USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
1. The first prompt addresses experiences of culture shock. Although this concept is most frequently utilized to understand the experience of migrants, sojourners, or travelers when entering a new country, we can also experience culture shock in our own nations and neighborhoods when faced with unfamiliar experiences. For this question, you have a choice to either:
Be sure to define culture shock and its phases in your response, using concrete examples to illustrate. Cite the textbook and the Adaptation Theory article in your response.
2. Second, read the case study below and then thoughtfully answer the questions that follow. Be sure to cite the textbook in your discussion.
Kevin and C.J. have been friends since elementary school. Even though C.J. has been attending college out of state for the last year, the two have remained friends. On some occasions, however, both C.J. and Kevin have noticed some changes in the other. Kevin has noticed that C.J. is a little more serious, and C.J. has noticed that Kevin uses derogatory language when talking about people of different races, genders, and sexualities. After being around Kevin for three days, C.J. has decided to discuss the problem.
C.J.: “What’s with you, Kevin? Why do you use that language?”
Kevin: “Ah, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s just talk.”
C.J. “Yeah, but it’s hard to ignore. It sounds real harsh to me.”
Kevin: “Come on, C.J., don’t take things so seriously. I would never say those things to anyone’s face.”
C.J.: “I guess.” C.J. didn’t want to start anything with his friend, so he just shrugged his shoulders and let the issue drop. He felt it wasn’t worth getting into a fight over, but he did not feel comfortable with Kevin’s explanation.
3. Third, after reading the article “A Case-Study of Female Genital Mutilation in Egypt,”
https://www.e-ir.info/2014/02/09/a-case-study-of-f…
you must thoughtfully answer the following question in your original post:
This article presents two important viewpoints: cultural (ethical) relativism vs. universalism. Discuss how you would respond to the author of this article.
If you are on the cultural relativism side, how can you justify female
�b
NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT
§ 401 (b)
© ,;i..oa /
f>�J/;ck,,/ lh tJ. 8. �(Acl’t ew,,, sr f
8. /l-1od C Ed>.). C’J.001). 1/q.Jd’i,ook
6( .,(. A f-ec,1–A�.:fi� J � ..C ‘i ,-./…er c-,.{Hp,,,,:/)
C.o,,.,.11,,,t.c,r;,:e.,–/2’e.,.. ( 2�cf..4e/.,,1
l.7 3).
14
Adapting to an Unfamiliar Culture
An Interdisciplinary Overview
If’• ::J.S-7-
7�,,-u.,u.v,d 0Ak� ,1 C!.;¢::
YOUNG. YUN KIM
Univenity of O/dahoma
S/..e..
T
he swirling interface between cultures
spins off new problems that require -new
learning and new solutions. This global trans
formation compels us· to stretch. tbe limits of
our usual ways of chinking. At the forefront of
th.is reality arc countless people who arc on the
move across culrural boundaries-millions of
immigrana, refugees, and ocher “long-term
rcsettlers .who seek a beucr life. Others relo
cate temporarily for a narrower set of pur
poses-artists, musicians, writers, business
people, conscruction workers, �urses, doctors,
Peace Corps volunteers, srudents, professors,
researchers, diplomats and other government
employees, military personnel, missionaries,
and journalists.
Academic efforts to understand and explain
the cross-cultural adaptation phenomenon
have been extensive across social science disci
plines. The complex nature of the phenome
non manifestS itSelf in the variety of existing
conceptions and research approaches, making
it difficult fo� individial investigators to gain
a clear picture of the body of knowledge accu
mulated over the decades. Although the field
has benefited from rich information and
insights, it suffers from disconnectedness.
Broadly, the existing approaches can be
grouped into two broad categories: group
level and individual level. Group-levtl studies
have traditionally been common among
antbropologists for m.ore rhan 60 years. Dur
ing the 1930s, the Social Science Research
Council appointed che Subcommittee on
Acculruration composed of three anchropol
ogiscs-Redfield, Linton. and Herskovits-
and charged it with rbe taSk of defining the
parameters for this inquiry in cultural anthro
pology. The term acculturation was formally
adopted as the concept representing the new
area of study dealing with “those phenomena
which result when groups of individt12ls have
different cultures and come into firsr-hand
conract with subsequent changes in the origi•
259
260
nal p:mern of either or both groups” (Red
field, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936, p. 149, ital
ics added). By viewing acculrurarion as a
group phenomenon, anthropological studies
traditionally observed the dynamics of change
in “primitive” cultures (e.g., Herskovits,
1958), the presence of kin, friends, and ethnic
communiry org:mizations in supporting immi
grants’ adaptation (e.g., Eames & Schwab,
1964). Paralleling the anthropological studies
of cultural groups are sociological studies that
have focused on issues pertaining to stratifica
tion, that is, the hierarchical classification of
the members of sociery based on the unequal
distribution of resources, power, and prestige
(e.g., Parrillo, 1966). Many sociological stud
ies have investigated minority-majority rela
tions in which minority groups are suuctur
ally integrated into the political, social, and
economic systems of the society at large (e.g.,
Marrett & Lcggon, 1982).
