Five years later, Morris. [1960] reported .... Hull 1979; Lysgaard 1955; Torbiorn 1982], attitudes [Heath 1970; Morris. 1960], degree of ...... Morris, Richard T. 1960.
THE U-CURVEADJUSTMENTHYPOTHESISREVISITED: A REVIEWAND THEORETICALFRAMEWOPK J. StewartBlack* Dartmouth College Mark Mendenhall** Universityof Tennessee,Chattanooga Abstract. The cross-culturaladjustment researchliteraturehas largely been conducted from an atheoreticalperspective.When a theoretical framework is imposed, the U-Curve adjustment theory has been the one most commonly used. The lack of a comprehensive review of the empirical literature on the UCurve adjustment theory has allowed scholars to accept or dismiss the theory on grounds other than that of empirical evidence. This paper reviews the empirical literature and proposes a theoretical framework and research agenda for future researchon cross-culturaladjustment.
When a firm begins to internationalize,it faces issues concerningthe use of expatriatesin its foreign operations[Kobrin1988;Tung 1988]. When firms send employeesoverseas,most of these expatriatesinitially do not knowhow to appropriatelyand effectivelybehavein the host culture[Black & Mendenhall1990;Gullahorn& Gullahorn1962;Mendenhall& Oddou 1985;Oberg 1960;Torbiorn1982]. Thus, when an individualis assigned to work overseas,a period of learningabout the country's business and social normsis necessarybeforepersonaland job productivitycan occur. In most cases, organizationsdo not scale back the compensationgiven these individuals,and therefore,thereis a periodduringwhichthe inducementsofferedby the organizationexceedthe contributionsprovidedby the individual [Pinder & Das 1979]. The longer inducementssignificantly exceedcontributions,the greaterthe cost to the organization.Othercosts to the organizationof a culturallyuninformedmanagercan vary and are often not easily measurable,but can includepoor client relations,unrealized business opportunities,problems with local unions, and damaged *J.StewartBlack(Ph.D., Universityof California,Irvine)is an AssistantProfessor in the Amos ThckSchool of BusinessAdministrationat DartmouthCollege. His researchis primarilyon the topic of internationalhumanresourcemanagement. **Mark E. Mendenhall (Ph.D., Brigham Young University)is the J. Burton Frieson Chair of Excellencein Business Leadershipin the School of Business Administrationat the Universityof Tennessee,Chattanooga. Received:April 1990;Revised:June 1990;Accepted:October1990. 225
Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Journal of International Business Studies ® www.jstor.org
226 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SECOND QUARTER1991
company reputations[Copeland& Griggs 1985; Harris & Moran 1988; Tung 1988]. Unfortunatelymost of the scholarlyresearchin the cross-culturalmanagement field has been atheoretical[Black& Mendenhall1990;Adler 1983]; and the subarea of cross-culturaladjustment has been no different. adjustmenthas beengearedmoretowarda someResearchon cross-cultural whathaphazardsearchfor factorsthatinfluencecross-culturaladjustment, ratherthantowardtheoreticallyexplainingthe adjustmentprocessandwhy certainfactorswould be expectedto influence adjustment[Church1982; Mendenhall& Oddou 1985; Stening 1979]. In the rare cases in which a theoreticalperspectivehas been appliedto cross-culturalresearch,the "UCurveTheory"of adjustment(UCT)has beenone of the most consistently used. Despiteits popularity,no in-depthand comprehensivereviewof the empiricalliteraturerelatedto UCT exists. This is significantbecausethe theory's staturerests on its face validity.As a consequence,scholarsare free to accept (e.g., Adler [1986]; Harris & Moran [1988]; Lysgaard [1955];Torbiorn[1982]), or reject (e.g., Church [1982])UCT based on factors other than scientific evidence. The purposeof this paperis to systematicallyreviewthe literatureon UCT in an effort to determinethe extentto which the empiricalevidenceeither supportsor refutesUCT and to examinethe methodologicalrigor of the UCT empiricalliteratureto determinethe confidencethat can be placedin the empiricalfindings.Based on this review,the paperthen examinesthe theoretical implications of accepting or rejecting UCT and outlines a researchagenda for future studies on cross-culturaladjustment. REVIEW OF THE U-CURVE LITERATURE
Beforebeginninga reviewof empiricalstudiesthat investigatedUCT, it is perhapshelpful to providea basic descriptionof UCT. Most descriptions of UCT include discussions of four stages (see Figure 1). In the initial stage ("honeymoonstage"), individualsare fascinatedby the new culture and areexcitedabout all the new and interesting"sightsand sounds."This initial culturalinfatuationis followedby a period of disillusionmentand frustration("disillusionment"or "cultureshock stage")as the individual must seriouslycope with living in the new cultureon a day-to-daybasis. by gradualadaptation The thirdstage("adjustmentstage")is characterized to the new cultureand learninghow to behaveappropriatelyaccordingto the culturalnormsof the host country.The fourthstage("masterystage") is characterizedby smallincrementalincreasesin the individual'sabilityto function effectivelyin the new culture (see Figure 1). Reviewof EmpiricalFindings
In reviewingthe empiricalresearchon UCT, two primarymethods for selecting articles were utilized. First, because Church [1982]included a brief and somewhatlimitedreviewof UCT as part of his comprehensive
THE U-CURVE ADJUSTMENT HYPOTHESIS
227
FIGURE1 The U*Curveof Cross-Cultural Adjustment Degreeof Adjustment 7.0 6.5 6.0
-
5.0
Mastery
Honeymoon
-
-
4.5-
Adjustment 4.0-
3.5 3.0 2.5
Culture Shock
2.0 1.5
1.0
I
-
0-2
3-4
I 4-6
I 1
I I_ _I
,
6-9 10-12 13-24 25-36 46.48 49+
Timein Months
review of the general sojourner literature,studies included in Church's reviewwere also included in this review.In addition, a computersearch utilizing severaldatabasesin the management,social, and psychological scienceswas employed.The combinationof these two methodsyielded a total of eighteen empirical works on UCT in which actual data were gathered on individuals making adjustmentsto living or working in a foreignculture.Each of these works is briefly reviewedbelow, though it is worthnoting in advancethat veryfew of the studiesthat addressedUCT from an empiricalperspectiveactuallyused statisticaltechniquesin their analysis. Lysgaard[1955]can rightlybe creditedwith initiatingthe empiricalwork on UCT. He found in comparingthreegroupsof Norwegianstudentswho had been Fulbrightscholarsin the U.S. that studentswho had stayedin the U.S. six-eighteenmonthsreportedloweradjustmentthat those who had stayed less than six months or more than eighteen months. However,
228 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SECOND QUARTER 1991
TABLE1 Summary of Articles on U-CurveAdjustment Authors
Year
N
Sample
Method
Findings
Becker Chang Davis Davis Deutsch & Won Golden Greenblat Heath Hull Klineberg & Hull Klineberg & Hull Lysgaard Morris Ruben & Kealey Selby & Woods Sewell & Davidsen Surdam & Collins Torbiorn
1968 1973 1963 1971 1963 1973 1971 1970 1978 1979 1979 1955 1960 1979 1966 1961 1984 1982
77 209 286 222 94 77 140 110 955 68 2536 200 318 14 44 40 143 641
Students Students Students Students Trainees Students Students Students Students Students Students Students Students Technical Advisors Students Students Students Managers
CS/Q CS/Q CS/Q CS/RR/Q CS/Q L/I CS/Q CS/RR/Q CS/Q L/I CS/Q CS/RR/l CS/Q CS/RR/l CS/RR/Q CS/RR/l CS/Q CS/Q
+I-Ins +/+/ns +/ns +/ns + /+/ns +/ns +I-
-I+ +/ns +/ns +/ns -/ns +/ns + +/ns
L= Longitudinal, recall, sectional, RR=Retrospective CS=Cross I=Interviews. Q=Questionnaires, UCT but nonsigmixed support for UCT; +/ns=Supports Findings Legend: +/-/ns=Nonsignificant +/-=Mixed support, support UCT but nonsignificant; nificant; -/ns=Doesn't support, primarily negative, primarily positive, statistically significant; -/+=Mixed statistically significant; -=Doesn't support UCT, statistically significant; +=Supports UCT, statistically significant.
