International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research

Issue 2 2012

From Cultural Shock to ABC

Framework: Development of
Intercultural Contact Theory
Yun Yue1, Quynh Le2
1,2

University of Tasmania

ABSTRACT
With the accelerating pace of globalization and unprecedentedly increase of population mobility,
intercultural contact has been penetrated into every field of the world in an interwoven and
interdependent form. The complex interdependency and interconnectivity require a deeper
understanding of the varieties and characteristics of intercultural contacts. Since Oberg
proposed the concept cultural shock in 1960, the research on intercultural contacts has been
developed for more than half a century, and a relatively complete theoretical framework has
been established. The paper, through a comprehensive review of the literature, gives an explicit
timeline of the research development. Barrys acculturation and its varieties and
Affect-Behavior-Cognition (ABC) theories are clearly demonstrated in the paper.
Keywords: intercultural contact, cultural shock, acculturation, cultural learning, coping and stress,
identity

INTRODUCTION
In the context of globalization, intercultural contact is not a new concept. It commonly occurs when
people from one tribe or ethnic group encountered another one from another tribe or ethnic group
and discover that they are different. These differences would be misinterpreted or misunderstood
and elicit the two groups of peoples negative feedback or responses to each other. However, under
the circumstance of considering political alliance, business cooperation, and other types of
cross-cultural collaboration, people have to learn how to understand and even accommodate the
opposite culture. Hence, intercultural contact related research, including peoples behavioral and
psychological reaction to the unfamiliar culture and its influential factors at societal and individual
levels have drawn great interest of the scholars from the various disciplines, including culture
studies, sociology, anthropology, psychology, education, etc. The paper reviews literature and give
an explicitly timeline of the development of intercultural contact research from 1960. It is found that
the three concepts or theoretical frameworks - cultural shock, acculturation theory, and ABC

133

ISSN 1839-9053

International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research

Issue 2 2012
theoretical framework - are salient in the literature and have substantially influential effects on the
intercultural contact research.

THE CONCEPT OF CULTURE SHOCK

The term culture shock was first proposed by Oberg in a short descriptive article. Oberg argued
that culture shock is precipitated by the anxiety that results from losing all our familiar signs and
symbols of social intercourse (1960, p. 142). According to Oberg, culture shock is considered as
experienced by people who suddenly transferred abroad. This has its own symptoms, cause and cure
like most diseases. Obergs theory was supported by a few scholars. For example, Kenneth (1971)
noted that culture shock is a common phenomenon for the sojourners, and there is a decrease in
socio-personal adjustment with behavioural disorders or neurotic symptoms which occur when a
person is undergoing a stressful situation. Adler also agreed that culture shock is primarily a set of
emotional reactions to the loss of perceptual reinforcements from ones own culture, to new
cultural stimuli which have little or no meaning, and to the misunderstanding of new and diverse
experiences (1975, p. 13). Furthermore, Taft (1977) proposed six aspects of culture shock, which
seem to be the best consensus statement.
1.

Strain due to the effort required to make necessary psychological adaptations;

2. A sense of loss and feelings of deprivation in regard to friends, status, profession and
possessions;
3.

Being rejected by and/or rejecting members of the new culture;

4.

Confusion in role, role expectations, values, feelings and self-identity;

5. Surprise, anxiety, even disgust and indignation after becoming aware of cultural
differences; and
6.

Feelings of impotence due to not being able to cope with the new environment .

Oberg (1960) further pointed out that there are four discerning stages in the process where a
sojourner transits from culture shock to satisfactory adjustment. The first stage is the honeymoon
stage, which might last from a few days to weeks even and a few months depending on the
circumstances of the individuals. In this stage, the sojourner usually is fascinated by the new
environment around him or her. But if the foreign visitor remains abroad, he or she will have to face
and overcome real problems in life, such as language, accommodation, transportation, shopping,
etc. At this point, the second stage begins. The sojourner could feel frustrated, anxious and angry.
The third stage is recovery, which is a process of crisis resolution and culture learning, and then the
sojourner steps into the last stage of complete full recovery, reflecting enjoyment of and adaptation
to the new environment. Other scholars also look at the entire process in similar ways as Obergs,
although different terms are adopted. For example, Richardson (1974) named the four stages as
elation, depression, recovery and acculturation. Adler (1975) divided the process into five stages:
contact, disintegration, reintegration, autonomy and independence.