Comparatively, studies in psychology and
communication have dealt primarily with the
inttapc rson:il-intcrpcrsonal phenomenon of
individual newcomers in an unfamiliar envi
ronment. These individual-level studies are
aimed at undemanding and explaining the
experiences of individuals who (1) have had a
primary socialization in one culture and find
themselves in a different and unfamiliar cul
rure, (2) are at least minimally dependent on
the host environment for meeting personal
and social needs, and (3) are at least minimally
engaged in firsthand contact and communica
tion with that environment. Given these con
ditions, efforts have been made recently to
include in this domain members of ethnic
minority groups such as Afric:m Americans
and American Indians who face pressure to
adapt from the dominant sociocultural milieu
in the United Stares (e.g., Kim, Lujan, &
Dixon, 1998). The present essay offers an
overview of these individual-level studies that
investigate cross-cultural adaptation foc115ing
on the experiences of immigrants, refugees,
INTER.CULTURAL COMMUNICATION
Adapli1tg lo 41f U1t{amiliar Cu/tun
and other long-term rcsettlers, as well as tem
porary sojourners and native-born ethnic
minorities.
KEY TERMS
AND DEFINITIONS
A variety of terms have been used to refer to
what is essentially the same process immi
grants and sojourners go through in an unfa
miliar culture. The term assimilation (or
amalgamation) has often been employed to
emphasize acceptance and internalization of
the host culture by the individual. The term
ac;c;ulturation has been defined as the process
by which individuals acquire some (but not
all) aspects of the host culture. ln a more lim
ited sense, coping and adjustment have been
employed co·refer to psychological response$
to cross-cultural challenges, whereas integra
tion has been defmed as social participation in
the host environment. The terminological us-
age becomes more complex when we consider
the variations in operational defmitions (or
indicators) of each of these terms.
The term adaptation is employed here to
refer to the dynamic process by which individ
uals, upon relocating to an unfamiliar cultural
environment, establish (or reestablish) and
maintain a relatively stable, reciprocal, and
functional relationship with the environment.
At tbc core of this definition· is the goal of
achieving an. overall person-envjronment •fit”
for maximization of one’s social life chances.
Adaptation, thus, is an activity that is “almost
always a compromise, a vector in th� internal
srru.cture of culture :ind the external pressure
of environment” (Sahl.ins, 1964, p. 136).
Placed at the intersection of the person and
the environment, adaptation is essentially a
communication process that occurs as long as
the individual remains in contact with the en
vironment. This communication-based defini
tion enables us to move beyond the conven•
261
IDeculturatfon
1Enculturatlon
‘-
.,.
)’AsslmDatlon
l
-�
.,)
Cultural
Adaptation
Cron-Cultural
Adaptation
fijure 14.1. Relationships Among Terms Associated With Cross-Cultural Adaptation
· · tional lincar�reductionist-causal assumption
underlying al{llosr all �f the existing investiga
tions in the field of cross-cultural adaptation
and encourages us to examine the phenome
non in its totality-�[ of an individual’s per·
sonal and social experiences vis-¼-vis the host
environment.
In this interactive and inclusive conception,
the cerm cross-cultural adaptation serves as a
“superordinate category” (Whit�, 1976,
p. 18) under which other commonly used
terms can be subsumed. First, cross-cultural
adaptation is a phenomenon that occurs sub
sequent co the process of childhood encultur
ation (or socialization) of individuals i.nto rec
p�ble members of a given culrural
commuoity. Second, all individuals entering a
new and unfamiliar culrure undergo some de
gree o( new cultural learning, that is, the
acquisition of the native culru.ral practices in
wide-ranging areas, particularly in areas of
direct relevance to the daily functioning of the
rescnlerS-:-from attire and food habits ro
behavioral norms and cultural values. The
rcsocialization activiti_cs are the very essence
of acculturation, consistent with the defini•
tion offered by Marden and Meyer (1968):
•the change in individuals whose primary
learning has been in one culture and who rake
over rraics from another culrure” (p. 36).
Acculrurarion, however, is not a process in
which new culrural clements arc simply added
to prior internal conditions. As new learning
occurs, chculturation (or unlearning) of some
of the old adrural habits has to occur, at least
in the sense that new responses arc adopted in
siruations that previously would have evoked
old ones. The act of acquiring something new
is inevitably the “losing” of something old in
much the same way as •being someone
requires the forfeiture of being someone else”
(Thayer, 1975, p. 240). As the interplay of
acotlturation and deculruration continues,
newcomers undergo an internal tr:insform:i
rion in the direction of assimilation, a state of
the highest degree of acculturation and
deculturation theoretically possible (cf.
Montalvo, 1991; van Oudcnhoven & Eisscs,
1998). (See Figure 14.1.)