Method Legend:
Lysgaardofferedno theoreticalexplanationof these findingsor any statistical tests of differenceamong the three groups. Five years later, Morris [1960]reportedthat a U-curve pattern of adjustmentwas present for a sample of 318 foreign students in the U.S. However,again no statistical testswereconductedto supportthis conclusion.Next, Sewelland Davidsen [1961]utilized structuredinterviewsto examinethe adjustmentof forty Scandinavianstudentsin America.Studentswereaskedto recallretrospectively their adjustment.The researchersconcludedthat a U-curvepattern of adjustmentexisted, but again no statisticaltest of the differencesin adjustmentat varioustimes duringthe adjustmentprocesswerereported. Davis [1963]examinedthe adjustmentof 286 Turkishstudentsin the U.S. Davis found a J-curvepatternof adjustmentfor this sample,but no statistical tests of the data were conducted. Davis [1971]later examinedthe adjustmentof a separatesample of 222 Turkishstudentsby asking them theiradjustmentto the U.S. Davis [1971]concluded to recallretrospectively that the patternof adjustmentsupportedUCP,however,no statisticalanalyses wereconducted,and the time sincereturnfromthe U.S. variedconsiderably among the individualsin the sample. Thus, to some degree the accuracyand comparabilityof the students' retrospectiverecollections seems questionable. Deutschand Won[1963]investigatedthe adjustmentof ninety-fourtrainees in the U.S. They groupedtraineesinto three groups based on time until departurefrom the U.S., but did not indicatethe time intervalsassociated
THE U-CURVE ADJUSTMENT HYPOTHESIS
229
witheachgroup.Theyclaimedthat the datasupportedthe U-curvehypothesis, but the resultsactuallyresembledmore of a J-curveand no statistical tests were conducted. Selby and Woods [1966]concluded that their data from forty-ninestudentsprovidedno support for UCT. Adjustmentwas operationalizedin termsof academicmoralewhichstudentsretrospectively recalled. The results indicated that the morale rose and fell with the academicyear (i.e., rose duringbreaks and declined during examination periods). However,the operationalizationof cross-culturaladjustmentas moralewas a departurefrom earlierconceptualizationsof adjustmentand no statisticaltests of the data relatedto UCT were reported. Becker [1968] examined the UCT phenomenon with a sample of 77 studentsby dividingthe studentsinto threegroupsbased on percentageof stay completedin the host country.These groupswerecomparedto determineif theiradjustmentresembledthe U-curvepattern.Beckerfound a Ucurve pattern of adjustmentfor Europeanstudents (N=25) but not for Indian (N=27) or Israeli students (N=25), both of whom exhibitedan invertedU patternof adjustment.However,the resultswerenot statistically significant. In a similar study, Heath [1970] reportedthe results of 110 studentsadjustingto the U.S. in which studentswereaskedto recallretrospectivelytheir adjustmentat 0-3 months, 4-6 months, and 18 months. Heathconcludedthe data supportsthe U-curvehypothesisbut reportedno statisticaltests of the data. Even if statisticaltests had been reported,the abilityof subjectsto accuratelyrecalltheirlevelof adjustmentduringthese three different periods is somewhat questionable,especially the earliest periodwhichwas recalledmorethan 18monthslater.Greenblat[1971]also founda "dip"in the middleperiodof adjustmentfor a groupof 140Columbian, Greek,and Ttrkishstudentsin the U.S. However,the study did not mention the length of time in the U.S. for each of the three groups of studentsand no statisticaltests of the data were reported. In a longitudinalstudy,Golden[1973]examinedthe adjustmentof seventysevenAmericanstudentsin Spainthroughdaily observationsand periodic interviewsovera ten-monthperiod. Goldenoperationalizedadjustmentas the psychologicalmood of the students.The patternof psychologicalmood observedby Golden indicatedthat studentswere initially euphoric,then went througha "cultureshock," experienceda slight recovery,then were more negativeat the end of the term, recoveredslightly duringvacation, declined slightly at the beginningof the new term, and wereup again at the end of the second term in Spain. No statisticaltests of the data were conducted. In contrastto Golden's findings, Chang [1973]found support for UCT. Changexaminedthe adjustmentof 209 Chinesestudentswho weredivided into threegroupsbasedon how long theyhad been in the U.S. (0-3 months, 7-18 months, 18+ months). In general,Chang found a patternof adjustment supportingthe U-curvehypothesis.However,a significantdifference in adjustmentwas only presentbetweengroups 1 (0-3 months)and 2 (7-18 months)and not betweengroups2 and 3 (18+ months) as was expected.
230 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SECOND QUARTER 1991
Hull [1978]conductedone of the largeststudiesof foreignstudents'adjustment in the U.S. Hull's sample included955 students. Hull first divided the studentsinto threegroupsbasedon how long they had been in the U.S. (less than 1 year, 1-2years,2 + years).This firstanalysisfound significant supportfor UCT.Next, Hull dividedthe studentsinto those who had been in the U.S. less than 4 months,5-8 months,and 9-12months.This analysis did not supportUCT. In a longitudinalstudy,Klinebergand Hull [1979]examinedthe adjustment of sixty-eightstudentsin threecountries:France(N= 28), Brazil(N= 19), and the U.S. (N= 21). Basedon the resultsof interviewswith the students, the researchersnoted that a few studentsdid exhibita U-curvepatternof adjustmentbut that a majorityof the studentsexhibiteda morelinearand upward-slopingpatternof adjustmentin whichstudentsgraduallybecame more adjustedovertime without the initial honeymoonperiod. They also note that a few studentsexhibiteda "flat line" patternof adjustment,indicating no improvementor decline in adjustmentover time. The report, however,excludesany discussion of the reliabilityof the various interviewers'ratingsor of the comparabilityof the assessmentsof adjustment made by differentinterviewers. In what has been the largest study to date, Klinebergand Hull [1979] examinedthe adjustment of 2,536 students in various countries. They examined the pattern of adjustment via (1) loneliness, (2) depression, (3) problemsexperienced,and (4) satisfaction.Theyfirstgroupedstudents into three groups based on time in the host country (0-4 months, 5-8 months,9-12months).Onlyconcerningsatisfactionwas therea significant differenceamong the threegroupsthat supportedthe U-curvehypothesis. Next, the samplewas groupedinto threedifferentgroupsbased on time in the host country(0-4 months, 5-24 months, 25+ months).The analysisof these groupsfound significantdifferencesrelativeto numberof problems encounteredand satisfactionthat providedsupportfor a J-curvepatternof adjustment. Rubenand Kealey[1979]askedfourteenCanadianInternationalDevelopment Agencyadvisorsand spouseswho had all been in Africa for one year to recall retrospectivelytheir level of adjustment during the first few weeks, 3-4 months, 7-8 months, and at present(12 months). Nine of the fourteenindividualsexhibiteda U-curvepatternof adjustment.No statistical tests of the differencesin adjustmentat differenttimes werereported. Evenif statisticaltests had been reported,the abilityof subjectsto accurately recalltheirlevel of adjustmentduringthese threedifferentperiodsis somewhat questionable,especially the earliest period that was recalled more than 12 months later. One of the few studies conductedin the 1980swas by Torbiorn[1982]in which he examinedthe adjustmentof 641 Swedishexpatriatesand 474 of theirwivesin severaldifferentcountries.Torbiornoperationalizedadjustment in terms of the individuals' satisfaction with living in the host
THE U-CURVE ADJUSTMENT HYPOTHESIS
231
country.He found that a U-curveor slightlyJ-curvepatternof adjustment existedfor men and women and for individualsboth over and under age 35. The "trough" of the curve was more pronouncedfor expatriatesand spousesin Africanor MiddleEasterncountriesthan for those in European countries. Surdamand Collins [1984]conductedone of the more recent studies of the U-curvehypothesis.They examinedthe adjustmentof 143 studentsfrom 35 countries.They found statisticallysignificantdifferences in levelsof adjustmentconsistentwith a U-curvepatternfor studentswho had been in the U.S. 1-24months, 25-48 months, and 49+ months. Summaryof the EmpiricalFindings
