Culture shock

TO WHAT EXTENT DOES

CULTURE SHOCK

NECESSARILY OCCUR WHEN

PEOPLE MIGRATE TO OTHER

COUNTRY?

NAME: MARÍA NOGUERA GONZÁLEZ

DATE: 29/01/2015

STUDENT NUMBER: 10836489

Culture Shock-María Noguera

2

CONTENTS:

1. INTRODUCTION. 3

2. CONCEPT OF CULTURE SHOCK 3

2.1. WHY IT HAPPENS? 4

3. CULTURE SHOCK MODELS 4

3.1. THE U-SHAPED MODEL 4

3.2. THE W-SHAPED MODEL OF REVERSE

CULTURE SHOCK. 6

4. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO THE CLASSIC

CULTURE SHOCK MODEL. 7

4.1. THE ACCULTURATION THEORY. 7

4.2. THE “ABC” FRAMEWORK. 8

5. CONCLUSIONS. 9

5.1. MY EXPERIENCE LIVING ABROAD. 10

6. LITERATURE. 11


3

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper will be focused on the topic of “Culture Shock”, whose main

objective is to try to give an appropriate answer to the question “To what extent

does Culture Shock necessarily occur when people migrate to another country?”

In the first part of the paper the concept of Culture Shock will be discussed,

including why it happens; the two existing models of culture shock will be also

treated briefly.

The second part of the paper will consist of the alternative approaches to the

classic culture shock model, which are the Acculturation Theory and The ABC

framework.

Finally, because I’ve been studying away from my home culture for six months,

I can also rely on my single own experience about the Culture Shock that I

suffered, which is treated in the last part of the paper.

2. CONCEPT OF CULTURE SHOCK

The term “culture shock” was first proposed by Kalvero Oberg, who

argued that “culture shock is precipitated by the anxiety that results from losing

all our familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse. These signs or cues

include the thousand and one ways in which we orient ourselves to the situations

of daily life.” (1960). According to Oberg, culture shock is considered as

experienced by people who suddenly transferred abroad. This has its own

symptoms, cause and cure like most diseases.

Many scientists dealt with the phenomenon of Culture Shock and found own

definitions but most of them stick very closely to Oberg’s one. For example,

Adler agreed that “culture shock is primarily a set of emotional reactions to the

loss of perceptual reinforcements from one’s own culture, to new cultural


4

stimuli which have little or no meaning, and to the misunderstanding of new and

diverse experiences” (1975). Also Hofstede states that Culture Shock is a "state

of distress following the transfer of a person to an unfamiliar cultural

environment", which may also be accompanied by physical symptoms (1969).

These two definitions have in common, that they see Culture Shock as an

unpleasant reaction to being faced with a foreign culture.

2.1. WHY IT HAPPENS?

As Steve J. Heine says in his book entitled “ Cultural Psychology”,

people move to a new culture for many reasons: to be closer to their family,

to seek fame and fortune, to study abroad with the intention of returning to

their home country after graduating and so on. Also, individuals move to

very different kinds of environments, some move to cultural ghettos where

they can speak their original language and keep their cultural traditions with

a little interaction with the host culture.

Moving to a new culture involves psychological adjustment, which occurs

over a wide variety of domains such as acquiring a new language, learning

new interpersonal and social behaviors, becoming accustomed to new

values and adjusting one’s self concept.

When migrants or sojourners start to realize that their language skills are not

yet good enough to communicate with others, when they start to miss their

family and friends, their favorite food, and everything about their heritage

culture, their fall in what is mainly called “culture shock”.

3. CULTURE SHOCK MODELS.

3.1. THE U-SHAPED.

In 1955, Lysgaard published one of the first reports detailing the

“adjustment crisis” experienced by 200 Norwegian Fulbright scholars. His

report advanced the notion of a U-shaped curve that takes place in four


5

phases. Later, Oberg (1960) wrote in detail about the experience of this

crisis phases and give rise to numerous scholarly investigations of culture

shock and the U-shaped curve. The four phases are:

The Honeymoon Phase: After months of excitement, anticipation,

and preparation, the person finally arrives at the destination. Thus

begins the phase of initial euphoria, or the “honeymoon phase”

(Oberg, 1960), where everything seems to be new, fascinating and

exhilarating. Initially, the similarities between cultures are more

apparent than the differences, and the differences that the person does

notice seem interesting and exotic.

The Crisis Phase or Culture Shock: During the crisis-phase, which

describes the actual Culture Shock, perceived differences in

language, values and symbols between the own and the foreign

culture cause feelings of anxiety and frustration. The individual

predominantly seeks contact to fellow nationals. A general unease is

provoked by the feeling of uncertainty about oneself and the

surroundings, and increased due to the lack of familiar signs of

orientation and belonging.

The Recovery Phase: During this phase, the sojourner accepts his

problem and starts working on it. He improves his language skills

and starts to feel at ease in the new environment. The relationship to

host nationals starts to improve as well.