Srudics focusing on historical change in
immigrant communities have demonstrated
the acculturative, deculturative, and assimila-
262
tive trends within and across generations.
Gupta (1975), for example, reported that
Asian Indian immigrants to the United States
with originally vegetarian food habits under-‘
went significant changes over time toward
increasingly nonvegctarian habits. A study by
the American Jewish Committee showed a sig·
nificant increase in the members’ merging into
non-Jewish organizations and a substantial
decrease in their Jewish identification (Zwei•
gcnhalf, 1979-1980). Likewise, Triandis,
Kashima. Shimada. and Villareal (1986) and
Suro (1998) have found both acculturative
and deculturative trends among Hispanics in
the United States: Long-term Hispanics showed
diminished Hispanic “cultural scripts” in their
judgments and increased social interactions
with non-Hispanics.
LONG-TERM AND
SHORT-TERM ADAPTATION
Division has existed between studies of immi
grants and refugees living in a new culture
more or less permanently and those of short•
term adaptation of temporary sojourners.
These two groups of studies have been carried
out largely independent of each other with
few cross-citations. The apparent divergence
between the research foci of long-term and
short-term adaptation studies is clearly due to
the relative isolation in which such studies
have been carried out over the years.
On the one hand, long-term adaptation bas
been investigated over the past several
decades mainly in social psychology and,
more recently, in communication. These stud·
ies employed anthropological and socio
logical concepts such as acculturation, assimi•
lation, and marginality to analyze individual
adaptation experiences. Taft (1957) identified
concepts such as attitudes, frames of refer•
cnce, social motivation, ego involvement,
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION
beliefs, reference groups, role expeetations,
and role behavior as key aspects of immi•
grants’ assimilation in the new culture. Based
on these variables, Taft delineated seven stages
of assimilation, moving progressively from
the cultural learning stage co the congruence
stage. Each of these stages was conceptualized
in cwo dimensions, internal and external
Berry (1970, 1980, 1990) proposed a model
of psychological acculturation based on two
questions concerning the subjective identity
orientation: “Are (ethnic) cultural identity
and customs of value to be retained?” and
“Arc positive relations with the larger society
of value and to be soughtr By combining the
response types (yes, no) to these two ques·
tions, Berry and associates identify four modes
of adaptation: “integration” (yes, yes), “assim•
ilation” (no, yes), “separation” (yes, no), and
“marginality” (no, no). A modified version of_
this model has been presented by Bourhis,
Moise, Perreault, and Senecal (1997), replac
ing “marginality” with “anomie” and “indi•
vidualism.”
– The substantial history of academic interest
in long-term adaptation of immigrants and
ethnic communities has been followed by
studies of short-term adaptation. Srudies of
temporary sojourners began increasing in
number during the 1960s, stimulated by the
beginning of the Peace Corps movement, the
increase in international student exchange
programs, and multinational trade during the
postwar reconstruction period. Companies
found that their overseas operations were
being hampered because their staff members
were not effective in coping with unfamiliar
social and business practices. Military person·
ncl and experts engaged in technical assistance
experienced similar problems. Accordingly,
short-term adaptation studies have been pre•
dominantly influenced by practical (and less
theoretical) concerns of “casing” the tempo
rary but often bewildering transition into a
Adaptiffl to an Unfamiliar Clllture
new eovironment. Extensive writings in this
area qcscribc the psychological difficulties in
eocountcring unfamiliar environmental de·
mands during the ovcrs�as sojourn (e.g.,
Ward, Okura, Kennedy, & Kojima, 1998).
Many studies have focused on “culture shock”
(Oberg, 1960) or various physical and psycho•
logical responses and strategies of sojourners
in an unfamiliar culture (e.g., Hansel, 1993;
Ward & Kennedy, 1994; Wilson, 1993).
Despite these two disparate research tradi.
tions, there are common experiences of
cross-cultural adaptation shared by everyone
crossing cultures, long term or short term.
