The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on psychological and sociocultural adjustment of sojourners

International Journal ofIntercu/turd Relation, Vol. IS. pp. 209-225. 1991 0147-1767191 13.00 + .OO Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1991 Pergamon Press plc

THE IMPACT OF VALUE DISCREPANCIES AND CULTURAL IDENTITY ON PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOCULTURAL ADJUSTMENT OF SOJOURNERS

COLLEEN WARD and WENDY SEARLE

University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

ABSTRACT. This study builds on earlier research by Searle and Ward on the prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions; however, this investigation is extended to a more diverse sample of sojourners and additionally examines cultural identity and value discrepancies as predictors of adjustment. One hundred and fifty-five sojourners (tertiary students from 42 countries, resident in New Zealand) completed a questionnaire which assessed psychological (mood disturbance) and sociocultural (social difficulty) adjustment in relationship to the following variables: cultural knowledge, cross-cultural experience and training, attitudes toward host culture, personality (extraversion and locus of control), cultural distance, loneliness, amount of contact with host and co-nationals, cultural identity, and values. Multiple regression analysis indicated that loneliness and cultural distance combined to account for 27% of the variance in mood disturbance. Cultural identity and cultural knowledge, by contrast, were significant predictors of social difficulty (14% of the variance). Contrary to expectations, value discrepancies were not signtficantly related to either psychological or sociocultural adjustment.

In an early commentary on cross-cultural transition and adjustment, Oberg (1960) tentatively advanced the notion of “culture shock.” This referred to the negative emotional reactions experienced by sojourners as a result of the loss of familiar, culture-specific cues. While Oberg was one of the first to seriously consider the experiences and emotional responses of sojourners during cross-cultural relocations and to provide a base for theorizing and research in the field, “culture shock” has been both a blessing and a curse to researchers in the area. Gaining impetus from speculative literature and anecdotal accounts, the construct has been applied to describe both the cause and effects of distress during cross-cultural transitions. The use of “culture shock” as both a descrip- tive and explanatory concept (Furnham & Bochner, 1986) has fostered a subsequent body of research characterized by theoretical pitfalls and methodological shortcomings.

In contrast to the circularity of the “culture shock” literature, a more valuable approach to the examination of sojourner experiences entails

Requests for reprints should be sent to Colleen Ward, Department of Psychology, Univer-

sity of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

210 C. Ward and W. Searie

the study of the adjustment process during cross-cultural transition, although precisely what constitutes adjustment has remained ambiguous (Brein & David, 1971; Church, 1982). Adaptation, acculturation, adjustment, integration, and accommodation have been studied with a wide range of variables utilized to operationalize the constructs: acquisition of culturally appropriate skills and behaviors (Bochner, Lin, & McLeod, 1980), health status (Cole, Allen, & Green, 1980), satisfaction with everyday activities (Brislin, 1981), acceptance of host culture (Noesjirwan, 1966), mood states (Feinstein & Ward, 1990), psychological distress (Be- fus, 1988), perceptual maturity (Yoshikawa, 1988), academic compe- tence (Perkins, Perkins, Guglielmino, & Reiff, 1977), and evaluations of job performance (Harris, 1972). Searle and Ward (1990) have argued that adjustment or adaptation can be divided into two broad domains - psychological and sociocultural. The former refers to feelings of well- being and satisfaction while the latter relates to the ability to “fit in” or negotiate interactive aspects of the host culture. This approach reconcep- tualizes “culture shock”; while including both the social and affective components of the sojourn experience, this framework permits adjustment/maladjustment to be examined as an outcome of the transition experience.

Although the distinction between psychological and sociocultural adjustment represents an advance in the field, it is underpinned by theoretical diversity. Three theoretical positions have emerged as prominent in the area of sojourner adjustment: (a) clinical perspectives, (b) social learning models, and (c) social cognition approaches. Clinical models have conventionally drawn on the role of personality, life events or changes, losses, and social supports, which facilitate or impede the adjustment process (e.g., Adelman, 1988; Feinstein & Ward, 1990; Fon- taine, 1986; Seipel, 1988). Social learning models have emphasized the acquisition of culturally appropriate skills and behaviors through contact with host nationals, cross-cultural experience and training (e.g., Befus, 1988; Furnham & Bochner, 1982; Randolph, Landis, 8z Tzeng, 1977). Although social cognition approaches have been less well developed, they have concentrated on the importance of variables such as attitudes, values, self-concept, expectations, and perceptions in the cross-cultural adjustment process (Armes & Ward, 1989; Weissman & Furnham, 1987; Wong-Reiger, 1984).

