The Dynamic Nature of Cultural Identity Throughout ...csivc.csi.cuny.edu/Nan.Sussman/files/publications/Sussman_Identity... · The Dynamic Nature of Cultural Identity Throughout Cultural

The Dynamic Nature of Cultural Identity Throughout CulturalTransitions: Why Home Is Not So Sweet

Nan M. SussmanDepartment of Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work

College of Staten Island, City University of New York

This article describes the social psychological process that underlies the cultural transi-tion of sojourners. Herein the empirical and theoretical literature on cultural transitions(and in particular cultural repatriation and the relevant literature on self-concept andidentity) is analyzed, critiqued, and synthesized in an attempt to understand the nearubiquitous distress experienced during repatriation. The relation among self-concept,cultural identity, and cultural transitions is explored, and in light of the paucity of com-prehensive repatriation models, a new predictive model is proposed that explicatesthese relations. Shifts in cultural identity are classified as subtractive, additive, affirma-tive, or intercultural, and research directions are suggested.

And, now that life had so much human promise in it,they resolved to go back to their own land; because theyears after all, have a kind of emptiness, when wespend too many of them on a foreign shore. We deferthe reality of life, in such cases, until a future moment,when we shall again breathe our native air; butby-and-by, there are no future moments; or, if we doreturn, we find that the native air has lost its invigorat-ing quality, and that life has shifted its reality to thespot where we have deemed ourselves only temporaryresidents. Thus, between two countries, we have noneat all, or only that little space of either, in which we fi-nally lay down our discontented bones. It is wise,therefore, to come back betimes, or never.—Nathaniel Hawthorne,The Marble Faun (1860/1990)

Historical accounts and contemporary events un-derscore that either as individuals or in groups, peopleare continually on the move. Individuals’ movementsbetween countries may be voluntary or forced; so-journs may last 1 week or a lifetime; and rationale maybe economic, political, evangelical, or pleasure seek-ing. The outcomes may influence present or future ca-reers, marriage partners, relationships with extendedfamilies, and leisure pursuits. Regardless of outcome,

all who participate in cultural transitions are subject toa dizzying array of experiences collectively labeled asculture shock, adjustment, cross-cultural adaptation, oracculturation. Although these concepts frequently areused interchangeably, they differ both structurally andtemporally vis-à-vis the transition process. These con-cepts can be defined summarily as follows: (a) Cultureshock is an intense, negative affective response, bothpsychological and physiological, experienced by newexpatriates when faced with unfamiliar symbols, roles,relationships, social cognitions, and behavior; (b) Ad-justment is the motivational process whereby sojourn-ers attempt to modify both cognitions and behaviors todecrease negatively valenced interactions and experi-ences and increase positive ones; (c) Cross-cultural ad-aptation is the positive consequence of the adjustmentprocess in which cognitions and behavioral modifica-tions produce neutral or positive affect and successfulsocial interactions; and (d) Acculturation is the processof long-term adaptation of indigenous groups withinplural societies or immigrants to a new culture. Theseconcepts are described more fully as this article un-folds. In addition, within this article, the terms cultureand country are used interchangeably. Whereas manycountries are culturally heterogeneous (e.g., the UnitedStates, the People’s Republic of China, India), a major-ity culture often exists that influences public behavior,discourse, and language choice. Thus, when I speak ofentering a new country or a new culture, I refer to themajority culture of that country.

Substantial sociological and anthropological litera-ture exists exploring the long-term adaptation of indi-viduals to a new culture under the conceptualframework of immigration and migration. For hun-

355

Personality and Social Psychology Review Copyright © 2000 by2000, Vol. 4, No. 4, 355–373 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

I am grateful to Marilynn Brewer, Ira Caplan, Richard Krupinski,Sheldon Solomon, Harry Triandis, Kaiyoko Yokoyama, an anony-mous National Science Foundation panelist, and three Personalityand Social Psychology Review reviewers for their valuable com-ments on preliminary conceptualizations of the model and on earlierdrafts of this article.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Nan M. Sussman, Depart-ment of Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work,College of Staten Island, City University of New York, 2800 VictoryBoulevard, Staten Island, NY 10314. E-mail: [email protected]

dreds of years, movement to a new culture was morepermanent than transitory. The long trek across bor-ders seldom was followed by much contact or visits tothe “old country.” The late 20th century, in contrast,has witnessed an explosion of shorter term culturaltransitions of individuals for study, evangelism, busi-ness, government, economic and humanitarian aid, ortemporary refuge. Investigations of adjustment toshort-term cultural transitions, known as sojournerstudies, have been viewed primary through the lens ofintercultural communication and anthropology.

A logical temporal extension of short-term culturaltransition is the return to one’s country of origin, la-beled reentry (Werkman, 1979), reacculturation (Mar-tin, 1984), or repatriation (Howard, 1980a). I use thelatter term herein; it is arguably more descriptive of theconstruct and carries with it fewer negative associa-tions (e.g., the term reentry was borrowed from theearly days of the space program in which entry into theearth’s atmosphere by hurtling rockets and satellitesled to the disintegration of the vehicle).

A Social Psychological Perspective:Self, Self-Concept, and Cultural

Identity

Social psychology, until recently, has added few in-sights to our understanding of the nature, process, andconsequences of cultural transitions at any point alongthe permanency continuum from sojourn to migration.A discipline foundation does exist, however, throughwhich to base explanatory and predictive theory andresearch on cultural transitions within a broader con-text of shifts of cultural frames.

Explorations into the role of culture on self andgroups has historical roots in psychology, although re-search efforts were not sustained over time. WilhelmWundt, for example, devoted much of his professionallife to developing volkenpsychologie, or cultural psy-chology. Yet, subsequent research programs, particu-larly in the United States, were devoid of culturalframeworks. Perhaps the century-long oversight by theU.S. psychological community of culture as a primaryshaper of the self and behavior might be attributed to aU.S. predilection to focus on individual differencesand a preoccupation with ethnic differences as op-posed to overarching U.S. similarities (Betancourt &Lopez, 1993). It is not surprising, in fact, that U.S. so-cial psychology focuses on the self, whereas Europeanand Asian psychological research focuses more ongroup and social membership.

Culture and Self

Despite the growing literature establishing the rela-tion between cultural repatriation and psychological

distress, we lack a broad psychosocial framework forunderstanding this phenomenon. Theoretical writingson self, self-concept, and in particular cultural identitymay provide insight into the repatriation problem andcontribute to an emerging social psychological analy-sis of cultural transitions.

One’s culture imperceptibly forms a mental frame-work through which individuals define their ontology,motivate and select their behaviors, and judge andevaluate the actions of others. Berry (1980) suggestedthat culture provides both a frame of reference forself-definition and a frame of reference for orderingsocial relationships.

In daily interactions with culturally similar others,cultural identity remains unformed or unrecognized.Nevertheless, cultural scripts regarding the self and in-terpersonal behavior are active and become the norma-tive and expected standard. Formal education systemsand diverse media reinforce these shared meanings,symbols, and values. One, for example, is outspokenand participative in a classroom not because one isAmerican, the script dictates, but because that is howany good student should behave.

Triandis (1989) provided an insightful and integra-tive analysis of the link among the self, culture, and be-havior. In a structural framework of the self, heproposed three aspects of the self that are differentiatedby the types of cognitions held—either private (“I amathletic”), public (“People think that I am athletic”), orcollective (“My family and friends think that I am ath-letic”). The probability of referencing each of thesethree self-aspects is mediated by cultural variation inthree cultural dimensions: cultural complexity (e.g., re-flected in the number of potential relationships andingroups available to individuals), individualism andcollectivism (reflected in the balance maintained be-tween personal goals and the needs of the group), andtightness and looseness (reflecting the priority given toadherence to group norms). Thus, for example, withintight, individualistic cultures we find more elements ofthe private self and therefore more sampling of the pri-vate self and less of the public or collective self. Conse-quently, social behavior is activated through thedifferential sampling of the private, public, or collectiveselves that have been influenced by the cultural dimen-sions of complexity, individualism and collectivism,and tightness and looseness.

Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) comprehensive arti-cle, in exploring the role of the self in mediating andregulating behavior, focused on the primacy of culturein shaping self-construal—in particular, the role of cul-ture in defining the relationship between the self andthe other. Although additional self–other relationshipsno doubt can be found, Markus and Kitayama exam-ined the independent self, that self which is distinctiveand focused on self-needs, and they contrasted it with

356

SUSSMAN

the interdependent self that is connected and focusedon the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others. Theself-schemata of those favoring independent as op-posed to interdependent selves would result in differ-ential self-relevant processes that in turn wouldinfluence cognitions, emotions, and motivation. In arecent article, Heine, Lehman, Markus, and Kitayama(1999) moved beyond noting the existence of the rela-tion between self and culture to an exploration of thepsychological functions of culture and self-esteem. Ina comprehensive review and comparison of the self-es-teem literature in North America and Japan, they de-duced that both self and self-regard are constructionsthat differ across cultures and concluded that positiveself-regard is not a universal motivation.

The broadest and most comprehensive theory to ex-plore the psychological functions of culture and evalu-ation of the self is that proffered by terror management(Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991). Accord-ing to the theory, culture functions in part to assuagethe terror associated with our uncontrollable demise bycreating order and stability and by describing the pa-rameters of the “good and valuable” self. Furthermore,terror management theory hypothesizes that threats toone’s cultural worldview, perhaps as a consequence ofcultural sojourns, result in increased anxiety.

These and other theories of culture and self under-score the social construction of self and self-conceptthrough the meaning system of culture (Rohner, 1984)and the psychological functions of cultural worldview.Recent social psychological thinking has broadenedthe scope of the investigation of the relationship be-tween the self and group from one that focused on indi-vidual behavior within the group to one that examinedthe group within the self with the current assumptionbeing that the study of the collective is a necessarycompanion to the study of the self (Miller & Prentice,1994). In contrast to anthropology’s traditional searchfor distal antecedents and consequences of culture, so-cial psychological investigations are searching formore proximal ones (Kashima, 1995).

