Marital, psychological, and sociocultural aspects of sojourner adjustment: expanding the field of...

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

28 (2004) 111–126

Marital, psychological, and socioculturalaspects of sojourner adjustment:expanding the field of enquiry

Susan Jamesa,*, John Hunsleyb, Geoffrey S. Navarac,Melanie Allesd

a Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education, 2125 Main Mall,

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4b University of Ottawa, Canadac University of Guelph, Canada

d Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada

Abstract

Researchers have proposed that there are two distinct forms of sojourner adjustment: (1) the

psychological—feelings of well-being and satisfaction; and, (2) the social—the ability to ‘‘fit-

in’’ or negotiate interactive aspects of the host culture. The current study expands this notion

of domains of adjustment to include marital factors (such as the ‘trailing’ partner’s satisfaction

with the posting). Sixty-four sojourner couples stationed in Nepal were asked to complete

measures of psychological and sociocultural adjustment as well as couple characteristics and

functioning. The results of the current study support the proposed expansion of the existing

model of adjustment to include marital variables, as these variables contributed significantly to

the prediction of adjustment even after psychological and sociocultural factors were entered

into the regression analyses. We propose, therefore, that more attention be paid to the role of

relationship factors in models of sojourner adjustment. In particular, more attention should be

paid to the partner’s satisfaction with the posting-in attempts to understand sojourner

adjustment.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sojourner; Adjustment; Nepal; Cross–cultural; Relocation

ARTICLE IN PRESS

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-604-822-6664; fax: +1-604-822-2328.

E-mail address: [email protected] (S. James).

0147-1767/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2004.03.003

1. Introduction

Theories regarding international relocations have taken a variety of forms in theresearch literature in psychology over the years. Early conceptions described thedifficulty encountered after moving overseas as ‘‘tropical neurasthenia’’ (Cox, 1988).Interestingly, this disorder was believed to be caused by a physical disturbance in thenerve tissue due to an over-indulgence in games, bridge, and dinner parties, excessiveconsumption of alcohol, cerebral congestion, too much sunlight and comparative airstagnation (Culpin, 1931). The treatment for tropical neurasthenia was to take a longleave or to have one’s teeth attended to (Cox, 1988).

More recent research has abandoned the notion of a pathogenic model and hasreframed the relocation experience as something more positive and, accordingly, hasemphasized the importance of adjustment. A number of studies have investigatedindividual characteristics that aid in adjustment such as previous relocationexperience (David, 1973; Hull, 1978), amount of time in the host country (James& Hunsley, 2003), stress and stressful life events (James & Hunsley, 2003; Searle &Ward, 1990, Ward & Rana-Deuba, 2000), age (Hull, 1978; Ibrahim, 1970), self-efficacy (Harrison, Chadwick, & Scales, 1996), and gender (Fong & Peskin, 1969).Other studies have been designed to examine how contextual variables such asdifficulty of the post (James & Hunsley, 2003; Searle & Ward, 1990) and linguisticability (Calhoun, 1977; Taang, 2001) play a role in the adjustment of the expatriate.Increasingly, integrative theories in this domain combine both the individual andcontextual variables in their models (Parker & McEvoy, 1993; Searle & Ward, 1990;Stroh, Dennis, & Cramer, 1994).

Despite these attempts to develop integrative models, limited attention had beengiven to the role of the spouse in the process of cross–cultural adjustment. Morerecently, however, there have been a few researchers who have investigated maritalfactors and found that spouse adjustment predicts the adjustment of the person onoverseas assignment (Black & Stephens, 1989; Simeon & Fujiu, 2000; Stroh et al.,1994). Some researchers are also beginning to include spousal factors in their modelsof sojourner adjustment (e.g., Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991; Caligiuri,Hyland, Bross, & Joshi, 1998; James & Hunsley, 2003; Shaffer & Harrison, 2001).

To further this line of inquiry, the current study examines the predictive validity ofincluding marital variables in Ward and Searles’ theory of sojourner adjustment. Wardand Searle (1991) divided adjustment into psychological adjustment (i.e., feelings ofwell-being and satisfaction) and social adjustment (the ability to ‘‘fit in’’ or negotiateinteractive aspects of the host culture). They claimed that a great deal of confusion hasarisen in the literature because the two aspects of adjustment are often collapsed as oneconstruct. Searle and Ward (1990) tested their model with expatriates from Malaysiaand Singapore adjusting to living in New Zealand. They found support for the notionthat adjustment was best defined as two distinct factors (i.e., psychological andsociocultural adjustment) that were predicted by different variables. For example,psychological adjustment was predicted by social difficulty, life changes, extraversion,and satisfaction with contact with host nationals, whereas sociocultural adjustment waspredicted by expected difficulty, cultural distance, and depression.

