Culture Shock and Reentry Shock by James W.

Neuliep : The Summary

By : Nadya Lazuardi (190110101050)

Culture is not innate. Culture is learned. We are born human and through a process
of socialization we become cultural. Culture represents order, regularity, recurring
sequences, and patterns in the way that large groups of people think, feel, and act. That
humans can think is innate, but what they think about is cultural.That humans have feelings
is innate, but what triggers certain emotions is cultural. And, to be sure, human behavior
differs widely across cultures. When people move to a new or host culture, they take with
them the learned attitudes, values, beliefs, disbeliefs, emotions, customs, and behaviors of
their native culture. Often, depending on the degree of similarity between one’s native and
new/host culture, the thoughts, feelings, values, beliefs, customs, and behaviors (i.e., the
order) of the native culture clash with those of the new culture. This commonly results in
disorientation, confusion, misinterpretation, conflict, stress, and anxiety. Researchers call
this phenomenon culture shock.

Culture shock is a natural reaction to the clash and collision of cultural order, and
anyone can experience culture shock. Culture shock can occur with immigrant groups—such
as international exchange students, refugees, international business exchanges, and social
workers entering new communities during crises. Over 60 years ago, anthropologist Kalervo
Oberg (1954) was the first to apply the term culture shock to the effects associated with the
disorientation, tension, and anxiety of entering into a new culture. According to Oberg,
culture shock is triggered by the uncertainty and anxiety that result fromthe initial exposure
to unfamiliar signs and symbols of the host culture. Oberg notes that sojourners (persons
who live somewhere temporarily) often experience confusion and powerlessness resulting
from the loss of their native cultural norms and social rituals (i.e., the order).

Culture shock appears to be a combination of psychological and social processes that

progresses in stages or phases that can last for weeks or even months. Over the years,
several models of culture shock have been proposed. Most of these models of culture shock
include four stages.The first model of culture shock, developed by Oberg (1954) over 60
years ago, incorporates a medical metaphor and terminology—beginning with the
incubation stage, followed by a crisis stage, leading to a recovery stage, and finishing with a
full recovery stage. During the incubation stage, sojourners experience fascination, elation,
and a sense of exploration with their new culture. The phase is quickly followed by a sense
of crisis, hostility, and frustration. Eventually the sojourners begin to recover, adjust, and
cope with their newsurroundings. Finally, theymake a full recovery and adapt to their new
cultural surroundings. Mostmodelsof culture shock is shaped like a U-Curve.

To be sure, the degree to which one experiences culture shock varies from person to
person. For some, moving into a new culture may be a paralyzing experience fraught with
uncertainty and anxiety, while for others it is an experience of a lifetime replete with
excitement and interest. Walt Lonner (1986) identifies six factors that affect the nature of
culture shock experienced: (a) control factors, (b) intrapersonal factors, (c)
organismic/biological factors, (d) interpersonal factors, (e) spatial/temporal factors, and (f)
geopolitical factors. Arza Churchman and Michal Mitrani (1997) include three additional
factors: (a) the degree of similarity between one’s native and new culture, including the
physical environment; (b) the degree and quality of information about the new
environment; and (c) the host culture’s attitude and policies toward immigrants (Figure 2).
 Intrapersonal factors affecting one’s degree of culture shock include one’s age,
language skills, and tolerance for uncertainty. Young children, for example, who are quite
sensitive to their environment, may have a more difficult time adjusting to a new
environment than adults. Conversely, the elderly, who may have firmly established lifestyle
routines, may find it difficult to adjust to new cultural orders. Verbal language skills will also
affect one’s degree of culture shock. The extent to which one is competent in the language
of the host culture will facilitate cultural adjustment as the individual will be more likely to
approach and initiate interaction with members of the host culture. Nonverbal factors such
as personal space expectations, eye contact, touch, and smell differ considerably across
cultures. Innocuous hand gestures considered polite in one’s host culture may be perceived
as insulting or profane and obscene in the host culture.

As mentioned above, most models of culture shock contain four phases in the U-
curve tradition. But many people who have lived outside their native culture argue that they
experience a kind of reentry culture shock when they return to their native culture.
Furnham and Bochner’s (1986) W-curve model of culture shock contains two U-curves—the
initial culture shock experienced when the traveler enters a new culture and a reentry shock
U-curve. In other words, when people return home after an extended stay in a foreign
culture, they experience another round of culture shock, this time in their native culture.
Many report that reentry shock is a far more difficult experience than the original culture
shock.