To date, research on cross-cultural transition and adjustment is prodi- gious, yet has remained largely unsynthesized. Searle and Ward (1990) have attempted to address this problem with the investigation of clinical, cognitive, and behavioral variables and their impact on psychological and sociocultural adjustment of Malaysian and Singaporean students in New Zealand. The study was designed to construct predictive models of psychological and sociocultural adjustment and included measurements

Value Discrepancies and Cultural Identity 211

of quality and quantity of interpersonal relations with host and co-nationals, attitudes toward hosts, cultural distance, expectations about the new culture, personality (extraversion), and life events (changes). The investigation supported the distinction of psychological (depression) and sociocultural (social difficulty) adjustment in the construction of predictive models. The former was related to changes, personality, and social support. More specifically, psychological well-being was facilitated by extraversion, satisfaction with contact with host-nationals, and low inci- dences of life changes and social difficulties. Sociocultural adjustment, in contrast, was mediated by cultural distance, expectations, and psychological adjustment; that is, similarities between host and home cultures, positive expectations, and low incidence of depressive symptoms. The study corroborates that psychological well-being and sociocultural exper- tise are related, but predicted by different types of variables. It also suggests that psychological adjustment may be best understood within a stress and coping framework whereby the impact of life changes (cross- cultural transition) may be mediated by personality and social support factors. In contrast, sociocultural adaptation may be more appropriately examined in conjunction with social learning and cognitive perspectives.

The research reported here represents an extension of the Searle and Ward (1990) study. The investigation is designed to assess the generaliz- ability of their findings to a more diverse sample of sojourners and to consider additional cognitive variables in relation to the adjustment process. In particular, the research incorporates values and cultural identity as predictor variables.

Although it has frequently been suggested that differences in values between host nationals and expatriates are a prime source of adjustment difficulties in sojourners (Furnham & Bochner, 1986), there has not been direct investigation of this hypothesis. Furnham and Alibhai (1985) examined value differences among foreign students in the United King- dom, reporting that European students had values most similar to the British controls, African students least similar, and Asian students scor- ing between the two extremes. The investigators speculated that differences in values may prompt psychological distress in sojourners, but in a parallel study Furnham and Trezise (1983) did not find significant differences in the levels of psychological disturbance manifested by Afri- can, Asian, and European students in London. Although cultural distance more generally has been associated with psychiatric symptoms (Babiker, Cox, & Miller, 1980), Furnham and Alibhai (1985) were forced to conclude that it is not possible to draw causal links between differences in value systems and psychological disturbance.

There has been a related body of work which has assessed the relationship between values and attitudes toward host culture and social interaction with host nationals. In Bae’s study (cited in Alexander, Klein, Work-

212 C. Ward and W. Searle

neh, & Miller, 1976) of Korean students, an inverse relationship between traditional Korean values and intimate contact with Americans was reported. Feather (1980) similarly found some support for an association between social interaction and perceived value similarities of Papua New Guinean and Australian students, and Pruitt (1978) documented a relationship between positive perceptions of the host culture and the greater acceptance of host country values. Research also suggests some value change in sojourners over time. Uehara (1986) has documented value shifts in sojourners and noted their relationship to adjustment problems on re-entry to the country of origin. The specific relationship between value discrepancies and sojourner adjustment, however, remains to be investigated.

Theorizing about the impact of cultural identity on sojourner adjustment has largely arisen from work on ethnic identity and intergroup relations. Berry, Kalin, and Taylor (1977), who examined ethnic tolerance in plural societies, have suggested that confidence in one’s own identity can provide a base for tolerance of other groups. Research by Hewstone and Ward (1985a) also confirms that ethnic stereotyping is diminished in plural societies that engage integrationist, rather than as- similationist, sociopolitical strategies. On the other hand, Tajfel’s (1981) social identity theory argues that individuals are motivated to identify with salient groups and strive to preserve and enhance ingroup distinctiveness through favorable social comparison with outgroups. From a theoretical perspective, then, it is not clear as to whether satisfying host- sojourner relations should be impeded or enhanced by strong cultural identity, and from an empirical vantage point there has been little evidence to support either position. Following from this, it is also unclear as to whether cultural identity should impact on psychological or sociocultural adjustment.

Several writers have warned against the dangers of sojourners’ over- identification with the host culture (Church, 1982). Bulhan (1978) dem- onstrated that African students disposed toward identification with host Americans reported more feelings of powerlessness, alienation, and social estrangement. McClintock and Davis (1958), in contrast, found that decline in importance of one’s nationality was associated with greater social interaction with hosts and greater sojourner satisfaction. Neither study, however, provides specific information about the effects of one’s own cultural identity on psychological or sociocultural adjustment.