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. James et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 111–126112

Later studies supported these initial findings (Armes & Ward, 1988; Ward &Kennedy, 1992, 1994; Ward & Searle, 1991). For example, Armes and Ward (1988)studied English-speaking sojourners residing in Singapore and found that knowl-edge, attitudes and personality variables related differently to various aspects of theadjustment process. Three other studies have also supported the distinction betweenthe two forms of adjustment with New Zealand sojourners living abroad (Ward &Kennedy, 1992, 1994) and sojourners from a number of countries living in NewZealand (Ward & Searle, 1991). Thus, a large body of literature has supported thetheory proposed by Ward and Searle.

1.1. The present study

Even though the majority of people on international assignment are married orliving with a partner and having an unhappy ‘‘trailing’’ partner is a leading reasonfor people abandoning their postings, the status of the relationship and the partner’ssatisfaction with the post are rarely included in models of adjustment. In this article,we expand Ward and Searle’s model to include theses factors when looking atsojourner adjustment. To determine if different variables within this model predictdifferent outcomes, we will use the same predictor variables for each analysis. Ourfirst goal is to expand the generalizability of the model by: (1) testing sojournersstationed in Nepal, and (2) utilizing new measures to test key variables. It is also ourintention to test Ward and colleagues’ constructs of psychological and socioculturaladjustment using other measures that have demonstrated good psychometricproperties and have proven to tap into the same domains, but are used in widerresearch. In general, we hypothesize that both psychological and socioculturalvariables will predict the adjustment of sojourners to their new cultural setting. Oursecond goal is to expand Ward and Searle’s model to include spousal variables. Likeother sojourner researchers who have included marital influences in their studies(Black & Stephens, 1989; Simeon & Fujiu, 2000; Stroh et al., 1994), we hypothesizethat, like psychological and sociocultural factors, marital variables (such as spousaladjustment and communication) will be significant contributors to the prediction ofadjustment. Specifically we hypothesize that marital adjustment will be related topsychological and sociocultural adjustment, and that spouse placement satisfactionwill predict both social and marital adjustment.

The setting for our study is Nepal, which is an optimal location as there isa large sojourner population living there. Sojourners in Nepal must deal withchanges in living conditions such as limited resources (e.g., running waterand electricity), the climate (e.g., monsoons and heat), and illness (e.g., viraland parasitic infections and hepatitis; United Nations Development Programme,1992). As the environmental demands of the Nepal context are numerous, weexpected that processes of adaptation and adjustment would be highly evident.Moreover, Nepal is a country in which the activities available for the trailing spouseare somewhat limited and, as a result, couples have to rely on each other forsuccessful adjustment. Additionally, not very many sojourner studies have beenconducted in Nepal.

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. James et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 111–126 113

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 64 couples. All participants were currently married orliving with a common-law spouse for a minimum of six months, and were expatriatesstationed in Nepal for a minimum of one year. Participants originated from theUnited States and Canada (39%), the United Kingdom (30%), Australia and NewZealand (14%) and other Western European countries (7%). The mean number ofyears the couple had been together was 14.4 (SD=10.3), ranging from 1 to 43 years.Couples had lived in Nepal at least one year (M=4.7; SD=1.2, range 1–10 years)and on average had lived in two or three countries with their partners (M=2.8;SD=1.4). The participants’ ages ranged from 24 to 71 years (M=40.7; SD=9.8) andcouples had an average of 2 children (SD=1.4). Combined earnings of theparticipants and their partners ranged from under $5000 per year, for participantswith volunteer organizations, to over $50,000 per year for some aid andembassy staff.

2.2. Measures

The participants were measured in terms of marital, psychological, andsociocultural adjustment. The marital subscales included, the Marital Adaptabilityand Cohesion Evaluation Scale III (MACES III, a measure of cohesion andadaptability), the dyadic satisfaction subscale (part of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale,a measure of relationship satisfaction), and the communication subscale (subscale ofthe ENRICH, a measure of communication in the relationship). Several measures inthis battery were included to be used in a concurrent yet separate study testing afamily psychology model within the sojourner community in Nepal (James &Hunsely, 2003).

The psychological adjustment scales included, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS, ameasure of the individual’s perceived life stress), the General Domain scale (subscaleof the Multidimensional Measure of Children’s Perceptions of Control, a measure oflocus of control), and the Self-Esteem Inventory (a measure of self-esteem).Sociocultural adjustment was measured with the Hassles Scale (a measure of dailyhassles), the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL, a measure of appraisal,belonging, and tangible support), the Family Index of Coherence (FIC, a measure ofthe family’s commitment to an overseas lifestyle), and a modified version of thesojourner adjustment questionnaire (a measure of post satisfaction). On average, ittook respondents 45 min to complete the battery.