Self and Self-Concept

The self and the ideas we have about ourselves(self-concept) are rich and complex (see Baumeister,1998; Cross & Madson, 1997, for recent reviews) withwide-ranging implications for behavior. The self-con-cept performs important social and personal functionsby providing goals to direct behavior and processingself-relevant information (Baumeister, 1986). A briefreview of contemporary self theories provide helpfulmodels that can be applied later in this article to theanalysis of cultural identity and transitions. Currenttheories of self-concept have departed fromunidimensional models of the self in which the self was

measured primarily through self-esteem ratings toones that embrace research paradigms that treatself-concept as a multifaceted construct (Markus &Wurf, 1987), broadly classified into two categories:content of self-concept and structure of self-conceptand self-knowledge.

Content research investigates knowledge of self,self-beliefs, and the extent to which the contents ofself-concepts are clearly defined, consistent, and sta-ble. Campbell’s (1990) work exemplifies this ap-proach. In particular, Campbell identified a strongrelation between self-clarity and self-esteem and, in adiscussion of the direction of the relation, postulatesthat self-concept uncertainty could lead to lowerself-esteem. This, in turn, might increase one’s suscep-tibility to negative information in the social environ-ment. Self-content theorists also are concerned withevaluation of the self-beliefs and studies on self-en-hancement, self-deprecation, and self-esteem explorethese themes. Kernis and colleagues (Kernis,Granneman, & Barclay, 1989, 1992; Kernis, Cornell,Sun, Berry, & Harlow, 1993), for example, focused onthe stability or instability of self-esteem, defined as themagnitude of short-term fluctuations in global self-es-teem. Inconsistent findings indicate that either stabilityand level of self-esteem are unrelated (Kernis et al.,1989) or moderately related (Kernis et al., 1992). Ofrelevance to the model proposed in this article, how-ever, is the consistent finding that among high–self-es-teem individuals, instability was related tosubstantially greater tendencies to experience angerand hostility (Kernis et al., 1989) and greater defen-siveness and adverse reactions in response to negativeevents (Kernis et al., 1993). Kernis and his colleaguessuggested that self-esteem instability might be an out-come of variations in perceived competence and varia-tions in perceived social acceptance.

The companion dimension of self research focuseson the structure of self-concept. Several theories ofself-knowledge structure are pertinent to current con-cepts of self-concept and cultural transitions. Amongthese are the extent of the integration of dimensions ofself-knowledge (Donahue, Robins, Roberts, & John,1993), self-complexity (Linville, 1985), and thecompartmentalization of negative and positive selves(Showers, 1992). Of particular interest is the findingthat self-concept complexity and flexibility were posi-tively related to self-esteem such that high–self-esteemindividuals claimed they were capable of a wide rangeof behaviors when required by the situation (Campbell,Chew, & Scratchley, 1991; Paulhus & Martin, 1988).

Self-Concept and Cultural Identity

Both content and structure theories of self revealthat people hold multiple beliefs about them-

357

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CULTURAL TRANSITIONS

selves—that is, many self-schemas. Thoseself-schemas include personal attributes about the self(e.g., traits, characteristics, dispositions) and thoughtsabout membership in social groups such as thoseformed around gender, ethnicity, social class, religion,and culture. Lewin (1948), in an early comment on therelationship between the self and the collective, indi-cated that individuals need a firm sense of group iden-tification to develop a sense of well-being. Tajfel(1981, 1982) and colleagues later expanded this notiondeveloping a theory of social identity in which identifi-cation with a social group adds to one’s positiveself-concept. Tajfel (1981) defined the social or collec-tive self as an “aspect of an individual’s self-conceptwhich derives from his knowledge of his membershipin a social group (or groups) together with the valueand emotional significance attached to that member-ship” (p. 255). Thus, the content of our self-percep-tions reflect not only our personal traits andcharacteristics, but also meaningful social groups towhich we belong. One element of the collectiveself-concept is derived from membership in a culturalgroup defined as one’s cultural identity but possessingproperties distinct from other collective identities.

Cultural identity, often conceptualized ascoterminus with national identity (i.e., thinking of one-self as American or Japanese or Italian), more accu-rately can be considered the psychological counterpointto national identity—the identity that describes the cul-tural self in content, evaluation, and structure.Triandis’s (1989) definition of (subjective) culture, forexample, includes geographic localization as a basic el-ement as well as shared language and shared notions oftheself.Segall,Dasen,Berry,andPoortinga(1999)sug-gested that although the nation-state is a relatively re-cent political phenomenon, national identity is afundamental component of identity.

Although Hermans and Kempen (1998) highlightedthe global trend toward cultural mixing and, by implica-tion, the limitations of the concept of cultural identity,culture retains a convenient tendency to differ acrossgeographic regions (Hofstede, 1980). Tweed, Conway,and Ryder (1999) argued that global mixing, althoughevident to some extent in the economically developedworld, is less evident in most of the world where dailycommunication consists of interactions among thosewho have personal contact and shared beliefs and be-haviors. More than 25 years ago, Brewer and Campbell(1976), in testing 30 East African societies, reportedsimilar results. In response to interview queries abouttheir own group and 13 other groups, high liking and fa-miliarity were most likely to be assigned to groups whowere similar in culture and language to the ingroup andwho were geographically proximal; that is, groups hadcontact with others who were similar. Holdstock(1999), in underscoring the central role of cultural iden-

tity in people’s everyday lives, proposed a countertrendto the cultural globalization notion: that of the strength-ening of cultural identity.

As Tajfel (1982) and Deaux (1993) described in alater formulation, social identity has one element thatmay not be essential to the operation of cultural iden-tity: awareness of membership in this particular socialgroup. Self-beliefs, evaluation, structure, and self-mo-tivated social behavior all may be shaped by culture,yet culture’s consequences and thus the cultural iden-tity itself may be unrecognized by its members, an ideaI explore in detail later in this article. Although theidentity is unrecognized, its effect is in play.

Cultural identity has an additional element to be con-sidered: An individual’s self-defined cultural identitymay differ from the perception of others. Traditional so-cial cognitive paradigms, attribution theory, or personperception models, for example, might be particularlyuseful inexploring theparametersof identity judgmentsapplied by others. Immigrants to New York from thePhilippines and Korea report they are now referred tocollectively as Asian Americans. Both groups indicatethat although they do not consider themselves “AsianAmerican” and are unsure of the cultural attributes ofsuch a category, they are labeled as such by the widerU.S.public. Interestingly, theyhave foundadopting thisnomenclature politically expedient.

Other-defined cultural identity also may be linkedto evaluation of goals and behaviors. Albert Einstein(cited in Segall, Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1999) said,

If the theory of relativity is found to be correct, the Ger-mans may claim that I am German, the Swiss that I am aSwiss citizen, and the French that I am a great man ofscience. But, if the theory is found to be false, the Frenchare likely to say that I am Swiss, the Swiss that I am Ger-man, and the Germans … that I am a Jew. (p. 274)

Collective self-aspects frequently coexist with cul-tural identity, including gender, ethnicity, and race.Without crossing national borders, some individualslive at the intersection of several cultural groups(Gurin, Hurtado, & Peng, 1994; Phinney, 1990, 1991).Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, and Chavous (1998)described a new multidimensional model of racialidentity that explores both the content, evaluation, andmeaning of self-beliefs African Americans hold re-garding racial identity independent of White culture.

Culture Contact and Cultural Identity

As cultural groups come into contact, what are theconsequences for the individual’s cultural self and cul-tural identity? Cross-cultural contact historically hasresulted in a variety of identity responses that, at its ex-

358

SUSSMAN

treme, led to genocide, ethnic cleansing, or assimila-tion (Smith & Bond, 1998). Four theories eithertangentially or directly address the link between cul-ture contact and cultural identity but with differing pre-dictions regarding identity change.

Contact hypothesis. This theory (Stephan,1987) is aimed at understanding the conditions underwhich contact has improved intergroup relations—inparticular, whether contact leads to prejudice reduc-tion through attitude change, especially as it pertains toracism and anti-Semitism. Although cultural transi-tions are not generally addressed in the contact litera-ture, transitions might lead to changes in culturalself-construals and behavior, all of which might facili-tate effective interaction between groups. Amir (1976)reported that individuals in culture contact do rate eachother as more similar to each other and more favorablyevaluate the outgroup. However, it is an empirical leapfromademonstration that cultural contact results inde-creased prejudice or increased effectiveness to indicat-ing that cultural transitions lead to cultural identityshifts. Currently, the premise that cross-cultural con-tact alone—in particular, that which results from cul-tural transitions—will result in cultural identitychange remains untested.

Cultural hybridization. As a result of ever-in-creasing cultural connections and recombinations of cul-tural practices and forms, Hermans and Kempen (1998)suggested the resulting phenomenon of cultural hybrid-ization, and they speculated that hybridization would leadto the development of new forms of cultural identities.

Similarly, Oyserman (1993) and colleagues(Oyserman & Markus, 1993; Oyserman, Sakamoto, &Lauffer, 1998) examined the layering of opposing cul-tural dimensions within one culture. Their focus hasbeen on the self, socialized into both individualist andcollectivist worldviews, which then is conceived as acultural hybrid or bicultural. To activate one culturaldimension rather than another, the social situation be-comes the prime. Thus, cultural selves and identitiesmay have permeable borders that respond to situa-tional contexts.

Acculturation theorists. The acculturation the-orists directly addressed the notion of change in cul-tural attitudes, behaviors, and cultural identity as a con-sequence of cultural contact (Berry, 1990; Graves,1967). Note that Berry’s theory was developed primar-ily to explain effects of colonization on indigenousgroups through cultural contact (e.g., aboriginal popu-lation in Australia, native populations in Canada) andlater was expanded to predict acculturation strategies ofimmigrants, one category of permanent cultural transi-tion (Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987). Empirical

support has been confined for the most part to thesepopulations. Berry (1980) concluded that an identityshift away from the home (or native) cultural identitymay occur when individuals have prolonged culturecontact. These acculturative changes have been catego-rized as integrated or assimilated. Cultural transitionsfor the traditional immigrant, who has few or infre-quent contacts with country of origin, transform onecultural identity (e.g., Irish) into a new one (e.g., Cana-dian or Irish Canadian). Alternatively, sustained con-tact with the new culture may result in strengtheninghome (or native) culture identity, resulting in a sepa-rated or marginal identity relative to the dominant cul-ture. In turn, each of these psychological responses islinked to attitudinal and behavioral changes.

