INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND THE ......Psychological Bulletin 1971, Vol. 76, No. 3, 215-230...

Psychological Bulletin1971, Vol. 76, No. 3, 215-230

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND THE ADJUSTMENTOF THE SOJOURNER

MICHAEL BREIN

University of Hawaii

AND KENNETH H. DAVID'

Peace Corps Training Center, University of Hawaii

Intercultural adjustment is described, in general, by means of a W-curve functionor culture shock. However, very little apparent integration exists among the variousapproaches for explaining or understanding the sojourner's adjustment. Socialpatterns of behavior and personality traits have not been very successful in ex-plaining intercultural adjustment, while social interaction and background andsituational factors have been of somewhat greater value. These divergent ap-proaches can be more meaningfully understood in relation to adjustment to thedegree that they facilitate or impede intercultural communication. Thus, inter-cultural communication appears to be both an integrating and crucial factor forunderstanding the adjustment of the sojourner.

The purpose of this article is to discuss socialpsychological factors related to the adjustmentproblems of the sojourner. Books and articlesby Cleveland, Mangone, and Adams (1960),Ekroth (1968), Gardner (1962), Gullahorn andGullahorn (1963), Hall (1959), Hall and Whyte(1963), Jacobson (1963), Kelman (1965), andMajor2 have discussed various aspects ofsojourning and adjustment.

The term sojourner refers to many types oftravelers including students, trainees, technicalassistants, tourists, businessmen, military per-sonnel, missionaries, foreign service officers,professors, and others. The sojourn research hasprimarily considered the foreign national whohas sojourned in the United States, althoughthere appears to be an increasing interest inthe American who has traveled to othercountries (e.g., Major, 1965, see Footnote 2;Smith, Fawcett, Ezekial, & Roth, 1963).Moreover, among those studies that have dealtwith the American sojourner, there has been adisproportionate emphasis on the study ofstudents and educational advisors. Accordingto Patterson (1969) and the United StatesBureau of the Census (1969), pleasure andpersonal reasons were indicated by approxi-mately 78% of all United States passportrecipients in 1967 and 1968 as the two main

1 Requests for reprints should be sent to Kenneth H.David, P. O. Box 856, Peace Corps Training Center,University of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii 96720.

2 Major, R. T., Jr. A review of the research on inter-national exchange. Unpublished manuscript, Putney,Vermont: The Experiment in International Living,1965.

purposes for their travel. Yet, these individualshave been relatively neglected by the sojournresearch. Another emphasis of this kind of re-search has been on the study of the travelerduring the period of his stay in the foreign orhost culture. There have been relatively fewstudies of the adjustment of the returnee tohis home country, the permanence of the effectsof the sojourn, the effects of the sojourner onhis hosts, and the effects of the returnee on hisown country.

Because of the increased opportunities forinternational travel, more and more personsfrom many countries are interacting with oneanother. With such increased frequencies ofintercultural interaction, the sojourner is facedwith a number and variety of adjustment diffi-culties which can be traced to both the obviousand more subtle differences between cultures.The major purpose of this article, therefore,is to discuss the social psychological aspects ofthe adjustment of the sojourner and to providean integration of the research concerned withthis topic.

Adjustment problems can have serious con-sequences for the sojourner. Thomson andEnglish (1964), for example, reported thatadjustment problems constituted over 60%of all prematurely returning Peace CorpsVolunteers prior to 1963. The problems ofadjustment are also seen to range widely inextent, focusing on the sojourner's relationshipto himself, to others, to the environment, andto his activities within the host culture.Smith (1955), for example, discussed theadjustment difficulties that foreign students

215

216 MICHAEL BREW AND KENNETH H, DAVID

have in the United States in relation to com-munication, learning the ways of academic lifein the United States, maintaining self-esteem,gaining acceptance and making friends, andbalancing group memberships and loyalties.And Dicken (1969), Fisher, Epstein, and Harris(1967), Mischel (1965), and Smith et al. (1963)concerned themselves with the adjustment ofPeace Corps Volunteers in relation to their jobs,their physical well-being, and their in-countrylocations.

A major problem in understanding the topicof the adjustment of the sojourner is that theapproaches of various investigators have beenso divergent that it is difficult to either inter-relate their findings or to develop any consist-encies among the factors deemed relevant tointercultural adjustment. Moreover, even wheninvestigators apparently study the same orsimilar factors, the results usually fail to showany consistent patterns. Several of the morecommon approaches to describing and explain-ing the sojourner's adjustment include thefollowing: curves of adjustment, cultureshock, personality typologies and traits,background and situational factors, and socialinteraction. These approaches have varied intheir usefulness in explaining the process ofintercultural adjustment and are discussed indetail in later sections of this paper.

An assumption is made by the authors thatthe sojourner's successful adjustment to anintercultural experience is highly dependenton his achievement of effective interpersonalrelations with his hosts. A necessary prerequi-site to establishing such effective social rela-tionships, however, is the development ofunderstanding between the host and visitor.To this end, the effective exchange of infor-mation, that is, communication, on both verbaland nonverbal levels of behavior, is consideredby the authors as being crucial to the develop-ment of such understanding. One mode ofintegrating the seemingly rather divergentapproaches to understanding the adjustmentprocess, therefore, is to interpret adjustmentwithin the broad framework of interculturalcommunication as outlined above. In thismanner, a variety of factors may be seen toinfluence the adjustment process insofar asthey affect the process of information exchangeor communication.

U AND W CURVES OR ADJUSTMENT FUNCTIONSThe sojourn literature indicates that the ad-

justment of the traveler seems to follow a pre-dictable temporal pattern. That is, there seemsto be a curvilinear relationship between adjust-ment and time sequence of the sojourn. Lys-gaard (1955), in a study of Scandinavian Ful-bright Grantees studying in the United States,first described this curvilinear function andreferred to it as the U-curve phenomenon. AndSewell and Davidsen (1956) reported a U-curvefunction of academic personal adjustment forScandinavian students visiting the UnitedStates. Initially, researchers reported only aU curve, because the studies were limited tothe sojourner's adjustment within the hostculture; however, a more recent developmentsuggests that a W-curve function may be amore comprehensive description of the adjust-ment process. The W curve is essentiallyan extension of the single-U curve to adouble-U curve (UU curve), that is, a Wcurve. The W curve of adjustment has beendescribed by Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963,1966). It encompasses both the sojourner'sadaptation to a foreign culture and his re-adjustment to his home culture. Thus, theW-curve function represents the adjustment ofthe sojourner along a temporal dimension. Ina very general manner, the sojourner tends toundergo a decline in adjustment shortly afterentering a foreign culture, which is followed bya recovery stage with a resultant increase inadjustment; then, on returning home, the so-journer undergoes another decrease in adjust-ment followed by a second stage of recovery.The degree and duration of the adjustment de-cline for an individual sojourner would dependon a number of variables, which are discussedin the later sections of this article. Thus, theW curve may be descriptive of the change inadjustment of a larger number of sojourners,although there may be a great deal of vari-ability among individual curves of adjustment.In some instances a sojourner may never quitefully recover from his initial difficulties, whereasothers may experience little more than a mildannoyance with no appreciable decrease inadjustment. Also, some sojourners may en-counter few adjustment difficulties upon re-turning home, while others may undergo arather severe reentry crisis.

1NTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 217

During the initial phase of the W-curve phe-nomenon, which may last for several months,depending on the length of the sojourn, thesojourner shows a relatively satisfactory adjust-ment to the host country. The visitor is mainlya spectator, absorbing the sights, forming im-pressions, and expressing enthusiasm. Hisinteractions with the host nationals are quitelimited and uninvolved. Tourists or short-termsojourners are usually characterized as rarelyadvancing from this superficial level of inter-action with host nationals, perhaps becausetheir purposes are related to recreation, re-laxation, and sightseeing, which may precludeany serious involvements with the hosts. Adecrease in the sojourner's adjustment, that is,a downward slope in the W curve, begins afterthis initial spectator phase. The sojourner hasbeen in the host country for a period of time andencounters gradually increasing demands toadjust to a new and often strange environment.The sojourner's previously limited involve-ments with the hosts no longer suffice to satisfyhis needs to cope with his intercultural experi-ence. He attempts to unravel the complexitiesof the culture, and to accomplish this he de-velops the need to establish more enduringsocial relationships with the hosts. He soonlearns that his elementary knowledge of thehost language is no longer adequate enough tocope with the increasing complexities of socialcommunication. This is a time when the sojour-ner's involvement with the host culture be-comes critical; he is at the point where he is inmost need of satisfactory relationships withothers, yet, he lacks the social tools or means tobring these about. This is the low point of thesojourn where the characteristic symptoms ofculture shock occur, as described by Oberg(1960) and others. After this, a gradual re-covery in the sojourner's adjustment occurs (anupward trend of the W curve), where he beginsto become aware of the more subtle cues of thehost culture and begins to develop a fluency inthe language. He develops a strategy for work-ing through various intercultural difficulties.When the sojourner returns to his home cul-ture he may undergo what has been termed a"reentry crisis," which is analogous to the firstdrop in the W curve. His decline in adjustment,however, seems to be somewhat less in intensity

than during his initial culture shock reactionto the host culture.

The sojourn literature indicates that the Wcurve may show cultural variation. For ex-ample, Pool (1965) reported that among foreignstudents to the United States, those comingfrom countries that are relatively more similarto the United States, that is, other Westernnations, differ in their adjustment patternsfrom those students from countries less similarto the United States, that is, Asian or non-Western nations. Sewell and Davidsen (1956)reported that language facility, social inter-action with Americans, previous contact withother cultures, and personality characteristicsmay influence the rate that a sojourner to theUnited States passes through the variousphases of the W curve.

CULTURE SHOCK

Rather than describing adjustment strictlyin terms of curve functions per se, other re-searchers have portrayed adjustment in verbalterms as a series of sequential stages. Althoughdiffering with respect to numbers and kinds ofstages, culture shock, role shock, languageshock, culture fatigue, and reentry crisis allbear in common a close resemblance to one ormore aspects of the U and W phenomena.

Hall (1959) denned culture shock as "aremoval or distortion of many of the familiarcues one encounters at home and the substitu-tion for them of other cues which are strange[p. 156]." Oberg (1960) is generally creditedfor having introduced the term in one of hisearlier articles. He conceived of culture shockas an "occupational disease" of people whosuddenly find themselves located in a culturevery different from their own. Oberg statedthat culture shock is precipitated by the anxietythat results from losing one's cues to socialinteraction. The cues include the many waysin which one orients himself to daily life: whento shake hands, when and how much to tip,when to accept invitations, when to take state-ments seriously, etc. The cues, which may becustoms, gestures, facial expressions, or words,are primarily unconscious and are as much apart of one's culture as the language.

Oberg described several stages of cultureshock: (a) Stage 1 is a period of incubation,

218 MICHAEL BRE1N AND KENNETH H. DAVID

during which time the sojourner may feel highlyelated. He may be living in a good hotel whereconditions are comfortable, the sights areintriguing, the hosts are courteous, and hisexpectations for the future are positive. Duringthis period he may find a house, maids, schoolsfor his children, etc. (b) Stage 2 is a period ofcrisis resulting from the genuine difficultiesthat the sojourner may begin to encounter in adifferent culture. The activities of daily livingthat had been previously taken for grantedbecome insurmountable problems. He mayassociate with other sojourners and criticize thehost country and its people. Thus, foreignnationals may be described in derogatoryterms as a result of the sojourner's attempt torationalize his adjustment problems, (c) Stage3 is a period of recovery in which the sojournerbegins to understand some of the cues of thehost culture. He regains his sense of humor, andhe may even imagine himself an authority onthe host culture, (d) Stage 4 is the complete ornearly complete period of recovery in which thesojourner accepts the host culture. Although hemay not be overly enthusiastic about thecountry, he is at least able to enjoy his experi-ences, (e) Stage 5 is a period that occurs whenthe sojourner returns home. It is a culture shockin reverse, but one that seems to be less seriousthan the original shock. Aside from the"disease" model that Oberg used to describeculture shock, Hall and Oberg appear to be inbasic agreement. Gullahorn and Gullahorn(1963) equated culture shock to the cognitivedissonance that results from the discrepancybetween the sojourner's expectations of thehost culture and his observations of thatculture. Also, cognitive dissonance may occuras the result of the sojourner's participation inrole behaviors that are at variance with his ownvalues. Smalley (1963) proposed four stages ofculture shock: (a) A stage of fascination inwhich there are various barriers preventingsocial interaction with host nationals, (b) Astage of hostility which occurs as the perman-ency of the residence develops. There is moresocial interaction within the host country, butthe sojourner emphasizes the superiority of hisown culture, (c) A stage of improved adjust-ment, with an expression of humor and lessen-ing of tensions, (d) A stage of biculturalism,in which the sojourner develops an under-

standing of the host culture and acts in ac-cordance with its norms. These stages appear tobe similar to those proposed by Oberg.

The crises of Peace Corps Volunteers havebeen described by Pearson (1964). During thefirst crisis the volunteer is compelled to explainthat he is "none of these things." He believesthat he must explain his purpose to his hostsand dispel their misconceptions. The secondcrisis is one of acceptance of the situation; theromance and adventure are gone; the volunteerbecomes bored, lacks intellectual stimulation,and his work becomes tedious. He begins toread more and discovers a "society of solitude."The third crisis is one of self-awareness and fewfrustrations. There is a feeling of identity andan awareness of the "different life."

According to Foster (1965), few first-timelonger-term sojourners recover from theculture-shock experience in less than 6 months,and it is not uncommon for it to last for a year,although a resilient sojourner may recoverwithin 3 months. Foster suggested that oneculture-shock experience will not immunizeone against future shocks, although futureexperiences may be less severe, and the re-adjustment stages somewhat shortened.

Smalley (1963) considered language to be theprimary determinant of culture shock, becauseof the importance of language as a medium ofcommunication. He added that the study oflanguage per se may result in an acute shock forsome people. Smalley appears to disagree withHall over the relative importance of differenttypes of communication, with Smalley em-phasizing verbal communication, and Hallstressing the nonverbal aspects.

In an article about overseas American tech-nical assistants, Byrnes (1966) described "roleshock" as being somewhat distinct from cultureshock. Unlike culture shock, role shock wasreported to be more severe, to increase overtime, to frequently reach its peak at the mid-point of the expected length of the sojourn, andto rarely result in complete recovery. Roleshock for technical assistants was believed toresult from ambiguity in their professionalroles, unsuccessful relationships with theirhost-country counterparts, and problems withcommunication and participation in the host-country hierarchy.

1NTERCVLTURAL COMMUNICATION 219

Guthrie (1966) suggested that the term"culture fatigue" may be a more appropriatedescription of the reactions of Peace CorpsVolunteers to the Philippines. The hospitalityand deference of the Filipino, in conjunctionwith the fairly common use of English and theawareness of certain Western values, may resultin the American sojourner believing that thePhilippine culture is very similar to that of hisown. However, in spite of these apparent simi-larities as well as the adoption of some Spanishand American customs by the Filipinos, thereremain many elements that are unique to thatcountry. The apparent cultural similaritiesmay result in the sojourner experiencing con-fusion and annoyance, and when these frustra-tions endure over a period of time they maybe termed "culture fatigue." Szanton (1966),too, discussed culture fatigue among PeaceCorps Volunteers in the Philippines. He con-sidered culture fatigue to be the exhaustionthat results from the endless number of minuteadjustments required for long-term living in aforeign culture.

