Culture Shock

Culture shock is a phenomenon which occurs in cross-cultural interactions. This essay discusses the issue of culture shock from several perspectives: its definition, the symptoms it sparks, reasons underlying the shock, adaptation models, shock management implications and methods. In this essay, people who are experiencing or have experienced cross-cultural encounters are called sojourners.

The term of culture shock was coined by the anthropologist Oberg (Furnham, 1988, Ward, et al., 1998, Kim, 2001, Marx, 2001)1. It more often than not carries with it a negative feeling. Oberg (1960, cited in Kim, 1988) defines culture shock as the anxiety that results from losing all of familiar signs and symbols of social interaction. Furnham and Bochner (1986) state that the experience of a new culture is potentially confusing and disorienting. Bock (1970) contends that direct exposure to an alien cultural environment usually produces a disturbing feeling of disorientation and helplessness.

The negative feelings generated by culture shock come in different forms. Oberg (1960, cited in Max, 2001) describes six types of negative feelings incurred as a result of culture shock. They are strain caused by the effort to adapt; sense of loss and feelings of deprivation in relation to friends, status, profession and possession; feeling rejected by or rejecting members of the new culture; confusion in role, values and self-identity; anxiety and even disgust/anger about ‘foreign practices’; and the feeling of helplessness, not being able to cope with the new environment. Surfacing on these feelings are an array of symptoms experienced by sojourners, for example, excessive concern over drinking water, food, dishes, fits of anger over delays and other minor frustrations, excessive fear of being cheated, robbed or injured (Oberg, 1960, cited in Furnham & Bochner, 1986).  May (1970) found that culture shocked people lack of self confidence, distrust of others and mild psychosomatic complaints. Gunn (1979, cited in Furnham, 1988) identified a higher incidence of digestive, dermatological, and sexual problems in overseas students. 

Culture shock is triggered principally by sojourners’ experience of losing all of familiar signs and symbols of social interaction in a new cultural environment (Oberg, 1960, cited in Kim, 1988). However, the degree of shock varies from people to people due to a variety of reasons including the degree of linguistics dissimilarity, political-economical and social dissimilarity, and general cultural dissimilarities in customs, religious beliefs, nutritional habits, etc. (Furnham & Bochner, 1986).  For instance, research shows that the degree of difficulty experienced by sojouners is directly related to cultural distance between their own culture and host culture (Furnham & Bochner, 1986). An increase in the similarity between the host and native culture will increase sojourners’ understanding of the host culture and reduce their stress in the new environment (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988). The concept of cultural distance is actually consistent with the concept of culture novelty.  According to Tung (1981), culture novelty is a contributor to culture shock. Culture novelty deals with the notion that some cultures are more closed aligned with other cultures in their value systems, behavioural norms, and so on. High culture novelty will increase the difficulty for sojourners to adjust while low culture novelty will help decrease the stress confronting them.
 
Furnham (1988) shows that an alien culture shocks business people less than students or other sojourners. There are several reasons for it. First, business people stay in a foreign country for a short period of time. Second, business people are older in age and more mature. Third, their social interaction both inside and outside organizations tend to be equal for business people than they are for students and this type of peer group interaction works favourably for their adjustment. 

To overcome culture shock, sojourners move through several stages. Oberg maintains that sojourners go through four phases on the way to final adaptation, including the honeymoon phase, the culture shock phase, the recovery phrase and the adjustment phase (Marx, 2001). The honeymoon phase is primarily characterised by exciting, positive and stimulating impression of all encounters. Then comes the second phase where culture shock comes into play.  This stage generally involves unease and discomfort with the new situation. The third phase is recovery, reflecting a compromise between exaggerated expectations and reality. The final phase is adjustment where people realise the limitations of their skills and resort to new avenues to come grips with the new and learn to be more flexible. Such a cross-cultural adaptation model is called a U-curve that has taken a central position in theory and research on transition and adjustment for over 30 years (Ward, et al., 1998).

However, it is challenged by Marx (2001) who thinks this linear picture of cross-culture adaptation is largely unrealistic in real life situations. He therefore develops it into a model that comprises a dynamic and repetitive cycle, encompassing the honeymoon phase – culture shock – recovery – culture shock – recovery – culture shock – breaking through. It is evident that the restructured model stresses that culture shock is not a one-off event and sojourners are very likely to experience several culture shocks before they can tide them over. 

Though this clarification sounds more reasonable, it is far from enough to uncover the whole spectrum of shock engendered by cross-cultural interactions. For example, Ward, et al. (1998) contend that their longitudinal research based on a group of Japanese students does not find the honeymoon stage of entry to a new country. What characterises entry to a foreign milieu is the psychological stress instead. Church (1982, cited in Furnham and Bochner, 1986) also comments that support for U-curve hypothesis is inconclusive and overgeneralised as some sojourners are unhappy, depressed and anxious right from the outset. It should therefore be borne in mind that no universal pattern to explain culture shock adaptation has been developed yet so far.

In terms of adaptation both psychologically and sociologically to a new cultural context, research shows that sojourners who accommodate well share such fundamental characteristics as close interactions with host culture people (Furnham & Bochner, 1998, Ward, et al., 1998), low culture distance (Furnham & Bochner, 1986, Tung, 1981), moving from a closed system to an open system (Furnham & Bochner, 1986),  knowledge of the host language (Kim, 1988, 2001), willingness to adapt (Kim, 2001), use of host communication channels (Shah, 1991), and the like. These characteristics are useful in easing culture shock and facilitating sojourners in their adjustment to the new environment. Ostensibly, the opposite side of these characteristics will generally impede sojourners’ adaptation process and hence increase the severity of culture shock. For example, lack of interaction with host nationals is associated with high levels of anxiety (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988).