Although on initial reading of acculturation theory,it appears pertinent to the process of cultural transi-tions of sojourners, the premises on which the theory isbased limit its explanatory and predictive valuevis-à-vis the sojourner experience. For example, accul-turation theory posits both an individual and collectiveresponse to permanent culture contact; sojourn transi-tions are temporary and primarily an individual en-counter. Acculturation theory examines the interplaybetween dominant and nondominant groups withinone society; sojourns juxtapose the individual’s jour-ney into a different sociocultural environment withtheir reentry to the home culture. Motivation for thecultural transition is significantly different for the im-migrant compared to the sojourner. Whereas immi-grants or long-term transitors frequently are motivatedby economic or political hardship, the cultural transi-tion of sojourners reflect a more narrowly defined in-strumental purpose such as work assignment or study.Empirically, outcomes differ as well. For example,women (compared to men) are more at risk during ac-culturation transitions (Beiser, Johnson, & Turner,1993), whereas female sojourners appear to adapt aswell as (Searle & Ward, 1990), or more successfullythan, male sojourners (N. Adler, 1987).

Social identity theorists. Social identity theoryspeaks most directly to the cultural transition in whichthe individual physically moves between regions in thatit suggests that becoming a member of an outgroup(e.g., an expatriate in new country) heightens the senseof salience of one’s identity vis-à-vis the out-group(e.g., home culture). Turner, Oakes, Haslam, andMcGarty (1994) concluded that social identity tends tobecome more salient in intergroup contact (again, anexpatriate living among host nationals, for instance),whereas personal identity is more salient in intragroupcontexts (repatriate among compatriots, perhaps).Members’ group stereotypes (autostereotypes) also ap-pear to be strengthened in intergroup relations. In astudy of self-concept, Hogg and Turner (1987) found

359


that men and women described themselves in moregender-stereotypic terms under intergroup rather thanintragroup situations.

However, social identity theory does not addressthe identity effects of sustained contact. What of theexperience of temporary but close cultural contact, onein which the sojourner lives several years in anothercountry? A 5-year sojourn in Japan or Chile might notshift an identity completely; that is, the sojourner maynot consider themselves to be Japanese or Chilean.However, as Anderson (1994) pointed out, during cul-tural transitions,

All the familiar underpinnings of one’s sense of selfare said to be torn away, depriving persons of most ofthe familiar reference points that provide the cues fortheir behavior as well as the substrate for their sense ofidentity. (p. 294)

The sense of self is altered and one seeks to understandthe new self.

Cross-Cultural Transitions

Psychologists sporadically have studied the culturaltransitionsofsojourners (Brein&David,1971)andsug-gested methods for minimizing the stress associatedwith it (Brislin & Pedersen, 1976), although constructsoften have been vague and confusing. Since Oberg(1960) coined the term culture shock, researchers havegrappled with using a concept that describes both theprocess of cross-cultural transition and its outcomes.Researchers have suggested that cultural adaptation oradjustment, as the outcome of cross-cultural transitions,be used as a descriptive term. Searle and Ward (1990)further suggested the distinction between two interre-lated typesofadjustment—thatofpsychologicaladjust-ment (feelings of well-being and satisfaction) orsociocultural competence (ability to fit in to thenewcul-ture and interact effectively). Similarly, Black (1988)proposed three distinctions: general adjustment, inter-action with host nationals, and work adjustment.

I prefer the conceptually neutral term cultural adap-tation to refer to the outcome in which individualsmodify their cognitions, behaviors, and interpretationsof behaviors to match the new cultural environmentbetter. Adaptation emphasizes proactive attempts to beculturally flexible and resilient within the new culturalenvironment.

Sojourner Experience

Within the extensive and largely descriptive so-journer literature, researchers have focused on individ-

ual difference and cultural variation factors. One usefulsystem of categorizing cross-cultural transitions andcultural-adjustment research corresponds to the chro-nology of the experience (see Anderson, 1994; Church,1982, for other classifications): (a) antecedent vari-ables, or those that temporally precede the cross-cul-tural encounter, and (b) consequent variables, or thosethat describe consequences of cultural adaptation.

Antecedent variables that have been shown to effectthe adjustment process include personality variables(Ditchburn, 1996; Hawes & Kealey, 1981), behavioralskills (Church, 1982), previous overseas experience(Black, 1988; Torbiorn, 1982), organizational vari-ables (Howard, 1980b; Mendenhall, Dunbar, &Oddou, 1987), cultural distance (Church, 1982; Searle& Ward, 1990; Triandis, 1994; Ward & Searle, 1991)or cultural novelty (Torbiorn, 1982), cultural knowl-edge and cultural identity (Ward & Searle, 1991), anddiscrepancies between expectations and experienceoverseas (Weissman & Furnham, 1987).

Consequent variables that result from cultural tran-sitions include negative ones such as personal shock(Winkelman, 1994), loss of personal intimacy(Adelman, 1988), role shock (Berry, 1980), or to a lessfrequently reported consequence, growthful, positiveexperiences (P. S. Adler, 1987).

Despite the generally atheoretical body of litera-ture, several authors have suggested theoretical frame-works within which a significant portion of thesestudies fall including (a) stage models of transitions(Grove & Torbiorn, 1985; Lysgaard, 1955; Zapf,1991), (b) a clinical approach (Ward & Searle, 1991),(c) a social learning approach (Bochner, 1982; David,1976; Gutherie, 1975), and (d) a social cognition ap-proach (Ward & Searle, 1991). The latter perspectivehas been the least investigated of the three and is dis-cussed in detail in the following section.

Cultural Repatriation

Overview of Empirical Literature

One might reasonably assume that repatriation issimply the closure of the transition cycle, psychologi-cally similar to cultural adjustment. Reviews of the lit-erature (Black, Gregersen, & Mendenhall, 1992;Sussman, 1986) and repatriate anecdotes suggest oth-erwise. Different cognitive processes appear to makerepatriation psychologically distinct from behavioral,cognitive, and sociocultural adaptation, which individ-uals undergo during cultural adaptation to anothercountry. However, consonant with the overseas transi-tion literature, empirical findings consistently reporthigh levels of repatriate distress on returning home.This robust result has been reported among diverse

360

SUSSMAN

North American population samples including adoles-cents and high school students (Werkman, 1979;Werkman & Johnson, 1976), college students(Brabant, Palmer, & Gramling, 1990; Rohrlich & Mar-tin, 1991; Uehara, 1986), business employees (N.Adler, 1981; Black, 1992; Black & Gregersen, 1991;Briody & Baba, 1991; Harvey, 1989; Howard, 1980b),missionaries (Moore, Van Jones, & Austin, 1987;Stringham, 1993), and remigrants (Lucca-Irizarry &Pacheco, 1992).

Cross-cultural research with non-Americans indi-cated repatriation distress in at least some domainsamong returned foreign students at the high school(Ferguson, 1989, Japanese students returning home;Wilson, 1993, students from Australia, Ecuador, Nor-way, and Sweden returning home) and college level(Basu & Ames, 1970; Gama & Pedersen, 1977, re-turning to Brazil from the United States; Bochner,Lin, & McLeod, 1980, Asian students leaving theUnited States), among business employees (Black,1994, Japanese repatriates; Gregersen & Black, 1996;Gregersen & Stroh, 1997, Finnish repatriates;Sussman, 1985; Tung, 1988), and among returned ex-iles (Sundquist & Johansson, 1996, Latin Americanrepatriates from Sweden).

Researchers have suggested that repatriation doesnot result in uniformly negative responses. Severalstudies indicated positive changes among repatriatesincluding being more aware of and accepting of cul-tural differences in general (Wilson, 1986), more ap-preciation of the host culture (Grove & Hansel, 1983),and for repatriated college students improved relation-ships with parents (Martin, 1986). Findings such asthese, however, might serve more as an outcome of anintercultural experience that becomes salient on returnto one’s home country rather than the consequence ofrepatriation itself. Differential outcomes also might re-flect differences in cultural identity shifts as describedin the section detailing the proposed paradigm.

Theoretical Models

Since 1963 (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963), the so-cial science community has recognized that psycho-logical distress accompanies the return home, yetresearch remained largely descriptive. Those modelsthat have been proffered might be categorized intothree types. One school of thought, the reductionists,considers all transitions, adjustments, and adaptationsas variants of the same process, so that the underlyingmechanisms for overseas transitions, repatriation tran-sitions, or domestic geographic transitions are equiva-lent. Black, Gregersen, and Mendenhall (1992)suggested, for example, prevalence of this notionamong investigations of corporate sojourners. A varia-

tion of the reductionist theme is one suggested by theo-rists who consider cultural transitions reflective of anystressful environment in which psychological adjust-ments and coping strategies emerge (Anderson, 1994;Bennett, 1977). This approach, for instance, mightpsychologically cluster cultural repatriates with1st-year college students or newlyweds.

A second perspective allows for the distinctivenessof cultural transitions from all others but views over-seas and repatriation as similar. The emphasis here isthe response to changing environments and thesociocultural contexts. Storti’s (1997) work exempli-fies this paradigm with his discussion of the changingnature and meaning of home. The repatriation experi-ence, as with overseas transitions, becomes a responseto an unfamiliar environment, the loss of social cues,new communication system, and different relationalrules. Ample theoretical and empirical support is ex-tant pertaining to overseas transitions and the stressfulresponse to new cultural environments and the lack ofsocial support (Harris & Moran, 1979), the importanceof sociocultural learning (Furnham & Bochner, 1986;Taft, 1977), or social-cognitive learning (Armes &Ward, 1989; Weissman & Furnham, 1987) as a way offacilitating adjustment.

No clear evidence is available for applying this cul-tural environment model to repatriation, however.Could the home environment have changed so radi-cally as to plunge the repatriate into reverse cultureshock? Perhaps for several narrowly defined repatria-tion populations, this model might predict their repatri-ation experience. In the case of lengthy sojourns (e.g.,20 years) or a return to a dramatically altered country(e.g., postapartheid South Africa), the changing homemodel might apply (see Weschler, 1998, for three casestudies of repatriated exiles). Similarly with adolescentrepatriates, for whom substantial segments of their so-cial context change quickly, repatriation distress mightbe a response to a home that is now an unfamiliarsociocultural environment (Strangers at Home, 1996).However, for the hundreds of thousands of adult so-journers who move between countries for moderateperiods of time, the unfamiliar cultural environmentmodel that predicts overseas psychological andsociocultural adjustment might not be sufficiently ex-planatory when applied to the repatriation experience.