The Adjustment Phase: Eventually the sojourner will develop the

ability to function in the new culture. The sense of ‘foreignness’

diminishes significantly and he may also feel that he is a part of the

new culture. Everyday tasks and conversation will once again

become effortless. Motivation, self-confidence, and the sense of

humor will have rebounded from the lows of the crisis phase, and the

balance between living abroad while holding onto his own cultural

identity will have become second nature.


6

3.2.THE W-SHAPED MODEL OF REVERSE CULTURE SHOCK

Similar to Lysgaard’s (1955) U-shaped model is Gullahorn and

Gullahorn’s (1963) W-shaped model. The fundamental difference lies in the

extension of the earlier model to include either a five-stage adjustment in

the host culture or a re-entry stage for individuals returning to their home

countries, as it is hypothesized that these sojourners will undergo an

acculturation process akin to the one in which they were engaged in the

host country. Weaver (1994), for example, asserts that most international

students experience more stress during re-entry rather than entry, and those

who were the most well-adjusted in the host culture actually have the most

difficult problems with reverse culture shock.

In essence, Gullahorn and Gullahorn’s model is a double U reflecting the

stages of excitement at the prospect of returning home, followed by the re-

entry shock of encountering family and friends who may not understand or

appreciate the sojourner’s changed identity, and finally re-integration with

family, friends, and the culture as a whole, signifying a realization of the

positive and negative aspects of both countries.


7

4. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO THE CLASSIC CULTURE SHOCK

MODEL.

Since the introduction of the term culture shock, a great number of

studies internationally have emerged but I do like to highlight the Acculturation

Theory, which was proposed by Berry in 1970; and “The affect-behavior-

cognition (ABC) framework” that has been developed on the basis of Berry’s

acculturation theory.

4.1. THE ACCULTURATION THEORY.

The concept of acculturative stress proposed by Berry (1970) was

introduced as an alternative to the term culture shock. Acculturative stress is

a response by people to life events that are rooted in intercultural contact.

There is often a particular set of stress behaviors, which occur during

acculturation, such as lowered mental health status (especially anxiety and

depression), feelings of marginality and alienation and so on. Berry (1997,

2006) gave two reasons for replacing culture shock with acculturative stress.

First, the notion of shock tends to be negative, while stress may have both

positive and negative aspects. And secondly, as cultural adaptation is a

process of interactions between two cultures, acculturation is a more

appropriate term, while culture is a concept which has a mono context.


8

In fact, the item acculturative stress was developed based on the concept of

acculturation, which means to comprehend those phenomena which result

when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous

first-hand contact, with changes in the original culture patterns of either or

both groups (Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits, 1936).

There are two models based on the acculturation process. One is the bi-

dimensional model, which is an interlaced process of the receiving-culture

acquisition and heritage-culture retention. Based on the bi-dimensional

model, another well-known model of acculturation developed is Berry’s

acculturation strategies. This model consists of four strategies, which are

integration (to maintain the cultural identity and have interactions with the

host culture), assimilation (build intensive interaction with the local society

without any interests in maintaining the cultural heritage), separation (no

interaction with the local society but high interest in maintaining the original

culture) and marginalization (no interest in maintaining the cultural heritage

and no relationship with the local community).

This theory has been criticized in two ways. First, the four acculturative

strategies are too generalized in explaining a diverse range of intercultural

contact strategies (Benet-Martinez & Haritatos, 2005). Second, the validity

of marginalisation has been questioned as it is hard to understand how a

non-dominant group’s cultural identity develops without interacting with

either their own cultural heritage or the receiving culture (Rudmin, 2003).

4.2. THE AFFECT- BEHAVIOR-COGNITION (ABC) FRAMEWORK.

The ABC framework has been developed on the basis of Berry’s

acculturation theory and it is more comprehensive as it embraces the three

salient concepts described above:

Cultural learning (behavior): It was strongly advocated by Furnham

and Bochner’s (1986). This concept emphasizes the behavioral aspect

of intercultural contact and regards social interaction as a mutually

organized and skilled behavioral performance. Having general


9

knowledge about the host culture and being competent in

intercultural communication are two important aspects of culture

learning. The culture learning theory involves and demands a great

deal of cultural knowledge and social skills of the receiving society

which are acquired in the new sociocultural context.

Stress and coping (affect): The stress and coping concept holds a

view that stress is inherently caused by life changes in the process of

cross-cultural transitions and thus a sojourner needs to select or

develop effective strategies and tactics to cope with the stress. Both

stress and coping strategies correlate with the characteristics of the

situation and the characteristics of the individual, and in turn, affect

the outcome of adjustment (Berry, 1997).

