Manual for Students

decision [ibid.]. These kinds of differences can sometimes make communication difficult during the adaptation process.

As individuals encounter new cultural contexts, they have to adapt to some extent. This adaptation process occurs in context, varies with each individual, and is circumscribed by relations of dominance and power in so-called host cultures. Let us look more closely at this process.

6.4 Cultural Adaptation

Cultural adaptation is a long-term process of adjusting to and finally feeling comfortable in a new environment [9, p. 46]. Immigrants who enter a culture more or less voluntarily and who at some point decide to – or feel the need to – adapt to the new cultural context experience cultural adaptation in a positive way. This section describes specific models of cultural adaptation, the contexts that enable or hamper adaptation, and the outcomes of adaptation.

6.4.1 Models of Cultural Adaptation

TheAnxiety and Uncertainty Management Model. Communication theorist William Gudykunst stresses that the primary characteristic of relationships in intercultural adaptation is ambiguity. The goal of effective intercultural communication can be reached byreducing anxiety and seeking information, a process known as uncertainty reduction. According to W. Gudykunst, there are several kinds of uncertainty. Predictive uncertainty is the inability to predict what someone will say or do. We all know how important it is toberelativelysure howpeoplewill respond tous.Explanatory uncertainty is the inability to explain why people behave as they do [6, p. 101]. In any interaction, it is important not only to predict how someone will behave but also to explain why the person behaves in a particular way. How do we do this? Usually, we have prior knowledge about someone, or we gather more information about the person.

Migrants also may need to reduce the anxiety that is present in intercultural contexts. Some level of anxiety is optimal during an interaction. Too little anxiety may convey that we do not care about the person, and too much causes us to focus only on the anxiety and not on the interaction.

331

This model assumes that to communicate effectively we will gather information to help us reduce uncertainty and anxiety. How do we do this? Though the theory is complicated, some general suggestions for increasing effectiveness are useful. The theory predicts that the most effective communicators (those who are best able to manage anxiety and predict and explain others’ behaviors) 1) have a solid self-concept and self-esteem; 2) have flexible attitudes (a tolerance for ambiguity, empathy) and behaviors and 3) are complex and flexible in their categorization of others (e.g., able to identify similarities and differences and avoid stereotypes). The situation in which communication occurs is important in this model. The most conducive environments are informal, with support from and equal representation of different groups. Finally, this model requires that people be open to new information and recognize alternative ways to interpret information.

Of course, these principles may operate differently according to the cultural context; the theory predicts cultural variability. For example, people with more individualistic orientations may stress independence in self-concepts and communities; self-esteem may become more important in interactions. Individualists also may seek similarities more in categorizing.

The U-Curve Model. Many theories describe how people adapt to new cultural environments. The pattern of adaptation varies depending on the circumstances and the migrant, but some commonalities exist. The most common theory is the U-curve theory of adaptation. This theory is based on research conducted by a Norwegian sociologist, Sverre Lisgaard, who interviewed Norwegian students studying in the United States [10, p. 46]. This model has been applied to many different migrant groups.

The main idea is that migrants go through fairly predictable phases in adapting to a new cultural situation. They first experience excitement and anticipation, followed by a period of shock and disorientation (the bottom of the U-curve); then they gradually adapt to the new cultural context. Although this framework is simplistic and does not represent every migrant’s experience, most migrants experience these general phases at one time or another.

The first phase is the anticipation or excitement phase. When a

332

Table 6.4 The U-Curve of Cultural Adoptation

Although the U-curve seems to represent the experiences of many short-term sojourners, it may be too simplistic for other types of migrants. A more accurate model represents long-term adaptation as a series of U-curves. Migrants alternate between feeling relatively adjusted and experiencing culture shock; over the long term, the sense of culture shock diminishes.

The Transition Model. Recently, culture shock and adaptation have been viewed as a normal part of human experience, as a subcategory of transition shock. Janet Bennett, a communication scholar, suggests that culture shock and adaptation are just like any other “adult transition”. Adult transitions include going away to college for the first time, getting married, and moving from one part of the country to another. These experiences share common characteristics and provoke the same kinds of responses [2, p. 23].