In summary,there are severalthings that can be concludedbased on this review.First,twelveout of the eighteenarticlesindicatesupportfor the Ucurve hypothesis. However, several problems prevent us from simply accepting U-curve as a supportedphenomenon. First, ten of the twelve studiesoffer no statisticaltests of the data (e.g., they only reportedmeans, percentages,etc.) or report statisticallynonsignificantfindings. Second, even though the UCT is a descriptionof adjustmentover time, only two of the eighteenstudieswerelongitudinalin nature.Third,of the six studies that utilized retrospectiverecall, three gave either no indication of how much time had elapsedbetweenthe time of the study and the adjustment subjects were asked to recall, or did not consistentlyutilize samples in which the temporalintervalbetweenthe time of the study and the levelof adjustment the subjects were recalling was the same from subject to subject.Thus, the lack of consistentmethodologicalrigor in many of the studies makes generalizingtheir resultsproblematic. Additionally,studies operationalizedadjustmentin very different ways, includingadjustmentas academicmorale[Selbyand Woods 1966],psychologicalmood [Golden1973;Klineberg&Hull 1979],favorableness of opinion about host nationals [Becker 1968; Chang 1973; Davis 1963; Greenblat 1971;Sewell& Davidsen1961],satisfaction[Deutsch& Won 1963;Klineberg & Hull 1979;Lysgaard1955;Torbiorn1982],attitudes[Heath 1970;Morris 1960],degreeof contactwith host nationals[Hull 1978],comfort with the new environment[Ruben & Kealey 1979], and difficulties with various aspects of the new environment[Surdam& Collins 1984]. These differences in operationalizationsof adjustmentmight account for some of the differencesin findings and make comparing findings problematic.For example,Golden[1973]and Selby& Woods[1966]foundthat the academic moraleand psychologicalmood of studentsadjustingto a foreigncountry tended to rise and fall in line with the academic calendar. Selby and Woods,in particular,concludedthat adjustmentdid not seem to follow a U-curvepattern.However,one could arguethat academicmood is not the sameas becomingfamiliarwithand capableof exhibitingappropriatebehavior in the host culture[Brislin1981]and that academicmood would be
232 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SECOND QUARTER1991
expected to rise and fall with the academiccalendar,but that if crossculturaladjustmenthad been operationalizedin a fashionmore similarto Surdam& Collins [1984], a U-curve pattern of adjustmentmight have emerged. Perhaps the greatest criticism that can be leveled at UCT based on a reviewof the empiricalliteratureis that the theory is more a description of phasesof adjustmentthana theoreticalframeworkof how and whyindividualsmove from one stageto the next. For example,thereis little theoretical discussion of why the honeymoon phase emerges or what factors might tend to exaggerateor limit it; also, there is little theoreticaldiscussion of why time must elapse before the full impact of the cultureshock phase is felt. Thus, based on the empiricalevidence,it seems unreasonableto either accept or rejectthe UCT. In fact, what seemsto be neededis a new beginning, a beginningthat starts from a theoreticaldiscussion of the crossculturaladjustmentprocess.For example,what is the natureof the crossculturallearningand adjustmentprocess?Whywould one expectto see or not to see a U-curveor J-curvepatternof cross-culturaladjustment?If one adoptsthe perspectivethat in a cross-culturaladjustmentsituationthe individual must first learnwhat behaviorsare appropriateand acceptedin the new culture,then a theoreticalframeworkof how individualslearn new culturalnormswouldprovidea logicaltheoreticalgroundingfor discussing the cross-culturaladjustmentprocess. A SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY PERSPECTIVE OF CROSS-CULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
Competingcognitiveand behavioraltheorieshavetriedfor yearsto explain how individualslearn and how they utilize the knowledgethey acquire. Cognitive theories of learning argue that learning occurs through the of behamentalprocessingof informationandthe subsequentdetermination vior to be executed[Hilgardand Bower 1975;Swenson 1980].Behavioral theories argue that learningis determinedby behavior,its consequences, and the associationsindividualsmakebetweenthe two [Hilgardand Bower 1975; Swenson 1980]. These opposing ideas have generatedconsiderable debateabout how individualslearn. However,as Lathamand Saari[1979] note, "To show that behavioris determineonly by cognition, one would haveto find a controlgroupconsistingof subjectswho cannotthink. Similarly,to proveempiricalsupportfor the argumentthat behavioris due to environmentalconsequencesalone, one would havethe impossibletask of forming a control group for which there was no environment"(p. 240). Social learningtheory (SLT)integratescognitiveand behavioraltheories. Generalreviewsof learningtheory have arguedfor the superiorityof SLT as a means of explaininghow individualslearn. For example,Swenson [1980] stated that SLT was generallyviewed as a consensus position on most aspects of learning, and Hilgard and Bower [1975]in their classic
THE U-CURVE ADJUSTMENT HYPOTHESIS
233
book on learningtheoriesview SLTas a cogent synthesisof cognitiveand behavioraltheoriesof learning.Thus, SLTseemsto be a reasonabletheory to use in examiningthe cross-culturallearningprocessand the ideas associated with the UCT hypothesis. Beforediscussingthe particularrelevanceof SLTto cross-culturaladjustment, it is perhapsuseful to briefly summarizethe main points of the theory. Social learningtheory as presentedby one of its major authors, AlbertBandura[1977],assertsthat in additionto individualslearningbased on the consequencesof theiractions,individualscan also learnand behave basedon theirobservationsof otherpeople'sbehaviorand associatedconsequencesand by imitatingthe modeledbehavior.Basedon both actualand vicariousexperience,Bandura[1977]suggeststhat people are capable of anticipatorycontrol-of choosing how they will respondin variousfuture situations.As describedby Bandura,SLThas four centralelements:attention, retention,reproduction,and incentives. Attention.Beforesomeoneor somethingcan be modeled,the subjectmust notice them. Severalfactors have been found to influence the attention process,including:(1) the statusof the model; (2) the attractivenessof the model; (3) the similarityof the model; (4) the repeatedavailabilityof the model;and (5) past reinforcementfor payingattentionto the model, either actual or vicarious (see Bandura[1977, 1983] for reviews). Retention. Retention is the process by which the modeled behavior becomes encoded as a memory by the observer.Two representational systemsare involved.The imaginal systemis utilized during exposureto the model. During this exposure, sequences of correspondingsensory imagesare associatedon the basis of physicalcontiguity.Theseimagesare storedas "cognitivemaps" whichcan guide the observerin imitation.The second systemis the verbalsystem.It representsthe coded informationin abbreviatedverbalsystemsandgroupsconstituentpatternsof behaviorinto largerintegratedunits. It shouldbe noted that the repeatedmodelingof a behaviorand the repeatedcognitiverehearsalof the modeledbehaviorboth serve to solidify the retentionprocess [Bandura1977]. Reproduction.The thirdmajorcomponentof the modelingprocessinvolves the translationof the symbolicrepresentationsof the modeledstimuliinto overt actions. As individualstry to imitate the modeled behavior,they check their performanceagainst their memory of what was modeled. Motoricreproductionof the modeledbehaviorcan, of course,be inhibited by physical differencesbetween the model and the person imitatingthe model andhow well the model is observedand how well the modeledbehavior is retained[Bandura1977, 1983]. Incentivesand the motivationalprocesses.The fourthmajorcomponentof SLTinvolvesthe influence of incentiveson the motivationalprocessesof modelingbehavior.Incentiveshave threeprimarysources. Incentivescan come fromthe directexternalenvironment,fromvicariousassociation,and fromthe individualhim- or herself.In turn, each of these differentsources