Social identification (cognition): This concept is regarded as the

cognitive aspect of intercultural contact. The concept is originally

based on theories of social cognition and social identity (Deaux,

1996) which focuses on examining the ways in which people

ethnically and culturally identify themselves, including how they

perceive themselves and others as well as how they establish

relations with their own ethnic groups (in-groups) and other ethnic

groups (out-groups). Intercultural contact and/or cultural transition

are highly likely to affect the sojourner’s perception of his/her

cultural identity and relations with the in-groups and out-groups.

5. CONCLUSIONS.

Does culture shock always occur when people migrate to other

countries? As we saw, culture shock is a process that always occurs when

someone goes out from his heritage culture. However, the effects of culture

shock are different for everyone and can result in different behaviors and

feelings. The timing of the different phases also varies a lot from person to

person. For example, a person who moves to a culture that is similar to his

heritage culture would suffer lower culture shock than if he moves to a

completely different culture, but he will suffer more reverse culture shock.


10

To sum up, Oberg described Culture Shock with a well-known four-stage

definition. In 1970s-1980s, Barry introduced the concept of “acculturation” and

replaced “cultural shock” with a new definition of “acculturative stress”, which

contains four acculturative strategies. The Affect-Behaviour-Cognition (ABC)

framework is, in fact, an abstract of a great number of studies in the area of

intercultural contacts after Barry’s acculturation theory. The three components:

culture learning, stress and coping, and social identification combined together

to draw a complete picture of intercultural contact.

5.1. MY EXPERIENCE LIVING ABROAD.

When I first arrived in Amsterdam to do an Erasmus for six months I

was completely over the moon with everything. When the plane finally

touched down in Schipol Airport I was so excited and exhilarated that I was

finally in my destination, something I had been planning for many months.

But, even though all exchange students participated in the “Introduction

Week”, no kind of preparation could have avoided the inevitable culture

shock I was experiencing - and I am glad it didn’t! Many people confuse the

term culture shock with the phase of feeling discomfort, confusion,

frustration and homesickness before adjusting to a foreign culture. However,

culture shock is so much more!

It also includes those first weeks or months of the so-called “honeymoon

phase” where you are super happy to be in that other culture and everything

you experience, from cultural aspects such as ways of living and interacting

with others to clothes, music, and food, the ways of transport (my adorable

bike!) seems exotic, new and exciting.

However, as I was going to experience soon enough this feeling didn’t last

forever. After about one month, things started to feel odd. Differences

became more apparent. I started missing my friends, family and town more

and more. Frustrating thoughts increasingly populated my head: “Nobody

really understand me, my English is not good enough. I wish people would


11

just be able to speak Spanish for one day! I wish public transportation would

work the same way as at home! Why is so cold here? And so on.

These thoughts were of course highly unproductive and unhelpful.

However, these are part of the process and herald the “crisis phases”.

Feelings of anxiety would creep up on me from nowhere! Homesickness

would dominate most evenings. Of course it was not like this all the time.

Initial ‘honeymoon’ feelings of excitement and exhilaration would take

turns with feelings of disorientation and frustration.

Over the next few months, though, feelings of adjustment and belonging

more and more superseded those feelings of displacement and

homesickness. I developed my own little routine, learned to adapt to stress

through various techniques, and made many new friends. I had slowly and

unknowingly entered the “adjustment phase”. I had learned what to expect

in most situations, had adapted my own behavior and learned to appreciate

new ways of thinking and attitudes. My English had improved dramatically

- not only my vocabulary had expanded significantly but I also thought and

dreamt exclusively in English!

Things started to make sense and I understood Dutch culture better and

better. Every day I felt more and more comfortable with my new home. I

adopted many new traits while also keeping earlier ones from my home

country. I would often refer to myself as ‘having a second nationality’.

Here, the recovery phase started and I got fully adapted to my lovely Dutch

culture!

6. LITERATURE.

Adler, P. S. (1975). The transitional experience: An alternative view of culture shock.

Journal of humanistic psychology.

Benet-Martinez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII):

Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of personality 73, 1015-

1050.


12

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied psychology,

46(1), 5-34.

Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturative stress. In P. Wong & L. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of

multicultrual perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 287-298). New York:

Springer.

Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1963). An Extension of the U-Curve Hypothesis1.

Journal of Social Issues, 19(3), 33-47.

Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture shock. Psychological reactions to

unfamiliar environments.

Heine, S. J. (2012). Living in Multicultural worlds. Cultural Psychology, 383-421.

Jackson II, R. L., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). Encyclopedia of identity (Vol. 1). Sage.

Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society. International social science

bulletin.

Oberg, K. (1960). Culture Shock: Adjustment to new cultural environment. Practical

Anthropologist.

Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study of

acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152.

Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation,

separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of general psychology, 7, 3-

37.

Ward, C. A., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock.

Psychology Press.

Zapf, M. K. (1991). Cross-cultural transitions and wellness: Dealing with culture shock.

International journal for the advancement of counselling, 14(2), 105-119.


13

Documents

Culture shock