Athirdperspectiverecognizes theuniquequalitiesofthe repatriation process and three models represent thepsychological distinctiveness of repatriation transi-tions. N. Adler (1981), for example, suggested a predic-tive model of repatriate coping styles but does notprovide sufficient detail about the psychometric proper-ties of the measures nor the theoretical underpinnings.

Black, Gregersen, and Mendenhall (1992) proposeda broad theory of repatriation based on control theory(Bell & Straw, 1989; cited in Black, Gregersen, &

361


Mendenhall, 1992) in which repatriates make both an-ticipatory and in-country repatriation adjustments.However, anticipatory adjustments assume that expa-triates are aware of and prepared for the repatriationprocess, an assumption not supported by the literature.In addition, although the four variables that they pro-pose as informing anticipatory and in-country (home)adjustment cover several domains, none focus on psy-chological or sociocultural factors. Their theory doesacknowledge the complexity of the repatriation and al-lows for multiple indices of repatriation adjustment,which include general, interpersonal, and work-relatedreadjustments.

In another repatriation-unique model, Rogers andWard (1993) proposed a social-cognitive frameworkin which the central variable is that the discrepancy be-tween expectations of the reentry experience held bysojourners and their actual reentry experience affectsthe psychological adjustment. Their results indicatedthat experienced, but not expected, social difficultieswere associated with reentry adjustment problems. Ex-pectations contributed to predicting difficulties onlywhen they were unrealistic—that is, when experienceswere more difficult than originally anticipated.

In sum, repatriation, distinct from overseas adjust-ment, typically does not involve speaking a new lan-guage, finding new support networks, learning tomove about in an unfamiliar environment, strugglingto make culturally isomorphic attributions (interpret-ing a social situation in a way similar to those in thehost culture; Triandis, 1975), or learning new cogni-tive schemas. Yet, in addition to the robust findingsthat repatriation is psychologically distressing, sev-eral studies indicated that repatriation adjustment ismore difficult than initial overseas adjustment (N.Adler, 1981; Clague & Krupp, 1978; Howard,1980b). Although the variables tested in the repatria-tion studies measure multiple domains of repatriationdistress and accurately might predict severity of repa-triation adjustment, they still do not further our un-derstanding of the construct; that is, why is cominghome so difficult?

The previous reviews of two disparate bodies of re-search, the social psychological and the intercultural,provided constructs on which to build an explanatorymodel of individual-level responses to cultural transi-tions and repatriation. With the self a product of and lo-cated within a culture, cultural identity emerges ascritical element of the self-concept whose saliency in-creases with the unique situational context of so-journ-related intergroup contact. Both individual andcultural variability factors influence the extent of adap-tation to the sojourn culture and ergo the range of sta-bility, clarity, and complexity of the changing self.Subsequent cultural identity shifts inform the repatri-ate’s affective response.

A New Model: Cultural Identity andCultural Transition

This paradigm seeks to provide a parsimonious ex-planation to several unanswered questions or contra-dictory findings: First, why is repatriation a distressingsegment of cultural transitions? Second, why is culturelearning not a theoretically satisfactory explanation inlight of equivocal empirical findings? Third, how doesactive understanding of cultural identity changes me-diate affective responses to those changes?

It is proposed here that self-concept disturbancesand subsequent shifts in cultural identity throughoutthe cross-cultural transitions process are the criticalmediating factors in explaining and predicting psycho-logical responses to these transitions, whether concep-tualized as psychological adjustment, cultural anxiety,sociocultural competence, or growthful development.This explanatory model argues for three fundamentalelements: identity salience, sociocultural adaptation,and self-concept–cultural identity changes. These fea-tures interact within a larger cyclical framework of cul-tural transition to predict consequences for thetransition process made evident during repatriation.Figure 1 illustrates the cyclical model.

Identity Salience

This model suggests that whereas self-construal,emotion, and motivation might be shaped by the cul-tural context, few individuals are cognizant of cul-

362

SUSSMAN

Figure 1. Shifts in cultural identity throughout the cultural tran-sition.

ture’s influence. Culture might be part of the self, butcultural identity is not explicitly recognized. Like afish in water, culture surrounds an individual, albeit itsimpact is seldom a salient feature of an individual’sself-concept; individuals rarely recognize the imprintof their own culture and its ubiquitous nature. In mysocial psychology classroom in New York, few stu-dents in describing themselves ever list “American”among their top 20 attributes in the classic Kuhn andMcPartland (1954) self-description exercise.

Baumeister (1986) pointed out that not all beliefsabout oneself are simultaneously part of ourself-awareness. The lack of identity awareness may beexplained conceptually through the phenomenal self orthe working self concept (Markus & Kunda, 1986),which referred to a part of self-knowledge present ornot present in our awareness at a particular time.

There are exceptions to the general lack of culturalidentity awareness. For some groups, cultural identityis salient or explicit. McGuire, McGuire, Child, andFujioka (1978), in a study of gender and racial identi-ties, concluded that social distinctiveness increased sa-liency of one’s social identity; their minority statusallowed for that identity to be more salient or morecentral to their working self-concept. This might beparticularly noticeable when aspects of the dominantand minority cultures conflict. A Korean Americanchild, for example, might be taught by parents andfamily to be respectful and obedient toward the el-derly; this collectivist goal clashing with the individu-alistic and youth-centered lessons taught bymainstream U.S. culture. In such cases, one’s culturalidentity is painfully evident. Groups whose culturalidentity is externally threatened might also experienceheightened salience such that in Kosovo or in theBasque region of Spain, individuals are willing to dieto maintain their cultural identity and separateness.

Members of dominant groups within culturally het-erogeneous entities, although not experiencing in-creased saliency of identity, might experience identityconfusion. Triandis (1989) suggested that clarity of so-cial identity and the type of self-cognitions are related.Both low sampling of the collective self and high cul-tural complexity could result in increased confusion ofthe social identity. Social identity, therefore, might fo-cus on ethnic or racial identity differences rather thanon cultural similarities.

The proposed model predicts that one situation inwhich one’s cultural identity will emerge and becomesalient is during the commencement of a cultural tran-sition. Enveloped in a new social environment wherebehavior and thinking diverge from one’s familiar cul-tural context, awareness of the profound influence ofour culture on behavior begins to grow. Dorothy no-ticed it immediately on stepping out of her fallen houseinto the Land of Oz, when she exclaimed, “Toto, I’ve a

feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore” (LeRoy &Fleming, 1939). Embedded in the literature oncross-cultural training (Stewart, 1966) is the assump-tion that awareness of home cultural identity is impor-tant to psychologically positive cultural transitions.

Juxtaposed to the emerging cultural identity sa-lience, a new social identity status emerges—that ofoutgroup member, an expatriate in a new cultural envi-ronment. These twin cognitions, that of cultural iden-tity salience and outgroup membership, appear tostrengthen, at least initially, our identification with ourhome culture. Although not designed as a test of thetransition-identity model, a recent study (Kosmitzki,1996) supported the model’s first premise. Home cul-ture affirmations were reported by both German andU.S. expatriates as compared to same-culture individu-als who had no expatriate experience. Germans livingin the United States and Americans living in Germanydescribed themselves as more similar to their compa-triots than did German or U.S. monoculturals.

Similarly, in a study of European managers whoworked within either a monocultural organization or amultinational one, Laurent (1983) found that thoseworking within a multinational corporation with awide range of other Europeans experienced a resur-gence of values associated with their own country’svalues. Stryker and Serpe (1982) also noted that iden-tity salience leads to behavior consistent with thatidentity. Anecdotal evidence confirms as well the ef-fects of cultural identity salience. A frequent U.S. so-journer reported to me that he jubilantly celebrates the4th of July only when living in other countries. Thus,cultural identity salience coincides with the primarystep in transition-induced self-concept disturbance.

Sociocultural Adaptation

Following the cultural reaffirmation phase, themodel posits that sojourners recognize the discrepancybetween their cultural selves (and the goals that directbehavior and thought) and the new cultural context.Higgins (1996) suggested that self-knowledge is pur-sued for practical reasons in part for the adaptive bene-fits of improving the person–environment fit. This isprecisely the context in which cultural sojourners findthemselves. Cultural readjustments, prompted by thelack of fit between one set of cultural cognitions and be-havior no longer appropriate within the new culturalcontext, may lead individuals to modify behavior,cognitions,orbothand,consequently,cultural identity.

Sojourners are faced with a continuum of accom-modation choices that range from maintenance of thecultural self and its behavioral repertoire at one anchorto transposition to a new cultural self and a new behav-

363


ioral and cognitive repertoire at the other, the latter col-loquially described as “going native.”

The process of selecting a cultural accommodationmode is complex and dependent on several variables,three of which are internal or self-variables. One suchfactor is task centrality—the motivation to succeed atthe assigned overseas task. The proposed model makesthe assumption that sojourners are motivated to succeedat their task—workers to conduct business, students tolearn,developmentworkers todistributeaid,missionar-ies to convert. For sojourners who have low motivationto succeed, the sociocultural adaptation phase is sub-verted at the stage of cultural identity salience.

The model suggested two other factors that influ-ence the sociocultural adaptation process: culturalidentity centrality and cultural flexibility. Identity cen-trality refers to the significance of cultural identity tothe sojourner. The more central the identity, the lesslikely that extreme cultural accommodation will takeplace and the more likely that the familiar cultural self,newly reaffirmed in its identity, will be maintained.