On returning to his home country, the sojour-ner may undergo what has been termed a re-entry crisis. The crisis of the returning PeaceCorps Volunteer has been described by Pearson(1964) and Stolley (1965). The volunteer,having lived for 2 years in a developingcountry, may find difficult his readjustment tothe relative affluence of the United States andthe seemingly superficial values espoused bythe mass media. Moreover, he may have diffi-culties in adjusting to a change in roles. As avolunteer he may have assumed many respon-sibilities, but, after a while at home, may findhimself in a relatively ambiguous situation withminimal responsibilities and resultant feelingsof disillusionment and aimlessness. The return-ing volunteer is confronted with many be-haviors that prior to his departure from theUnited States were primarily unconscious, un-noticed, unquestioned, and taken for granted.But on returning home and becoming aware ofthese previously accepted behaviors, these mayno longer seem meaningful. The apparentvalues as reflected in the heavy traffic, ubiqui-tous television, rushing about, etc., may bevery difficult for the returnee to reconcile withthe values that he acquired while in the hostcountry, for instance, values of social concern

which he acquired as a result of teaching, pre-venting illnesses, or increasing food production.

SOCIAL PATTERNS, PERSONALITY,AND ADJUSTMENT

Various investigators have attempted toconstruct sets of characteristics and distinctsocial patterns that could be used to distinguishbetween groups of sojourners. There may be alimited number of alternatives that a sojournermay choose from to cope with a foreign en-vironment, and each alternative would includea characteristic modus operand!. Once the dif-ferent social response patterns have been de-termined, a fairly accurate description of thesocial behavior of any sojourner, after he adoptsone of the characteristic patterns, is possible.For example, Shelton (1964) observed a charac-teristic pattern of social interaction, which hetermed the "Miss Ophelia Syndrome," amonga group of investigators conducting field re-search in Africa. The syndrome consisted of anavoidance of physical contact with the Africansand avoidance of accepting Kola (nuts), food,or wine from them. The usual reason, orrationalization as Shelton perceived it, was thatthe investigators were acting in a scientificmanner of detachment which was appropriatefor conducting their research. However, theAfricans, as well as other host nationals, arelikely to have interpreted the aloofness of theresearchers in a manner that may havejeopardized the probability of the researchers'success. The villagers may have believed, forexample, that the "Miss Ophelias" consideredthemselves to be superior to the Africans.

Sewell and Davidsen (1956) described fourkinds of sojourners and the characteristic pat-terns of adjustment that they adopt: (a)Detached Observers, (6) Promoters, (c) Enthu-siastic Participants, and (d) Settlers. Sewelland Davidsen added that these patterns ofadjustment are related to the sojourner'sperceptions of roles and their expectations withrespect to returning home.

The Detached Observers were described ashaving very little involvement or need forinvolvement with the host country. Theirmotives for the sojourn are usually technicaland clearly defined, and they form friendshipswith fellow sojourners rather than with hostnationals. They do not show severe adjustment

220 MICHAEL BREIN AND KENNETH H. DAVID

problems, either during the sojourn or on re-turning home.

The Promoters were described as showinglow to moderate involvement in the hostcountry. They are committed to their homeculture, but become reluctant participants inthe foreign culture as a result of their roleperceptions; that is, they believe that they areexpected to participate in the host culture.However, they undergo some adjustmentproblems as a consequence of the discrepanciesbetween their home and host-country com-mitments. They are described as continuouslypraising their home countries.

The Enthusiastic Participants were describedas detaching themselves from their homecountry and actively participating in the hostculture. They are aware of the temporarynature of the sojourn and apparently try tocapitalize on their sojourn experiences. Theirmotives for the sojourn are not exclusivelyrelated to their technical goals. They haverelatively few adjustment difficulties in thehost country; however, their expectations of thereturn to the home culture are not clearlydefined, which may lead to reentry crises.

The Settlers were described as showing littleattachment to their home country. They adaptslowly, but, in time, show a genuine andthorough adaptation to the host country.

In India, Useem (1966) classified wives ofAmericans according to four patterns ofbehaviors, namely, (a) Copers, (6) Cautious,(c) Supporters, and (d) Fumblers. The Copers,in general, have an affirmative, enthusiasticview of life. They emphasize self-direction,initiate action, and have a high degree of self-esteem, although early in their stay in Indiathey have as many problems as the otherAmerican wives. If they are not able to solvetheir problems through action, they put pres-sure on their husbands to leave the hostcountry.

The Cautious are neither enthusiastic norindifferent. They weigh alternatives carefully,and slowly work through their problems. Ifthey are not able to cope with their problems,they look for a more congenial environment.

The Supporters are responsive to directionfrom others. They are supportive of others,although they do not take active leadership.If placed in highly structured situations, they

will have adjustment problems until they learnthe cultural patterns; if they are in un-structured situations, they will become dis-organized by their environment.

The Fumblers are noncoping, incautious, andnonsupportive. They are neither self-directednor responsive to direction from others. Theyare a burden to their husbands and to the localcommunity, are chronic complainers, andblame others for their problems. If they areultimately unable to cope with their problems,their husbands may be asked to resign.

Useem emphasized that these patterns ofbehavior would not provide an effective basisfor the selection of personnel for overseasassignment, since, with the exception of a fewFumblers, for whom fumbling was a life pat-tern, these behavior patterns were not consis-tent over periods of time. An older woman whohad been a Cautious type during her lifetime inthe United States, for instance, might changeinto a Coper in India. Also a woman could bea Coper during one assignment, but could be-come a Cautious type during the next assign-ment, and all could become Fumblers whenplaced under a great deal of stress. BecauseUseem found little evidence that patterns ofsocial behavior were long enduring, he foundthem to be of little value in predicting behavior.

Smith (1956) reported that sojourners fromsimilar cultures tend to develop common pat-terns of behavior in the host culture. He ob-served that such common behavioral patternsare especially characteristic of sojourners fromcertain developing countries when they travelto the United States, because they often per-ceive a loss of status during their sojourns. Forexample, foreign scholars who perceive ageneral superiority of American science andtechnology may feel a loss of status whenstudying in the United States (Beals &Humphrey, 1957; Lambert & Bressler, 1956;Scott, 1956). Lambert and Bressler (1955)described the sensitive areas of the foreignstudent in the United States and the adjust-ment problems that may result. Smith (1956)reported that Indian students were oftenappalled by Americans, because of the latter'sapparent ignorance and disapproval of theIndian culture, for instance, the caste systemand poverty. The Indian students tended toreact in a hostile manner and to retaliate

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 221

against the Americans by referring to majorAmerican problems, for instance, the racialproblem. In contrast to the Indian students,Japanese students appeared to react to criti-cism of their home country by employing"enryo," that is, withdrawal from Americans.Whether a student reacted in a defensivemanner, either counterattacking as the Indiansor withdrawing as the Japanese, seemed to berelated to the sojourner's attitudes. Thosesojourners who reacted defensively to criticismof their own countries had negative attitudestoward both the United States and their owncountries. The relationship between attitudeand defensiveness may be a function of thesojourner's negative attitudes toward his homecountry; that is, in order to maintain his self-esteem he has to deny his negative attitudesand employ a defense mechanism. Thus, thesojourner's negative attitude toward the hostcountry may be a function of his negativeattitude toward his own country and of hisdefensiveness, rather than of his actual so-journing experience.