All transition experiences involve change, including some loss and some gain, for individuals. For example, when people marry, they may lose some independence, but they gain companionship and intimacy. When a student goes to a foreign country to study, he / she leaves his / her friends and customs behind but finds new friends and new ways of doing things.

Cultural adaptation depends in part on the individual. Each person has a preferred way of dealing with new situations. Psychologists have found that most individuals prefer either a “flight” or a “fight” approach to unfamiliar situations. Each of these approaches may be more or less

334

productive depending on the context. Migrants who prefer a flight approach when faced with new situations tend to hang back, get the lay of the land, and see how things work before taking the plunge and joining in. Migrants who take this approach may hesitate to speak a language until they feel they can get it right, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Taking time out from the stresses of intercultural interaction (by speaking and reading in one’s native language, socializing with friends of similar background, and so on) may be appropriate. Small periods of “flight” allow migrants some needed rest from the challenges of cultural adaptation. However, getting stuck in the “flight” mode can be unproductive. For example, some U.S. students abroad spend all of their time with other American students and have little opportunity for intercultural learning.

A second method, the “fight” approach, involves jumping in and participating. Migrants who take this approach use the trial-and-error method. They try to speak the new language, do not mind if they make mistakes, jump on a bus even when they are not sure it is the right one, and often make cultural gaffes. Getting stuck in the “fight” mode can also be unproductive. Migrants who take this approach to the extreme tend to act on their surroundings with little flexibility and are likely to criticize the way things are done in the new culture.

Neither of these preferences for dealing with new situations is inherently right or wrong. Individual preference is a result of family, social, and cultural influences. For example, some parents encourage their children to be assertive, and others encourage their children to wait and watch in new situations. Society may encourage individuals toward one preference or the other. A third alternative is the “flex” approach, in which migrants use a combination of productive “fight” or “flight” behaviors. The idea is to “go with the flow” while keeping in mind the contextual elements. Hostile contexts (such as racism or prejudice) may encourage extreme responses, but a supportive environment (tolerance) may encourage more productive responses.

The Communication System Model. The three approaches discussed so far concentrate on the psychological feelings of migrants, on how comfortable they feel. What role does communication play in the adaptation process? For an answer, we turn to a model of adaptation developed by communication scholar Young Yun Kim. Kim suggests that

335

adaptation is a process of stress, adjustment, and growth. As individuals experience the stress of not fitting in with the environment, the natural response is to seek to adjust. This process of adjustment represents a psychic breakdown of previously held attitudes and behaviors – ones that worked in original cultural contexts. This model fits very well with our dialectical approach in its emphasis on the interconnectedness of individual and context in the adaptation process [9, p. 65].

Adaptation occurs through communication. That is, the migrant communicates with individuals in the new environment and gradually develops new ways of thinking and behaving. In the process, the migrant achieves a new level of functioning and acquires an intercultural identity. Of course, not everyone grows in the migrant experience. Some individuals have difficulty adapting to new ways. According to the cognitive dissonance theorists of the 1950s, individuals typically have three options when confronting ideas or behaviors that do not fit with previously held attitudes: They can 1) reject the new ideas; 2) try to fit them into their existing frameworks or 3) change their frameworks [2].

Communication may have a double edge in adaptation. Migrants who communicate frequently in their new culture adapt better but also experience more culture shock. Beulah Rohrlich and Judith Martin conducted a series of studies of U.S. American students living abroad in various places in Europe. They discovered that those students who communicated the most with host culture members experienced the most culture shock. These were students who spent lots of time with their host families and friends in many different communication situations (having meals together, working on projects together, socializing, and so on). However, these same students also adapted better and felt more satisfied with their overseas experience than the students who communicated less.

Dan Kealey, who worked for many years with the Canadian International Development Agency, conducted studies of overseas technical assistance workers in many different countries. Kealey and his colleagues tried to understand what characterized effective workers and less effective workers. They interviewed the Canadian workers, their spouses, and their host country coworkers. They discovered that the most important characteristics in adaptation were the interpersonal communication competencies of the workers [8, p. 400].

