouse repatriation
adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 50, 635–654.
Grove, C. C., & Torbiorn, I. (1985). A new conceptualization of
intercultural adjustment and the goals of training. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 205–233.
Grove, C. L., & Hansel, B. (1983). Updated findings of the AFS impact study. New York: American Field Service International/Intercultural Programs.
Gullahorn, J., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1963). An extension of the U-curve
hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 14, 33–47.
Gurin, P., Hurtado, P., & Peng, T. (1994). Group contacts and ethnicity in the social identities of Mexicanos and Chicanos. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 521–532.
Gutherie, G. M. (1975). A behavioral analysis of culture learning. In
R. W. Brislin, S. Bochner, & W. J. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on learning (pp. 95–116). New York: Sage.
Harris, P. R., & Moran, R. T. (1979). Managing cultural differences.
Houston, TX: Gulf.
Harrison, J. K., Chadwick, M., & Scales, M. (1996). The relationship
between cross-cultural adjustment and the personality variables
of self-efficacy and self-monitoring. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 20, 167–188.
Harvey, M. G. (1989). Repatriation of corporate executives: An empirical study. Journal of International Business Studies, pp.
131–144.
Hawes, F., & Kealey, D. J. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian
technical assistance: Adaptation and effectiveness on overseas
assignments. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
4, 239–258.
Hawthorne, N. (1990). The marble faun. New York: Penguin. (Original work published 1860)
Heine, S. H., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999).
Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological
Review, 106, 766–794.
Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: The
perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist, 53, 1111–1120.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). The “self-digest”: Self-knowledge serving
self-regulatory functions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 1062–1083.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behavior, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 26, 325–340.
Holdstock, T. L. (1999). The perilous problem of neglecting cultural
realities. American Psychologist, 54, 838–839.
Howard, C. G. (1980a). The expatriate manager and the role of the
MNC. Personnel Journal, 59, 838–844.
Howard, C. G. (1980b). The returning overseas executive: Culture
shock in reverse. Human Resource Management, 13, 22–26.
Kashima, Y. (1995). Introduction to the special section culture and
self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 603–605.
371
SUSSMAN
Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C., Berry, A., & Harlow, T.
(1993). There’s more to self-esteem than whether it is high or
low: The importance of stability of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1190–1204.
Kernis, M. H., Grannemann, B. D., & Barclay, L. C. (1989). Stability
and level of self-esteem as predictors of anger arousal and hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
1013–1023.
Kernis, M. H., Grannemann, B. D., & Barclay, L. C. (1992). Stability
of self-esteem: Assessment, correlates, and excuse making.
Journal of Personality, 60, 621–644.
Kidder, L. H. (1992). Requirements for being “Japanese”: Stories of
returnees. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16,
383–393.
Kosmitzki, C. (1996). The reaffirmation of cultural identity in
cross-cultural encounters. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22, 238–248.
Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation
of self-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19, 68–76.
Laurent, A. (1983). The cultural diversity of Western conceptions of
management. International Studies of Management and Organization, 13, 75–96.
Lee, Y., & Larwood, L. (1983). The socialization of expatriate managers in multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal,
26, 657–665.
LeRoy, M. (Producer), & Fleming, V. (Director). (1939). The wizard
of Oz [Film]. Santa Monica, CA: MGM.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper.
Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity:
Don’t put all of your eggs in one cognitive basket. Social Cognition, 3, 94–120.
Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against
stress-related illnesses and depression. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 663–676.
Lublin, J. (1999, January 26). To smooth a transfer abroad, a new focus on kids. Wall Street Journal, pp. B4, B14.
Lucca-Irizarry, N., & Pacheco, A. M. (1992). Intercultural encounters of Puerto Rican migrants. Environment and Behavior, 24,
226–238.
Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian
Fulbright grantees visiting the United States. International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 45–51.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications
for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review,
98, 224–253.
Markus, H. R., & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and malleability of the
self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
858–866.
Markus, H. R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.
Markus, H. R., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,
38, 299–337.
Martin, J. N. (1984). The intercultural re-entry: Conceptualization
and directions for future research. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 8, 115–134.
Martin, J. N. (1986). Communication in the intercultural re-entry:
Student sojourners’ perceptions of change in reentry relationship. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 1–22.
McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., Child, P., & Fujioka, T. (1978). Salience of ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept as a function
of one’s ethnic distinctiveness in the social environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 511–520.
Mendenhall, M., Dunbar, E., & Oddou, G. R. (1987). Expatriate selection training and career pathing: A review and critique. Human Resource Management, 26, 331–345.
372
Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). The self and the collective.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 451–453.
Moore, L., Van Jones, B., & Austin, C. N. (1987). Predictors of reverse culture shock among North American Church of Christ
Missionaries. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 15,
336–341.
Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural shock: Adjustment to a new cultural environment. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177–182.
Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self, others, and conflict in a multicultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 993–1009.
Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. (1993). The sociocultural self. In J. Suls
& A. Pratkanis (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self
(Vol. 4, pp. 187–220). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Oyserman, D., Sakamoto, I., & Lauffer, A. (1998). Cultural accommodation: Hybridity and the framing of social obligation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1606–1618.
Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 881–893.
Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional flexibility: A new
conception of interpersonal flexibility. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 55, 88–101.
Pelto, P. J. (1968, April). The difference between “tight” and “loose”
societies. Transaction, pp. 37–40.
Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499–514.
Phinney, J. S. (1991). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: A review and
integration. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13,
193–208.
Rohner, R. (1984). Toward a conception of culture for cross-cultural
psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15,
111–138.
Rohrlich, B. I., & Martin, J. N. (1991). Host country and reentry adjustment of student sojourners. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 15, 163–182.
Rogers, J., & Ward, C. (1993). Expectation experience discrepancies
and psychological adjustment during cross-cultural reentry. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 85–196.
Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and
sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 449–464.
Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1999).
Human behavior in global perspective (2nd ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A. J., &
Chavous, T. M. (1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African-American identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 18–39.
Showers, C. (1992). Compartmentalization of positive and negative
self-knowledge: Keeping bad apples out of the bunch. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1036–1049.
Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions with
cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Snyder, C. R. (1987). Public appearances/private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.
Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological functions
of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp.
91–159). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes and intergroup relations (pp. 13–40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CULTURAL TRANSITIONS
Stewart, E. (1966). The simulation of cultural differences. Journal of
Communication, 16, 291–304.
Storti, C. (1997). The art of coming home. Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural.
Strangers at home: Essays in living overseas and coming “home” to
a strange land. (1996). Putnam Valley, NY: Aletheia.
Stringham, E. (1993). The reacculturation of missionary families: A
dynamic theory. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 21,
66–73.
Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1982). Commitment, identity salience,
and role behavior: Theory and research example. In W. Ickes &
E. S. Knowles (Eds.), Personality roles and social behavior (pp.
199–218). New York: Springer.
Suda, N. (1999). Issues of adjustment abroad and readjustment to
their home country of Japanese spouses. Journal of
Intercultural Communication, 3, 75–86.
Sundquist, J., & Johansson, S. E. (1996). The influence of exile and
repatriation on mental and physical health: A population based
study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 31,
21–28.
Sussman, N. M. (1985, July). Corporate re-entry: A comparative
look at returning home. Paper presented to the Japan Psychological Association, Tokyo.
Sussman, N. M. (1986). Re-entry research and training: Methods and
implications. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
10, 235–254.
Sussman, N. M. (in press). Cultural transitions: Psychological preparedness, repatriation, and attributions among American managers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations.
Taft, R. (1977). Coping with unfamiliar cultures. In N. Warren (Ed.),
Studies in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 121–153).
London: Academic.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Torbiorn, I. (1982). Living abroad. New York: Wiley.
Triandis, H. C. (1975). Cultural training, cognitive complexity, and
interpersonal attitudes. In R. W. Brislin, S. Bochner, & W. J.
Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on learning (pp.
39–78). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Tung, R. (1988). The new expatriate. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self
and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463.
Tweed, R. G., Conway, L. G., & Ryder, A. G. (1999). The target is
straw or the arrow is crooked. American Psychologist, 54,
837–838.
Uehara, A. (1986). The nature of American student reentry adjustment and perceptions of the sojourn experience. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 415–436.
Ward, C. (1998, August). Models and measurements of acculturation. Paper presented at the XIV Congress of the International
Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bellingham, WA.
Ward, C., & Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value discrepancies
and cultural identity on psychological and socio-cultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 209–225.
Weissman, D., & Furnham, A. (1987). The expectations and experiences of a sojourning temporary resident abroad. A preliminary
study. Human Relations, 40, 313–326.
Werkman, S. L. (1979). Coming home: Adjustment problems of adolescents who have lived overseas. In S. D. Feinstein & P. L.
Giovacchini (Eds.), Adolescent psychiatry: Vol. 7. Developmental and clinical studies (pp. 178–190). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Werkman, S. L., & Johnson, F. (1976, May). The effect of geographic
mobility on adolescent character structure. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Adolescent
Psychiatry, Miami, FL.
Weschler, L. (1998). Calamities of exile: Three nonfiction novellas.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, A. H. (1986). Returned Peace Corps volunteers who teach
social studies. Social Studies, 73, 100–107.
Wilson, A. H. (1993). A cross-national perspective on reentry of high
school exchange students. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 17, 465–492.
Winkelman, M. (1994). Cultural shock and adaptation. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 73, 121–126.
Zapf, M. K. (1991). Cross-cultural transitions and wellness: Dealing
with culture shock. International Journal for the Advancement
of Counseling, 14, 105–119.
373