263
cnce. Most investigators have tended to view
adaptation experiences mainly in terms of dif
ficulties they present, justifying their studies
as scientific efforts to find ways to help case
such predicaments. This problem-oriented
view of cross-cultural adaptation is most ap
parent in studies of culture shock that almost
exclusively focus on inditidual sojourners’
frustration reactions to their new environ•
ment (Anderson, 1994) or lack of such reac
tions measured in vari’ous physical and psy·
chological indicators (Ady, 1995). Taft
(1977), for insrance, identified a number of
common reactions to cultural dislocation: (1)
“cultural fati gue” as manifested by irritability,
insomnia, and other psychosomatic disor•
Everyone is challenged by the unfamiliar
milieu to engage in at least some degree of new
cultural learning and modification in old cul
dcrs; (2) a sense of loss arising from being up·
tural habits._ l(jm’s (1988, 1995, 2001).t�eory,
rooted from one’s familiar surroundings; (3)
discussed later in this chapter, suggests a way _ .rejection by the individual of members of the
to understand· ·the commonalities · in both
new society; and (4) a feeling of impotence
shorr•tcrm :ind long-term adaptation and
stemming from being unable to deal with an
place thcoi in a broader explanatory system. It
unfamiliar environment (sec also Furnham &
docs so by focusing not on the length of time
Bochner, 1986; Torbiorn, 1988). Bennett
but on mul_!itudes of other adaptation-facili
(1977) expanded the meaning of this term
tating (or adaptation-impeding) factors of
and regarded it as part of the general “transi
individual predisposition, the new environ•
tion shock,” a natural consequence of individ•
ment, and communication activities linking
uals’ inability to interact with the new cnvi•
the person and the environment. The assump
ronment effectively. According to Bennett,
tion here is that even though the adaptation
transition shock occurs when individuals en•
process plays out in time and, thus, is corre
counter “the loss of a parmer in death or di•
lated ‘w;th the individual’s cumulative change,
vorce; change of life-style related to passages;
what really contributes to this change is not
loss of a familiar frame of reference in an
the length of time itself but the individual’s
intcrcultural encounter; or, change of values
communicative interface with the new envi
associated with rapid social innovation”
ronment.
(p. 45). Zaharna (1989) added to the discus
sion of culture shock the notion of “sclf
ADAPTATION-AS-PROBLEM
AND ADAPTATION-AS
LEARNING/GROWfH
In both shon-tcrm and Jong-term adaptation
studies, the main emphasis has been on the
problematic nature of cross-cultural experi•
shock,” emphasizing “the double-binding
challenge of identity” (p. 501). Concern for
the problematic nature of cross-cultural adap•
ration bas been a force behind many long•
term adaptation studies of immigrants, as
well. Early studies (e.g., Stoncquist, 1937) ex
amined the strain of isolation called “margin•
ality.” Many subsequcni: studies have ana•
264
ly-zed “:tcculturarive srress ff (e.g., Mishra,
Sinha, Ile Berry, 1996) and mental health
relared clinical issues (e.g., Dyal & Dyal,
I98 I; Westmeyer, Vang, Ile Neider, 1986).
On the other hand, many other investiga
tors have emphasized the learning and
growth-facilitating nature of the adaptation
process. Adler (1975) explained that the cul
ture shock experience should be viewed in a
bro:ader context of trllrt$ition shock, a phe
nomenon that leads to profound learning,
growth, and self-awareness. Likewise, Ruben
(1983) questioned the problem-oriented per
spective in his discussion of a study of Cma
dian technical advisers and their spouses on
two-ye:tr assignments in Kenya (Ruben Ile
Kealey, 1979). In this study, the intensity and
directionality of culture shock were found to
be unrelated 10 patterns of psychological
adjusanent at the end of the first year in the
alien land. Of particular importance is the
finding that in some instances, the magnirudc
of culture shock was positively related to the
individuals’ social and professional effective
ness within the new environment. Based on
this finding, Ruben (1983) suggested that cul
ture shock experiences might, in fact, be
responsible for (rather than impeding) their
adaptation. Adler (1975) echoed this point
when he stated that culture shock is a transi
tional le:aming experience reflecting a •move
ment from a state of low self- and cultural
awareness to a state of high self- and cultural
awarenessff (p. 15).
The learning and growth-facilitating func
tion of culture shock has been indirectly sup
ported by other sojourner studies that at
tempted to describe the stages of the adapta
tion process. Oberg (1979), for instance,
described four st:iges: (I) a “honeymoonff
stage characterized by fascination, elation,
and optimism; (2) a stage of hostility and emo
tionally stereotyped attitudes toward the host
society and increased association with fellow
INTERCUlTURAL COMMUN1CAT10N
sojourners; (3) a recovery sragc characterized
by increased language knowledge and ability
to get around in the new cultural environ
ment; :and (4) a final stage in which adjusanent
is about as complete as possible, anxiety is
largely gone, and new customs arc accepted
and enjoyed. Many other investigators have
documented evidence for what is commonly
called a “U-curve hypothesis” (e.g., Furnham,
1988; Ward ct al., 1998). According to this
model, sojourners typically begin their
cross-cultural adaptation process with opti
mism and elation in the host culture, followed
by the subsequent dip or “ttoughff in satisfac
tion and a recovery. The U-curve hypothesis
has been further extended to the “W-curve•
(e.g., Gullahorn Ile Gullahorn, 1963; Trifono
vitch, 197’D by adding the “reentry shock” or
“reverse culture shock• (Gaw, 2000) after
returning home (see Figure 14.2).