234 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SECOND QUARTER 1991
FIGURE 2 Model of Social Learning Theory Process
Factors Influencing Motivation
Model Status Model Attractiveness Similarityof Model Similarityof Behaviors Exposure to Model
Similarity of Behaviors Self-efficacy Past Rewards Current Rewards Expected Rewards
Instrumental Expectancies Self-efficacy Past Rewards Current Rewards Expected Rewards
RETENTION-
REPRODUCTION
Motivation Degree of Attention
Motivation Degree of Attention
Cognitive Rehearsal Participative Rehearsal Repeated Exposure
Degree of Retention Physical Abilities
Past Rewards Expected Rewards
Learning Processes
ATTENTION
Motivation
Factors Influencing Execution
-
Gradual Modeling
of incentivescan affect severalaspectsof the learningprocess.Incentives can affect which models are observedand how much attentionis paid to observedmodels. Incentivescan influencethe degreeto whichthe modeled behavioris retainedand rehearsed.Also, incentivescan influence which learnedbehaviorsareactedout. It is importantto note that Bandura[1977] arguedon the basis of empiricalwork that incentivesplay a much larger role in influencingwhichbehaviorsare executedas opposedto what behaviors arelearned.He concludedthat individualslearnnumerousbehaviors which are not usually emitted because they are not positivelyrewarded. However,if the rewardstructureis changed,the behaviorspreviouslyunexecuted are performed. In relationto the motivationalprocessesof learning,Bandura[1977]distinguishedbetweentwo types of expectancies.The first type of expectations Banduracalled efficacy expectations.The individual'sself-efficacyis the degreeto which the individualbelieveshe or she can successfullyexecute a particularbehavior.This expectationis similarto the "effortto performance" expectancyproposedby Vroom [1964]in his expectancytheory of motivation.In his reviewof the literature,Bandura[1977]foundthat higher
THE U-CURVE ADJUSTMENT HYPOTHESIS
235
levelsof self-efficacyled individualsto persistat imitatingmodeledbehavior longer and to be more willing to try to imitate novel behavior.The sources for increasingself-efficacy,in order of importance,include past experience,vicarious experience,and verbalpersuasion. In additionto efficacy expectations,Bandura[1977]arguedthat outcome expectationsinfluence the modeling process. Outcome expectationsare people'sbeliefs that the executionof certainbehaviorswill lead to desired outcomes. This type of expectationis quite similarto the "expectancy-ofperformance-to-outcome"(instrumentalityexpectancies) proposed by Vroom [1964]. Bandura concluded that in addition to the modeling processes of attention, retention,and reproduction,incentivesinfluence what people learn, and incentivesas well as efficacy and outcome expectancies influence which learnedbehaviorsare actually emitted. Althougha numberof empiricalfindingsare reviewedby Bandura[1977], severalare importantto summarizebecause of the insight they provide about fundamentalelementsin the learningprocess. The first finding is that gradualmodelingis more effectivethan "one-shot" modeling, especiallyif the modeledbehaviorsarenovelto the observer.Gradualmodeling involvesprovidingsuccessiveapproximationsof the final behaviorto be modeled.This modelingprocessis more effectivethan modelingonly the final behavior for several reasons: (1) observerspay more attention to models and modeled behaviorsthat are more familiar;(2) observerscan more easily retainmodels that are more similarto cognitivemaps already possessed;(3) observershavehigherexpectationsof efficacyand outcome of behaviorsthat are more familiar;and (4) observersare more likely to be ableto reproducemorefamiliarbehaviors.Additionally,Banduraargued that individualscan learncompletelythroughsymbolicmodeling,that is, individuals can learn just by watching and mentally rehearsing.This symbolic learning process can be facilitated by the other variables discussed(attractivenessof the model, similarityof the model, etc.) and by havingmultipleobservationsof models. Finally,Bandurafound that participativereproductionis generallymoreeffectivethan symbolicprocesses alone. Participativereproductionsimply means that the observeractually practices(as opposedto only cognitivelyrehearsing)the modeledbehavior. The externaland especiallyinternalfeedbackprocessesserveto refine the observer'sabilityto reproducethe modeledbehaviorat a latertime in the appropriatesituation. People can observethe consequencesof their own behavior,and they can observeother people's behaviorand resultingconsequences.As a result, they can, and do, form symbolicand vicariousassociationsbetweenbehaviors and consequences.These associationsform cognitivemaps that are used to anticipateconsequencesacrossa varietyof futurecircumstances.In the contextof cross-cultural adjustmentwhichplacesan individualin a situation in which many past behaviorsand associatedconsequencesare no longerappropriateand new sourcesof modeledbehavioraredifferentfrom
236 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SECOND QUARTER1991
the past, social learningtheoryprovidesimportantinsightsabout whether or not adjustmentwould be expectedto exhibit a U-curvepattern. The followingsectionsexaminehow SLTwouldtheoreticallyexplainwhysome studiesfound supportfor UCT and other studiesdid not. This is done by first examiningthe theoreticalsupportthat SLTprovidesfor each stage in UCT and then by examiningtwo moderatingfactors(anticipatoryadjustment and individualdifferences)that from a SLTperspectivewould help explain why a typical U-curve pattern of adjustmentmight not always occur.Althoughin the next severalsectionswe proposepropositionsbased on SLT,it is importantto keepin mind that propositionsare basic theoretical guidelines from which more specific hypothesescan be generated [Whetten1990]. SLT and the HoneymoonPhase
One of the centraltheoreticalquestionsconcerningthe initialcontactphase is why does the honeymoonperiod happen. As mentioned, later we will examinefactorsthat mightkeepthe honeymoonperiodof adjustmentfrom happeningor shortenit such that the adjustmentresemblesmore of a Jcurvepatternas was found in severalstudies[Davis 1963;Deutsch& Won 1963;Klineberg& Hull 1979;Torbiorn1982], but first it is importantto examinethe questionof why the honeymoonperiodwouldhappen.Social learningtheoryprovidesseveraltheoreticalinsightsinto this initialstageof a U-curvepatternof adjustment.Fromthe perspectiveof SLT,individuals encounteringa new culturetend to pay attentionto those elementsin the new culture that are similar to their home culture and are, therefore, familiar,or they superimposefamiliarityon anythingthat even resembles familiarcues. Based on this tendencytowardselectiveperception,individuals are likelyto notice only those differencesbetweenthe home and host cultures that are visible and striking. To the extent the new culture is differentand unfamiliar,individualsare likely to examinepast behavior whichin theirhome culturehas provensuccessfulin similarsituationsand utilize these behaviorsin the new culture. However,genericallysimilarsituations(e.g., greetings,introductions,etc.) may requiremarkedlydifferentbehaviorsfromcultureto culture.Thus, to the extentthat the host culturerequiresdifferentspecific behaviors,individualsare likelyto exhibitinappropriateactions. In turn, these inappropriate behaviorsare likely to lead to negativeconsequences.To the extent that the host culture is generally dissimilar to the home culture, the frequencyof novelsituationsandthe probabilityof the newcomerexecuting inappropriatebehaviorswill be substantial[Torbiorn1982].Thereis also a higher probabilitythat the magnitudeof the negativeconsequencesof executinginappropriatebehaviorin a novel host culturewill be greater.All of this would seem to suggest that the individualwould exhibitinappropriatebehaviors,producingnegativeconsequences,and ultimatelyresultin culture shock rather than a honeymoon effect. Therefore,why would
THE U-CURVE ADJUSTMENT HYPOTHESIS
237