A range of demographic information was collected for all participants. Thedemographic data used in the analyses included ability to speak Nepali, years spentin Nepal, and total years spent in a foreign country prior to the posting. For thelanguage variable, respondents rated their ability to speak Nepali on a scale from1= not at all, to 5= fluent.


2.3. Marital adjustment

The Marital Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale III (MACES III; Olson,Portner, & Lavee, 1985) is a 20-item, self-report measure with cohesion andadaptability subscales, both of which use a 5-point Likert scale. Olson (1993)reported the cohesion and adaptability subscales to have internal consistencies of0.82 and 0.78 respectively, with test-retest reliabilities of 0.83 and 0.80.

The dyadic satisfaction subscale (10 items) of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale(Spanier, 1976) was used to measure relationship satisfaction. The alpha coefficientof the subscale is reported to be 0.82 and the subscale correlates very highly with theKansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (Hunsley, Pinsent, Lefebvre, James-Tanner, &Vito, 1995).

The communication subscale of the ENRICH (Olson et al., 1983) is designed toinvestigate the participants’ feelings and attitudes toward communication in theirrelationship. The 10-item self-report questionnaire asks respondents to agree ordisagree with statements about giving and receiving emotional and cognitiveinformation in their relationship. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale where1=do not agree to 7=agree. The subscale has a test–retest reliability of 0.90 and theinternal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) is 0.82 (Fowers & Olson, 1989). The measurehas been shown to discriminate between happily and unhappily married couples andfactor analysis has generally supported the factor structure of the measure (Fowers& Olson, 1989). Lastly, the communication subscale significantly correlated with theLocke–Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale (Fowers & Olson, 1989).

2.4. Psychological adjustment

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) is a 14-item instrument designed to measure the amount to which a person perceives lifesituations to be stressful (e.g., overloading, unpredictable, and uncontrollable).Results of a factor analytic study suggest that the psychometric properties of themeasure are strengthened with the deletion of 4 items (Cohen & Williamson, 1988).Thus, the revised 10-item scale was used in the present study. The reliabilitycoefficient (alpha) for the PSS10 was 0.78 (Cohen & Williamson, 1988). The test–retest reliability of the PSS10 has not yet been established, but results of studies usingthe PSS14 demonstrate good test–retest reliability (0.88 over a 2-day period and 0.55over a 6-week period). Lastly, construct validity of the measure was established whenthe authors found significant correlations between the PSS14 and Life-Events scores,and depressive and physical symptomatology questionnaires (Cohen et al., 1983).

Locus of control was measured with the General Domain subscale of theMultidimensional Measure of Children’s Perceptions of Control (MMCPC; Connell,1985). Although the scale was originally designed for use with children, the subscalehas been altered for use with adults to investigate the respondents’ perceptions oftheir control over what happens in their lives (Pelletier, Vallerand, Blais, Briere, &Green-Demers, 1995). Eight items (Internal control and Powerful others controlsubscales) from the General Domain scale were used in the present study. The items


include such statements as ‘‘I can pretty much control what will happen in my life’’and ‘‘When I am unsuccessful, it is usually my own fault.’’ Respondents evaluateitems on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘Not at all true’’ (1) to ‘‘Very true’’ (7).The internal reliability of the scale is 0.79 (Pelletier et al., 1995). Construct validity ofthe measure was supported when Pelletier and his colleagues (1995) found that theitems all loaded on one factor, Perception of Control, and that the scale significantlycorrelated (0.24–0.39) with measures of intrinsic motivation.

The Self-Esteem Inventory (Rosenberg, 1965) was used to measure self-esteem.The inventory has 10 items that assess participants’ feelings about themselves. Itemsare rated on a 7-point Likert scale (from ‘‘do not agree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree’’) andinclude items such as ‘‘I take a positive attitude toward myself’’ and ‘‘On the whole, Iam satisfied with myself.’’ Young (1991) found that the Cronbach’s alpha for themeasure was 0.84 for recently located Canadians and 0.79 for established Canadians.The test–retest reliability was 0.85 and 0.43 over a 2-week (Silber & Tippet, 1965)and a 4-year period (Pearlin, Lieberman, Menaghan, & Mullan, 1981), respectively.In addition, Robinson and Shaver (1973) found that the scale demonstrated goodconvergent validity with other measures of self-esteem (correlations ranged from0.56 to 0.83). Additional construct validity evidence is also available (Weiss, 1977;Weiss & Knight, 1980).