This learning/growth perspective has been
frequently va.lidated by findings in studies of
long-term adaptation of immigrants. Nagata
(1969) demonstrated a trend toward increas
ing levels of the social and cultural integration
of Japanese Americans across three successive
generations. Many others have documented a
cumulative-progressive adaptation process
that is generally upward-moving and linear
(e.g., Kirn, 1977, 1989; van Oudenhoven &
Eisses, 1998). Based on cross-sectional com
parisons according to the length of residence,
these studies showed an incremental rrend of
psychological and social adaptation_ An effort
to refine the cumulative-progressive descrip
tion further has been made in Kim’s (1988,
1995, 2001) process model depicting the
“stress-adaptation-growth dynamic• (see Fig
ure 14.3). The three-pronged model high
lights the dialectic of stress and adaptation
that, together, bring about a gradual psycho
logical movement. This process follows a pat
tern that juxtaposes novelty and confirma
tion, attachment and detachment, progression
Atbpti111 to 1111 U11/4111i/i4, C11lt11r1
26S
_____________
________ ,_
_____,___,
……
…._
‘—
.:….aa
… fi1u�··14.2_ The U:Curve and W-C��-Ad;ptation of Sojourner,
�
Growth Ow, Time
Streu
figure 14.J. The Stress–Adaptatio�rowth Dynamic: Kim’s ( 1988, 199S, 2001) Process Model
266
and regression, integration and disintegra•
tion, construction and destruction. Large and
sudden changes are described as occurring
more often during the initial phase of expo•
sure to a new culture.
Research data offer some indirect evidence
for Stressful experiences laying the ground·
work for subsequent adaptation growth. A
stUdy of Canadian technical advisers in Kenya
(Ruben & Kealey, 1979) revealed that those
who would ultimately be the most effective in
adapting to a new culture underwent the most
intense culture shock during the transition
period. Rivera-Sinclair (1997) reported a pos•
itive association between the psychological
orientation of Cuban Americans to be inte•
grated into the American culture (bicultural·
ism) and the level of stress (anxiety). In Austra·
lia, Gcbart-Eaglemont (1994) reported that
immigrants experienced less stress as they
achieved greater acculturation. Likewise,
Ward and Kennedy (1994) reported notable
psychological stress in those international Stu·
dents in Singapore who attempted to inte grate
in Singaporean society, whereas Gil, Vega, and
Dimas (1994) found that foreign-born His·
panic teenagers who were undergoing the
cross-cultural adaptation process had higher
levels of stress than their American-born bi•
cultural counterparts (see also Redmond &
Bunyi, 1993; Steen, 1998).
ADAPTATION INDICATORS
AND PREDICTORS
In searching for generalizable patterns of the
adaptation process, many investigators have
proposed models that are designed to identify
(1) key features of adaptation as indicators of
differing adaptation levels of individuals or
(2) factors (commonly called independent
variables, explanatory variables, or predic•
tors) that facilitate or impede the adapta·
tion process. Often, investigators have not
INTERCULTIJRAL COMMUNICATION
distinguished these two different conceptual
underpinnings, thereby creating ambiguity
and confusion. The existing models include
such factors as psychologicaVpersonality ·
characteristics, communication behaviors/
skills (especially language competence/pre•
ference), interpersonal relationship develop•
menr/ preference, mass media behaviors,
job-related technical skilVeffectiveness, and
demographic characteristics.
Weinstock (1964), for example, focused on
an occupational prestige scale in the country
of origin and the transferability of skills in pre•
dieting differential rates of acculturation in
the country where one settles. A psychologi•
cally based explanation, for example, is
offered by Gudykunst (1995) based on his
anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) the•
ory. Gudylcunst applies three core concept5anxiety, uncertainty, and mindfulness-to
predicting the adaptation levels of sojourners
who cross individualistic and collectivistic cul·
tural boundaries (see also Gao & Gudykunst,
1990). Others such as Barona and Miller
(1994) and Kim (1977) focused on the com•
plexity of sojourners’ perception · of Ameri•
cans. Similarly, Szalay and Ion (1988) exam·
ined tbe convergence of “subjective meaning
systems” of Pueno Ricans in New York toward
those of Anglo-Americans. Other investi ga•
tors have examined cbanging patterns of cul·
tural identity employing terms such as
bicu/tural identity (Boekestijn, 1988; Dasgupta,
1983; Kanno, 2000), multicultural man
{woman] (Adler, 1982), cultural hybrid (Park.
1939), and intercultural identity (Kim, 1988,
1995, 2000; Kim et al., 1998). Among other
psychological factors assessed in various stud·
ies arc self-image, self-esteem, morale, social
isolation/belonging, (dis)satisfaction, and
locus of control (e.g., Shah, 1991; Vega,
Kolody, & Valle, 1987; Y”mg & Liese, 1991;
Yum, 1986). In addition, Epnein, Botvin,
Dusenberry, Diaz, and Kerner (1996) defined
and assessed cross-cultural adaptation in
Adllprlng to an Unfamiluir Culture
267
_…..,..,
—–………
EIMll0taEf1′
,,._.,.,llllH
_,,_,
__,……….,
TRAafONIA1IOII
,..,._ .. ci-ao
_,
�
Pl
�I
»Dta
‘
�
Figure 14.4. Factors Influencing Cross-Cultural Adaptation: Kim’s (1988, 1995, 2000) Structural Model
SOURCE: U..d with penni,slon of the •uthot.