researchersexpectto find a honeymooneffect duringthe initial stages of adjustment? From the theoretical frameworkof SLT, several factors are likely to contributeto the "honeymoon"feelingsat first, despitethe likelihoodof inappropriatebehaviorsand negativeconsequences.First,thereis a relative lack of time for a largeset of negativereinforcementsto haveaccumulated duringthe initial encounterstage of adjustment,so individualsmight not be compelledto recognizeor "attend" to these negativeconsequencesor makeassociationsbetweentheirbehaviorand the resultingnegativeconsequences. Second, there is a likelihoodthat the form of the negativereinforcementsprovidedby the host country nationals (HCNs) may also be differentfromthose of the home culture,whichmaypreventthe individual from recognizingthe cues as instancesof negativefeedback.Third, individuals' desiresto preservepositive past self-conceptsmay influence the individualto ignorethe negativefeedbackcues they receiveand recognize [Bandura1986].The fact that only a short while has passedand relatively few cases of negativeconsequenceshave accumulatedmay allow individuals to ignoreor rationalizecases of negativefeedbackin orderto maintain the previousself-concept. In summary,during the first few weeks in the new culture,individuals probably exhibit inappropriatebehavior. However,several factors may explainwhy a honeymooneffect persistsin caseswhereanticipatoryadjustment did not occur, including(1) the lack of a large numberof incidents of inappropriatebehaviorand the resultingnegativeconsequences,(2) the lack of familiaritywith and decreasedability to recognizethe negative consequencesof one's own behavioror that of others and the associated cues, (3) and the individual'spropensityto protecta priorself-conceptand ignore recognizablenegativefeedbackcues. Proposition 1: Because of relatively little time to attend to models,individualswillreportthe lowestlevelsof perceiveddissimilaritybetweenthe models(HCNs) and themselvesduring the honeymoon stage of adjustment. SLTand the CultureShockPhase The centraltheoreticalquestionconcerningthe cultureshock stageis what process accounts for the culture shock that people experience.Social learningtheory also providesimportantinsights into that stage of UCT. Initially,one might wonderwhy, if individualscan learn both by experience and vicariousobservation,adjustmentis not a more gradualprocess and why a "cultureshock" period would occur?From a SLTperspective, cultureshock occursbecausethereis a high ratio of feedbackto the individualsthat they are exhibitinginappropriatebehaviorsrelativeto the new and appropriatebehaviorstheyhavelearned,coupledwith a low utilization of modeled and observed behaviors which are appropriatein the new
238 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SECOND QUARTER1991
culture.For example,Mr. Smith knows he is makingmistakesand exhibiting inappropriatebehaviorduringthe early part of his overseasassignment in Japan, but he does not know what appropriatebehaviors to ones. Thisis whatleadsto the typicalsympsubstitutefor the inappropriate toms of cultureshock-frustration, anxiety,anger,etc. [Oberg1960]. Several factors (see Figure 1) have been shown to be important in influencingwhich models a personselectsto focus his or her attentionon (see Bandura[1977]for a review),includingattractiveness,repeatedavailability,importance,and similarityof the model. First,the degreeof difference or novelty between the host culture and the home culture [Black 1988; Black & Stephens 1989] or what Hofstede [1980] called cultural distanceis likelyto affect the similarityof potentialmodels and therefore the attractivenessof the models (i.e., host country nationals, HCNs). Culturenoveltycan be both in the culturegenerallyand the local operation specifically.That is, the normsand valuesbetweenthe local operationsand the home office can also be quitedistantfromeach other.Althoughcorporateculturenoveltywouldprobablyvarywith generalculturenovelty,they are not neceassarilylinked on a 1-to-Ibasis. The greaterthe dissimilarity between home nationals and host nationals as a function of generalor corporateculturenovelty,the greaterthe likelihoodthat the individualwill see the models (HCNs) as less attractiveand as a consequencepay less attentionto the behaviorsmodeledby HCNs. The less attentionpaidto the modeledbehaviors,the less likelythe individualis to accuratelyretainand reproducenew behaviorsappropriatefor the host culture,and the more behaviors.The morethe indilikelythe individualis to exhibitinappropriate vidual exhibitsinappropriatebehaviorsand experiencesnegativefeedback and consequences,the greaterwill be his anxiety,frustration,and overall cultureshock. Additionally,the greaterthe differencebetweenthe home and host culture, the greaterthe dissimilaritybetween the individual's notionsof appropriatebehaviorandappropriatebehaviorin the newculture [rorbiorn1982].The greaterthe dissimilarityof appropriateand inappropriatebehaviorsbetweenthe two cultures,the more difficult it will be for the individualto exhibitappropriatebehaviors,evenif attentionwas paid to HCNs as modelsof appropriatebehavior.This in turnwouldcontribute to greatercultureshock. Proposition2: Thegreaterthe dissimilaritybetweenthe host and home general or corporatecultures, the longer and more severe will be the cultureshock stage. The lack of repeatedavailabilityof modelsmay also contributeto the high ratio of negative consequences and negative feedback relative to the learningand utilizationof new and appropriatebehaviors.Although it is likely that in most cases the individualhas potential models to observe (e.g., individualsat work who may be repeatedlyavailableto watch),this repeatedavailabilityneedsto be in referenceto specificsituations[Bandura 1977].
THE U-CURVE ADJUSTMENT HYPOTHESIS
239
An examplemay help illustratethis point. SupposeMr. Smithworkswith Mr. Tanakaeveryday, and in that sense Mr. Tanakais a repeatedlyavailable model. However,if Mr. Smith is to model Mr. Tanaka'sbehaviorin specific situationssuch as greetingnew clients, then Mr. Smith needs to be able to observe Mr. Tanaka'sbehavior in severalgreeting situations. Usuallyit takestime for a numberof these situationsto materialize.Consequently,the impact of a repeatedlyavailablemodel (i.e., Mr. Tanaka)in situation-specificratherthan in situation-generalcircumstancesdoes not fully develop duringthe early stages of cross-culturaladjustment.Thus, one would expect that it would take time before a sufficient numberof repeatedobservationsof a specific behaviorand its consequencescould occur. Therefore, it would take time before the situation-specific behavior observedcould serveas a model of appropriatebehaviorand beforeattention to the modeledbehaviorcould have a substantialeffect on retention and actual reproductionof the behaviorby the learner.Thus, in orderto learnthroughthe modelingprocessseveralnewbehaviorsneededto adjust to the new culture,a considerableamountof time wouldneed to pass, even if a givenmodel (e.g., Mr.Tanaka)wererepeatedlyavailable.Theseimpediments to the attentionprocessrelativeto vicariouslearningfrom models have a subsequentnegative impact on the retention of the appropriate modeledbehaviors,whichin turnleadsto poor reproductionof appropriate behavior.The poor reproductionof appropriatebehaviorsleadsto the high ratio of negativeconsequencesand feedbackto the newlylearned,appropriate behaviorsin the second stage of adjustment.All of this in turn increasescultureshock. Proposition 3: The greaterthe availabilityof HCNs during the culture shock stage of adjustment, the sooner expatriateswill learnnew, appropriatebehaviors, and the shorter will be the cultureshock stage. Proposition4: Themore time spent in actual rehearsalvia interaction with HCNs, the less severe will be the cultureshock. SLT and the AdjustmentPhase
The centraltheoreticalquestionconcerningthe adaptationor adjustment phase is what explainsthe shift from not utilizingmodeledbehavior(culture shock stage) to utilizingmodeledbehaviorand therebyincreasingthe abilityto exhibitappropriatebehaviors.Duringthe adjustmentstage individualsbegin to acquirethe abilityto behaveappropriately,which results in an increasein positiveconsequencesand the reductionof negativeconsequences[Oberg1960;Torbiorn1982].As individualshavemorechancesto observe models in relevantsituations, they have a higher likelihood of focusingattentionon the modeledbehaviorand its consequencesand retaining the associatedrelationshipsbetweenthe behaviorand the consequences.