Acculturation research may offer clues to this puzzle. Investigators in this area have considered conflict between original and new culture identities; however, research has been largely confined to immigrants, refugees, and native peoples as opposed to sojourners. Berry, Kim, Power, Young, and Bujaki (1989) have advanced a model of acculturative attitudes that incorporates two dimensions: (a) maintenance of cul-


tural identity and distinctiveness and (b) maintenance of relationships with other groups. From this model four modes of acculturation can be identified: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization. Studies with native peoples and immigrants have documented a positive relationship between integration and assimilation and adjustment. Sepa- ration and marginalization, however, are related to psychological maladjustment and psychosomatic problems (Berry & Annis, 1974; Berry, Wintrob, Sindell, & Mawhinney, 1982; Kim, 1988).

The following research examines a range of clinical, social learning, and cognitive variables in relationship to psychological and sociocultural adjustment in a diverse sample of foreign students. In line with a previous study by Searle and Ward (1990), it is hypothesized that personality, life changes, and social support variables will predict psychological adjustment as assessed by a profile of mood states. These variables include extraversion, locus of control, loneliness, and cultural distance. It was also hypothesized that social learning variables will predict sociocultural adjustment as evaluated by a measurement of social difficulty. These variables include length of residence in host culture, cultural knowledge, cultural distance, quantity of relationships with host nationals, cross- cultural experience and training. Although it is expected that the cognitive variables - (low) value discrepancies and (positive) attitudes toward host culture-should relate to sojourner adaptation, it is not specified whether these will affect psychological or sociocultural adjustment. In light of previous research, no specific hypothesis is advanced about the relationship between cultural identity and adjustment.

METHOD

Subjects

One hundred and fifty-five students (110 men and 45 women) from 42 countries participated in the study. Subjects ranged in age from 18 to 41 years (A4 = 26.1, SD = 5.7). Thirty-five subjects (22.6%) were mar- ried, and 71.4% of those had children. All subjects were resident in New Zealand at the time of the research; length of residence varied from 3 months to 8 years (M = 21.8 months, SD = 19.0). Thirty three percent had previous cross-cultural experience, and 12.9% had received formal cross-cultural training prior to coming to New Zealand. Countries of origin encompassed diverse geographical regions: North America (e.g., United States and Canada), South America (e.g., Brazil, Peru), Europe (e.g., Denmark, Italy), Africa (e.g., Uganda, Tanzania), Middle East (e.g., Iran), Asia (e.g., Japan, Philippines), and Pacific Islands (e.g., Fiji, Solomon Islands).


Materials

A 16-page questionnaire was employed in the study. In addition to personal and demographic information, the questionnaire contained as- sessments of the following: cross-cultural experience and training, cultural knowledge, attitudes toward New Zealand, personality, cultural distance, quality and quantity of interpersonal relations, cultural identity, values, and the dependent measures of psychological and sociocultural adjustment.

Cross-Cultural Experience and Training. Subjects reported the number of countries they had resided in prior to New Zealand as well as the length of stay in each country. The presence/absence of cross-cultural training was also recorded.

Cultural Knowledge. As previous attempts (e.g., Feinstein & Ward, 1990; Searle & Ward, 1990) to assess the impact of information-based cross-cultural training failed to identify enough subjects who had completed relevant programs, a measurement of cultural knowledge was incorporated into the study. The questionnaire contained 20 items assess- ing individuals’ knowledge of New Zealand culture, politics, geography, and lifestyle. The instrument was scored for the total number of correct responses.

Attitudes Toward New Zealand. The scale was designed to assess students’ perceptions of New Zealanders and life in New Zealand. This author-devised scale consisted of a mixture of 20 positively and nega- tively worded items to which subjects expressed their agreement/dis- agreement on a j-point scale. Higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes toward New Zealand.

~ersuna~ity. The questionnaire included measurements of extraversion and locus of control. Extraversion was assessed by the 21-item subscale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, which has been subjected to extensive cross-cultural use, including reliability and validity testing (Eysenck, 1986; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975).

Locus of control was measured by an adaptation of Collins’ (1974) Likert modification of Rotter’s (1966) Internal-External Locus of Con- trol Scale. The modified scale contained 20 statements with 5-point agree/disagree responses; higher scores represent greater external locus of control.

Cultural Distance. This scale was a modified version of the open-ended Cultural Distance Index developed by Babiker, Cox, and Miller (1980).


Subjects were asked to rate (on a 5-point scale) the extent to which their own backgrounds differed from life in New Zealand in 10 areas. The scale was found reliable in previous cross-cultural research by Searle and Ward (1990).

Interpersonal Relations. Both quality and quantity of interpersonal relations were examined. Subjects were asked to estimate the amount of time each week that they spent in social interaction with New Zealanders, fellow nationals, and other international people. Quality of relationships was examined with the revised UCLA Loneliness scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980), which is composed of 20 4-point agree/disagree items, with higher scores indicating greater loneliness. The loneliness scale was found reliable in previous sojourner research by Feinstein and Ward (1990).