If cultural identity centrality is low and intention tosucceed at the overseas task is high, the question re-mains whether the sojourner has the ability to recog-nize the culturally appropriate behaviors, to learn themand to engage in them in appropriate situations—inshort, is the sojourner able to adapt? Cultural flexibilityrefers to the sojourner’s ability to make the necessarymodifications in behavior and thought. Existing indi-vidual difference constructs that measure awareness ofand adaptability to the social environment might beused as a valid measure of cultural flexibility.Self-monitoring (Snyder, 1987), for example, has beenshown to have low but significant correlation with bothgeneral cultural adjustment and interpersonal interac-tion adjustment in that high self-monitors expressedhigher degrees of adjustment (Harrison, Chadwick, &Scales, 1996). Sojourners low on cultural flexibilitymight find they are unable to discern or emulate thenecessary cultural behaviors that would improve theself–culture fit. They might also find the new culturetoo difficult to understand, suffering from whatShweder (1991) referred to as confusionism, a so-journer’s honest assessment that cultures can be so di-verse that even comprehending the framework ofanother culture is impossible.

The period of adjustment or accommodation is onein which the sojourner makes the person–environmentfit. These modifications also mark the beginning ofself-knowledge pursuit (Higgins, 1996) and self-con-cept disturbances. Triandis (1975) referred to the cog-nitive attempts to think like the locals as the process oflearning to make isomorphic attributions. His model ofcross-cultural training, the culture assimilator, is basedon the assumption that thinking like the locals hastenscultural adaptation. Suggested here is that much of the

transition-related psychological stress described ear-lier occurs during the adjustment process.

Distinct from adjustment, however, adaptation isconceptualized as the successful endpoint of the ac-commodation process. Sojourners have adapted to thehost culture if they use to some extent the behavioralrepertoire, beliefs, and attributional conventions of thehost culture to smoothly engage in social relationships,understand and utilize the cultural rules of social andprofessional life to appropriately lead, motivate, nego-tiate, decide, and plan.

At the juncture in the sojourn experience in whichsojourners define themselves as reasonably welladapted, researchers have suggested that they will ex-perience less stress, less ambiguity, and more psycho-logical comfort. Ward (1998), in describing thedevelopment and use of an index of acculturation(Ward’s terminology) of sojourners, reported data sup-portive of this explanation. For example, amongSingaporeans resident in the United States, length ofstay was positively related to identification with hostnationals. Furthermore, host culture identification wasclearly associated with better sociocultural adaptationamong four sojourner groups (multinational aid work-ers in Nepal, Singaporeans in the United States, Amer-icans in Singapore, and Chinese in Singapore).

Adaptation is not only a continuous variable, butalso multivariate. Sojourners discover some scriptsmore resistant to change or some behaviors more pli-ant. The extant literature on sojourner experiences pro-vides little insight into what the critical threshold is ofbehavioral and cognitive changes necessary for so-journers to feel that they have adapted successfully.Similarly, we have scant empirical guidance to deter-mine at what point members of the host culture per-ceive the sojourners as no longer dissimilar fromthemselves but rather as someone with whom interper-sonal encounters are predictable and comfortable; thatis, we lack reliable other-ratings of cultural adaptation.In one study, Lee and Larwood (1983) found that themore Americans working in Korea adopted behaviorsand attitudes similar to the Koreans, the more theywere accepted.

Repatriation

The sojourn experience ends at some point,abruptly for some, deliberately for others, but the na-ture of the sojourn is to return to the home culture. Sim-ilar to the emergence or salience of home cultureidentity at the commencement of the sojourn, themodel suggests that as a result of cultural accommoda-tion and adaptation, the self-concept is disturbed andconsequent changes in cultural identity become salienton commencement of repatriation.

364

SUSSMAN

In a process parallel to culture identity awarenesswhen sojourning, although now against the backdropof the home culture, repatriates evaluate their personalvalues, cognitive maps, and behavioral repertoiresagainst the prevailing cultural norms at home. Formany repatriates, they no longer find a fit between theirnewly formed cultural identity and that of their homeculture environment. For most repatriates, the affec-tive response is overwhelmingly negative. Cogni-tively, responses included errors of social cognitionand misattributions as to the cause of one’s negative af-fect state (Sussman, in press). Affectively, repatriatesreport feelings of “not fitting in” with former col-leagues, friends, and family. Behaviorally, actions thatwere functional in the host country are blocked or op-posed. Home cultural identity no longer matches andthe sojourner is now a member of a new outgroupwithin the home country, that of repatriate.

The Relation Between Self-ConceptDisturbances and Cultural IdentityChange

This model proposes that as sojourners successfullyadapt to the new culture by modifying behaviors and so-cial thought, cultural identity changed as well. New cul-tural scripts in which sojourners are now engaged andthat enabled them to fit more appropriately the host en-vironment are not appropriate in the home culture.Those trivial and profound aspects that in combinationcreate home culture identity are no longer actively en-gagedat thepoint inwhichwehaveadapted toahostcul-ture. Acting Thai while in Thailand feels comfortable;thinking like a Spaniard while in Spain results in pro-ductive encounters. Cultural adaptation is functionaland psychologically effective. However, thinking like aSpaniard or acting like a Thai is distressing and uncom-fortable when returning home to Denver, Paris, or To-kyo. It is on repatriation that the cultural identity shiftemerges and becomes salient. Sojourners experiencethe most severe level of stress at any time during the cul-tural transition. Baumeister (1986) indicated that indi-viduals experiencing identity confusion can encounter avariety of social, emotional, and motivational deficits.

Note that an opposite prediction is derived from cul-ture-learning theory, suggesting that successful over-seas adaptation signals a sojourner’s success inlearning cultural coping skills. These skills, in turn,would be transferred to the repatriation context result-ing in an affectively positive experience. Empiricalstudies, however, do not support this model becauserepatriation has been shown to be overwhelminglylinked to negative affect. Even for sojourners who haveexperienced multiple cultural transitions, subsequentrepatriation occurrences remain difficult or occasion-

ally more distressing than the first repatriation (Suda,1999; Sussman, in press).

The cultural identity model proposed here suggeststhat as a consequence of the interaction of identity sa-lience, the adjustment process, and adaptation out-come and self-concept changes, four distinct types ofidentity shift might occur, the shift latent until repatria-tion makes it salient to the sojourner. These culturalidentity shifts have been labeled as subtractive, addi-tive, affirmative, or intercultural. Each category of cul-tural identity shift reflects unique combinations ofself-concept disturbances. Each combination of distur-bances also predicts differential psychological re-sponses to repatriation.

Subtractive and additive identity shifts (see Figure2) commence the transition cycle identically with anobscured cultural identity (indicated as shaded in thefirst box of the figure), which becomes salient as thesojourn in another culture begins (now indicated as anunshaded box). Home-culture and sojourn culture dis-crepancies are recognized and the adjustment processis triggered.

The two identity shifts types diverge at this point,distinguished from each other primarily by the individ-ual differences variables of identity centrality and cul-tural flexibility. Sojourners for whom home-cultureidentity centrality is low and cultural flexibility is lowto moderate (indicated in striped shading in the figure),a track begins that leads to a subtractive identity shift.Sojourners for whom home-cultural identity centralityis moderate and cultural flexibility is high, additivecultural identity becomes the repatriate response.

Subtractive and additive identity shifts both are as-sociated with high sociocultural adaptation, and re-searchers predicted that sojourners will experience amore difficult repatriation than those with low adapta-tion. Suda (1999) found that the more integrated thesojourner was into the host culture, the more distress-ing the reentry and the more long-lasting the distress.Empirical results on gender differences in culturaltransitions provide some tangential support as well.Although no published longitudinal studies exist com-paring male and female sojourners during the entiretransition cycle, with caution one can compare obser-vations collected at different points in transition cycle.N. Adler (1987), for example, indicated that female so-journers adapt more successfully than do male so-journers during initial cultural transitions; severalauthors (Brabant, Palmer, & Gramling, 1990; Gama &Pedersen, 1977) reported that women indicated moredifficult repatriations.

The model predicts further that as a consequence ofhigh adaptation, both subtractive and additive identityshifters are associated with lower stability and clarityof the self-concept, which is conceptualized as greaterfragmentation of the self-concept. These disturbances

365


of the self-concept (Campbell, 1990; Donahue et al.,1993) resulted in lower self-esteem, negative affectiveresponses, and higher repatriation distress. For so-journers with initially high self-esteem, the unstableself-esteem would be associated with a tendency to ex-perience anger, hostility, and adverse reactions (Kerniset al., 1989, 1992). With regard to gender differences,the model predicts that female sojourners will experi-ence more self-concept disturbances and moresubtractive and additive identity shifts than will men.

The subtractive identity shift (in the striped shadedbox) results in repatriates feeling less comfortable withtheir home culture’s values and norms and less similarto their compatriots. Sussman (in press) noted thatamong a sample of U.S. business sojourners, repatri-ates who reported feeling less American (subtractiveidentity shift) experienced higher repatriation distressthan those who reported little identity change. Japa-nese women repatriates who accompanied their hus-bands on an overseas assignment reported “difficultyin fitting into Japanese society” due to feeling “lessJapanese” as the most difficult repatriation adjustment(Suda, 1999). Ward’s (1998) corroborative findingssupported the subtractive shift as well: For U.S. so-journers in Singapore, American identification weak-ened over time.

An additive cultural identity shift would result in re-patriates feeling more similar to their host culture, suchthat the repatriates’ cultural identity more closely re-sembles the host cultures values, norms, and behaviors.One outcome of an extreme form of this shift categoryfound repatriates seeking opportunities to return to thehost culture as soon and as often as possible. A mildervariant of the additive shift was something I experi-

enced on returning to New York following a yearlongsojourn in Japan, as I began insisting that visitors re-move their shoes when entering my apartment, ate pri-marily in Japanese restaurants, and aided Japanesetourists inNewYorktopractice theJapanese language.

Although both subtractive and additive identityshifters will experience similar negative affect, theirbehavioral consequences will vary. For the subtractiverepatriate, response to the home collective might in-clude seeking new ingroup members (in this situation,other repatriates), whereas perceiving other compatri-ots as less similar in culturally shaped values and be-havior. At the extreme, the subtractive repatriates feeldevoid of cultural identity. Park (1928) introduced theconcept of the marginal man, which might describe thesubtractive repatriate. In contrast, additive repatriatesmight seek opportunities to interact with members ofthe former host culture; participate or attend entertain-ment, sports, or culinary representations of the hostculture; or continue study of the host culture language.