240 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SECOND QUARTER 1991
The greaterthe level of retention,the greaterchance of properlyreproducing the behaviorsin subsequentsituations [Bandura1977]. Using Mr. Smith again as an examplemay help illustratethese points. As Mr.Smithbeginsto exhibita greaternumberof appropriatebehaviorswith increasingaccuracy,he receivesmorepositiveconsequencesand fewernegative ones. As these appropriatebehaviorsbecome more reinforced,they becomepartof his internalizedschemaof situations,appropriatebehaviors, and expectedconsequences(see Figure2). Also, as Mr. Smith encounters more positiveoutcomesand fewernegativeoutcomes,his feelingsof selfworth, self-confidence,and satisfactionincrease.These are essentiallythe affective components of cross-culturaladjustment [Brislin 1981]. Also, becauseMr. Smithexhibitsmanyof these new and appropriatebehaviors, he begins to experience improved interpersonal relations with host nationals, which according to Brislin [1981]is the second criterion of successfulcross-culturaladjustment. Additionally, as Mr. Smith becomes more familiar with the available models, this decreasesthe perceiveddissimilarityand unattractivenessof the models, which increasesMr. Smith'sattentionto and retentionof the modeled behaviors and associated outcomes. This would also lead to increasedappropriatereproductionof the modeledbehaviors,whichwould furtherincreasethe positiveand reducethe negativeconsequencesof Mr. Smith'sbehavior.This, of course,wouldreinforcethe retentionof the behaviors as part of Mr. Smith'sset of patternedand habitualbehaviors,and so the cycle would carry on. In summary,time with and exposureto the new situationsand models in the host cultureincreasethe repeatedavailabilityof modeledbehaviorin specific situations and increase the familiarity of the models, which increasesthe attractivenessand perceivedsimilarityof the models, all of which increasethe attention to and retentionof the modeled behaviors. This increasedretentionin turn leads to betterreproductionof the appropriatebehaviors,whichresultsin the increasedpositiveand decreasednegative consequencesof the behavior.All of this leads the individualto both feel and be more adept and adjustedin the host culture. In the final stage,the individual'sadjustmentis generallycompleteand the incrementaldegreeof adjustmentis minimal.In this stage, the individual now knowsand can properlyperformthe necessarybehaviorsto function effectivelyand without anxiety due to culturedifferences.This suggests that after a certainpoint the length of time in the culturewould not be strongly associated with degree of adjustmentto the culture. This also suggeststhat the role of vicariouslearningwould in generaldiminishand instead the individual would act with more reliance on associations betweenbehaviorsand outcomes built up on actual past experience. Proposition5: Thegreaterthe differencesbetweenthe host cultureand the individual'shome culture,the lowver will be the individual'smotivation to continue
THE U-CURVE ADJUSTMENT HYPOTHESIS
241
to attend to HCNs as models of behaviorduring the adjustmentstageand the longerit will takethe individualto fully adjust to the nost culture. Proposition6: Thegreaterthe levelof attentionpaid by the expatriateto HCNas modelsof new,appropriatebehavior,thesooner the expatriatewill receivepositive and the quickerhe or she willadjust reinforcement host culture. the to However,not everyoneexhibits a classic U-curve patternof adjustment. For example,in the case of Americanexpatriatemanagers,approximately 20% do not adjust and as a consequencereturn home early [Baker& Ivancevich1971;Black 1988;Tung 1981],though Tung [1988]found that the failureratewas muchlowerfor Japaneseand Europeanexpatriates.For others the adjustmentcurve may be elongated or truncated. Also, the severityof the trough or cultureshock may differ. Although, the general processesdiscussedcan partiallyexplainsome of these variations,it is also importantto examinethe role of anticipatoryadjustmentand individual differencesrelativeto UCT to fully understandthe conditionsunderwhich a classic U-curve pattern of adjustmentis likely to occur and those in which a J-curveor linear patternof adjustmentare more likely. AnticipatoryAdjustmentas a Moderating Variable
Perhapsone of the most importantadditionsto past conceptualizationof UCT that SLTadds is the conceptof anticipatoryadjustment.The essence of this notion is that individualsthroughvicariouslearningcan makeanticipatoryadjustmentsto the newculturebeforethey everexperienceit. This is a potential explanationfor why differentpatternsof adjustmentwere observedin the empiricalstudies reviewed.For example,if an individual madefewanticipatoryadjustments,a typicalU-curvepatternof adjustment mightbe morelikelyto emerge.However,if some anticipatoryadjustments are made,this might lead to less initial euphoriabecauseof more realistic expectationsand anticipatorybehavioraladaptations.Thismightthenresult in a more J-curvepatternof adjustment.Extendingthis logic, one would expectthat if significantanticipatoryadjustmentsaremade,this mayeliminate the initial euphoria or honeymoon stage altogether,which would resultin an upward-sloping,linearpatternof adjustment.It is worthnoting that Klinebergand Hull [1979],who found this to be the predominanttype of adjustmentpatternin theirlargesampleof students,did not examineor controlfor the effect of anticipatoryadjustmenton in-countryadjustment. Basedon SLT,therearetwo importantdeterminantsof the effectivenessof any anticipatoryadjustment.The first is the accuracyof the information utilizedin makinganticipatoryadjustments.If the contentof the information wereinaccurate,then the individualwould makeanticipatoryadjustments in behaviorthat would actuallyturn out to be inappropriatein the host culture.The secondimportantelementis the formin whichthe information
242 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SECOND QUARTER1991
is presented.Assumingthat the informationis accurate,to the extentthat the form increasesthe individual'sattentionto and retentionof the information, the informationwill havea positiveeffect on the actualreproduction of the anticipatorilydeterminedbehaviorsin the new culture.Black and Mendenhall[1990]providea reviewof the various aspects of crossculturaltrainingthat might increasethe attentionand retentionprocesses and therefore,theseissuesand potentialpropositionsarenot exploredhere. However,based on the generaldiscussionof SLTand anticipatoryadjustment, severalpropositionsfor future researchcan be made. Proposition7: The greater the anticipatory adjustment, the symbolicandparticipative greaterthepredeparture and theshorterthe honeytraining), (e.g., rehearsal moon stage. Thus, the greater the anticipatory adjustment,the more the pattern of in-country adjustment will resemble a "J" or even linear pattern of adjustment. Proposition8: Thegreaterthepredepartureexposureto the host culture, the less severe will be the cultureshock stage of adjustment. Proposition9: Sources of anticipatory adjustment, such as trainingorpreviousinternationalexperience,that increaseattentionand retentionprocesses will in turn shorten the honeymoon and cultureshock stages of adjustment. IndividualDifferencesas ModeratingVariables
In addition to SLTprovidingan explanationof how and why a U-curve patternof adjustmentmightoccur,it can also help explainthe moderating impact individualvariablesmight have on cross-culturaladjustment.In fact, some scholarshavearguedthat in cases wherestudieshavenot found evidence to support a U-curve pattern of adjustmentan interactionof methodologicalweaknessesand individualdifferencesmay be important explanations[Church 1982; Stening 1979]. It may be that in studies of adjustmentusingcross-sectionaldatathat individualdifferencescauseindividualsto experienceU-curvepatternsof varioustimeand amplitudedimensions. Thus, in cross-sectional"snap-shots" it is possible that all the individualsexperiencea U-curvepatternof adjustmentbut that the individual differenceswould cause the amplitudeof the honeymooneffect or cultureshock to be differentand also would cause these stages to occur at differentpoints in time. Thus, even if all individualsexperienceda Ucurvepatternof adjustment,the differentshapesof the curvewould then dilute and perhapshide an aggregateU-curve patternwhen adjustment measureswereaveragedat specifiedpoints in time. Thiswouldsuggestthat within-personratherthan between-personsanalysiswouldbe moreappropriate [Church1982].