Bennett, Passin, and McKnight (1958) de-scribed the adjustment patterns of Japanesestudents in the United States, based upondata derived from interviews and a battery oftests. The adjustment patterns of the studentswere described in relation to three personalitytypes, namely, the Adjuster, the Constrictor,and the Idealist. The Adjuster is able to adaptto both the Japanese and American culturesand is able to assimilate attitudes from bothcultures. The Constrictor is conservative inhis attitudes, and his behavior is congruentwith orthodox Japanese culture. The Idealistis liberal in his attitudes and is open to cul-tural change. In another study of Japanesesojourners, Nash and Shaw (1963) describedthree personality types of Japanese immigrantsto Cuba, which he termed the Autonomous,Traditional, and Transitional.

Perlmutter (1954) investigated the relation-ship between the American sojourner's adjust-ment and xenophilia, that is, the preferencefor things and persons foreign. Sojourners wereadministered a scale consisting of sentencesthat compared foreign and domestic objects.The Xenophiles were denned as those sojour-ners who chose the foreign in preference to thedomestic object, for instance, "Most European

girls make better wives than American girls."In spite of the Xenophile's preference for thingsforeign, he tends to isolate himself in Americanenclaves while living in the host country.Perlmutter suggested that the Xenophile tendsto fantasize about "a better world abroad,"regardless of where he may live. It appearslikely that the Xenophile is a dissatisfied personwho is trying to maintain his self-esteem byholding his environment responsible for hisfeelings of dissatisfaction. Pool (1965) has pre-sented a more extensive examination of thesignificance of xenophilia in understanding thesojourner.

Lundstedt (1963) stressed the importance ofpersonality factors in sojourn research. Hemaintained that a closed mind and ethno-centrism may limit the attainment of effectiveoverseas adjustment, and that the more effec-tive coping mechanisms in adjustment consistof rational attitudes, universalistic tendencies,open-mindedness, and flexibility. A similarviewpoint was taken by Gardner (1962). Hesuggested that the "universal communicator"will have the least difficulty in adjusting toanother country. The universal communicatorwas described as having a well-integratedpersonality, a central organization of an ex-traverted type, a value system that includesthe "values of all," a socialization of culturaluniversals, and a high degree of sensitivitytoward others.

The descriptions of the potentially goodadjuster, portrayed by Lundstedt and Gardner,appear to be commonly accepted in the litera-ture on sojourning. However, the descriptionis based primarily upon face validity ratherthan empirical data. In spite of its appeal tocommon sense, the description may be over-simplified and possibly incorrect. For example,Bronfenbrenner, Harding, and Gallwey (1958)found evidence that general interpersonalsensitivity is associated with passivity andwithdrawal; hence, extending their findings tointercultural interactions, the sojourner whohas a high degree of sensitivity may be at adisadvantage in adjusting to a foreign culture.Also, Byrnes (1966) described a number ofstudies about overseas American technicians,and reported that the evidence did not supportan "overseas type," that is, the successfuloverseas technicians did not show any consis-


tent personality patterns that would distinguishthem from unsuccessful technicians. Addition-ally, in a study by Smith (1966) dealing withPeace Corps Volunteers, scores on authori-tarianism showed no relationships with eitherfactor loadings on a general competence pat-tern or with administrative evaluations of thevolunteers in the host country.

The conceptualization of the adjustment ofthe sojourner in terms of typical behavior orsocial patterns, and personality typologies,characterizations, traits, and constellations isinteresting, entertaining, and somewhat anec-dotal. However, it becomes apparent, perhapsbecause of the diversity of these approaches,that little common ground exists for makinglucid or even intelligible comparisons or dis-tinctions between them; the particular pat-terns, typologies, and traits appear to be asvaried as the investigators themselves. Also,some authors seem to describe and emphasizeparticular behaviors, patterns, or modes ofadjusting while ignoring the antecedent, back-ground, personality, or social determinants.Other researchers, however, emphasize thepersonality or background factors but neglectthe behavioral consequents. And others ap-parently fail to distinguish between antece-dents and consequents in relation to the pat-terns, typologies, and traits with the resultbeing a lack of clarity. Most of the investigatorshave used an impressionistic approach inestablishing the social patterns and personalitytypologies of sojourners without empiricallycross-validating whether their impressions areconsistent with other sources of data. Thus,the proposed patterns and personality traitsseem to be vague descriptions neither clearlydenned nor conceptualized in any comprehen-sive manner. Although it seems unlikely, thesedescriptions may have some future value inunderstanding intercultural adjustment, butat the present time they are little more thanhypotheses based on limited data and generalimpressions.

BACKGROUND AND SITUATIONAL FACTORS

A somewhat greater degree of success inpredicting intercultural adjustment has beenbased on background and situational factors.Smith et al. (1963) reported that the religiousaffiliation of Peace Corps Volunteers was

related to adjustment, that is, morale. How-ever, age, type of undergraduate school, andprevious teaching experience showed no rela-tionship to morale. Another investigation ofPeace Corps Volunteers found that paternalabsence during childhood differentiated signi-ficantly between successful and unsuccessfulvolunteers (Suddenfeld, 1967). The proportionof volunteers from fatherless homes was signi-ficantly greater among unsuccessful volunteers.

Smith et al. also reported that morale washigher for Peace Corps Volunteers living in ornear the major cities than those living in morerural areas within the host country. However,morale was not related to age of African school,subject matter taught, teaching level, or work-ing alone. In another study, Gullahorn andGullahorn (1963), using a 13-item self-satisfac-tion questionnaire to measure adjustment,found that American grantees in Europe werebetter adjusted than those who stayed in theNear or Middle East.

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND ADJUSTMENT

The degree of social interaction or contactbetween the host national and the sojournerhas been found to be related to the latter'sadjustment. For example, Sewell and Davidsen(1961) reported a significant relationshipbetween the social interaction of Scandinavianstudents with Americans and their satisfac-tion with their sojourns. And Morris (1960)found that the volume, range, and depth ofsocial interactions of foreign students in theUnited States were significantly related totheir satisfaction with their sojourns.

A psychiatric study of American housewivesin Columbia indicated that a lack of socialinteraction may result in adjustment problems(Leon, 1963). The women patients manifestedthe typical neurotic symptoms of anxiety,insomnia, heavy drinking, etc., and Leon sug-gested that a woman sojourner may havegreater difficulties than a man in adjusting to aforeign country because the woman has lessopportunity to interact with others. The pro-fessional man can derive satisfaction from hiswork and engage in social interaction in con-junction with his job, whereas the housewifemay have few avenues of social contact open toher. Also Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963)reported that American grantees who had high

1NTERCVLTVRAL COMMUNICATION 223

adjustment scores tended to maintain contactwith host institutions, consult on professionalmatters with colleagues and students in thehost country, and help these hosts to apply forgrants in the United States.

The earlier sections of this article describedthe relationship between adjustment andseveral variables, that is, patterns of behavior,personality, background, and situational fac-tors. In the sections that follow, some of thesevariables are seen to be related to adjustmentinsofar as they either facilitate or inhibitsocial interaction.

Sewell and Davidsen (1956) determined thedegree of social interaction that Scandinavianstudents had with aspects of Americanculture. The measure of social contact consistedof the students' self-reports of social interactionwith respect to American homes, churches,commercial recreation areas, campus activities,and travel within the United States. Back-ground factors found to be related to socialinteraction included high socioeconomic statusin the student's home country, urban back-ground, previous contact with Americans, anda liberal arts as opposed to a physical sciencecollege background.

Major (see Footnote 2) stated that thesojourner's geographical background is animportant factor influencing social interaction.He found that European in contrast to Asianstudents, while sojourning in the UnitedStates, had more social interactions withAmericans. Similarly, American students inEurope reported more social interactions withhost nationals than did Americans in Asia.