2.5. Sociocultural adjustment

Daily hassles were measured using the revised version of the Hassles Scale(Delongis, 1985). The 53-item revised version is based on the original 117-itemversion used in previous research (Delongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman, & Lazarus,1982). The inventory asks the respondent to rate how much of a hassle the items havebeen for the respondent in the past month. Items include sources of daily stress suchas domestic, work, financial, and familial stress. The total hassles score is obtainedby summing the ratings given to all of the items. The Hassles scale has demonstratedgood test–retest reliability (0.82 over a 4-week period) and validity (0.31 to 0.85correlation with the Daily Health Record; Delongis, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988).

Social support is the perceived availability of potential social resources. Theresources include appraisal support (advice and discussion), belonging support(identification with a social network), and tangible support (material aid). All ofthese variables are measured by subscales of the Interpersonal Support EvaluationList (ISEL; Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck, & Hoberman, 1985). Factor analyticprocedures have confirmed the factor structure of the ISEL and found that all of thesubscales load onto a higher-order latent factor of global social support (Brookings& Bolton, 1988). In addition, the ISEL has demonstrated good convergentvalidity (0.46 correlation with the Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviours;Cohen et al., 1985).

The family’s commitment to an overseas lifestyle was measured by the FamilyIndex of Coherence (FIC; McCubbin, Patterson, & Lavee, 1983). Only theitems relevant to sojourn workers and their families were used. Thus, anabbreviated version of the predictability/controllability subscale (6 items) and the


organization–family fit subscales (5 items) were relevant to the sample andwere used. The predictability/controllability subscale measures the extent towhich the participant feels that the future of the family is predictable in termsof work/family schedules and future assignments. The organization–family fitsubscale investigates whether the family members feel that their family fitswith demands of the overseas lifestyle. The internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha)of this abridged version of the FIC was 0.76 for this sample. A factor analyticstudy revealed that all of the subscales of the FIC loaded onto a coherencefactor (Lavee, McCubbin, & Patterson, 1985), providing support for the constructvalidity of that measure. Furthermore, McCubbin (1991) reported a significantvalidity coefficient of 0.44, 0.40, and 0.39 (correlation with the criterion offamily well being) for the organization-family fit, predictability, and controllabilitysubscales.

Post satisfaction was assessed by a modified version of a sojourner adjustmentquestionnaire that consists of two subscales: interaction and general conditions(Black & Stephens, 1989). The 4-item interaction subscale was designed to determinethe sojourner’s satisfaction interacting with host nationals on a formal and sociallevel. The reliability alpha coefficient of this subscale is 0.89 (Black & Stephens,1989). The 7-item general conditions subscale was designed to measure thesojourner’s satisfaction with the living conditions in the host country. The alphacoefficient of this subscale is 0.82 (Black & Stephens, 1989).

2.6. Procedure

Approval for the study was obtained by an ethics review board at the University ofOttawa. Questionnaire packages were distributed to potential participants throughorganizations in Nepal by the first author (James). James has had extensive contactwith the Nepali sojourner context in various capacities over a 5-year period. Initially,James was a member of the sojourner community for one year. Then, over the nextfour years, James spent many months in Nepal as a researcher and in a clinicalcapacity (clinical psychology practicum).

Permission was sought from directors of these organizations who in turnleft the questionnaire packages in the mailboxes of their staff. An informationsheet informed participants of the purpose of the study, as well as the nameand address of the researcher. Participants were asked not to consult anyonewhile completing the package, and to mail them back to the researcher uponcompletion. Eighty-six organizations distributed questionnaire packages totheir staff. Approximately 400 couples received the package. However, thedirectors estimated that 20% of their staff were on summer holidays duringthe study so, approximately, 320 couples received the package in time to participate:thus, the response rate was 38%. This rate is consistent with the rate of otherstudies using similar methods of questionnaire distribution in Nepal (James &Hunsley, 1995). The questionnaire package included a number of demographicquestions, the scales listed above, and some additional questionnaires not relevantto this study.


3. Results

The means, standard deviations and Cronbach alphas (if appropriate) for allvariables used in this study are included in Table 1. Simple correlations werecalculated between all major variables and are presented in Table 2. In order toassess the model of expatriate adjustment proposed by Ward and Searle, and toexpand this model to include marital aspects, several regression analyses wereconducted in two phases. Additionally, to parallel the work of Ward and Searle, theunit of analysis that we use is the individual not the couple per se.