THE U-CURVE ADJUSTMENT HYPOTHESIS
243
Placingcross-culturaladjustmentwithinthe theoreticalframeworkof SLT allowsresearchersto hypothesizemuchmoresystematicallyabout the individualvariablesthat mightaffect adjustment.For example,past reviewsof the adjustmentliteraturesuggestthat willingnessto communicate,willingness to establishrelationships,tolerancefor ambiguity,degree of ethnocentricity,and willingnessto substitutereinforcersareimportantindividual variablesthat havean impacton adjustment[Church1982;Mendenhall& Oddou 1985;Stening 1979]. Social learningtheory providesa theoretical frameworkwithinwhichthe impactthat each of these individualdifference variablesmight have on a U-curvepatternof adjustmentcould be understood. For example,in their reviewof cross-culturaladjustment,Mendenhall and Oddou [1985] argue that empirical evidence suggested that willingnessto establishrelationshipswas an importantand positive factor of adjustment.SLTprovidesa theoreticalexplanationof whythis personal characteristicwould be relatedto adjustmentand how it might affect the patternof adjustment.It seems reasonableto supposethat those who are morewillingto establishrelationshipswithhost countrynationalswouldas a consequencehavemoresalientand availablemodelsof appropriatebehavior in the new culture.Becauserepeatedavailabilityof modelshas a positive impact on the attentionprocess,and becauseattentionhas a positive impacton retentionand reproduction,this would explaintheoreticallythe positiverelationshipbetweenwillingnessto establishrelationshipsand crossculturaladjustment. Because the shift from cultureshock to adjustmentis a function of the individual'sabilityto learnand reproducenewbehaviors(therebyreducing the anxiety associated with not knowing how to behave appropriately) willingnessto establishrelationshipswith HCNs wouldalso be expectedto shortenthe time it takesto reachthe adjustmentstage. Thus, the U-curve patternof adjustmentfor an individualwith a high willingnessto establish relationshipswill HCNs would be more "compacted"than a patternof adjustmentfor an individualwith a low willingnessto establishrelationships with HCNs. Perhapsanother examplewill help illustratethe utility of SLT in understandinghow and whythese individualdifferenceshavebeen found to have an impact on adjustmentand what that impact might be relativeto a Ucurvepatternof adjustment.Ethnocentricityhas been consistentlyfoundto have a negativeeffect on cross-culturaladjustment(see Church[1982]or Stening [1979]for reviews).Ethnocentricityis essentiallythe belief that one's own cultureis superiorto others. In a cross-culturalsetting within the SLTframework,one would expectthat individualswith high levelsof ethnocentricitywould not see HCNs as similarto themselvesand would not accordhighstatusto HCNs. Both of these factorswouldlead the ethnocentricindividualto pay little attentionto HCNs as models of new behavior. Additionally, ethnocentric individuals would also be relatively unmotivatedto attend to, retain, or reproducenew behaviorsconsidered appropriatein the host culturebut which were different (and therefore
244 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SECOND QUARTER 1991
inferior)to those of the individual'shome culture.This lack of learning andreproducingnewand appropriatebehaviorswouldlikelyleadto a more severecultureshock and a slower advancementto the adjustmentstage. An even more importantindividualdifferencefrom a SLTperspectiveis self-efficacy.As discussedearlier,self-efficacyis the degreeto which individuals believe they can successfully execute expected behaviors. This belief leads individualsto persistat imitatingnew behaviorslongeras well as to beingmorewillingto try to imitatenewbehaviors.Consequently,individualswith higherlevelsof self-efficacywill be morewillingto learnnew behaviorsin the host countrythan individualswith lower levels of selfefficacy. This willingnesswould likely lead to greaterattention paid to HCNs as models of new behavior.The greaterthe attentionpaid to HCNs as models, the greaterthe likelihoodthat individualswill vicariouslylearn appropriateand inappropriatebehaviors.Also, individualswith high levels of self-efficacy would likely be more willing to experimentand try to imitatenew behaviors.The morethey imitatednewbehaviors,especiallyin light of greaterprobabilityof payingattentionto modeledbehaviors,the morelikelytheseindividualswouldbe to exhibitappropriatenewbehaviors and receivepositive reinforcement.Even if the new behaviorsattempted were not reproducedexactly right, individualswith high levels of selfefficacy would be likely to persistat learningthose behaviorslongerthan individualswith low self-efficacy.The longer they persistat imitatingthe new behaviors,the more correctivefeedbackthey receive,and the greater the chancefor takingcorrectiveactionsthat resultin eventuallyexhibiting appropriatebehavior. These three examplesillustratehow and why individualdifferencesthat reviewsof the literaturehavecited as havingsignificantimpactson adjustment are important.In addition, SLT providesa means of theoretically assessing the potential relevanceof the countless individualdifferences. However,it is beyond the scope of this paper to evaluateall the various individualdifferencesthat have been suggestedor actually found to be importantin cross-culturaladjustment.Ratherthe purposeof this paperis to suggestthat SLTprovidesa meansof systematicallydeterminingwhich individualvariableswouldbe important,howtheymightimpactadjustment in generaland relativeto U-curvepatternsof adjustment,as well as speculating about the relativestrengthof impact certainindividualvariables would have on adjustment.Essentially,those individualdifferencesthat theoreticallywould be expectedto have the strongestimpact on level of attentionand retentionduringthe learningprocess,whetherit be anticipatory learning and adjustment,or in-countrylearning and adjustment, would be expectedto have the strongestimpacton in-countrypatternsof adjustment.Basedon SLT,individualdifferencesin self-efficacywouldbe expectedto have a strong moderatingeffect. Proposition 10: The lower the initial level of self-efficacy,the greater the chance that the individual will
THE U-CURVE ADJUSTMENT HYPOTHESIS
245