The model allows repatriates to adopt both types ofidentity shifts—subtractive and additive. Alatas(1972) described this psychological state as the “cap-tive mind syndrome,” whereby a sojourner rejects thehome culture identity and uncritically adopts the hostidentity. In both identity shift categories, interactionwith the home-culture collective is minimized, exacer-bating the isolation from the home culture and the per-ception of not fitting with conationals.

The third identity category of identity (see Figure3), affirmative, can be described as one in which thehome-culture identity is maintained and strengthenedthroughout the transition cycle. These sojourners alsobegin with an obscured cultural identity (indicated by

366

SUSSMAN

Figure 2. Subtractive and additive identity shifts throughout the cultural transition. Shading in the initial block indicates a sojourner isunaware of cultural identity. Note differences in self-variables during the cultural adjustment process that mediate final cultural identityresponse. Sojourner experiences low stability and clarity of self-concept.

the shaded box in the figure) that becomes salient dur-ing the early stages of the cultural transition. In con-trast to the subtractive and additive experience,affirmative shifters largely ignore the cultural discrep-ancies. This reaction, coupled with the two critical in-ternal variables, high cultural centrality and lowcultural flexibility, result in low adaptation to the hostculture environment. Cultural self-concept consequen-tially will be highly stable and unambiguous, which inturn will result in a repatriation experience that is lowin repatriation distress. For affirmative sojourners whoneither adapted successfully overseas nor experiencedan identity change, researchers predicted that repatria-

tion comes as a welcome relief. Rather than feeling un-comfortable with a newly salient but changed identity,the model predicts that these sojourners, who mighthave been found congregating at the host countryAmerican club, would find on repatriation a height-ened identification with home country nationals andpositive affect: the grateful repatriate, in other words.

The intercultural or global identity shift (see Figure4), a less common identity modification, enables repa-triates to hold multiple cultural scripts simultaneouslyand draw on each as the working self-concept requires.The transition cycle commences for the sojournerswith an awareness of cultural identity (unshaded box in

367


Figure 3. Affirmative identity shift. Low adaptation does not disturb self-concept.

Figure 4. Intercultural identity shift. Initial awareness of cultural identity, high adaptation, and high self-concept complexity are associ-ated with intercultural identity shift.

the figure) whose salience might result from minoritystatus within their home country or from prior interna-tional sojourns. A recognition of the cultural discrep-ancies between the sojourner’s current cultural valuesand behaviors and that of the new sojourn site triggersthe adjustment process. Researchers suggest that ad-justment is facilitated by low cultural centrality andhigh cultural flexibility resulting in high adaptation.

Structurally, the self-concept of the sojourner withan intercultural identity can be described as more com-plex (Linville, 1987) or specialized (Donahue et al.,1993), the content of the self-concept as clear (Camp-bell, 1990) and stable (Kernis et al., 1993). This iden-tity shift paradigm is neither the integration of homeand host culture values (hybridization) nor thebicultural strategy that result from the acculturationexperience, but rather an identity in which the repatri-ates define themselves as world citizens and are able tointeract appropriately and effectively in many coun-tries or regions.

Intercultural identity shifts will result in positive af-fective response and little repatriation distress. Behav-iorally, intercultural repatriates might seek to developfriendships with individuals representing many cul-tures, selecting a wide range of international entertain-ment (e.g., movies, sports, television programming)and reading material (e.g., books, newspapers), andparticipating in international electronic discussiongroups and Web sites.

Recent events in Europe provide us with areal-world setting in which to verify the interculturalidentity shift. The monetary union of Europe and theblurring of national economic boundaries ease move-ment between countries and provide individuals withchangeable working self-concepts (Cinnirella, 1996),which contain cultural self-conceptions currently ac-tive in thought and memory. The cultural identitywithin the working self is determined by the core iden-tity and the immediate cultural context (Markus &Nurius, 1986). Rather than having one pair of culturalglasses that defines and clarifies the world, these repa-triates have multiple lenses through which to interpreta variety of culturally influenced behavior. Bochner,Lin, and McLeod (1979) reported that, following cul-tural contact, an international perspective occasionallydevelops among sojourners.

Important to note, as well, is that multiple culturaltransition experiences are not sufficient to result in anintercultural identity. As indicated in the previous re-view, often multiple repatriation occurrences result inmore distress rather than less. The model suggeststhat self-concept complexity and subsequent positiveresponse to the return home is dependent on two fea-tures. First, prior to the commencement of the transi-tion, the sojourner is actively aware of his or hercultural identity and its consequences; that is, they

understand themselves as cultural beings. Second,during the adaptation and repatriation phases, the so-journer also is actively cognitively processing cul-tural aspects of the self-concept and is aware ofchanges in cultural identity. Physical movementhome, then, is not coupled with an unexplained nega-tive affect, as is the situation with additive andsubtractive shifters. Rather, the intercultural identityshift evokes a positive affective response.

For sojourners who experience subtractive or addi-tive identity shifts, negative affect experienced duringboth the sociocultural adaptation period and the repa-triation period can be modulated through thoughtfulpreparation prior to transition. N. Adler (1981) andSussman (1986) suggested that a critical mediatingvariable that acts to intensify repatriation distress, andone that distinguishes the affective response fromthose that are experienced during overseas transitions,is its unexpectedness. Repatriates appear to be unpre-pared for the abrupt salience of their self-conceptchanges, identity shifts, and the accompanying psy-chological distress.

In measuring cross-cultural adjustment, researchershave examined both the absolute discrepancy betweenexpectation and experience (Hawes & Kealey, 1981;Searle & Ward, 1990; Weissman & Furnham, 1987)and the direction of the discrepancy (undermet, met, orovermet expectations and evaluation of the expecta-tion–experience discrepancy; Black & Gregersen,1990). Unexpectedness might account for a greaterportion of the variance in explaining repatriation out-comes because it does not seem immediately obviousto sojourners that returning to one’s home countryshould be accompanied by cognitive or behavioral dis-comfort. Supporting this notion, Black (1992), in asample of U.S. business repatriates, found that highlevels of repatriate adjustment and job performancewere predicated on accurate repatriation expectations.Rogers and Ward (1993) found among secondary stu-dents returning to New Zealand that when experienceswere more difficult than expected, larger discrepancieswere associated with psychological distress. However,results also revealed that realistic expectations wereunrelated to psychological adjustment.

In a recent study using two author-designed assess-ment instruments (the Repatriation Preparedness Scaleand the Repatriation Experience Assessment Scale),Sussman (in press) found that among U.S. businessemployees, repatriation preparedness (or the degree towhich individuals expected repatriation to the UnitedStates to be psychologically distressful) predicted lessseverity of psychological and work adjustment.

In summary, the transition-identity theory suggestsa model in which identity salience, cultural adaptation,and self-concept disturbances combine in unique waysto produce four types of cultural identity shifts:

368

SUSSMAN

subtractive, additive, affirmative, and intercultural.The identity shifts remain latent until activated by thesojourners’ return home. Furthermore, each shift pre-dicts affective, behavioral, and cognitive personalfunctioning during the repatriation phase of the cul-tural transition cycle. Both the subtractive and additiveidentity shifts, either singly or in combination, will beaccompanied by high repatriation distress. Sojournerswill experience high levels of discomfort with thehome culture, the high identification with the sojournculture, or both. Sojourners who undergo affirmativeidentity shifts, by contrast, will experience low repatri-ation distress and a heightened home-culture identifi-cation. Behaviorally, affirmative repatriates will avoidor not seek intercultural situations. For those experi-encing intercultural identity shifts, the accompanyingaffect will similarly be positive—that is, low repatria-tion distress. However, intercultural shifters will bedrawn to situations and interpersonal experiences withsignificant intercultural or global content.

Directions for Future Research

Social psychology must attend not only to culture asit moves and mixes but to individuals, as cultural be-ings, as they move and mix between cultures; to thecontent, evaluation, and structure of the cultural self;and to the awareness of identity in a cultural collective.The proposed model suggests cultural identity as theprime mediator of personal functioning during culturaltransitions and provides many opportunities for empir-ical verification at each point in the schemata. Chiefamong the research needs is psychometric that focuson the design and validation of measures of culturalidentity. Although we find a preponderance of mea-sures on ethnic identity, few scales are available thatmeasure the dominant cultural identity of sojourners.An additional psychometric need is the design of moreecologically based methods to identify and measurebehavioral correlates of cultural adaptation and iden-tity change.

A second category of variables that needs closerattention relative to the model are those internal fac-tors that effect cultural adaptation and self-conceptdisturbances. Individual difference variables mightclarify our understanding of why some sojourners ex-perience profound changes in cultural identity andothers return from an overseas sojourn with littlechange in their cultural self-concept. Within the con-struct of cultural flexibility, measures of worldview,tolerance, and cultural sensitivity might prove to berelevant. Differences in independent and interdepen-dent self-construal might yield some predictive valuerelative to cross-cultural adjustment. Cross (1995),for example, indicated a complex relationship regard-

ing self-construal and adjustment. Among East Asianstudents, independent self-construal was positivelyrelated to direct coping strategies that predicted re-duced stress levels; for U.S. students, self-construalwas not predictive of stress. Clearly, additional re-search is indicated for this and other internal factorsthat might affect cultural transitions.

A third set of factors, more external in origin, mightalso influence the degree of cultural adaptation. For ex-ample, cultural accommodation and self-conceptchange might be affected by the perceived cultural dis-tance between home and host culture. One might arguethat the greater the cultural distance, the lower the ad-aptation and the more likely the sojourner will make anaffirmative identity shift; conversely, the smaller thecultural distance between the home and host culture,the more likely sojourners will adapt and experience asubtractive or additive identity change.

A fourth set of research issues focuses on the inter-section of lifespan changes and cultural transitions.The creation and maintenance of cultural identity areof increasing interest as the number of children tempo-rarily living in other cultures is increasing (Lublin,1999). Do the cultural transition patterns of adoles-cents and children differ from adults? One might spec-ulate that the longer individuals are immersed in theirhome culture, the more pervasive and less malleable isthe cultural identity. One would predict, therefore, thatchildren and adolescents, due to their less well-formedcultural identity, experience greater cultural identityshifts during cultural transitions. This trend would beamplified in those countries in which adolescent homesubcultures change more rapidly than adult home cul-ture. Teenage repatriates would then be exposed toshifts both in cultural identity and in home culture.