Sewell and Davidsen reported other factorsthat influenced the amount of social interactionof foreign students in the United States. Thosestudents interacted with Americans mostfrequently whose purposes for coming to theUnited States were social or cultural ratherthan professional. Also, those students whohad relatively less frequent and less severefrustrating intercultural experiences tended toengage more in social interactions with thehosts. In another study, Goldsen, Suchman,and Williams (1956) investigated the socialinteraction of Americans on a foreign campus,and found that those students who participatedmost in the campus life revealed a generalpattern of friendliness, and were less critical

of specific issues and practices of the UnitedStates. However, the degree of social interac-tion was not related to the social, political, oreconomic interests and attitudes of the stu-dents. Kelman (1962) suggested that inter-cultural interaction may be increased by thesojourner's participation in an ongoing enter-prise, maintaining the self-esteem of the host,and by introducing common goals as the resultof combining his effort with the hosts on a par-ticular task. Finally, the results of severalstudies (e.g., Morris, 1960; Selltiz, Christ,Havel, & Cook, 1963) have indicated a posi-tive relationship between one's fluency in thehost language and the extent of social inter-interaction with the hosts.

The studies cited in the previous sectionsindicate that social interaction is a relevantvariable in understanding the adjustment ofthe sojourner. More specifically, it seems thatvarious background and situational factorsinfluence the sojourner's social interaction withhis hosts, which in turn influence his adjust-ment. However, the term social interaction hasnot been clearly specified by the majority ofinvestigators with the result that the conceptremains somewhat vague and elusive. For ex-ample, does social interaction refer to talkingto host nationals? To the number of people thesojourner talks to? To the amount or type oftalking? Does it refer to the situation in whichhe is merely present with others without actualconversation going on? Does it refer to thenumber of hosts that the sojourner meets,knows, or is close friends with? Thus, there aremany ways in which a sojourner can interactwith his hosts, and it would seem necessary tospecify more clearly what is meant by socialinteraction in order to be able to relate dimen-sions of social interaction to the sojourner'sadjustment.

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

The study of the adjustment of the sojournershould not emphasize the social interaction orcontact experience per se, but rather the dimen-sions of interpersonal processes that occurduring these encounters. What is most impor-tant, then, is not the mere occurrence of thecontact or interaction, but instead, whatactually happens during the encounter.


The authors believe that the effective inter-personal functioning of the sojourner, that is,his adjustment, is dependent on the develop-ment of understanding between himself andhis host. The degree that they are able to en-gender an effective flow or exchange of in-formation will determine the extent thatmutual understanding can develop. Thus thesojourner's adjustment is seen to be a functionof effective intercultural communication whichoccurs between sojourner and host (see Ells3

for an annotated bibliography of articles andbooks related to intercultural communication).

Many investigators have suggested that dif-ferences between cultures may impede effectiveintercultural communication. Gardner (1962),for example, maintained that because theculture of the United States is extremely dif-ferent from the cultures of developing countries,the American is rarely able to "perform thispsychological feat of putting one's self in theother's shoes with any degree of efficiency[p. 245]." Gardner, using a sociological ap-proach, discussed these differences betweencultures and their implications for intercul-tural communication. He related his ideas toMax Weber's model in which a society movesfrom a "traditional authority" to a "rational-legal authority." A technologically advancedcountry would be located at the rational-legalphase, whereas a developing country would belocated at the traditional phase. Social inter-action between individuals from countrieswhose social systems are in different phasescould result in numerous misunderstandings,with consequent difficulties in social personaladjustment for the sojourner. A somewhatsimilar sociological approach taken by Riesman,Glazer, and Denny (1955) contends that coun-tries move from "tradition-directed" stages to"inner-directed" stages, and culminate in"other-directed" stages. Zeleznik (1957) re-lated the theory of Riesman et al. to the adjust-ment of the sojourner.

An interesting comparison between tra-ditional and technologically advanced cultureshas been proposed in terms of role differenti-ation by Foa and Chemers (1967). They suggest

3 Ells, S. A bibliography on cross-cultural communi-cations. Unpublished manuscript, Putney, Vermont:Experiment in International Living, School for Inter-lional Training, 1968.

that the family is the nuclear system for es-tablishing the various roles within a givensociety. The differentiation of roles within othersystems, such as those pertaining to educationor business, is secondary and rooted in thedifferentiation of family functions. A traditionalculture has relatively few secondary systemsin comparison with a more technologicallyadvanced culture, which has many. Further-more, a traditional culture makes many roledistinctions within the family, but few distinc-tions between the family and secondary sys-tems. Conversely, a technologically advancedculture makes relatively fewer role distinctionswithin the family, but many distinctions be-tween the family and secondary social systems.Thus, for example, in a traditional culture,status in a particular social system may bedetermined primarily by one's role within thefamily, whereas, in a technologically advancedculture, status may vary from one social sys-tem to another depending on one's role in theparticular system. In order to communicateeffectively in an intercultural setting, therefore,it would seem particularly important for thesojourner to carefully differentiate among theroles of the host culture. For example, anAmerican, to be able to communicate opti-mally in the Middle East, must learn to dif-ferentiate more within the family and lessbetween the family and other systems. On theother hand, a Middle Easterner sojourning inthe United States would have to learn theopposite, namely, to place less emphasis uponthe role differentiation within the family, butmore emphasis between the family and othersocial systems.

The difficulty of "putting one's self into theother person's shoes" is aptly described by anOriental story related by Adams (1962):Once upon a time there was a great flood, and involvedin the flood were two creatures, a monkey and a fish.Now the monkey, being agile and experienced, waslucky enough to scramble up a tree and escape theraging waters. As he looked down from his safe perch,he saw the poor fish struggling against the swift current.With the very best of intentions, he reached down andlifted the fish from the water. The result was inevitable[p. 179],

The sojourner, especially if he is an educa-tional or technical adviser, may act much likethe monkey in the story, and with the mostlaudable of intentions may make equally

1NTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 225

disastrous decisions. The subtle and yet veryimportant differences between cultures maynot be understood, with the result that whatmay be perceived by the sojourner as the"most laudable of intentions," may be per-ceived by the host-country nationals as aninsult instead. An awareness of differencesbetween cultures would seem, then, to becrucial for effective intercultural communi-cation. But developing such awareness isvery difficult, primarily because of the subtle-ties of these differences. As Kluckhohn (1949)stated when he compared a culture to a map,"If a map is accurate and you can read it, youwon't get lost; if you know a culture, you willknow your way around in the life of a society[p. 28]]." In a recent study of the Sinasinaculture in New Guinea, Turner (1968) stressedthat a sojourner should understand the"cultural theme" of the host culture inorder to establish adequate interculturalcommunication.

Schuetz (1944) described the role of astranger in a group, in which the stranger mustmodify his frame of reference in order tobecome more aware of the implicit structureand rules of the group. The stranger cannotrely upon vague notions about the norms andstructure of the group if he is to become ac-cepted. Likewise, the sojourner in his role as astranger to a foreign culture needs to becomeaware of its implicit rules. This is no doubt amore difficult task for him than were he adjust-ing to a new group within his own culture.

Hall (1959) and Hall and Whyte (1963) dis-cussed the process of intercultural communi-cation and stated that periods of time spent inanother culture may bring to awareness aspectsof the sojourner's home culture of which he waspreviously unaware. A sojourner becomesaware of the many subtle cues that he has beenemploying within his own country, becausethe cues are no longer effective for communi-cation within the host culture. An awarenessof what were formerly unconscious cues forcommunication might be an important con-tribution to effective communication withinthe host culture, because the awareness of acue may enable a sojourner to modify hispatterns of communication so that they arecongruent with the cues of the people of thehost country. Therefore, if a sojourner can

consciously direct his behavior, the likelihoodof his becoming better adjusted would be in-creased. In terms of the downward slopes andlow points of the W curve, adjustment wouldbe evidenced by a reduction in the slope and areduction in the severity of concomitantculture-shock symptoms.