In phase one (see Table 3), a series of regressions were conducted to predictexpatriate adjustment in the three domains of psychological, social, and maritaladjustment (as measured by satisfaction with life, post satisfaction and maritalsatisfaction). The predicting psychological factors included in the regressions werelocus of control, perceived stress and self-esteem. The predicting socioculturalfactors included were hassles, years in Nepal, years overseas, and language ability.As can be seen in Table 3, all the three regressions were found to be significant, withself-esteem significantly contributing to all models and years in Nepal significantlycontributing to satisfaction with life.

In phase two, marital variables (post satisfaction of spouse, marital cohesion,marital adaptability, marital communication and spouse’s adjustment) were includedwith the significant predicting variables and were regressed upon the same threeadjustment measures used in phase one (i.e., satisfaction with life, post satisfactionand marital satisfaction). See Tables 4, 5 and 6 for the analyses. As can be seen inTable 4, satisfaction with life was significantly predicted by the posting satisfactionof the spouse. Years in Nepal and self-esteem remained as significant predictors of

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Means and standard deviations of study variables

Variable Mean Standard Deviation Alphas

Satisfaction with life 23.22 6.18 0.84

Post satisfaction 52.15 9.01 0.80

Marital satisfaction 51.70 4.12 0.74

Hassles 32.91 21.45 0.87

Years in Nepal 4.02 3.36 —

Years overseas 4.42 6.62 —

Locus of control 37.61 5.56 0.83

Perceived stress 21.61 3.13 0.81

Self-esteem 57.46 8.66 0.78

Language ability 3.10 1.20 —

Post satisfaction of spouse 52.14 9.01 —

Spouse’s marital adjustment 51.71 4.11 —

Family cohesion 42.57 7.15 0.88

Adaptation 32.94 5.38 0.80

Communication 53.99 9.56 0.76

S. James et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 111–126118

ARTIC

LEIN

PRES

S

Table 2

Correlation matrix of the variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Satisfaction with life 0.361� 0.238� �0.226� 0.196� �0.002 0.195� �0.205� 0.459� �0.007 0.296� 0.206� 0.204� 0.092 0.194�

2. Post satisfaction 0.183� �0.180� 0.226� �0.016 0.087 �0.100 0.335� 0.148 0.521� 0.188� 0.197� 0.189� 0.273�

3. Marital satisfaction �0.230� �0.050 0.028 0.180� �0.148 0.356� �0.032 0.191� 0.604� 0.751� 0.327� 0.690�

4. Hassles �0.027 0.054 �0.138 0.337� �0.349� 0.149 �0.106 �0.105 �0.153 �0.150 �0.209�

5. Years in Nepal �0.117 �0.067 0.021 0.029 0.494� 0.208� �0.055 �0.104 �0.195� �0.094

6. Years overseas �0.132 �0.035 0.138 �0.160 �0.040 0.022 0.044 0.004 �0.021

7. Locus of control �0.117 0.136 �0.254� 0.080 0.138 0.090 0.279� 0.110

8. Perceived stress �0.298� 0.085 �0.019 �0.002 0.011 �0.029 �0.112

9. Self-esteem �0.102 0.163 0.190� 0.274� 0.328� 0.349�

10. Language ability 0.058 �0.022 0.004 �0.142 �0.021

11. Post satisfaction 0.183� 0.188� 0.163 0.195�

12. Spouse’s marital 0.551� 0.200� 0.414�

13. Family cohesion 0.437� 0.647�

14. Adaptation 0.447�

15. Communication

�pp0.05 (2-tailed).

S.

Ja

mes

eta

l./

Intern

atio

na

lJ

ou

rna

lo

fIn

tercultu

ral

Rela

tion

s2

8(

20

04

)1

11

–1

26

119

satisfaction of life. The marital variables accounted for an additional 7% of thevariance in the model; however, the R2 change was not significant.

When the significant measures from phase one and the marital measures wereregressed upon post satisfaction (see Table 5), the overall model was significant,again with posting satisfaction of the spouse significantly contributing to the model.By including the marital adjustment variables, the model accounted for an additional24% of the variance (R2 change=0.24, po0.05).

