Introduction of the assignment The main objective of this assignment is to define the branch of knowledge in culture shock from

past to present. At this phase, we are going to try to express the assumptions of culture shock by literature review. One of the important conditions in the environment of cross-cultural organization is the subject of culture shock that is introduced in this academic work. Interpretation of Culture Shock The terminology of culture shock was first cited in history by Oberg (1960 cited in Gibson). In his substance Oberg represented Culture Shock as "Culture Shock is accelerated by the uneasiness that conclusions from misplacing all our natural prints and patterns of the social conversation. These prints or signs take into account the thousand and one ways in which we adapt ourselves to the positions of daily life. In his article Oberg noticed at last six manners of culture shock; 1. Pressure owing to the performance needed to adapt easier to the new area. 2. A function of loss and feelings of disadvantage according to colleagues, place, major and status. 3. Being declined by the host society or not accepting people of the new culture. 4. Unsettling in role, duty expectations, values, emotions and self-awareness. 5. Getting excited or feeling shocked after recognising cultural dissimilarities. 6. Emotions of impotence due to not being able to handle the new territory. Furhnam and Bochner(1986) stated that there are some symptoms of culture shock; consuming food and drink more than normal, sleeping out of usual bed times, feeling depressive and nervous, thinking own family more often, fear of being defrauded, facing the difficulties about the language of the host country. Cleveland was an American educator, who was focusing on culture shock like Oberg, suggested a consubstantial survey relying extensively on the individual background of voyagers. He tried to explain reactions of these voyagers who had never walked out their home and these who exactly go native. Other researchers attempted to upgrade and develop Obergs explanation and the concept of culture shock. For example, Byrnes has described the term role shock, Smalley language shock, Guthrie culture fatigue and Ball-Rokeach pervasive ambiguity. (1986 cited in Furhnam and Bochner)

Another description of culture shock has been mentioned by Bock (1970) that culture shock is an emotional expression which follows from not being able to anticipate, guess and get the point of reactions of others. A different factor makes the people behaviour unusual is the unfamiliarity of the environmental area (appearance of buildings, types of accommodation halls, styles of working offices).Also this unfamiliarity is very effective at social environment with different rituals and traditions (Hall, 1959). This argument was recapitulated by all the researchers in the same field. To support this argument, Lundstedt (1963) and Hays (1972) stated that culture shock is a stress reaction where salient psychological and physical rewards are generally uncertain and hence difficult to control or predict. Thus a person is anxious, confused and apparently apathetic until he or she has had time to develop a new set of cognitive constructs to understand and enact the appropriate behaviour. Key to the image of culture shock are examinations about how public adapt to it, and how it make them changed. Because of this, there are some components in the extensive literature as U-curve, the W-curve and the altered U-curve that are extracting to the adjustment of people during time. The U-curve has been established by Lysgaard (1955) and the W-curve is an expansion by Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963). Most of the indicators of culture shock shows that this shock is able to be explained by expatriates experience and their feelings against shock. Researchers paid less attention for sorting the level of this shock on sojourners. The literature states that all people will get pain from culture shock one day, which is often seem unacceptable and unpleasing.(Furnham and Bochner, 1986) On the other hand, opponents of this view support that some kind of people may have enjoyment by learning new things in the abroad and getting experience instead of being unhappy or disorientated. In the manner that, Adler (1975) and David (1971) have mentioned that despite culture shock is usually related to negative chain reactions, it may, in optimum measures, be considerable for personal development and new experiences of host countries. Adler (1975) argues that In the encounter with another culture the individual gains new experiential knowledge by coming to understand the roots of his or her own ethnocentrism and by gaining new perspectives and outlooks on the nature of culture. . . Paradoxically, the more one is capable of experiencing new and different dimensions of human diversity, the more one learns of oneself. (p.22)

Steps of culture shock Oberg (1960) created a model of orientation that recommends that travelling abroad for long term or working abroad for international assignments puts people a circle of different levels on the way to final adjustment. (Marx, 2001) Stages start with honeymoon division, where all sojourners in the new charity are seen as happy, high motivated and optimistic. Travellers find the host area like they have never seen a beautiful and amazing country before. Most importantly, at this phase they do not judge the conducts of other cultured society and pay more attention to the different food, job opportunities of the foreign country. The second stage, these things seem wrong and complicated to managers and sojourners who have completed the honeymoon phase. Therefore, culture shock makes externals felt frustrated with the new situation and makes them rejected everything imported. An uncertainty about themselves, living in overseas and distressing about the future are the main reasons of these symptoms. When expatriates or students from abroad try to understand their reasons of culture shock problems and focus on finding solutions for these types of weaknesses, this phase is called recovery. In the latest stage, adjustment phase, managers can orientate themselves to the new environment and know the limits of their abilities, be able to take responsibilities on their duties and, might be the most important, feel more comfortable and flexible. (Marx, 2001) First graphic shows the processes of adaptation and mood changes by time. (Oberg, 1960) Following the first table, second model seems more sensible by describing dynamic and not stable moves of positive and negative periods.