Cultural Identity. Cultural identity was assessed with a 1Zitem scale, developed by Hewstone in collaboration with Ward, that taps dimensions of Tajfel’s social identity theory (Hewstone & Ward, 1985b). Sub- jects rely on bipolar scales to respond to questions about group membership and identity. Higher scores are equated with stronger cultural identity.

Values. The four-factor Chinese Values Survey (Chinese Culture Connec- tion, 1987) was utilized to tap value domains. Subjects specified the importance of 28 values on a g-point scale; the subjects’ individual scores were then compared to the host culture norms to calculate an absolute value discrepancy score with higher scores representing greater discrepancies.’

Psychological Adjustment. This was examined with the Profile of Mood States (POMS), a 65item, 5-point adjective rating scale that assesses symptoms of tension, depression, anger, vigor, confusion, and fatigue (charac- teristics commonly ascribed to sojourners suffering from “culture shock”). Scores range from 0 to 260, with higher scores reflecting a more negative, global affective state (McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1971).

Sociocultural Adjustment. This scale contains 20 items concerning the skills required to manage everyday situations and aspects of living in a new culture. Studies by Ng (1962) and Noor (1968) concerning the problems faced by overseas students in New Zealand were consulted when devising this scale. Reference was also made to Furnham and Bochner’s

‘The authors would like to thank S. H. Ng for data collection on values in New Zealand

and Michael H. Bond, initiator of the Chinese Culture Connection, for making the norms available.


(1982) Social Situations Questionnaire. The scale was found reliable in research by Searle and Ward (1990) with Singaporean and Malaysian students. Ratings are made for each item with a 4-point difficulty scale; total scores, then, range from 0 to 80, with higher scores representing greater difficulty.

Procedure

Approximately 390 questionnaires were distributed through various overseas student associations and halls of residence at the University of Canterbury, Lincoln College, and Christchurch Polytechnic. Students were allowed to complete the questionnaire in their spare time and to return it to the authors. They were instructed, however, to complete the questionnaires individually, without consultation. Participation was anonymous and voluntary.

Of the 390 questionnaires, 165 (42%) were returned; 10 were incom- plete and omitted from further analysis.

RESULTS

Preliminary analysis consisted of testing the internal reliability of the scales. Most scales proved highly reliable: Psychological Adjustment (POMS; .94), Sociocultural Adjustment (Social Difficulty; .84), Extra- version (.80), Values (.87), Loneliness (.88), Cultural Identity (.77), Atti- tudes toward New Zealand (.79), and Cultural Distance (.79). Locus of Control, however, only achieved a Cronbach alpha of .64 and was omitted from further analysis. The construct validity of author-devised scales was also assessed by correlating scores among predictor variables. Pear- son correlations revealed significant relationships between cultural identity and co-national contact (.21, p < .Ol), cultural distance and value discrepancy scores (.21, p < .Ol), and attitudes toward New Zealand and amount of contact with host nationals (.44, p < .OOl).

The study’s primary objective is to construct predictive models of psychological and sociocultural adjustment through multiple regression analysis. However, due to the large number of independent variables in relation to the sample size, preliminary analyses were undertaken to select the most promising variables for inclusion in the regression equa- tions. Zero-order correlations were performed on the continuous variables to “pre-test” and ascertain the best predictors of psychological and sociocultural adjustment; t tests were undertaken on dichotomous variables to examine group differences in psychological and sociocultural adjustment.

Following from this, cultural knowledge (- .33), cultural distance (.35), attitudes toward New Zealand (- .23), cultural identity (.20), extraversion (- .27), loneliness (.32), amount of contact with New Zea-


TABLE 1 Predictors of Psychological and

Sociocultural Adjustment

Adjustment Predictor Beta Variables Variables Weight p

Psychological Loneliness .3? .OOl Adjustment Cultural Distance .28 .002

Sociocultural Cultural Knowledge - .32 .OOl Adjustment Cultural Identity .18 .04

landers (- .22), and total mood disturbance (.35) were significantly related to social dif~culty (sociocultur~ adjustment); Cultural knowledge (- .I@, cultural distance (.32), attitudes toward New Zealand (- .19), loneliness (.37), extraversion (- .19), amount of contact with co-nationals (.24), and social difficulty (.35) were related to total mood disturbance (psychological adjustment). Value discrepancy did not significantly relate to either sociocultural adjustment (.OO), or psychological adjustment (.07). Students’ t tests did not reveal significant differences between males and females in either psychological (t( 153) = 0.42) or sociocultural adjustment (t( 153) = 0.31. Nor was previous overseas residence related to these factors (1(153) = 1.32 and t(153) = 1.33). Cross- cultural training was dropped from the analysis due to the low number of respondents who had received formal instruction.