The final regression for phase two had the significant measures from phase oneand the marital measures regressed upon marital satisfaction (see Table 6). The

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Regression analyses for Phase I

Variables F p B t p R2

Predicted:

Satisfaction with life 6.42 0.001� 0.27

Predictor:

Hassles �0.036 �0.42 0.68

Years in Nepal 0.204 2.25 0.03�

Years overseas �0.021 �0.251 0.80


Perceived stress �0.059 �0.70 0.49

Self-esteem 0.405 4.68 0.001�

Language ability �0.026 �0.27 0.79

Predicted:

Post satisfaction 3.72 0.001� 0.18

Predictor:

Hassles �0.081 �0.087 0.39

Years in Nepal 0.153 1.59 0.12

Years overseas �0.004 �0.05 0.96


Perceived stress 0.013 0.149 0.88

Self-esteem 0.31 3.37 0.001�

Language ability 0.304 1.33 0.19

Predicted:

Marital Satisfaction 3.41 0.002� 0.17

Predictor:

Hassles �0.122 �1.30 0.20

Years in Nepal �0.104 �1.07 0.29

Years overseas 0.017 0.19 0.85


Perceived stress �0.007 �0.07 0.94

Self-esteem 0.304 3.28 0.001�

Language ability 0.109 1.07 0.29

�pp0.05.


overall model was significant, with spouse’s satisfaction and communicationsignificantly contributing to the model. The combined model accounted for anadditional 48% of the variance (R2 change=0.48, po0.05).

From the above result, it would appear that, even after accounting forpsychological and sociocultural factors (i.e., self-esteem and years in Nepal), maritalfactors, specifically the posting satisfaction of one’s spouse, significantly predictedsatisfaction with life. The posting satisfaction of one’s spouse also appeared tosignificantly predict the posting satisfaction of expatriates. Also, the postingsatisfaction of one’s spouse and marital communication seemed to significantlypredict marital satisfaction. In looking at the analyses, self-esteem remains asignificant and powerful predictor of satisfaction factors, except marital satisfaction.

4. Discussion

Our research tested a model of cross-cultural adaptation expanded to includerelational and spousal factors for sojourners who are on assignment with theirspouse or partner. Consistent with the hypotheses, the results of the study served twopurposes. First, they lent support to the model of cross-cultural adaptation proposedby Ward and Searle (1991) and second they supported the hypotheses that, for

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Model 1 and Model 2 hierarchical regression analyses predicting life satisfaction


Predicted:

Satisfaction with life (model 1) 20.22 0.001 0.24�

Predictor:

Years in Nepal 0.18 2.35

Self-esteem 0.45 5.84 0.02�

0.001�

Predicted:

Satisfaction with life (model 2) 7.54 0.001� 0.31x

Predictor:

Step 1:

Years in Nepal 0.165 1.97 0.05�

Self-esteem 0.385 4.31 0.001�

Step 2:

Post satisfaction of spouse 0.169 2.04 0.04�

Spouse’s dyadic adjustment 0.104 1.23 0.22


Adaptation �0.085 �0.95 0.34


�pp0.05.xSignificant R2 change, pp0.05.

S. James et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 111–126 121

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 5

Model 1 and Model 2 hierarchical regression analyses predicting post satisfaction


Predicted:

Post satisfaction (model 1) 15.92 0.001� 0.11�

Predictor:

Self-esteem 0.34 3.99 0.001�

Predicted:

Post satisfaction (model 2) 10.97 0.001� 0.35x

Predictor:

Step 1:

Self-esteem 0.192 2.27 0.03�

Step 2:

Post satisfaction of spouse 0.452 5.93 0.001�

Spouse’s dyadic adjustment 0.016 0.20 0.85


Adaptation �0.019 �0.23 0.82



Table 6

Model 1 and Model 2 hierarchical regression analyses predicting marital satisfaction


Predicted:

Marital satisfaction (model 1) 18.34 0.001� 0.13�

Predictor:

Self-esteem 0.36 4.28 0.001�

Predicted:

Marital satisfaction (model 2) 32.12 0.001� 0.61x

Predictor:

Step 1:

Self-esteem 0.087 1.34 0.18

Step 2:

Post satisfaction of spouse 0.000 �0.01 0.99

Spouse’s dyadic adjustment 0.373 5.97 0.001�


Adaptation �0.017 �0.27 0.79

Communication 0.489 7.16 0.001�



sojourners with partners, the spouse and marital factors play an importantrole in the sojourner’s adjustment experience and should also be included inthe model.

Consistent with previous research by Ward and Searle (1991), we found thatpsychological and sociocultural variables predicted sojourner adjustment usingregression analyses. Adjustment, as measured by satisfaction with life, postsatisfaction, and dyadic adjustment, was predicted by both self-esteem and thenumbers of years participants had lived in Nepal. This is consistent with studies byWard and Kennedy (1992) and Brett (1982) that found that self-esteem predictedadjustment. Unlike the aforementioned Ward and Kennedy (1992) study, locus ofcontrol was not a predictor of adjustment in this instance.