A fifth set of research factors that requires addi-tional investigations are those in which ecologi-cal-level cultural variation might affect adaptationlevels. For example, cultures vary in their proscriptionof adherence to cultural scripts. Some cultures confernationals with substantial latitude in following norms,values, and behaviors. Other cultures value strict ob-servance of normative behaviors; deviance is pun-ished. Pelto (1968) and Triandis (1994) referred tothese cultures as loose or tight, respectively. Homoge-neous, self-contained cultures are very tight and placehigh value on uncertainty avoidance through adher-ence to many cultural rules and societal laws(Hofstede, 1980). Examples of tight cultures are thoseof Japan, Iran, and traditional Greece. Heterogeneouscultures, conversely, have fewer rules, have more flex-ible normative standards, and are typically more toler-ant of deviations from cultural norms. They often arelocated at the geographic intersection of major cultures(e.g., Thailand between India and China), are pluralis-tic (e.g., United States), or are sparsely populated.

369


Loose and tight cultures also might differ on clarityof cultural identity and expected level of adherence toidentity and self-concept elements. For members ofloose cultures, cultural identity might be neitherclearly prescribed nor, as previously suggested, sa-lient. The expectations of how members of the culturemust act are vague. The cultural identity model pro-posed herein reflects loose cultures such as that in theUnited States where, among repatriates, little aware-ness exists of cultural identity and relatively low valueis placed on maintaining an American identity.

For members of tight cultures, cultural identity andits elements are salient and clear. One would not expectcultural identity discovery on the part of tight culturesojourners, but rather a sustained cultural identity affir-mation in the early phases of a cultural transition. Fur-thermore, as the expectations by the home culture areclear and deviation from the home culture identity andbehaviors is not tolerated, the model would predict thatrepatriates to tight cultures would experience either af-firmative or intercultural identity shifts rather thansubtractive or additive shifts. Japan, for example,scores high on Hofstede’s (1980) uncertainty avoid-ance index and is prototypical of a tight cultural re-sponse to cultural transitions. To ensure lessuncertainty and unpredictability in interpersonal rela-tions, the transit home signals to sojourners the neces-sity to reshift one’s cultural focus and arrive homeapparently unchanged vis-à-vis cultural identity (e.g.,Japanese repatriates again behaving as Japanese).Sussman (1985) reported, in fact, that few Japanesecorporate repatriates experienced repatriation distress.The occasional sojourners who did admit to additiveshifts were covert in their behavioral display. One re-search participant described hiding his copy ofNewsweek magazine within the covers of a Japanesemagazine. Kidder (1992), likewise, examined return-ing Japanese students and described the cultural scriptsor markers for being “real Japanese,” the standardagainst which repatriates would be judged.

Cultural variations also might account for patternsin the centrality of cultural identity within one’sself-concept. Researchers suggest that some culturesbetter prepare their members for the experience of be-ing both an expatriate or a repatriate.

A third ecological variable to be considered is theopenness of the host culture to sojourners. Despite lowcultural identity and high cultural flexibility, a so-journer might find adaptation stymied without the co-operation, encouragement, or at a minimum, the lackof hostility communicated by host individuals.

A sixth and final domain in which more extensiveresearch is required is that of preparation for culturaltransitions. Cognitive and behavioral training in thearea of cultural transitions can assist the hundreds ofthousands of sojourners who experience a range of

psychological distress, from minor annoyances to sig-nificant individual and family breakdowns. Perhapsthe negative effects of cultural salience, adjustment,adaptation, identity shift, and repatriation could be at-tenuated and the intercultural resilience of possessingan intercultural identity be encouraged through cul-tural education and training.

References

Adelman, M. B. (1988). Cross-cultural adjustment: A theoretical per-spective on social support. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 12, 183–204.

Adler, N. (1981). Re-entry: Managing cross-cultural transitions.Group and Organizational Studies, 6, 341–356.

Adler, N. (1987). Pacific Basin managers: A gaijin, not a woman. Hu-man Resource Management, 26, 169–192.

Adler, P. S. (1987). Culture shock and the cross-cultural learning ex-perience. In L. F. Luce & E. C. Smith (Eds.), Toward interna-tionalism. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

Alatas, S. H. (1972). The captive mind in development studies: Someneglected problems and the need for an autonomous social sci-ence tradition in Asia. International Social Science Journal, 24,9–25.

Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup-contact in change of preju-dice and ethnic relations. In P. Katz (Ed.), Toward the elimina-tion of racism (pp. 245–308). New York: Pergamon.

Anderson, L. E. (1994). A new look at an old construct: Cross-cul-tural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-tions, 18, 293–328.

Armes, K., & Ward, C. (1989). Cross-cultural transitions and sojournadjustment in Singapore. Journal of Social Psychology, 129,273–275.

Basu, A. K., & Ames, R. G. (1970). Cross-cultural contact and atti-tude formation. Sociology and Social Research, 55, 5–16.

Baumeister, R. F. (1986). Identity. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.,Vol. 1, pp. 680–740). New York: Oxford University Press.

Beiser, M., Johnson, P., & Turner, J. (1993). Unemployment, under-employment, and depressive affect among Southeast Asian ref-ugees. Psychological Medicine, 23, 731–743.

Bennett, J. (1977). Transition shock: Putting culture shock in per-spective. International and Intercultural Communication An-nual, 4, 45–52.

Berry, J. W. (1980). Social and cultural change. In H. C. Triandis &R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology:Vol. 5. Social psychology (pp. 211–280). Boston: Allyn & Ba-con.

Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation: Understanding in-dividuals moving between cultures. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Ap-plied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 232–253). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparativestudies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review,21, 491–511.

Betancourt, H., & Lopez, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity,and race in American psychology. American Psychologist, 48,629–637.

Black, J. S. (1988). Work role transitions: A study of American expa-triate managers in Japan. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 19, 277–294.

370

SUSSMAN

Black, J. S. (1992). Coming home: The relationship of expatriate ex-pectations with repatriation adjustment and job performance.Human Relations, 45, 177–192.

Black, J. S. (1994). O Kaerinasai: Factors related to Japanese repatri-ation adjustment. Human Relations, 47, 1489–1508.

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1990). Expectations, satisfaction,and intention to leave of American expatriate managers in Ja-pan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14,485–506.

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). When Yankee comes home:Factors related to expatriate and spouse repatriation adjustment.Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 671–694.

Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B., & Mendenhall, M. E. (1992). Toward atheoretical framework of repatriation adjustment. Journal of In-ternational Business Studies, 23, 737–760.

Bochner, S. (Ed.). (1982). Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cul-tural interaction. Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Bochner, S., Lin, A., & McLeod, B. M. (1979). Cross-cultural contactand the development of an international perspective. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 107, 29–41.

Bochner, S., Lin, A., & McLeod, B. M. (1980). Anticipated role con-flict of returning overseas students. Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 110, 265–272.

Brabant, S., Palmer, C. E., & Gramling, R. (1990). Returning home:An empirical investigation of cross-cultural re-entry. Interna-tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 387–404.

Brein, M., & David, K. H. (1971). Intercultural communication andthe adjustment of the sojourner. Psychological Bulletin, 76,215–230.

Brewer, M., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). Ethnocentrism and inter-group attitudes. New York: Halsted.

Briody, E. K., & Baba, M. L. (1991). Explaining differences in repa-triation experiences: The discovery of coupled and decoupledsystems. American Anthropologist, 93, 324–344.

Brislin, R., & Pedersen, P. (1976). Cross-cultural orientation pro-grams. New York: Wiley.

Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 538–549.

Campbell, J. D., Chew, B., & Scratchley, L. S. (1991). Cognitive andemotional reactions to daily events: The effects of self-esteemand self-complexity. Journal of Personality, 59, 473–505.

Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,91, 540–572.

Cinnirella, M. (1996). A social identity perspective on European inte-gration. In G. Breakwell & E. Lyons (Eds.), Changing Euro-pean identities: Social psychological analyses of social change(pp. 253–274). Oxford, England: Butterworth Heinemann.

Clague, L., & Krupp, N. (1978). International personnel: The repatri-ation problem. Personnel Administration, 23, 29–33.

Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress in cross-cul-tural adaptation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26,673–697.

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construalsand gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.

David, K. H. (1976). The use of social learning theory in preventingintercultural adjustment problems. In P. Pedersen, W. J. Lonner,& J. Dragons (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (pp. 123–138).Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 19, 4–12.

Ditchburn, G. J. (1996). Cross-cultural adjustment and psychoticism.Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 295–296.

Donahue, E. M., Robins, R. W., Roberts, B. W., & John, O. P. (1993).The divided self: Concurrent and longitudinal effects of psycho-logical adjustment and social roles on self-concept differentia-tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,834–846.

Ferguson, P. (1989). Stressful experiences of Japanese students re-turning from extended periods of residence in the United States.Journal of Human Behavior and Learning, 6, 30–35.

Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture shock: Psychologicalreactions in unfamiliar environments. London: Metheun.

Gama, E., & Pedersen, P. (1977). Readjustment problems of Brazil-ian returnees from graduate studies in the United States. Inter-national Journal of Intercultural Adjustment, 1, 46–59.

Graves, T. D. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic com-munity. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 23, 337–350.

Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (1996). Multiple commitments uponrepatriation: The Japanese experience. Journal of Management,22, 209–229.

Gregersen, H. B., & Stroh, L. K. (1997). Coming home to the Arcticcold: Antecedents to Finnish expatriate and spouse repatriationadjustment. Personnel Psychology, 50, 635–654.

Grove, C. C., & Torbiorn, I. (1985). A new conceptualization ofintercultural adjustment and the goals of training. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 205–233.

Grove, C. L., & Hansel, B. (1983). Updated findings of the AFS im-pact study. New York: American Field Service Interna-tional/Intercultural Programs.

Gullahorn, J., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1963). An extension of the U-curvehypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 14, 33–47.

Gurin, P., Hurtado, P., & Peng, T. (1994). Group contacts and ethnic-ity in the social identities of Mexicanos and Chicanos. Personal-ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 521–532.