NOTE: IC • inr.erpenonal communfation, MC • mus commun!?lion.
terms of linguistic acculturation, whereas oth•
ers assessed patterns of interpersonal relation·
ships involving individuals of the host and eth·
nic communities (e.g., Yum, 1983) and mass
media behavior (e.g., Kim, 1980; Stilling,
1997).
Yer others have assessed a more broadly
based set of factors in assessing or predicting
adaptation. Hawes and Kealey (1981) assessed
behavioral variables including interpersonal
skills, cultural identity, and realistic pre•
departure expectation as the best predictors of
“overseas effectiveness.” Others included an
even wider range of facton- from demo•
graphic factors {e.g., age and sex) and factors
of communication competence (e.g., know)•
edge of the host language, motivation for
adaptation, and positive attitude toward the
host environment) to factors of social integra
tion (e.g., interpersona1 relationsbips with the
natives and with coethnics). Dawson, Crano,
and Burgoon (1996) included multiple accul•
turation measures from background/demo•
graphic (“where raised” and -generation”),.
psychological (“self-identity” and “mother’s
identity”), and social indicators (-language
spoken,” “associate with now,” “friends 6-18
years,” “TY,” and “movies”). In explaining
acculturative stress, Berry and Kim (1987)
identified several groups of faetors: (1) the
nature of the host society, (2) the type of
adapting group, (3) the type of adaptation
being experienced (integration, assimilation,
separation, or marginalization), (4) demo
graphic factors, (5) psychological factors, and
(6) social characteristics of individual immi•
grants. Similar multilevel indexes have also
been used by Jasioskaja-Lahti and Liebkind
(2000) and DiPrete and Forristal (1994),
among others.
Incorporating many of these and related
concepts, Kim (1988, 1995, 2001) has pro•
268
posed an integrative communication-based
multidimensional model (see Figure 14.4).
Defining adaptation as neither an indepen·
dent variable nor a dependent variable bur as
the entirety of the phenomenon itself, six
dimensions of facrors and their interdepen
dent relationships are identified by Kim as a
systemic template for explaining the differen
tial rates (or speeds) at which the adaptation
process unfolds over rime. At the core of this
structural model is host communication co,n
pt!tt!nce, which serves as the engine of the
adaptation process. Inseparably linked with
host communication competence are acrivities
of host social communication and ethnic
social communication (interpersonal and
mass communication). Also identified in this
model are three conditions of the host envi
ronment (host receptivity, host conformity
pressure, and ethnic group strength), as well as
facrors of the individual’s prt!disposition (pre
paredness for the life in the host environment,
the degree of the individual’s ethnic proximity
to the dominant ethnicity of the host environ
ment. and the degree of openness, srrength,
and positivity of the individual’s personality.
Together, these dimensions of factors are
explained in this theory as facilitating or
impeding one’s intercultural transformation
embodied in his or her functional fimess, psy
chological health, and intercultural identity
development.
IDEOLOGY:
ASSIMILATIONISM
AND PLURALISM
An additional imponant consideration that
investigators in this field need to give atten
tion to is the largely implicit underlying value
premises with respect to cross-cultural adap
tation. In the social scientific tradition, almost
all of the studies examined in this chapter are
predicated on the assumption that cross-cul-
INTIRCULTURAL COMMUNICATION
tur3l 3daptation is a natural phenomenon and
that successful adaptation is a desirable goal.
Most theories, of both shon• and long-term
adaptation, have been framed in such a way
that the models and research findings would
help ease the rransition and facilitate the
eventual functioning in the new environment.
The common premise underlying these tradi
tional approaches that affirm the adaptation
phenomenon and recognize it as something
desirable has been seen by some scholars as re
flecting “assimilationist” or “melting-pot” so
cial ideology.
Indeed, the conception of adaptation as
ultimately leading to assimilation or cultural
convergence has been questioned since the
1960s when the “new cthniciry” movement
began, prompted by the civil rights movement
in the United States. In their early socio
logical analysis, Glazer an d Moynihan (1963)
noted, “The point about the melting pot is that
it did not happen” (p. 290). The previously
described Berry’s (1980, 1990) model of psy•
chological acculturation further reflects a plu·
ralistic ideological perspective. Pluralistic
models such as these share a common empha
sis on the significance of an individual’s accep•
ranee (or rejection) of the host culture and of
his or her own cultural heritage. As such, these
models project an implicit image of cross•
cultural adaptation as a matter of conscious
(or unconscious) choice, not necessiry, by indi
viduals and groups depending on the sense of
group identity they hold in relation to the
dominant group in the receiving sociery.