Intercultural communication can be con-ceived in terms of verbal communication, non-verbal communication, and complex inter-relations between the two. The most obviousmode of communication is through the use oflanguage, and its importance to understandingadjustment has been indicated by a number ofstudies.

Deutsch and Won (1963), for example, re-ported that language facility of trainees of theAgency for International Development was afactor influencing the degree of their socialsatisfaction or adjustment. And in a study ofScandinavian students in the United States,Sewell and Davidsen (1956) reported, also, thatfluency in the host language was a necessarycondition for a satisfactory adjustment. How-ever, Major (see Footnote 2) reported that theEnglish fluency of foreign students in theUnited States had little bearing on either theirsocial or academic adjustment. Major suggestedthat the foreign student's confidence in hisuse of the host language had a greater influenceon his adjustment than actual facility in thehost language. Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1966)suggested that confidence in the use of lan-guage, regardless of ability, may be a functionof a more general confidence in one's ability tointeract with others. Within certain culturalcontexts the sojourner who has confidence inhis ability to speak may be encouraged byforeign nationals whenever he uses the hostlanguage. However, Gullahorn and Gullahornnoted that not all countries are equally en-couraging of the foreigner who attempts tospeak in the host language. For example,whereas a sojourner to the United States willbe likely to find his attempts to speak Englishgenerally encouraged, in France the sojournermay find his hosts relatively intolerant ofmisuse of the French language. The sojournerwho has strong tendencies toward verbalinteraction may find such rebuffs considerablyfrustrating. Other aspects of language have


been covered by Bennett et al. (1958), Feld-man (1968), and Watson and Lippitt (1955).

Nonlinguistic as opposed to linguistic aspectsof culture have been emphasized by Glenn(1967), Loubert,4 and Wight, Hammons, andBing6 in explaining the barriers to communi-cation that often exist between sojourner andhost. And Hall (1959) proposed a theory ofculture in which verbal communication is onlyone of many possible modes of communication.He formulated a "map of culture" which canbe represented by a 10X10 matrix of cells.While the axes of the matrix consist of "pri-mary message systems" or systems of communi-cation, the cells in the matrix include thetotality of activities in any culture. Thus, Hallconceived of culture as a vast system of com-munication composed of these message systemsinto which all of the aspects, activities, andelements of a culture may be categorized. Eachcell has associated with it a "meaning" orcommunication value that is generally under-stood by the majority of members of a givenculture. Since only one cell of the matrix isused to represent the process of verbal commu-nication, all of the remaining cells pertain tomessages that occur nonverbally and largelyout of awareness. Therefore, nonverbal, incomparison with verbal communication, wouldseem to be of much greater significance withinthe culture (see Duncan, 1969, for a recentreview of nonverbal behaviors).

Hall contends that the greatest confusion inintercultural communication can be traced toa failure to interpret correctly the subtle cuesthat precede and surround a verbal communi-cation. A person may understand the actualspoken message, but may be totally unawareof the nonverbal messages that are occurringon the unconscious level. This unconscious com-munication is described as following certainculturally determined and relatively inflexible"rules," and may be discovered through analy-ses of nonverbal behavioral patterns. Oftenthe unconscious behaviors become known to

4 Loubert, J. D. The trans-cultural research and train-in?, institute (TCI). (ONR Tech. Rep. No. HSR-RR-67/7-Cs, Contract Nonr-4346-(00), NR-177-238)McLean, Va.: Human Sciences Research, 1967.

5 Wight, A. R., Hammons, M. A., & Bing, J. Cross-cultural and community involvement training. (PeaceCorps Tech. Rep., Contract PC-25-1710) Estes Park,Colorado: Center for Research and Education, 1969.

the sojourner during the period of his relativelygreater adjustment difficulties. In the sojour-ner's home country many actions which wereautomatic and primarily unconscious arerelatively inappropriate within the host cul-ture and become conscious in the process ofadjustment (see David, 1971). According toHall and Whyte (1963) sojourning has an"inoculation" effect. An American, for example,by virtue of his previous travel experiencebecomes more aware of his own modes ofbehavior, which were previously unconsciousto him in the United States. This new aware-ness helps, then, to reduce the obstacles thatinterfere with understanding in subsequentintercultural encounters.

Apparently a variety of differences betweencultures may contribute to misunderstandingsin the communication process. Cultural dif-ferences with respect to time and space are twoexamples. Important cultural differences andtheir implications for intercultural communi-cation may be found in the way that peoplefrom various countries conceive time. As de-scribed by Cleveland et al. (1960), if anAmerican is invited to a seven o'clock dinner,he will probably arrive between 5 and 15minutes after seven. A Scandinavian willprobably arrive exactly at seven, and it islikely that he will bring a gift. A Latin mayarrive at nine o'clock, and an Ethiopian mayarrive somewhat later. A Javanese may notarrive at all, although he had politely acceptedthe invitation in order to prevent the host fromlosing face. Hall (1959) reported that anAmerican who has to wait 45 minutes for abusiness appointment will likely be insulted,whereas, in some Latin American countries await of 45 minutes would be considered un-usually prompt.

The nonverbal communicative significanceof spatial behavior and its implications forintercultural communication, in particular,have been discussed by Brein 6 and Hall (1959,1966, 1968). When two persons from differentcultures interact, various misunderstandingsmay result from each interactant's lack ofinsight into the other's use of space. Mis-understandings can arise from crosscultural dif-ferences in territoriality. The middle-class

6 Brein, M. Psychoproxemics. Unpublished manu-script, University of Hawaii, 1970.


American, for example, believes that he hasan inherent right to an office, room, or desk ofhis own, whereas, his English counterpart doesnot have the same apparent need to establishsuch territoriality. Also, the American tendsto establish territorial rights in public places,for instance, if he is sitting at a public counter,another person is not expected to attempt todispossess him of his seat; however, the Arab,according to Hall, believes that a public areareally is public, and that a person does nothave rights to an area or location simplybecause he occupies it. In such encounters, anynumber of potential misinterpretations of be-havior could occur between Arabs andAmericans.

The conversational interaction distancesthat people maintain between themselves havebeen noted to vary across cultures. Arabs,Latin Americans, Indonesian, and Africangroups, among others, have been described asmaintaining generally closer interaction dis-tances among themselves than Americans do(Argyle & Dean, 1965; Hall, 1959, 1963, 1966;Hall & Whyte, 1963). Hall suggested that sincecultures apparently vary in their norms forinteraction distance, people from these culturesstructure their spatial experiences differentlyand may not necessarily attach the same mean-ings to their space usages. Hall emphasizedthe implications these differences might havewith respect to intercultural communicationby providing an example of the misunder-standings that could result from the differentcultural meanings attached to the use of space.When a Latin American and a North Americanconverse, both try to maintain their normalconversation distances with

the result . . . that when they [Latins] move close,we withdraw and back away. As a consequence theythink we are distant or cold, withdrawn and unfriendly.We, on the other hand, are constantly accusing them ofbreathing down our necks, crowding us, and sprayingour faces [1959, p. 164].