Gutherie, G. M. (1975). A behavioral analysis of culture learning. InR. W. Brislin, S. Bochner, & W. J. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cul-tural perspectives on learning (pp. 95–116). New York: Sage.

Harris, P. R., & Moran, R. T. (1979). Managing cultural differences.Houston, TX: Gulf.

Harrison, J. K., Chadwick, M., & Scales, M. (1996). The relationshipbetween cross-cultural adjustment and the personality variablesof self-efficacy and self-monitoring. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 20, 167–188.

Harvey, M. G. (1989). Repatriation of corporate executives: An em-pirical study. Journal of International Business Studies, pp.131–144.

Hawes, F., & Kealey, D. J. (1981). An empirical study of Canadiantechnical assistance: Adaptation and effectiveness on overseasassignments. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,4, 239–258.

Hawthorne, N. (1990). The marble faun. New York: Penguin. (Origi-nal work published 1860)

Heine, S. H., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999).Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? PsychologicalReview, 106, 766–794.

Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: Theperilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing soci-ety. American Psychologist, 53, 1111–1120.

Higgins, E. T. (1996). The “self-digest”: Self-knowledge servingself-regulatory functions. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 71, 1062–1083.

Hofstede, G. (1980).Culture’s consequences.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behavior, self-ste-

reotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journalof Social Psychology, 26, 325–340.

Holdstock, T. L. (1999). The perilous problem of neglecting culturalrealities. American Psychologist, 54, 838–839.

Howard, C. G. (1980a). The expatriate manager and the role of theMNC. Personnel Journal, 59, 838–844.

Howard, C. G. (1980b). The returning overseas executive: Cultureshock in reverse. Human Resource Management, 13, 22–26.

Kashima, Y. (1995). Introduction to the special section culture andself. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 603–605.

371


Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C., Berry, A., & Harlow, T.(1993). There’s more to self-esteem than whether it is high orlow: The importance of stability of self-esteem. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 65, 1190–1204.

Kernis, M. H., Grannemann, B. D., & Barclay, L. C. (1989). Stabilityand level of self-esteem as predictors of anger arousal and hos-tility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,1013–1023.

Kernis, M. H., Grannemann, B. D., & Barclay, L. C. (1992). Stabilityof self-esteem: Assessment, correlates, and excuse making.Journal of Personality, 60, 621–644.

Kidder, L. H. (1992). Requirements for being “Japanese”: Stories ofreturnees. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16,383–393.

Kosmitzki, C. (1996). The reaffirmation of cultural identity incross-cultural encounters. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 22, 238–248.

Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigationof self-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19, 68–76.

Laurent, A. (1983). The cultural diversity of Western conceptions ofmanagement. International Studies of Management and Orga-nization, 13, 75–96.

Lee, Y., & Larwood, L. (1983). The socialization of expatriate man-agers in multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal,26, 657–665.

LeRoy, M. (Producer), & Fleming, V. (Director). (1939). The wizardof Oz [Film]. Santa Monica, CA: MGM.

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper.Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity:

Don’t put all of your eggs in one cognitive basket. Social Cogni-tion, 3, 94–120.

Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer againststress-related illnesses and depression. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 52, 663–676.

Lublin, J. (1999, January 26). To smooth a transfer abroad, a new fo-cus on kids. Wall Street Journal, pp. B4, B14.

Lucca-Irizarry, N., & Pacheco, A. M. (1992). Intercultural encoun-ters of Puerto Rican migrants. Environment and Behavior, 24,226–238.

Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society: NorwegianFulbright grantees visiting the United States. International So-cial Science Bulletin, 7, 45–51.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implicationsfor cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review,98, 224–253.

Markus, H. R., & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and malleability of theself-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,858–866.

Markus, H. R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psy-chologist, 41, 954–969.

Markus, H. R., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A so-cial psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,38, 299–337.

Martin, J. N. (1984). The intercultural re-entry: Conceptualizationand directions for future research. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 8, 115–134.

Martin, J. N. (1986). Communication in the intercultural re-entry:Student sojourners’ perceptions of change in reentry relation-ship. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 1–22.

McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., Child, P., & Fujioka, T. (1978). Sa-lience of ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept as a functionof one’s ethnic distinctiveness in the social environment. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 511–520.

Mendenhall, M., Dunbar, E., & Oddou, G. R. (1987). Expatriate se-lection training and career pathing: A review and critique. Hu-man Resource Management, 26, 331–345.

Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). The self and the collective.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 451–453.

Moore, L., Van Jones, B., & Austin, C. N. (1987). Predictors of re-verse culture shock among North American Church of ChristMissionaries. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 15,336–341.

Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural shock: Adjustment to a new cultural envi-ronment. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177–182.

Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self, oth-ers, and conflict in a multicultural society. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 65, 993–1009.

Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. (1993). The sociocultural self. In J. Suls& A. Pratkanis (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self(Vol. 4, pp. 187–220). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates, Inc.

Oyserman, D., Sakamoto, I., & Lauffer, A. (1998). Cultural accom-modation: Hybridity and the framing of social obligation. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1606–1618.

Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. Ameri-can Journal of Sociology, 33, 881–893.

Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional flexibility: A newconception of interpersonal flexibility. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 55, 88–101.

Pelto, P. J. (1968, April). The difference between “tight” and “loose”societies. Transaction, pp. 37–40.

Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Re-view of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499–514.

Phinney, J. S. (1991). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: A review andintegration. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13,193–208.

Rohner, R. (1984). Toward a conception of culture for cross-culturalpsychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15,111–138.

Rohrlich, B. I., & Martin, J. N. (1991). Host country and reentry ad-justment of student sojourners. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 15, 163–182.

Rogers, J., & Ward, C. (1993). Expectation experience discrepanciesand psychological adjustment during cross-cultural reentry. In-ternational Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 85–196.

Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological andsociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. In-ternational Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 449–464.

Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1999).Human behavior in global perspective (2nd ed.). NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A. J., &Chavous, T. M. (1998). Multidimensional model of racial iden-tity: A reconceptualization of African-American identity. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 18–39.

Showers, C. (1992). Compartmentalization of positive and negativeself-knowledge: Keeping bad apples out of the bunch. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1036–1049.

Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions withcultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cul-tures. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Snyder, C. R. (1987). Public appearances/private realities: The psy-chology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.

Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror man-agement theory of social behavior: The psychological functionsof self-esteem and cultural worldviews. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp.91–159). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup rela-tions. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes and intergroup re-lations (pp. 13–40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

372

SUSSMAN

Stewart, E. (1966). The simulation of cultural differences. Journal ofCommunication, 16, 291–304.

Storti, C. (1997). The art of coming home. Yarmouth, ME:Intercultural.

Strangers at home: Essays in living overseas and coming “home” toa strange land. (1996). Putnam Valley, NY: Aletheia.

Stringham, E. (1993). The reacculturation of missionary families: Adynamic theory. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 21,66–73.

Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1982). Commitment, identity salience,and role behavior: Theory and research example. In W. Ickes &E. S. Knowles (Eds.), Personality roles and social behavior (pp.199–218). New York: Springer.

Suda, N. (1999). Issues of adjustment abroad and readjustment totheir home country of Japanese spouses. Journal ofIntercultural Communication, 3, 75–86.

Sundquist, J., & Johansson, S. E. (1996). The influence of exile andrepatriation on mental and physical health: A population basedstudy. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 31,21–28.

Sussman, N. M. (1985, July). Corporate re-entry: A comparativelook at returning home. Paper presented to the Japan Psycholog-ical Association, Tokyo.

Sussman, N. M. (1986). Re-entry research and training: Methods andimplications. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,10, 235–254.

Sussman, N. M. (in press). Cultural transitions: Psychological pre-paredness, repatriation, and attributions among American man-agers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations.

Taft, R. (1977). Coping with unfamiliar cultures. In N. Warren (Ed.),Studies in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 121–153).London: Academic.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cam-bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Torbiorn, I. (1982). Living abroad. New York: Wiley.Triandis, H. C. (1975). Cultural training, cognitive complexity, and

interpersonal attitudes. In R. W. Brislin, S. Bochner, & W. J.Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on learning (pp.39–78). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cul-tural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Tung, R. (1988). The new expatriate. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self

and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463.

Tweed, R. G., Conway, L. G., & Ryder, A. G. (1999). The target isstraw or the arrow is crooked. American Psychologist, 54,837–838.

Uehara, A. (1986). The nature of American student reentry adjust-ment and perceptions of the sojourn experience. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 415–436.

Ward, C. (1998, August). Models and measurements of accultura-tion. Paper presented at the XIV Congress of the InternationalAssociation for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bellingham, WA.

Ward, C., & Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value discrepanciesand cultural identity on psychological and socio-cultural adjust-ment of sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-tions, 15, 209–225.

Weissman, D., & Furnham, A. (1987). The expectations and experi-ences of a sojourning temporary resident abroad. A preliminarystudy. Human Relations, 40, 313–326.

Werkman, S. L. (1979). Coming home: Adjustment problems of ado-lescents who have lived overseas. In S. D. Feinstein & P. L.Giovacchini (Eds.), Adolescent psychiatry: Vol. 7. Develop-mental and clinical studies (pp. 178–190). Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Werkman, S. L., & Johnson, F. (1976, May). The effect of geographicmobility on adolescent character structure. Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the American Society for AdolescentPsychiatry, Miami, FL.

Weschler, L. (1998). Calamities of exile: Three nonfiction novellas.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, A. H. (1986). Returned Peace Corps volunteers who teachsocial studies. Social Studies, 73, 100–107.

Wilson, A. H. (1993). A cross-national perspective on reentry of highschool exchange students. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 17, 465–492.

Winkelman, M. (1994). Cultural shock and adaptation. Journal ofCounseling and Development, 73, 121–126.

Zapf, M. K. (1991). Cross-cultural transitions and wellness: Dealingwith culture shock. International Journal for the Advancementof Counseling, 14, 105–119.

373


The Dynamic Nature of Cultural Identity Throughout ...csivc.csi.cuny.edu/Nan.Sussman/files/publications/Sussman_Identity... · The Dynamic Nature of Cultural Identity Throughout Cultural

Documents