We also expanded Ward and Searle’s model to include couple variables. The valueof this expanded model was indicated in a number of ways. First, as predicted, thepost satisfaction of the spouse (marital) along with self-esteem (psychological) andyears living in Nepal (sociocultural) appeared to significantly predict adjustment.Second, as hypothesized, marital adjustment was predicted by distinct variables thatare consistent with the family stress literature, such as marital communication(James & Hunsley, 1995, 2003). Thus, these findings suggest that couple factors doplay an important role for sojourners who are on assignment with their partners.Furthermore, the finding that couple variables added to the prediction of adjustmenteven after self-esteem was entered in the regression equation underscores the value ofincluding relational measures. Although it has been assumed that Ward and Searle’smodel is applicable regardless of marital status, the results of this study suggest thatexpanding the model to include couple variables for sojourners with partners is avaluable addition. However, while our hypotheses suggest a causal direction betweencouple and adjustment variables, at this early stage in the research we cannot ruleout the possibility that a reciprocal relationship exists. We acknowledge thatresearch of a longitudinal nature (i.e, testing couples before they leave home andthen after arriving in the posting) should be used in the future to further theexpanded model proposed in this discussion.

Confirmatory longitudinal research of the expanded model is important becausethere may be practical implications from this study. For instance, the findings couldbe used to help prepare expatriates for what they can expect overseas. Expatriatesare often given pre-departure briefings that involve discussions about acculturation,health, safety, and resources (Ptak, Cooper, & Brislin, 1995), but this forum could beexpanded to include preparation for living overseas as a couple. For instance,variables that were confirmed to affect marital adjustment could be highlighted asresources that the couple could foster.

As this was an initial evaluation of an expanded model of sojourner adjustment,the number of variables included in the model was modest. Future research couldinvolve additional variables that may contribute to the prediction of marital,psychological and sociocultural adjustment, and the measurement of theseadjustment constructs could also be expanded. For example, there has been somesupport for the use of personality variables and demographic variables in predictingoverseas success and, therefore, they could be included to predict psychological


adjustment (James & Hunsley, 2003; Hull, 1978). Similarly, conditions in the hostcountry could be included to predict sociocultural adaptation.

Marital, psychological and sociocultural adjustments are interrelated dynamicprocesses. Longitudinal research is needed to further investigate the results obtainedin this cross-sectional study, as well as to better understand the causal (or reciprocal)relationship between marital factors and adjustment satisfaction. It would also beimportant to explore reciprocal changes in these three types of adjustment as couplescope with the challenges facing them. Furthermore, research is needed to investigateanalogous processes in couples as they adapt to their home country uponrepatriation.

References

Armes, K., & Ward, C. (1988). Cross-cultural transitions and sojourner adjustment in Singapore.

The Journal of Social Psychology, 129(2), 273–275.

Black, J., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international

adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 16,

291–317.

Black, J. S., & Stephens, G. K. (1989). The influence of the spouse on American expatriate

adjustment and intent to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments. Journal of Management, 15,

529–544.

Brett, J. M. (1982). Job transfer and well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 450–463.

Brookings, J. B., & Bolton, B. (1988). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Interpersonal Support

Evaluation List. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 137–147.

Calhoun, T. W. (1977). Culture shock and its effects on American teachers in overseas schools: An

exploratory study, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1977; Dissertation Abstracts

International, 38, 1764A. University Microfilms No. 77–21, 985.

Caligiuri, P. M., Hyland, M. M., Bross, A. S., & Joshi, A. (1998). Testing a theoretical model for

examining the relationship between family adjustment and expatriates’ work adjustment. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83, 598–614.

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health

and Social Behaviour, 24, 385–396.

Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Kamarck, T., & Hoberman, H. N. (1985). Measuring the functional

components of social support. In I. G. Sarason, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory,

research, and applications (pp. 73–94). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijohoff.

Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. M. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States.

In S. Spacapan, & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health (pp. 31–67). London: Sage

Publications.

Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children’s perceptions of control. Child

Development, 56, 1018–1041.

Cox, J. L. (1988). The overseas student: Expatriate, sojourner, or settler? Acta Psychiatrica Scandanavica,

78, 179–184.

Culpin, M. (1931). Some cases of ‘‘traumatic neurasthenia’’. Lancet, 221, 233–237.

David, K. H. (1973). Intercultural adjustment, cross-cultural training and reinforcement theory. JSAS

Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 3, 45 (Ms. No. 348).

Delongis, A. (1985). The relationship of everyday stress to health and well-being: Inter and intraindividual

approaches. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Delongis, A., Coyne, J. C., Dakof, G., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Relationship of daily hassles,

uplifts, and major life events to health status. Health Psychology, 1, 119–136.


Delongis, A., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). The impact of daily stress on health and mood:

Psychological and social resources as mediators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,

486–495.