Although Hall's observations are largelyimpressionistic, some experimental evidencetends to support his views regarding inter-action distances (Brein, see Footnote 6;Forston & Larson, 1968; Sommer, 1967;Watson & Graves, 1966). Other investigatorshave studied crosscultural differences inspatial behavior by using object arrangement

procedures. Based on the methods of Kuethe(1962a, 1962b, 1964), subjects arranged pairsof dolls or paper human cutouts into simulatedconversational interactions in any mannerthey wished onto backgrounds or fields. Thedistances resulting between these figures havebeen found to correspond to the actual dis-tances that persons maintain between them-selves during conversational encounters. Little(1965, 1968) termed these spatial separations"reproduced interaction distances," and ob-served that Mediterranean groups (Greeks andItalians), in comparison with Northern Euro-pean groups (Swedes and Scots), placed dollssignificantly closer together during simulated"conversations." Engebretson,7 in a similarstudy reported cultural differences betweenAmericans and Japanese. It seems, then, thatsuch object-arrangement tasks may be po-tentially valuable for studying interaction dis-tances in relation to the processes of intercul-tural communication.

Triandis, Vassiliou, and Nassiakou (1968),in a cross-cultural study of social perception,suggested that two persons from different cul-tures interacting with each other could developmisunderstandings and misinterpretations ofeach other's behaviors as a result of differencesin their perceptions of social behaviors. It ispossible that they could perceive their sharedencounter "in very different terms" with re-spect to the exchange of reinforcementsoccurring between them, the degree of intimacyof the encounter, as well as their relative dif-ferences in status. For example,

a person from one culture may provide what he con-siders to be friendly criticism to a person from anotherculture only to discover that the other person interpretsit as "hatred." Or, a person from culture A behaves ina manner which he considers extremely "positive"toward a person from culture B. However, the indi-vidual from culture B perceives the behavior as "neu-tral," and in turn, the individual from culture A feelsthat he is "given the cold shoulder" [p. 33].

Triandis et al. also gave a specific example ofGreek and American differences in the percep-tion of certain kinds of social behaviors, anddiscussed the implications of these differences

' Engebretson, D. E. Cross cultural variations interritoriality: A base-line determination of interactionaldistance between shared culture dyads. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii, 1969.

228 MICHAEL BRE1N AND KENNETH H. DAVID

for intercultural interactions between Ameri-cans and Greeks.

Fayerweather (1959) described how Ameri-cans feel complimented when they are told thatthey are open, direct, and approachable;however, Mexicans are seen to regard opennessto be a form of weakness or treachery. TheMexican can give in or humiliate himself, buthe should never allow the outside world topenetrate his intimate being. The person who isopen is not to be trusted. He is a traitor or aman of doubtful fidelity, one who tells secretsand is incapable of facing dangers as theyshould be faced. In an article about the firstPeace Corps Volunteers to the Philippines,Guthrie (1966) described how the volunteerswere urged by some members of the staff to"be perfectly frank" in discussions with theFilipinos. This was a devastating piece ofadvice. The frankness of the Americans re-sulted in disrupted interpersonal relationshipswith the Filipinos because Philippine socialinteraction depended upon "smooth inter-personal relationships." Szanton (1966) de-scribed smooth interpersonal relationships asthe handling of potential disagreements byignoring or denying them, or calling on a thirdparty to negotiate a compromise. Adams (1962)discussed some of the differences between valueorientations of Koreans and Americans andalso discussed the implications of these dif-ferences as they pertain to the role of anAmerican educational adviser.

According to Cleveland et al. (I960), theAmerican sojourner may have difficulty adapt-ing to a culture in which indirection and innu-endo are a way of life. For example, in someAsian languages the word for "no" is rarelyused or is the same word as "yes"; thus, theOriental "yes" may mean "maybe" or "no."The Oriental may consider it better to say anuntruth than to cause another person to loseface. Cleveland et al. presented a story aboutan Indonesian middle-class boy who wanted tomarry an upper-class girl. The boy's motherwent to the house of the girl's mother for tea.A banana was served with the tea, which was amost unusual combination. The women didnot discuss the marriage during their visit,but the boy's mother knew that the marriagewas unacceptable—bananas do not go with tea.The relevant information had been communi-

cated, but nobody had lost face. However, anAmerican might have picked up the bananaand started to peel it while discussing thewedding date.

The preceding examples of intercultural mis-understandings suggest that the adjustment ofthe sojourner is related to those areas in whichdifferences occur between cultures. Thus, thebasis for ineffective communication of thesojourner would seem to be embedded in thedifferences between the home and host cul-tures; consequently, further investigations ofcross-cultural differences should be able toestablish the areas in which intercultural com-munication may be improved. More specifi-cally, to understand the adjustment difficultiesof an individual sojourner it would be necessaryto relate specific background factors, person-ality traits, and situational factors to the com-munication process. Relating these factors tointercultural communication may then providean integrating frame of reference by which anynumber of independent approaches could becompared and understood in relation to theadjustment of the sojourner. In turn, the ef-fective exchange of information would allowfor improved intercultural encounter to de-velop, resulting in improved adjustment for thesojourner. Although effective interculturalcommunication seems to establish the necessarybasis for adjustment, it does not insure thatthe sojourner will show good adjustment. Asojourner may know how to communicateeffectively in the host culture, but he may notbe able to either accept or reconcile the dif-ferences between cultures. Although it isbeyond the scope of this paper, the next stepin understanding the adjustment of thesojourner may be related to his acceptance ofthe host culture once he has developed effectivepatterns of communication.

REFERENCES

ADAMS, D. Cultural pitfalls of a foreign educationaladviser. Practical Anthropology, 1962, 9, 179-184.

ARGYLE, M., & DEAN, J. Eye contact, distance, andaffiliation. Sociometry, 1965, 28, 289-304.

SEALS, R. L., & HUMPHREY, N. No frontier to learning:The Mexican student in the United States. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1957.

BENNETT, J. W., PASSIN, H., & MCKNIGHT, R. K.In search of identity: The Japanese overseas scholar inAmerica and Japan. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1958.


BRONFENBRENNER, U., HARDING, J., & GALLWEY, M.The measurement of skill in social perception. InD. C. McClelland, A. L, Baldwin, U. Bronfenbrenner,& F. L. Strodtbeck (Eds.), Talent and society. Prince-ton: Van Nostrand, 1958.

BYRNES, F. C. Role shock: An occupational hazard ofAmerican technical assistants abroad. The Annals,1966, 368, 95-108.

CLEVELAND, H., MANGONE, G. J., & ADAMS, J. G.The overseas Americans. New York: McGraw-Hill,1960.

DAVID, K. H. Non-verbal communication in an inter-cultural setting and self-awareness. Voices: The Artand Science of Psychotherapy, 1971, in press.

DEUTSCH, S. E., & WON, G. Y. M. Some factors in theadjustment of foreign nationals in the United States.Journal of Social Issues, 1963, 19(3), 115-122.

DICKEN, C. Predicting the success of Peace Corps com-munity development workers. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 597-606.

DUNCAN, S., JR. Nonverbal communication. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 1969, 72, 118-137.

EKROTH, L. E. The study of face to face communica-tion between cultures: Present status and directions.Dissertation Abstracts, 1968, 28, 5167A-5168A.

FAYERWEATHER, J. M. The executive overseas. Syracuse:Syracuse University, 1959.

FELDMAN, R. E. Response to compatriot and foreignerwho seek assistance. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 1968, 10, 202-214.

FISHER, J., EPSTEIN, L. J., & HARRIS, M. R. Validity ofthe psychiatric interview. Archives of General Psy-chiatry, 1967, 17, 744-750.

FOA, U. G., & CHEMERS, M. M. The significance of rolebehavior differentiation for cross-cultural interactiontraining. International Journal of Psychology, 1967,2, 45-57.

FORSTON, R. F., & LARSON, C. V. The dynamics ofspace: An experimental study in proxemic behavioramong Latin Americans and North Americans.Journal of Communication, 1968, 18, 109-116.

FOSTER, G. M. Traditional cultures: And the impact oftechnological change. New York: Harper & Row,1965.