In the next stage the significant variables were entered into a multiple regression equation to construct predictive models of psychological and sociocultural adjustment. Loneliness and cultural distance combined to account for 27% of the variance in psychological adjustment, while cultural knowledge and cultural identity accounted for 14% of the variance in sociocultural adjustment (see Table 1).

Because the literature suggests that psychological (but not sociocultural) adjustment may follow a curvilinear path over time, an additional analysis of variance was undertaken to investigate this. Length of residence was divided into 5 time periods: 0 to 6 months, 7 to 12 months, 13 to 18 months, 19 to 24 months, and > 24 months. There were no significant differences over time for either psychological (F(4, 150) = 2.03) or sociocultural (F(4, 150) = 1.75) adjustment.

DISCUSSION

The research undertaken here was prompted by two broad objectives: (a) to extend research by Searle and Ward in an attempt to generalize findings to a more diverse sample of sojourners, and (b) to investigate


the relationship between value discrepancies and cultural identity and psychological and sociocultural adjustment. The findings are broadly consistent with Searle and Ward’s (1990) earlier research, although the results are not as robust. Psychological and sociocultural adjustment are significantly related (.35; .38 in Searle & Ward, 1990), but construction of predictive models through regression analysis indicates that the two outcome measures are dependent upon different sets of variables. The predictive distinctions parallel clinical versus ~ognitive/behavioral approaches to cross-cultural adjustment.

Psychological well-being as assessed by a measurement of mood states is linked to life changes and social support variables. More specifically, cultural dissimilarity and loneliness predict psychological distress in sojourners. This is consistent with research on cultural distance by Babiker, Cox, and Miller (1980) and studies of social support amongst sojourners (Feinstein & Ward, 1990) and immigrants (Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987). Contrary to Searle and Ward’s (1990) study of Malaysian and Singaporean students in New Zealand, however, extraversion did not emerge as a significant predictor of mood disturbance in this multicul- tural sample. This is interesting in light of the cultural fit proposition. Both Armes and Ward (1989) and Searle and Ward (1990) have argued that personality qualities per se are not indicative of psychological adjustment, but that they must be considered in conjunction with situa- tional factors, particularly host culture norms. As a cultural fit is postu- lated as facilitating adjustment, it is unlikely that extraversion would be universally adaptive. Indeed, Armes and Ward (1989) reported that extraversion was associated with higher levels of psychological distress in English speaking expatriates in Singapore. In this study, the sample was composed of students from 42 geographically and culturally diverse countries. Relying on Lynn’s (1981) documentation of national differences in extraversion, it appears that some countries in this study are classified as considerably more “extravert” than New Zealand (e.g., United States, Canada), some as considerably less “extravert” (e.g., Ja- pan, Italy, France), and others as very similar (e.g., Denmark, United Kingdom). In light of the cultural fit hypothesis, then, it is not surprising that rather weak relationships between adjustment and extraversion were apparent in the zero-order correlations and that the variable did not retain predictive power in the regression analysis.

Sociocultural adjustment is related to cultural knowledge and cultural identity. In line with social learning theories of cross-cultural adaptation, knowledge, whether or not specifically engendered by cross-cultural training programs, predicts ability to successfully negotiate or to fit into the host culture (Brislin, 1981). Stronger cultural identity is associated with sociocultural, but not psychological, adjustment problems. It is likely that individuals who have a stronger cultural identity are less will-

Value Discrepancies and Cultural Identit.y 219

ing to adapt to the local customs and traditions and, therefore, encounter more social difficuity. It should be noted that the measurement of cultural identity is derived from Tajfel’s (1981) theory of social identity and social categorization. This includes not only salient group membership, but a strong need to compare one’s group favorably in relation to other groups. In this sense, there is some parallel with what Berry and col- leagues have termed separation, which has been related to measures of accuhurative stress (psychological and psychosomatic symptoms) in immigrants and native peoples. More recent research has documented a similar trend in sojourners with respect to life satisfaction (Wong-Reiger & Quintana, 1987).

This has been the first study to empirically assess the impact of value discrepancies on sojourner adjustment. The results do not support the popular contention that differences in values between sojourners and hosts are responsible for adjustment difficulties during cross-cultural transitions (Furnham & Bochner, 1986; Segall, 1979). There could be a number of reasons for this. First, values as a predictor variable may be too vague, broad, and global; more specific value domains, by contrast, may produce different results. It could also be that the values selected for this study are not impo~ant or relevant enough to sojourners to impact on their adjustment. Schlenker (l985), for example, argues that assessment of self and situation is a function of the magnitude of perceived value conflicts that are specifically relevant to goals. A second possibility is that the link between values and behaviors is more tenuous than speculated. It could be that value differences per se are not the critical variable, but how one chooses to cope with the differences. In his study of Peace Corps volunteers, Szanton (1966) remarks:

Many PCVs did finally begin to accept emotionally the idea-and its extraordi- nary implications - that a people could be equally human, could be equally enti- tled to consideration, while at the same time they were significantly different in their values and behavior.