Phases of Adaptation (Internet)

Outcomes of Culture Shock There are significantly three distinctive outcomes from culture shock: Rejectors Some people feel impossible to deal with the new culture, so they prefer to isolate themselves from the host countrys colleagues. They look for finding some people from their own country and spending most of the time with them in a group. Adaptors These kinds of people feel as comfortable living abroad as they do in their own country. They adapt to the overseas easily, are able to lose their identities and behave like foreign friends. Cosmopolitans People in this group are able to manage their orientation on the positive way against culture shock, but they keep their own ideas and traditional things in their minds. Hence, when they go back to their own country, this change will not be a big deal for them. (internet) There is a table that shows the different levels of cultural contact:

Response

Type

Multiple Group Membership Affiliation Own culture norms lose salience Second culture norms becomes salient Own culture norms increase in salience Second culture norms decrease in salience

Effect on Individual

Effect on Society

Deny culture of origins, accept second culture

Passing

Loss of ethnic identity Self-denigration

Assimilation Cultural erosion

Reject second culture, overstate first culture

Chauvinistic

Nationalism Racist

Intergroup attrition

Fluctuate between the two cultures

Marginal

Norms of both cultures salient but perceived as mutually incompatible

Disagreement Identity confusion Overcompensation

Reform Social Change

Synthesize both cultures

Mediating

Norms of both cultures salient and perceived as capable of being integrated

Personal growth

Intergroup harmony Pluralistic societies Cultural Preservation

Reactions of cultural contact at the distinctive level: psychological feedbacks to second culture consequences (Bochner, 1982)

How to cope with culture shock Researchers mention some critical steps for dealing with culture shock such as: 1. Recognize culture shock before finding yourself in depressive (Marx, 2001) 2. When you have a problem, try to find a solution instead of giving up fighting. 3. Do not hesitate to contact a specialist for the psychological support unless you handle this situation with yourself. 4. Always remember that culture shock is a temporary process, is not permanent. 5. Join a social organization, connect with the new people but not only from your own country.

Conclusion Explaining this diagnosis in order to have knowledge of the terminology culture shock one might accept Culture Shock is an unexpected and discomforting reaction on the thought or own type of culture generated by surprised accident or perception from another countrys culture obtaining pain, depressive emotion or stimulated feeling of any set. In short, most of the writers have defined and explained distinctive aspects of culture shock, there is, general and mainly, deal that display to host cultures is upsetting. Fewer opponents of this view have supported that culture shock has some positive feedbacks for individuals who have never been abroad to discover new lifestyles, traditional differences and difficulties lead to their personal development.

Bibliography Adler, P.S. (1975) The transitional experience: an alternative view of culture shock, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15, 13-23. Bochner, S. (1982) Cultures in Contact: Studies in Cross-cultural Interaction. Oxford, Pergamon. Bock, P. (ed.) (1970) Culture Shock: A Reader in Modern Anthropology, New York, Alfred A. Knopf. David, K. (1971) Culture shock and the development of self-awareness, Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 4, 44-8. Furnham, A. and Bochner, S. (1986) Culture Shock. London, Methuen. Gullahorn, J.T. and Gullahorn, J.E. (1963) An extension of the U-curve hypothesis, Journal of Social Issues, 19(3), 33-47. Hays, R.D. (1972) Behavioural issues in multinational operations, in Hays, R.D. (ed.), International Business: An Introduction to the World of the Multinational Firm, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall. O'Connell L., 2012. Culture Shock in Vancouver. [online] Available from: <http://2vancouver.com/en/articles/culture-shock-in-vancouver>. [Accessed 8 November 2012] Lundstedt, S. (1963) An introduction to some evolving problems in cross-cultural research, Journal of Social Issues, 19 (3), 1-9. Lysgaard, S. (1955) Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright grantees visiting the United States, International Social Science Bulletin, 7 , 45-51. Manz S. n.d., Culture Shock-causes, Consequences and Solutions: The International Experience [online] Available from: <http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/108360/cultureshock-causes-consequences-and-solutions-the-international-experience>. [Accessed 5 November 2012]

Marx, E. (2001) Breaking Through Culture Shock: what you need to succeed in international business. London, NB Selection.

Oberg, K. (1960) "Cultural Shock: adjustment to new cultural environments" in Practical Anthropology 7 quoted in Gibson, 2000, p. 24

O'Connell L., 2012. Culture Shock in Vancouver. [online] Available at: <http://2vancouver.com/en/articles/culture-shock-in-vancouver> [Accessed 8 November 2012] Schein, E. (1994) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, JosseyBass. Simpson, J. and Weiner, E (1991) Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition. Oxford, Oxford University Press.