(1) not persist at trying to reproducethe new behaviors,(2) experiencea moresevereculture shock, or (3) give-up and returnhome during the cultureshock stage. Proposition 1OA:Individualswithlow self-efficacywho aresent to novelhost cultureswillhave the highestlikelihoodof returninghomeearly,and individuals with high self-efficacy who are sent to nonnovelcultureswillhavethe lowestlikelihoodof returninghome early. Proposition 11: Themoresimilarthe host cultureto the home culture,the higherwill be the reportedlevel of self-efficacy. Proposition 12: The higherthe initial level of self-efficacy,the sooner the individual will adjust to the host culture. As mentioned,the propositionsgivenabovedo not representan exhaustive list. They are merelya representativesample.It is interestingto note that most firms simply select individualsbased on their technical/managerial ability or track record[Miller 1973]and do not utilize self-efficacy,relational skills, flexibility,etc. as selectioncriteria.In fact, Mendenhalland Oddou [1985]have arguedthat this may be a contributingfactor to U.S. firms' high rate of expatriate failures. However, the major point of providingsuch a sampleof propositionsis to illustratethat social learning theorynot only providesa meansof understandingwhyand how a U-curve patternof adjustmentwould occur but that it also providesa means of systematicallydeterminingwhat factors might lead to J-curve,or linear patternsof adjustment.Additionally,SLTprovidesa theoreticalmeansof generatinghypothesesfor futuretesting. The importanceof being able to systematicallygeneratehypothesesconcerningcross-culturaladjustmentis that it becomes much morepossible and probablethat a cumulativebody of knowledgeconcerningcross-culturaladjustmentcan be establishedin a moreefficientand effectivemannerthanthe ad hoc processof inquirycharacteristicof past research. CONCLUSION
Becauseindividualsadjustingto new culturescan be thought of as being involvedin a learningprocess,social learningtheoryprovidesa theoretical frameworkwithinwhich cross-culturaladjustmentcan be examined.This paper suggests that SLT provides a theoretical explanation of why in general cross-cultural adjustment would exhibit a U-curve pattern. However,it has also been noted that various situational and individual factors could affect the pattern of adjustment. Social learning theory providesa frameworkfromwhichscholarscan makesystematichypotheses about whichpotentiallyimportantsituationaland individualfactorswould
246 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SECOND QUARTER1991
or would not be importantas well as the directionof impact any given factoris likelyto haveon adjustment.The existingliteratureindicatesthat a rejectionor acceptanceof UCT by scholarsor cross-culturaltrainersis premature;more carefullydesignedresearchneedsto be done in the field, and the theoreticalframeworkgiven herein is offered as a guide to such futureresearchefforts. REFERENCES Adler, Nancy. 1983. Cross-culturalmanagementresearch:The ostrichand the trend. Academyof ManagementReview,8: 226-32. . 1986.Internationaldimensionsof organizationalbehavior.Boston:Kent. Baker,JamesC. & JohnIvancevich.1971.Theassignmentof Americanexecutivesabroad:Systematic, haphazard,or chaotic?CaliforniaManagementReview,133:39-41. Bandura,Albert. 1977.Social learningtheory.EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. . 1983. Thesocialfoundationsof thoughtand action. EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Becker,Tamar.1968.Patternsof attitudinalchangesamongforeignstudents.AmericanJournalof Sociology, 73: 43142. Black, J. Stewart.1988.Workroletransitions:A study of Americanexpatriatemanagersin Japan. Journalof InternationalBusinessStudies, 19: 277-94. A reviewandtheoreticalframetrainingeffectiveness: &MarkMendenhall.1990.Cross-cultural work for futureresearch.Academyof ManagementReview,15: 113-36. Black, J. Stewart& GregStephens.1989.The influenceof the sponseon Americanexpatriateadjustment and intentto stayin Pacificrimoverseasassignments.Journalof Management,15:529-44. encounters.New York:PergamonPress. Brislin,RichardW. 1981.Cross-cultural Chang, Hwa-BaoB. 1973.Attitudesof Chinesestudentsin the U.S. Sociologyand Social Research, 58: 66-77. Church,AustinT. 1982. Sojourneradjustment.PsychologicalBulletin,91: 540-72. Copeland,Lennie& Louis Griggs. 1985. Going international.New York:RandomHouse. Davis, F. James. 1963. Perspectivesof Turkishstudentsin the United States.Sociologyand Social Research,48: 47-57. . 1971.The two-waymirrorand the U-curve:Americansas seen by Tirkishstudentsreturned home. Sociologyand Social Research,56: 49-43. Deutsch,Steven&GeorgeWon.1963.Somefactorsin the adjustmentof foreignnationalsin the United States.Journalof Social Issues, 19: 115-22. Educationaland view.International Golden,JeshuaS. 1973.Studentadjustmentabroad:A psychiatrist's CulturalExchange,8(4): 28-36. Greenblat,Cathy.1971.Foreignstudentsin the U.S.:A studyof attitudesandorientations.Sociological Focus, 4(3): 17-35. Gullahorn,John R. & JeanneE. Gullahorn.1962.An extensionof the U-curvehypothesis.Journal of Social Issues, 3: 3347. Harris,Phillip& RobertT. Moran. 1988.Managingculturaldifferences.Houston, Tbx.:Gulf. Educationaland CulturalExchange,5(3): Heath,Louis.1970.Foreignstudentsattitudes.International 66-70. Hilgard,ErnestR. & GordonH. Bower.1975.Theoriesof learning.EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall. Hofstede,Gert. 1980. Culture'sconsequences.BeverlyHills, Calif.: Sage. Hull, W. Frank.1978.Foreignstudentsin the US. New York:Praeger. Klineberg,Otto & W. FrankHull. 1979.At a foreign university:An internationalstudyof adaptation and coping. New York:Praeger.
THE U-CURVE ADJUSTMENT HYPOTHESIS
247
Kobrin,Stephen.1988.Expatriatereductionand strategiccontrolof Americanmultinationalcorporations. HumanResourceManagement,27(1):63-76. Latham,Gary& L. Saari. 1979.Applicationof sociallearningtheoryto trainingsupervisorsthrough behaviormodification.Journalof AppliedPsychology,64: 239-46. Lysgaard,Sverre.1955. Adjustmentin a foreignsociety:NorwegianFulbrightgranteesvisitingthe United States.InternationalSocial ScienceBulletin,7: 45-51. Mendenhall,Mark & Gary Oddou. 1985. The dimensionsof expatriateacculturation:A review. Academyof ManagementReview,10: 3948. Miller,Edwin.1973.Theinternational sectiondecision.Academyof Management Journal,June:239-52. Morris,RichardT. 1960.Thetwo-waymirror.Minneapolis,Minn.:TheUniversityof MinnesotaPress. Oberg,Kline.1960.Cultureshock:Adjustmentto newculturalenvironment.PracticalAnthropologist, 7: 177-82. Pinder,CraigC. & H. Das. 1979.Hiddencosts and benefitsof employeetransfers.HumanResource Planning,2: 135-45. Ruben,Brent&Daniel J. Kealey.1979.Behavioralassessmentof communicationcompetencyand the predictionof cross-culturaladaptation.InternationalJournalof Intercultural Relations,3: 15-47. Selby,HenryA. & ClydeM. Woods. 1966.Foreignstudentsat a high pressureuniversity.Sociology and Education,39: 138-54. Sewell, William H. & Olaf M. Davidsen. 1961. Scandinavianstudents on an Americancampus. Minneapolis,Minn.:Universityof MinnesotaPress. contact:A literaturereview.InternationalJournal Stening,BruceW. 1979.Problemsof cross-cultural of InterculturalRelations,3: 269-313. Surdam,JoyceC. & JamesK. Collin. 1984.Adaptationof internationalstudents:A causefor concern. Journalof CollegeStudentPersonnel,May:240-45. Swenson,Louis L. 1980. Theoriesof learning.Belmont,Calif.: Wadsworth. Torbion,Igamar.1982.Living abroad.New York:Wiley. Tang,Rosealie.1981.Selectingand trainingof personnelfor overseasassignments.ColumbiaJournal of WorldBusiness, 16:68-78. . 1988.Thenewexpatriates:Managinghumanresourcesabroad.Cambridge,Mass.:Ballinger PublishingCompany. Vroom,Victor.1964. Workand motivation.New York:Wiley. Whetten,David.1984.Whatconstitutesa theoreticalcontribution? Academyof Management Review,14: 490-95.