Fong, S., & Peskin, H. (1969). Sex role strain and personality adjustment of China-born students in

America: A pilot study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74, 563–568.

Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1989). ENRICH marital inventory: A discriminant validity and cross-

validation assessment. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15, 65–79.

Harrison, J. K., Chadwick, M., & Scales, M. (1996). The relationship between cross-cultural adjustment

and the personality variables of self-efficacy and self-monitoring. The International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 20(2), 167–188.

Hull, W. F. (1978). Foreign students in the United States of America: Coping behaviour within the

educational environment. New York: Praeger.

Hunsley, J., Pinsent, C., Lefebvre, M., James-Tanner, S., & Vito, D. (1995). Construct validity of the short

forms of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Family Relations, 44, 231–237.

Ibrahim, S. E. M. (1970). Interaction, perception, and attitudes of Arab students toward Americans.

Sociology and Social Research, 55, 29–46.

James, S., & Hunsley, J. (1995). The marital adaptability and cohesion evaluation scale III: Is the relation

with marital adjustment linear or curvilinear? Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 458–462.

James, S., & Hunsley, J. (2003). Satisfaction of sojourner couples residing in Nepal: The mediating role of

social support and personal and couple resources. Journal of Marriage and the Family. Manuscript

under review.

Lavee, Y., McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1985). The Double ABCX model of family stress and

adaptation: An empirical test by analysis of structural equations with latent variables. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 47, 811–825.

McCubbin, H. (1991). Family index of regenerativity and adaptation—military. In H. I. McCubbin, & A.

I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment inventories for research and practice (pp. 315–337). Madison,

WI: University of Wisconsin.

McCubbin, H. I., Patterson, J. M., & Lavee, Y. (1983). One thousand army families: Strengths, coping and

supports. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Family Social Science.

Olson, D. H., Fournier, D. G., & Druckman, J. M. (1983). PREPARE/ENRICH Counsellor’s manual.

Minneapolis, MN: PREPARE/ENRICH Inc.

Olson, D. H. (1993). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: assessing family functioning. In F.

Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (2nd ed) (pp. 104–137). New York: Guilford Press.

Parker, B., & McEvoy, G. M. (1993). Initial examination of a model of intercultural adjustment.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 355–379.

Pearlin, L. L., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process. Journal of

Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337–356.

Pelletier, L., Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., & Green-Demers, I. (1995). Loisirs et sante

mentale: Les relations entre la motivation pour la pratiqe des loisirs et le bien-etre psychologique.

Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 140–156.

Ptak, C. L., Cooper, J., & Brislin, R. (1995). Cross-cultural training programs: Advice and insights from

experienced trainers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19, 425–453.

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R. (1973). Measures of social psychological attitudes (Revised ed.). Ann Arbor,

Michigan: University of Michigan Institute of Social Research.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self–image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-

cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 449–464.

Shaffer, M. A., & Harrison, D. A. (2001). Forgotten partners of international assignments: Development

and test of a model of spouse adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 238–254.

Silber, E., & Tippett, J. S. (1965). Self-esteem: Clinical assessment and measurement validation.

Psychological Reports, 16, 1017–1071.

Simeon, R., & Fujiu, K. (2000). Cross-cultural adjustment strategies of Japanese spouse in Silicon Valley.

Employee Relations, 22(6), NP.


Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and

similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.

Stroh, L. K., Dennis, L. E., & Cramer, T. C. (1994). Predictors of expatriate adjustment. The International

Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2(2), 176–192.

Taang, E. W. K. (2001). Adjustment of mainland Chinese academics and students to Singapore.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(4), 347–372.

United Nations Development Programme (1992). Nepal: Cooperation for the future. New York: United

Nations Press.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1992). Locus of control, mood disturbance, and social difficulty during cross-

cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 175–194.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural

competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3),

329–343.

Ward, C., & Rana-Deuba, A. (2000). Home and host culture influences on sojourner adjustment.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(3), 291–306.

Ward, C., & Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on psychological

and sociocultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15,

209–225.

Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behaviour: The role of modeling in

organizational socialization. Organization Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 19, 89–105.

Weiss, H. M., & Knight, P. A. (1980). The utility of humility: Self-esteem, information search, and

problem-solving efficiency. Organization Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 25, 216–223.

Young, M. (1991). The adjustment of Salvadoran refugees: Stressors, resources and well–being.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario, Canada.


Marital, psychological, and sociocultural aspects of sojourner adjustment: expanding the field of...

Documents

Transcript of Marital, psychological, and sociocultural aspects of sojourner adjustment: expanding the field of...