Some scholars maintain that the term culture shock is now outdated. In today’s
world of information technology, there is far more, albeit indirect, exposure to cultural
differences than ever before. Learning about different cultures and establishing mediated
online relationships with persons from different cultures is relatively effortless. In fact,
PetriHottola (2004) has introduced the termculture confusion as a new theoretical model to
address the processes of how people in the 21st-century experience exposure to different
cultural orders, unlike culture shock, Hottola suggests that the notion of cultural confusion
focuses more on the process of enjoyment, accomplishment, and learning of the new/host
cultural environment.
Culture Shock: Literature Review, Personal Statement and Relevance for the South Pacific
by Adrian Furnham : The Summary

By : Nadya Lazuardi (190110101050)

There is, as one may expect, some dispute and debate as to who conceived the
concept of culture shock and precisely when this occurred. Over the years various
researchers have tried to refine the definition of the term looking at very specific
psychological factors or facets that make up the experience (Winkelman, 2003; Xia, 2009).
There remains no clear definition of culture shock, usually attributed to the anthropologist,
Oberg (1960) over 50 years ago. Various attempts have been made to ‘unpack’ the
definition (Ward et al. 2001):

1. Strain due to the effort required to make necessary psychological adaptations.

2. A sense of loss and feelings of deprivation in regard to friends, status, profession and
possessions.
3. Being rejected by/and or rejecting members of the new culture.
4. Confusion in role, role expectations, values.
5. Surprise, anxiety, even disgust and indignation after becoming aware of cultural
differences.
6. Feelings of impotence due to not being able to cope with the new environment.

While the term ‘culture shock’ may have originated in the academic literature it very
quickly took root in the popular imagination. The popular media has been full of references
to culture shock for 50 years. There are many related definitions but they nearly all convey a
similar meaning. The concepts quoted are: ‘disorientation’, ‘anxious confusion’, ‘disease’ or
‘mental shock’ or ‘transition shock’: it is agreed that culture shock is a disorientating
experience of suddenly finding that the perspectives, behaviours and experience of an
individual or group, or whole society are not shared by others. However, it is also agreed
that it is a ubiquitous and a normal stage in any acculturative adaptive process that all
‘travellers’ experience.

There are long lists of the symptoms of culture shock that include cognitive,
emotional, physiological and other reactions. Some researchers have attempted to specify
personal factors that seem to predict who and how much individuals suffer from culture
shock like openness, neuroticism, language proficiency and tolerance for contradiction
(Spencer-Rodgers, Williams, & Peng, 2010). Zhou, Jondal-Snape, Topping and Todman
suggested that there are essentially three contemporary theories in the area: Stress and
Coping (cross-culturally travellers need to develop coping strategies to deal with stress
because life changes are inherently stressful); Culture Learning (cross-cultural travellers
need to learn culturally relevant social skills to survive and thrive in their new settings); and
Social Identification (cross-cultural transition may involve changes in cultural identity and
intergroup relations). They propose that there are both individual level (person and
situation factors) and societal level variables (society of origin and society of settlement)
that jointly determine stress and skills deficit that in turn determines stress coping and skills
acquisition. Following this, they noted how culture differences in learning practices and
procedures leads to mismatching, misunderstanding and misery as students go abroad to
further their education. Culture shock is conceived as a serious, acute and sometimes
chronic affective reaction to a new (social) environment.

Although the practice of students travelling from one country to another has been
established for centuries, particularly in Europe, it is not until comparatively recently that
they have become the focus of study (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001; Miller & El-Aidi,
2008). Much of this research suggests that many students feel classic alienation especially
feelings of powerlessness, meaningless, and social estrangement while being surrounded by
the ‘superficial pleasantries’ of their hosts. Most of the research studies have been aimed at
looking at the affective, behavioural and cognitive consequences of cross cultural transition
in sojourners and have attempted to establish which individual, interpersonal, social,
structural and economic factors best predict adjustment. It is also noted in the researches
that culture-learning and its effects on the ethnic identity of foreign students remain the
concerns along with gender issues, staff–student relationships and learning preferences,
and styles of different groups.

Some of the earliest studies concerned the suicide of university students (Gunn,
1979). The assumption that the experience of relocating to, and living in another country is
usually stressful for young people, is being challenged. By the mid-1990s there was a
sizeable literature on the psychological needs and problems of international students.
Sandhu (1994) in a review categorised the main cause of problems as intrapersonal factors:
a profound sense of loss (family and friends), a sense of inferiority (particularly in America),
a sense of uncertainty (about the future); and interpersonal factors: communications
problems (language and social skills), cultural shock (differences in expectations and social
norms), loss of social support systems (particularly from family), miscellaneous factors such
as education and immigration difficulties, and the nature of the problems that the students
face such as homesickness, fear, guilt and discrimination.

One of the most influential papers in this area was that of Ward (1967), who argued
for the existence of a ‘foreign-student syndrome’, which is characterised by vague,
nonspecific physical complaints: a passive, withdrawn interaction style and a dishevelled,
unkempt appearance. Studies purporting to show differences in the mental health of native
and overseas students by using medical consultation rates must be interpreted with caution.
Overseas students may have no other source of help, and their beliefs about the causes and
treatment of illness may differ from those prevalent in the host country. It is perhaps no
surprise that educational institutions have established orientation and counselling programs
for their international students.

Once again, studies highlighted both intra- and inter-individual factors that related to
sojourner adjustment. Psychological research into sojourner adjustment is comparatively
new. Large-scale, multifactorial, longitudinal studies which are theory-derived may help
considerably to identify the problems of increasing numbers of sojourners the world over.