134

ISSN 1839-9053

International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research

Issue 2 2012

THE ACCULTURATION THEORY

Since the introduction of the term culture shock, a great number of studies internationally have
emerged. A salient concept of acculturative stress proposed by Berry (1970) was introduced as an
alternative to the term culture shock. Culture shock was re-defined by Zhang and Berry (Zheng &
Berry, 1991) as
A form of stress in which the stressors are identified as having their source in the process of
acculturation, there is often a particular set of stress behaviours, which occur during
acculturation, such as lowered mental health status (specially anxiety and depression), feelings
of marginality and alienation, heightened psychosomatic symptom level, and identity confusion.
Berry (1997, 2006) gave two reasons for replacing culture shock with acculturative stress. First, the
notion of shock tends to be negative, while stress may have both positive and negative aspects.
Thus, the term stress better matches the concept of acculturation as cultural adjustment is a process
comprising both positive and negative experiences. Furthermore, there is no psychological or
cultural theory behind the term shock, while stress has a developed theoretical frame. Secondly, as
cultural adaptation is a process of interactions between two cultures, acculturation is a more
appropriate term, while culture is a concept which has a mono context.
In fact, the item acculturative stress was developed based on the concept of acculturation, which
has been a subject of study for many years. Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits (1936) defined
acculturation as,
Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having
different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the
original culture patterns of either or both groups.
This definition frames acculturation as a group-level phenomenon. However, other studies (Berry,
1970; Furnham & Bochner, 1986) argued that acculturation should be discussed at an individual level
because acculturation is a change in the psychology of the individual. They claimed that even if
general changes may be profound in the group, the individuals changes might vary greatly in degree
as they participate in these collective changes. Based on this perspective, Arends-Toth and Vijver
offered another definition of acculturation: changes that an individual experiences as a result of
contact with one or more other cultures and of the participation in the ensuing process of change
that ones cultural or ethnic group is undergoing (2006, p. 34).
Dimensions or categories of acculturation have been further examined by more and more scholars in
intercultural studies. Two models have emerged in the many studies on acculturation. One is the
bi-dimensional model (Ryder, Alden, & Paulbus, 2000; Schwartz, Montgomery, & Briones, 2006;
Tadomor & Tetlock, 2006), which claims that acculturation is presented in a form of the dimensional
model, which is an interlaced process of the receiving-culture acquisition and a heritage-culture
retention. Thus, those who have been experiencing cultural transition are susceptible to take various
pressures from either the receiving cultural context or the heritage cultural community, or both.
Based on the bi-dimensional model, another well-known model of acculturation developed is Berrys
acculturation strategies. There are two underlying questions for this conceptual framework: Is it
considered to be of value to maintain ones identity and characteristics? Is it considered to be of
value to maintain relationships with the larger society ? (Berry, 1997, p. 10).
135

ISSN 1839-9053

International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research

Issue 2 2012

Maintaining ones cultural identity and

characteristics

Maintaining
relationships with
larger society

Integration

Assimilation

Separation

Marginalisation

Figure 1. Berrys acculturative strategies: Integration, assimilation, separation and marginalisation

(Berry, 1997)
The above figure is a representation of Berrys acculturative strategies. Four kinds of acculturative
strategies are defined according to how a non-dominant group or an individual responds to the two
underlying questions. When there is an interest in both maintaining their own cultural identity and
having interactions with the host society, integration is the strategy to be adopted. However, when
the non-dominant group or individual is inclined to build intensive and extensive interaction with the
local society without any interests in maintaining their own cultural heritage, assimilation is the
strategy. In contrast, if the group or the individual does not want to have any interaction with the
local society but is highly interested in maintaining their original culture, separation is defined.
Lastly, when there is no possibility or interest in maintaining the original culture maintenance or in
building a relationship with the local community, marginalisation is the defined strategy.
Within Berrys acculturative strategies, integration represents a bi-dimensional model. It can be
regarded as an ideal outcome of acculturation. Integration can be successfully pursued by both the
non-dominant groups which have keen interests in interacting with the larger society and the
dominant society which is open and inclusive to embrace multicultural diversity and meet the needs
of all ethnic groups living together.
Although the acculturation theory has inspired a large number of studies on intercultural contacts,
there are two main questions about the theory. First, the four acculturative strategies are too
generalised in explaining a diverse range of intercultural contact strategies (Benet-Martinez &
Haritatos, 2005). Second, the validity of marginalisation has been questioned as it is hard to

136

ISSN 1839-9053

International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research

Issue 2 2012
understand how a non-dominant groups cultural identity develops without interacting with either
their own cultural heritage or the receiving culture (Rudmin, 2003).

THE AFFECT-BEHAVIOUR-COGNITION (ABC) FRAMEWORK

The culture shock theory has led to a great deal of academic research internationally. Barrys
acculturation theory is one of the prominent theoretical frameworks which have been reviewed in
the last section. This section presents another important theoretical framework:
Affect-Behaviour-Cognition (ABC). The theoretical framework has been developed on the basis of
Berrys acculturation theory and is more comprehensive as it embraces three salient concepts:
cultural learning, stress and coping, and social identification and the three concepts focus
respectively on behaviour, affect and cognition. The theoretical framework collaboratively provides
a more comprehensive insight into peoples cultural adaptation to a new environment.