The rrend toward pluralistic conceptions
of cross-cultural adaptation has been further
spurred by recent works by “critical” or
“posrrnodern•postimperial” scholars who
challenge the social scientific approaches
examined in this chapter. These analysts ques
tion the legitim2cy of some of the traditional
theoretical accounts f or their inherent “flaw”
of reflecting and serving to reproduce the st.a·
tus quo of the dominant cultural ideology
Ad.apting to Rn Unfamili•r Cwltwn
269
CONCLUSION
within and across cultures, ethnidracial
groups, and genders. Based on interviews with
10 Asian Indian immigrant women in the
The phenomenon of cross-cultural adapta
United States, for example, Hedge (1998)
tion continues to draw srrong research inter
characrerized the experiences of these women
ests across social sciences. The present chap•
in such terms as “displacement” and “strug
ter has been an effon to present a broad,
gle” of having to deal with the “contradic
interdisciplinary “mapping” of the field that
tions” between their internal identity and
remains far from being cohesive. The various
external “world in which hegemonic srruc·
disciplinary or individual rese3rcher intere.sts
cures systematically marginalize certain types
and ideological perspectives have led to the
of difference” (p. 36). Critical analysts have
unwarrantedly dichotomous distinction
tended to focus almost exclusively on the
drawn between long-term and short-term ad·
inherently stressful or problematic aspects of
aptation, between· adaptation-as-problem
cross-cultural adaptation, firmly rooted in
and adaptation-as-learning/growth, between
their idea that cultural idenriry is or should be
the many models and indexes, and between
inherently unchangeable or nonnegotiable
the ideological perspectives of assimilation
(e.g., Moon, 1998; Tsuda, 1986; Young, 1996).
ism and pluralism. At the same time, we now
The overriding concern for them appears to be
have a number of broadly based multifaceted
preservation of cultural identiry an4,!he costs ..•. models that serve as possible avenues for con•
of having to adapt to a new cultur� that arc
rinuing conceptual integration and theoreti
regarded as placing immigrants or .ethnic
cal development in die field-a task that is esa
minorities in the position of “victims” in the
sential to achieving a inore complete and·
face of “cultural opprc��ion.” This depiction
realistic understanding of what happens, and
of adaptation is in sharp contrast with, for
how it happens, to individuals in an unfamil•
insrancc, the srress-adaptation-growth dyna
iar cultural milieu.
mic in Kim’s theory described earlier.
One must take caution, however, in denying
either the assimilative or the pluralistic ten·
REFERENCES
dencies of immigrants or ethnic minorities.
Few individuals in an unfamiliar environment
can completely escape adaptation as long as
Aaler, P. (1975). The transition experience: An aJ.
tcrnative view of culture shock. Journal of Hu·
they remain in, and are functionally depen
mJJnistic Psychology, 15(4) , 13-23.
dent on, the mainstream culture. Conversely,
Adler, P. (1982). Beyond cultural identity: Reflec
few can attain a complete assimilation no mat•
tions on cultural �d multicultural man. In L
ter how hard or long they try. Regardless-of
Samover & R. Porter (Eds.), lntnr:ultural com•
differing ideological views, ample evidence
munication: A reader (3rd ed., pp. 389-408).
exists to demonsrrate that individuals of
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
minoriry cultural backgrounds do undergo
Ady, J. C. (1995). Toward a differential demand
change over time and across generations.
model of sojourner adjustment. In R. L. Wise•
Some form of new learning, accommodation,
man (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory
internalization, and convergence occurs
(pp. 92-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
among those who remain, willingly or not, in
Anderson. L (1994). A new look at an old con·
some degree of communicative interaction
strucr: Cross-cultural adaptation. International
with the host environment, as has been amply
Journal of lntercultural Relations, 18(31, 293theorized about and empir. ically documented.
328.
270
Baron:i, A., & Miller, J. ( 1994). Short acculturation
scale for Hispanic youth: A preliminary report.
Hispanic Journal of &ha11ioral Seienus, 16,
155-162.
Bennett, J. (19TT). Transition shock: Putting cul
ture shock in perspective. In N. J:iin (Ed.), Inter
national intercultural communication annUtJI
(Vol. 4, pp. 45-52). falls Church, VA: Speech
Communic:ition Association.
Berry, J. (1970). Marginality, stress & ethnic identi
fication in an :icculturated aboriginal commu
niry. Journal of Cross-Cultural E’sychology, I,
239-252.
Berry, J. ( 1980). Acculturation as varieties of adap
tation. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Tb�
ory, models and some new findings (pp. 9-25).
Washington, DC: Wesrview.
Berry, J. (1990). Psychology of acculturation:
Undemanding individuals moving between cul
tures. In R. Brislin (Ed.), Applied crosJ;;ultural
psychology (pp. 232-253). Newbuty Parle. CA:
Sage.
Berry, J., & Kim, U. (1987). Acculturation and
mental health. In P. Dasen, J. Berry, & N. Sarto
rius (Eds.), Health and crou-cultural psychology
(pp. 207-236). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Boekestijn, C. (1988). lntercultural migration and
the development of personal identiry: The di
lemma between identity maintenance and cul
tural adaptation. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 12(2), 83-10S.
Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L C., Perreault, S., &
Sen�cal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive accul
turation model: A social psychologic:al ap•
proach. International Journal of E’sychology, 32,
36!1-386.
Dasgupta, S. (1983). Indian immigrants: The evolu
tion of an ethnic group. Unpublished d0etoral
dissertation, Universiry of Delaware, Newark.
Dawson, E., Crano, W., & Burgoon, M. (1996).
Refining the me3ning and measurement of ac
cultur3tion: Revising a novel methodological
approach. lntemational Journal of lntercultural
Relations, 20(1), 97-114.
DiPrete, T., & Forristal, J. (1994). Multilevel mod•
els: Methods and substance. Annual Review of
Sociology, 20, 331-3S7.
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION
Dyal, J., & Dyal, R. (1981). Acculturation, srrcss
and coping. International Journal of Intvc:ul
tural Relations, 5(4), 301-328.
Eanies, E., & Schwab, W. (1964). Urban migration
in India and Africa. Human Organization, 23,
24-27.
Epstein, J., Borvin, J., Dusenberry, L, Diaz, T., &
Kerner, T. {1996). Validation of an acculturation
measure for Hispanic adolescents. Psycholo�l
Reports, 79, 1075-1079.
Furnham, A. (1988). The adjustment of sojourners.
In Y. Y. Kim & W. S. Gudykunst (Eds.),
Crou.,:ultural adaptation: Curnnt approaches
(pp. 42-61). Newbury Park, CA: S3ge.
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1986). Cultur, shoe.I!:
Psychological r,a,:tions to imfamiliar environ
ment.,. New York: Routledge.
Gao, G., & Gudykuru t, W. (1990). Uncertainty,
anxiety, and adaptation. International Journal of
lntercultural Relations, 14(3), 301-317.
Gaw, K. (2000). Reverse culture shock in srudems·
returning from overseas. International Journal
of lntercultural Relations, 24(1), 83-104.
Gcbart-Eaglemont, J. {1994, July). Acculturation
and stress in immigrant.,: A path analysis. Paper
presented at the fifth International Conference
on Language and Social Psychology, Brisbane,
Australia.
Gil,A., Vega, W., & Dimas,J. (1994). AcculturaciYe
stress and personal adjusn;nent among ffispanic
adolescent boys.Journal of Community E’sychol
ogy, 22, 43-54.
Glazer, N., & Moynihan, D. (1963). Beyond the
melting pot. Cambridge: MIT Press.
. Gudykuast, W. B. (1995). Unccrtainry/anxicry
management (AUM) theory: Current status. Ln
R. L Wiseman (Ed.), lntm:ultural communica
tion theory (pp. 8-S8). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Gullahom, J., & Gullahom, J. (1963). An exten
. sion of the U-curve hypothesis. Journal of Social
Issues, 19(3), 33-47.
Gupta, S. (197S). Changes in the food hablu of
Asian Indians in the U.S. Sociology and Social
R.uearch, 60(1), 87-99.
Hansel, 8. (191,JJ. An in11tstigation of the rt-ffllr7
adjustmmt of Indians who st..died in the U.s.A.
(Occasional Papen in lntercultural Leaming
Adapting to an Unfamiliar CultNre
271
Marden, C.• & Meyer, G. (1968). Minorities in
No. 17). New York: AFS Center for 1he Study of
America (3rd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand
Inrercultural Learning.
Reinhold.
Hawes, F., & Kealey, D. (1981). An empirical srudy
Marrett, C., & Leggon, C. (Eds.). (1982). Research
of Canadian technical assistance. International
in rau and ethnic: relations (Vol. 3). Greenwich,
Journal of lntercultural Relations, 5(3), 239258.
CT:JAI.
Mishra, R., Sinha, 0., & Berry, J. (1996). &ology,
Hedge, R. (1998). Swinging the trapeze: The nego
tiation of identity among Asian Indian immi
“”ulturation and psychological adaptation.
grant women in the United States. In D. Tanno &
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
A. Gonzalez (Eds.), Communication and iden
Montalvo, F. (1991). Phenotyping, acculruration,
tity acrou c:ultura (pp. 34-SS). Thousand Oaks,···
and biracial assimilation of Mexican Americans.
. CA: Sage.
In M. Sotomayor (Ed.), Empowering Hispanic:
Herskovits, M. (1958).Acculturation: Tbestudyof
families: A critical iss14e for the ’90s (pp. 97culturt1 contact. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.
119). Milwaukee, WI: Family Service America.
Jasinsbja-Lahti, l., & Llebkind, K. (2000). Predic
Moon, D. (1998). Performed identities: Passing as
tors of the actual degree of acculturation of Rus
an inter/cultural discourse. In J. Martin, T.
sian-speaking immigrant adolescents in Finland.
Nakayama, & L Flores (Eds.), Readings in cul
International Journal of lntercultural &lations,
tural contn:ts (pp. 322-330). Mountain View,
24(4), 503-518.
CA, Mayfield.
Kanno, Y. (2000). I