Further research is no doubt needed to assess the impact of value discrepancies on sojourner adjustment.

Finally, the shortcomings of this study should be noted. Cross-cultural transitions involve complex processes and are reliant on the interaction of a number of variables. This research is consistent with many other studies in the field (e.g., Berry & Kostovcik, 1983; Uehara, 1986) that have considered adjustment indicators such as mood disturbance, social difficulty, and health as dependent measures. It is argued that this theoretical perspective on “culture shock” is a more worthwhile approach to understanding cross-cultural transitions and adjustment, although the impact and outcomes of cross-cultural transition may be conceptualized


in a number of ways. Depending on a researcher’s priorities, valid approaches might include such alternatives as the prediction of the quality of host-sojourner relations based on social skills or the prediction of value discrepancies based on length of residence in the host culture.

Following from this, comments are warranted about the nature of the variables under examination and the causal modelling implied by the use of multiple regression analysis. This study relies on the use of a large number of variables for the prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment. Factors such as cultural distance, cross-cultural training, and personality factors are clearly antecedent to recent mood states or current social difficulty. The relationships between amount of contact with host nationals or attitudes toward New Zealand and adjustment indicators, however, are more difficult to isolate in a temporal sequence. The antecedent-consequent relationship amongst such variables requires clarification and exploration in further research.

A final word of caution should be noted in relation to the participants in this study. First, the composition of the sample was heterogenous. While it was the objective of this research to extend the construction of predictive models of psychological and sociocultural adjustment to a more diverse sample of sojourners, this engenders certain consequences which may relate to the models’ potency. Certainly, aspects of cross- cultural transition research are made more difficult with the use of a multi-cultural sample. For example, reliable, valid, and culturally appropriate measurement instruments are more difficult to construct. A second concern relates to the 42% return rate of questionnaires in this study. While the rate is higher than the 30% average of postal surveys (Shaughnessy & Zechmeister, 1985), less than half of the research population completed the questionnaire. It is impossible to determine the extent to which the respondents matched the foreign student population at large, particularly in terms of psychological and sociocultural adjustment. While this is a legitimate criticism of this research, and indeed relevant to all studies based on voluntary questionnaire responses, it should be remembered that our study concentrates more speci~cally on the overall pattern of relationships between predictor variables and dependent measures.

In conclusion, several suggestions are made for future research. First, longitudinal research is strongly recommended; this will not only allow for examination of adjustment over time, but will also assist in elucidat- ing the temporal relationships amongst predictor variables. Secondly, it is suggested that future research on sojourner adjustment should be extended to include more diverse samples such as diplomats, volunteers, business people, dependent spouses, and children to test for the general- izability of results. In line with this, the systematic exploration of cultural origins and destinations should also be considered. Finally, the

Value Discrepancies and Cultural identity 221

vulture-specific elements of a cross-cultural adjustment should be teased out, differentiating sojourner transitions from other types of changes and relocations.

REFEWNCES

ADELMAN, M. B. (1988). Cross-cultural adjustment: A theoretical perspective on social support. Znternationaf Journal of Znterc~~tural Relations, 12, 183- 204.

ALEXANDER, A. A., KLEIN, M. H., WORKNEH, F., & MILLER, M. (1976). Psychotherapy and the foreign student. In P. P. Pedersen, J. G. Dra- guns, W. J. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (pp. 227-243). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

ARMES, K., & WARD, C. (1989). Cross-cultural transition and sojourner adjustment in Singapore. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 273-275.

BABIKER, I. E., COX, J. L., & MILLER, P. M. (1980). The measurement of cultural distance and its relationship to medical consultations, symptomatol- ogy and examination performance of overseas students at Edinburgh Univer- sity. Social Psychiatry, 15, 109-l 16.

BEFUS, C. P. (1988). A multi-level treatment approach for culture shock experienced by sojourners. Znternational Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12,381- 400.

BERRY, J. W., & ANNIS, R. C. (1974). Acculturative stress. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, $382-406.

BERRY, J. W., KALIN, R., 8~ TAYLOR, D. (1977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Ottawa: Supply and Services.

BERRY, J. W., KIM, U., MINDE, T., & MOK, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. Znternational Migration Review, 21,490-5 11.

BERRY, J. W., KIM, U., POWER, S., YOUNG, M., & BUJAKI, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An Znterna- tional Review, 38, 185-206.