GARDNER, G. H. Cross-cultural communication. Journalof Social Psychology, 1962, 58, 241-256.

GLENN, E. S. The delicate art of interpretation. Trans-action, 1967,4,30-31.

GOLDSEN, R. K., SUCHMAN, E. A., & WlLLIAMS, R. M.Factors associated with the development of cross-cultural social interaction. Journal of Social Issues,1956, 12(1), 26-32.

GULLAHORN, J. E., & GuLLAHORN, J. T. Americanstudents abroad: Professional versus personal de-velopment. The Annals, 1966, 368, 43-59.

GULLAHORN, J. T., & GULLAHORN, J. E. An extension& of the U-curve hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues,

1963, 19(3), 33-47.GUTHRIE, G. M. Cultural preparation for the Philip-

pines. In R. B. Textor (Ed.), Cultural frontiers ofthe Peace Corps. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966.

HALL, E. T. The silent language. New York: Doubleday,1959.

HALL, E. T. Proxemics: A system of notation of proxe-mic behavior. American Anthropologist, 1963, 65,1003-1026.

HALL, E. T. The hidden dimension. Garden City, N. Y.:Doubleday, 1966.

HALL, E. T. Proxemics. Current Anthropology, 1968,9,83-108.

HALL, E. T., & WHYTE, W. F. Intercultural communica-tion : A guide to men of action. Practical Anthropology,1963, 10, 216-299.

JACOBSON, E. H. Sojourn research: A definition of thefield. Journal of Social Issues, 1963, 19(3), 123-129.

KELMAN, H. C. Changing attitudes through interna-tional activities. Journal of Social Issues, 1962,18(1),68-87.

KELMAN, H. C. (Ed.) International behavior. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.

KLUCKHOHN, C. Mirror for man. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1949.

KUETHE, J. L. Social schemas. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 1962, 64, 31-38. (a)

KUETHE, J. L. Social schemas and the reconstructionof social object displays from memory. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 65, 71-74. (b)

KUETHE, J. L. Pervasive influence of social schemata.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964,68, 248-254.

LAMBERT, R. D., & BRESSLER, M. The sensitive areacomplex: A contribution to the theory of guidedculture contact. American Journal of Sociology, 1955,60, 583-592.

LAMBERT, R. D., & BRESSLER, M. Indian students onan American campus. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1956.

LEON, C. A. Problemas adaptivos de un grupo de amasde casa Norteamericanas en Latinoamerica. ActaPsiquiatrica y Psicologica de Argentina, 1963, 9,114-121.

LITTLE, K. B. Personal space. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 1965, 1, 237-247.

LITTLE, K. B. Cultural variations in social schemata.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,10, 1-7.

LUNDSTEDT, S. An introduction to some evolving prob-lems in crosscultural research. Journal of Social Is-sues, 1963, 19(3), 1-9.

LYSGAARD, S. Adjustment in a foreign society: Nor-wegian Fulbright grantees visiting the United States.International Social Science Bulletin, 1955, 7, 45-51.

MISCHEL, W. Predicting the success of Peace Corpsvolunteers in Nigeria. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 1965, 1, 510-517.

MORRIS, R. T. The two-way mirror: National status inforeign students' adjustment. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press, 1960.

NASH, D., & SHAW, L. C. Personality and adaptationin an overseas enclave. Human Organization, 1963,21, 252-263.

OBERG, K. Cultural shock: Adjustment to new culturalenvironments. Practical Anthropology, 1960, 7, 177-182.

PATTERSON, W. D. The big picture. New York: AmericanSociety of Travel Agents, 1969.


PEARSON, D. The Peace Corps volunteer returns—problems of adjustment. Saturday Review, 1964, 47,54-56.

PERLMUTTER, H. V. Some characteristics of the xeno-philic personality. Journal of Psychology, 1954, 38,291-300.

POOL, I., de S. Effects of cross-national contact onnational and international images. In H. C. Kelman(Ed.), International behavior. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston, 1965.

RIESMAN, D., GLAZER, N., & DENNY, R. The lonelycrowd. New York: Doubleday, 1955.

SCHUETZ, A. The stranger: An essay in social psychol-ogy. American Journal of Sociology, 1944, 49, 499-507.

SCOTT, F. D. The American experience of Swedish stu-dents: Retrospect and aftermath. Minneapolis: Uni-versity of Minnesota Press, 1956.

SELLTIZ, C., CHRIST, J. R., HAVEL, J., & COOK, S. W.Attitudes and social relations of foreign students in theUnited Stales. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 1963.

SEWELL, W. H., & DAVIDSEN, 0. M. The adjustment ofScandinavian students. Journal of Social Issues,1956, 12(1), 9-19.

SEWELL, W. H., & DAVIDSEN, O. M. Scandinavianstudents on an American campus. Minneapolis: Uni-versity of Minnesota Press, 1961.

SIIELTON, A. J. The "Miss Ophelia" syndrome inAfrican field research. Practical Anthropology, 1964,11, 259-265.

SMALLEY, W. A. Culture shock, language shock, and theshock of self-discovery. Practical Anthropology, 1963,10, 49-56.

SMITH, M. B. Some features of foreign-student adjust-ments. Journal of Higher Education, 1955, 26, 231-241.

SMITH, M. B. A perspective for further research oncross-cultural education. Journal of Social Issues,1956, 12(1), 56-67.

SMITH, M. B. Explorations in competence: A study ofPeace Corps teachers in Ghana. American Psycholo-gist, 1966, 21, 555-566.

SMITH, M. B., FAWCETT, J. T., EZEKIAL, R., & ROTH,S. A factorial study of morale among Peace Corpsteachers in Ghana. Journal of Social Issues, 1963,19(3), 10-32.

SOMMER, R. Small group ecology. Psychological Bulletin,1967, 67, 145-152.

STOLLEY, R. B. Re-entry crisis: Return of Peace Corpsvolunteers to U. S. Life, 1965, March, 98-100+.

SUDENFELD, P. Paternal absence and overseas successof Peace Corps volunteers. Journal of ConsultingPsychology, 1967, 31, 424-425.

SZANTON, D. L. Cultural confrontation in the Philip-pines. In R. B. Textor (Ed.), Cultural frontiers of thePeach Corps. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966.

THOMSON, C. P., & ENGLISH, J. T. Premature return ofPeace Corps volunteers. Public Health Reports, 1964,79, 1065-1073.

TRIANDIS, H. C., VASSILIOU, V., & NASSIAKOU, M.Three crosscultural studies of subjective culture.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,8 (4, Part 2).

TURNER, C. V. The Sinsana "Big Man" complex: Acentral culture theme. Practical Anthropology, 1968,15, 16-23.

UNITED STATES BUREAU or THE CENSUS. Statisticalabstract of the United States. (90th ed.) Washington,D. C.: United States Government Printing Office,1969.

USEEM, R. H. The American family in India. TheAnnals, 1966, 368, 132-145.

WATSON, 0. M., & GRAVES, T. D. Quantitative researchin proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 1966,68, 971-985.

WATSON, J., & LIPPITT, R. Learning across cultures:A study of Germans visiting America. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 1955.

ZELEZNIK, C. Inner and other directedness of the Ameri-can abroad. Phylon Quarterly, 1957, 19, 258-267.

(Received March 16, 1970)

Manuscripts Accepted for Publication in the

Psychological Bulletin

Reconsideration of a Measure of Power Motivation: Joseph Veroff* and Joanne B. Veroff: Department of Psy-chology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104.

* Asterisk indicates author for whom the address is supplied.

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND THE ......Psychological Bulletin 1971, Vol. 76, No. 3, 215-230...

Documents

Transcript of INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND THE ......Psychological Bulletin 1971, Vol. 76, No. 3, 215-230...