Culture learning (behaviour)

The culture learning concept originated from social psychology, which emphasises the behavioural
aspect of intercultural contact and regards social interaction as a mutually organised and skilled
behavioural performance. It also argues that the conflicts or stress caused by intercultural contact
are largely due to the sojourner lacking the social skills of the new society (Argyle, 1969). Cultural
learning was strongly advocated by Furnham and Bochners (1986) and it has become a theoretic
basis for cultural training models.
Having general knowledge about the host culture and being competent in intercultural
communication are two important aspects of culture learning. Acquiring cultural knowledge is the
process of seeking and obtaining a sound educational foundation about diverse cultural and ethnic
groups (Campinha-Bacote, 2002, p. 182). Having intercultural communication competence requires
the sojourner to have knowledge of both his/her own national and host-national communication
patterns, rules and conventions that regulate interpersonal communication. It also includes how
people send and receive information, express their emotion, and influence each other by verbal and
non-verbal communication (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001). The culture learning theory involves
and demands a great deal of cultural knowledge and social skills of the receiving society which are
acquired in the new sociocultural context. Therefore, it leads to practical guidelines for preparation,
orientation and behavioural social skills training (Zhou, Jindal-Snape, Topping, & Todman, 2008).

Stress and coping (affect)

While culture learning focuses on the behavioural component of intercultural contact, the stress
and coping emphasises the affective aspect which examines the sojourners psychological wellbeing
and satisfaction in the process of intercultural transition.
Theoretically originated from Holmes and Rahes (1967) life events concept and Lazarus and
Folkmans (1984) stress, appraisal and coping theory, the stress and coping concept holds a view
that stress is inherently caused by life changes in the process of cross-cultural transitions and thus a
sojourner needs to select or develop effective strategies and tactics to cope with the stress (Zhou et
al., 2008). Both stress and coping strategies correlate with the characteristics of the situation and
137

ISSN 1839-9053

International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research

Issue 2 2012
the characteristics of the individual, and in turn, affect the outcome of adjustment (Berry, 1997). At
societal level, variables such as the political context, economic situation, attitudes towards ethnic
out-groups and social support in both the society of origin and the society of settlement all affect the
psychological adjustment of the non-dominants in the host country. At individual level, the
individuals demographics, expectations, cultural distance, personality, length of stay, and
acculturation strategies are regarded as influential factors which are related to their psychological
wellbeing in the process of transition. The concept of stress and coping can be implicated in
training people to develop stress-management skills (Ward et al., 2001).

Social identification (cognition)

The social identification concept is regarded as the cognitive aspect of intercultural contact. The
concept is originally based on theories of social cognition and social identity (Deaux, 1996) which
focuses on examining the ways in which people ethnically and culturally identify themselves,
including how they perceive themselves and others as well as how they establish relations with their
own ethnic groups (in-groups) and other ethnic groups (out-groups). Intercultural contact and/or
cultural transition are highly likely to affect the sojourners perception of his/her cultural identity
and relations with the in-groups and out-groups. Two major conceptual approaches have been used
to examine issues associated with social identification: acculturation and identity, and the social
identity theory.
Acculturation and identity
The first conceptual approach is acculturation and identity. In relation to Berrys acculturation
theory, the approach mainly examines the sojourners identity changes in the process of
intercultural contact. Those who are from countries with a relatively homogeneous culture or a
cultural distance far away from the host country would encounter more challenges in processing and
categorising their identity.
Berrys four acculturation strategies form a theoretical base for categorising the various
identification processes encountered by the sojourners. Assimilation describes a state that a
sojourner identifies entirely with the host culture and at the same time completely gives up his/her
own original identity. Contrary to assimilation, separation refers to a situation in which a sojourner
treasures highly his/her own heritage culture and does not identify with the host culture. Integration
implies that an individual considers both the home and host cultures equally important in his
identification. Marginalisation means that the individual sees himself/herself low in both home
and host culture identification. Furthermore, identity correlates with a diversity of variables,
including individual characteristics (gender, age and education); home society characterises
(migration motivation and cultural similarity); and host societys characteristics (prejudice and
discrimination; monoculturalism or multiculturalism).
Social identity theory
The social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981) is another conceptual approach which examines how a
group affects an individuals identity. It has been one of the most frequently referenced conceptual
approaches for exploring identity and intergroup relations in sojourners. What it concerns is the
relationship between (1) self-esteem and (2) social categorisation and social comparison. Social
138