BERRY, J. W., & KOSTOVCIK, N. (1983, May). Psychological adaptation of Malaysian students in Canada. Paper presented at the Third Asian Regional Conference of the International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bangi, Malaysia.

BERRY, J.W., WINTROB, R., SINDELL, P. S., Br MAWHINNEY, T. A. (1982). Psychological adaptation to cultural change among the James Bay Cree. Le Naturaliste Canadien, 109,965-975.

BOCHNER, S., LIN, A., & MCLEOD, B. M. (1980). Anticipated role conflict of returning overseas students. Journal of Social Psychology, 110,265-272.

BRISLIN, R. (1981). Cross-cultural encounters. New York: Pergamon. BREIN, M., & DAVID, K. H. (1971). Intercultural communication and the

adjustment of the sojourner. Psychological Bulletin, 76,215-230. BULHAN, H. A. (1978). Reactive identification, alienation and locus of control

among Somali students. Journal of Social Psychology, 104,69-80. CHINESE CULTURE CONNECTION. (1987). Chinese values and the search

for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-164.


CHURCH, A. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological bulletin, 91, 540- 572.

COLE, J. B., ALLEN, F. C. L., & GREEN, J. S. (1980). Survey of health problems of overseas students. Social Science and Medicine, 14A, 627-63 1.

COLLINS, B. E. (1974). Four components of the Rotter Internal-External Scale: Belief in a difficult world, a just world, a predictable world and a politically responsive world. Journat of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 38 l-391.

EYSENCK, H. J. (1986). Cross-cultural comparisons: The validity of assessment by indices of factor comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 506-515.

EYSENCK, H. J., & EYSENCK, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Per- sonality Questionnaire. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

FEATHER, N. T. (1980). Value systems and social interaction: A field study in a newly independent nation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 1- 19.

FEINSTEIN, B, E. S., & WARD, C. (1990). Loneliness and psychological adjustment of sojourners: New perspectives on culture shock. In D. M. Keats, D. Munro, & L. Mann (Eds.), Heterogeneity in cross-culturalpsychology (pp. 537-457). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

FONTAINE, G. (1986). Roles of social support systems in overseas relocation: Implications for intercultural training. International Journal of intercultural Relations, 10, 361-378.

FURNHAM, A., & ALIBHAI, N. (1985). Value differences in foreign students. Internatjona~ Journal of ~ntercuftura~ Relations, 9, 365-375.

FURNHAM, A., & BOCHNER, S. (1982). Social difficuhy in a foreign culture: An empirical analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

FURNHAM, A., & BOCHNER, S. (1986). Culture shock: Psychological reactions to unfamiliar environments. London: Methuen.

FURNHAM, A., & TREZISE, L. (1983). The mental health of foreign students. Social Science and Medicme, 17, 365-370.

HARRIS, J. G. (1972). Prediction of success on a distant Pacific island: Peace Corps style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38, 181-190.

HEWSTONE, M., & WARD, C. (1985a). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,614-623.

HEWSTONE, M., & WARD, C. (1985b). [Ethnic identity, stereotypes and attri- butions in Malaysia and Singapore]. Unpublished raw data.

KIM, U. (1988). Acculturation of Korean immigrants to Canada: Psychological, demographic and behavioral profifes of emigrating Koreans, non-emigrating Koreans and Korean-Canadians. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Queen’s Univer- sity, Kingston, Canada.

LYNN, R. D. (1981). Cross-cultural differences in neuroticism, extraversion and psychoticism. In R. Lynn (Ed.), Dimensions of personality. Oxford: Perga- mon Press.

McCLINTOCK, C. G., & DAVIS, J. (1958). Changes in the attitudes of “nationality” in the self-perception of the “stranger.” Journal of Social Psychofogy, 48,183-193.

McNAIR, D., LORR, M., & DROPPLEMAN, L. (1971). Profile of mood states. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.


NOESJIRWAN, J. A. (1966). A study of the adjustment of some Indonesian students studying in Australia. Unpublished master’s thesis. Victoria Univer- sity, Wellington, New Zealand.

NG, W. S. W. (1962). Overseas students: A general survey of the presence of overseas students in Christchurch and an investigation into the opinions of these students as to their general problems of adjustment to the conditions of living in Christchurch. Unpublished Master of Arts thesis, Canterbury Univer- sity, Christchurch, New Zealand.

NOOR, M. Y. (1968). A study of overseasstudents in Christchurch. Unpublished Master of Arts thesis, Canterbury University, Christchurch, New Zealand.

OBERG, K. (1960). Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177-182.