336

Specifically, how does communication help migrants adapt? There seem to be three stages in this process of adaptation: 1) taking things for granted; 2) making sense of new patterns; 3) coming to understand new information. As migrants begin to make sense of their experiences and interactions in new cultural contexts, they come to understand them in a more holistic way [12, p. 286]. This enables them to fit the new information into a pattern of cultural understanding. Again, this happens through communication with members of the host country and others who implicitly or explicitly explain the new cultural patterns.

Mass media also play a role in helping sojourners and immigrants adapt. Radio, television, movies, and so on are powerful transmitters of cultural values, readily accessible as sources of socialization for newcomers. The mass media may play an especially important role in the beginning stages of adaptation. When sojourners or immigrants first arrive, they may have limited language ability and limited social networks. Listening to the radio or watching TV may be the primary source of contact at this stage, one that avoids negative consequences of not knowing the language.

As we can see, for both students and workers seeking better opportunities overseas, communication and adaptation seem to be a case of “no pain, no gain”. Intercultural interaction may be difficult and stressful but ultimately can be highly rewarding.

6.4.2 Individual Influences on Adaptation

Many individual characteristics – including age, gender, preparation level, and expectations can influence how well migrants adapt. But there is contradictory evidence concerning the effects of age and adaptation. On the one hand, younger people may have an easier time adapting because they are less fixed in their ideas, beliefs, and identities. Because they adapt more completely, though, they may have more trouble when they return home. On the other hand, older people may have more trouble adapting because they are less flexible. However, for that very reason, they may not change as much and so have less trouble when they move back home [9, p. 65].

Level of preparation for the experience may influence how migrants adapt, and this may be related to expectations. Many U.S. sojourners

337

experience more culture shock in England than in other European countries, because they expect little difference between life there and life here in the United States. In contrast, sojourners traveling to cultures that are very different expect to experience culture shock. The research seems to show that overly positive and overly negative expectations lead to more difficulty in adaptation; apparently, positive but realistic or slightly negative expectations prior to the sojourn are best.

6.4.3 Outcomes of Adaptation

Much of the early research on cultural adaptation concentrated on a single dimension. More recent research emphasizes a multidimensional view of adaptation and applies best to voluntary transitions. There are at least three aspects, or dimensions, of adaptation: 1) psychological health; 2) functional fitness; 3) intercultural identity [9, p. 65]. Again, we must note that these specific aspects are dialectically related to the contexts to which individuals adapt.

Part of adapting involves feeling comfortable in new cultural contexts. Psychological health is the most common definition of adaptation, one that concentrates on the emotional state of the individual migrant. Obviously, the newcomer’s psychological well-being will depend somewhat on members of the host society. As mentioned previously, if migrants are made to feel welcome, they will feel more comfortable faster. But if the host society sends messages that migrants do not really belong, psychological adjustment becomes much more difficult.

Achieving psychological health generally occurs more quickly than the second outcome, functional fitness, which involves being able to function in daily life in many different contexts. Some psychologists see adaptation mainly as the process of learning new ways of living and behaving. That is, they view the acquisition of skills as more important than psychological well-being. They have tried to identify areas of skills that are most important for newly arrived members of a society to acquire. Specifically, newcomers to a society should learn the local rules for politeness (e.g., honesty), the rules of verbal communication style (e.g., direct, elaborate), and typical use of non-verbal communication (e.g., proxemic behavior, gestures, eye gaze, facial expressions).

338

6.5.1 Adapting on Re-Entry

When migrants return home to their original cultural contexts, the same process of adaptation occurs and may again involve culture, or reentry, shock. Sometimes this adaptation is even more difficult because it is so unexpected. Coming home, we might think, should be easy. However, students who return home from college, business people who return to corporate headquarters after working abroad all notice the difficulty of readjusting [14, p. 324]. Scholars refer to this process as the W-curve theory of adaptation, because sojourners seem to experience another U-curve: the anticipation of returning home, culture shock in finding that it is not exactly as expected, and then gradual adaptation.

Thefollowingdiagramshowsthestagesofcultureshock(theW-curve):

There are two fundamental differences between the first and second U-curves, related to issues of personal change and expectations. In the initial curve or phase the sojourner is fundamentally unchanged and is experiencing new cultural contexts. In the reentry phase, the sojourner

340