ISSN 1839-9053

International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research

Issue 2 2012
identification relies on how social categorisation and social comparison affect social identification.
Favourable comparisons are positively correlated with self-esteem. A relationship between cultural
identity and self-esteem only occurs when an individual consciously perceives his/her own culture as
a salient feature of his/her identity. Also, intergroup bias is an important issue of social identification
(Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Ward et al., 2001). A few studies (Branscombe & Wann, 1994;
Tajfel & Turner, 1986) have found that in-group favouritism and out-group derogation are common,
and the latter is more likely to occur when in-group identity is threatened. Furthermore, the
approach explores the minorities responses to discriminations caused by the majorities negative
social comparison. The typical responses to discrimination are individual mobility, social creativity
and social competition (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
In summary, the Affect-Behaviour-Cognition theoretical framework sheds light on three important
aspects of intercultural contact which form a comprehensive conceptual framework of cultural
adaptation (Zhou et al., 2008).

CONCLUSION
Since Oberg proposed an innovative concept cultural shock in 1960, intercultural contact has been
studied for more than 50 years. Till now, a relatively completed theoretical framework has been
established. Via a comprehensive literature review, the paper emphasizes the three salient concepts
or theories and draws a clear timeline of intercultural contact research. The concept of cultural
shock is considered as a milestone in the area. Oberg described the special occupational disease
with a well-known four-stage definition laying a solid foundation to the following research. In
1970s-1980s, Barry introduced the concept of acculturation and replaced cultural shock with a
new definition of acculturative stress. Four acculturative strategies clearly demonstrate the
non-dominants perception to the host culture and their own identity. The
Affect-Behaviour-Cognition (ABC) framework is, in fact, an abstract of a great number of studies in
the area of intercultural contacts after Barrys acculturation theory. The three components: culture
learning, stress and coping, and social identification combined together to draw a complete picture
of intercultural contact.

REFERENCE
Adler, P. S. (1975). The transitional experience : an alternative view of culture shock. J Humanist
Psychol, 15, 13-23.
Arends-Toth, J., & Vijver, J. R. (2006). Issues in the conceptualization and assessment of
acculturation. In H. B. Mara & R. C. Linda (Eds.), Acculturation and Parent-Child
Relationships: Measurement and Development (pp. 33-63). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Argyle, M. (1969). Social interaction. London: Methuen.
Benet-Martinez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and
psychosocial antecedents. Journal of personality 73, 1015-1050.
Berry, J. W. (1970). Marginality, stress and ethnic identification in an acculturated aboriginal
community. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 1, 239-252.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, Acculturation, and Adaptation. Applied Psychology 46(5-34).
139

ISSN 1839-9053

International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research

Issue 2 2012
Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturative stress. In P. Wong & L. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultrual
perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 287-298). New York: Springer.
Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup
derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European journal of social psychology,
24, 641-657.
Campinha-Bacote, J. (2002). The process of cultural competence in the delivery of healthcare
services: A model of care. Journal of transcultural nursing, 13(3), 181-184.
Deaux, K. (1996). Social identification. In E. T. H. A. W. Kruglansik (Ed.), Social psychology: Handbook
of basic principles (pp. 777-798). New York: Guilford Press.
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture shock: psychological reactions to unfamiliar
environments. London: Taylor & Francis.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of psychosomatic
research 11, 213-218.
Kenneth, H. D. (1971). Culture Shock and Development of Self-Awareness. Journal of Contemporary
Psychotherapy, 4(1), 44-48.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural Shock: Adjustment to New Cultural Environments. Practical Anthropology,
7, 177-182.
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation.
American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152.
Richardson, A. (1974). British immigrants and Australia: A psycho-social inquiry. Canberra: Australian
National University Press.
Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation, separation,
integration, and marginalization. Review of general psychology, 7, 3-37.
Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulbus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? A
head-to-head compparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 79, 49-65.
Schwartz, S. J., Montgomery, M. J., & Briones, E. (2006). The role of identity in acculturation among
immigrant people: Theoretical propositions, empirical question, and applied
recommendation. Human development, 49, 345-353.
Tadomor, C. T., & Tetlock, P. E. (2006). Biculturation: A model of second-culture exposure on
acculturation and integrative complexity. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 37, 173-190.
Taft, R. (1977). Coping with unfamiliar cultures. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 121-153). London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In W. Austin & S.
Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall
Publishers.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The Psychology of Culture shock (2nd ed.). Philadelphia:
Routledge.
Zheng, X., & Berry, J. W. (1991). Psychological adaptation of Chinese sojourners in Canada.
International Jounal of Psychology 26(4), 451-470.

140

ISSN 1839-9053

International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research

Issue 2 2012
Zhou, Y., Jindal-Snape, D., Topping, K., & Todman, J. (2008). Theoretical models of culture shock and
adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies in higher education, 33(1),
63-75.

141

ISSN 1839-9053