PERKINS, C. S., PERKINS, M. L., GUGLIELMINO, L. M., & REIFF, R. F. (1977). A comparison of the adjustment problems of three international student groups. Journal of College Student Personnel, 18, 382-388.

PRUITT, F. (1978). The adaptation of African students to American society. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 90-l 18.

RANDOLPH, G., LANDIS, D., & TZENG, 0. (1977). The effects of time and practice on Culture Assimilator training. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1, 105-l 19.

ROTTER, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external control of reinforcement. PsychologicalMonographs, 80, (1, Whole NO. 609).

RUSSELL, D., PEPLAU, L. A., & CUTRONA, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,472-480.

SCHLENKER, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 65-99). New York: McGraw-Hill.

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. (1979). Cross-cultural psychology: Human behavior in global perspective. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

SEIPEL, M. M. 0. (1988). Locus of control as related to life experiences of Korean immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 61- 71.

SHAUGHNESSY, J. J., & ZECHMEISTER, E. B. (1985). Research methods in psychology. New York: Knopf.

SZANTON, D. (1966). Cultural confrontation in the Philippines. In R. Textor (Ed.), Cultural frontiers of the Peace Corps (pp. 35-61). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

TAJFEL, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

UEHARA, A. (1986). The nature of American student re-entry adjustment and the perception of the sojourn experience. International Journal of Intercul- tural Relations, 10, 415-438.

WEISSMAN, D., & FURNHAM, A. (1987). The expectations and experience of a sojourning temporary resident abroad: A preliminary study. Human Rela- tions, 40, 3 13-326.


WONG-REIGER, D. (1984). Testing a model of emotional and coping responses to problems in adaptation: Foreign students at a Canadian university. fnterna- tionaf Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 153-184.

WONG-REIGER, D., & QUINTANA, D. (1987). Comparative acculturation of Southeast Asian and Hispanic immigrants and sojourners. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 345-362.

YOSHIKAWA, M. .I. (1988). Cross-cultural adaptation and perceptual develop- ment. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cu~turai adaptation: Current approaches(pp. 140-148). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONS

Cette etude est baste sur de recherche precedente de Searle et Ward & propos de la prediction de l’adaptation psychologiq~e et socio-culturelle pendant les transitions trans-culturelles; cependant cette &ude s’est eten- due B une Cchantillon plus divers de personnes sejournantes en Nouvelle- Zelande et elle examine de plus l’identite culturelle et le difference des valeurs comme indices predictifs de l’adaptation. Cent cinquante-cinq personnes sejournantes (Ctudiants de quarante-deux pays, residents en la Nouvelle-Zelande) ont rempli une questionnaire qui a mesure l’adaptation psychologique (derangement &motif) et socio-culturelle (difficult~s sociales) en fonction des variables sulvantes: connaissances culturelles, experiences et formation trans-culturelles, attitudes a l’egard de la culture des hates, personalite, (extraversion et locus de controle), distance culturelle, l’isolement, quantite de rapports avec le h&es et les compatriotes, identite culturelle et valeurs. L’analyse multivariee a indique que l’isolement et la distance culturelle ensemble ont explique 27% de la variance de derangement &motif. L’identite culturelle et les connaissances culturelles Ctaient des indices prtdictifs importants des difficult& sociales (14% de la variance). Contrairement A ce qu’on attendait, le difference des valeurs n’etait pas lit de facon important ni a l’adaptation psychologique, ni a l’adaptation culturelle. (author-supplied abstract)

Este estudio es basada en una previa investigation por Searle y Ward sobre la prediction de ajustamiento sicoldgico y socio-cultural durante transiciones tras-culturales; pero esta investigacidn es extendida a una muestra mas diversa de viajadores y adicionalmente examina identidad cultural y discrepancia de valores coma predictores de ajustamiento. Ciento y cinquentaicinco viajadores (estudiantes universitarios de 42 pai- ses, residentes en Nueva Zelandia) completaron un cuestionario, el cual evaluo ajustamiento sicologico (perturbation de animo) y socio-cultural (dificultad social) en relaci6n a 10s siguientes variables: conocimiento cultural, experiencia y education tras-cultural, atitudes hacia la cultura Nueva Zelandes, personalidad (extraversion y foco de control), distancia


cultural, soledad, cantidad de contact0 con Nueva Zelandeses y co-naci- onales, identidad cultural y valores personales. Analisis de regresion multiple indict5 que soledad y distancia cultural juntos acontaron por 27% de la varianza de la perturbacibn de animo. Por contraste, identidad cultural y conocimiento cultural fueron predictores significantes de dificultad social (14% de la varianza). En contrario a expectaciones, discrepancias de valores no fueron significamente relacionados a ajustamiento sicolbgico o socio-cultural. (author-supplied abstract)

Documents

The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on psychological and sociocultural adjustment of sojourners