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 U-
Curve 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 induce-
mentsofferedby 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,unreal-
ized 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-culturalmanage-
ment field has been atheoretical[Black& Mendenhall1990;Adler 1983];
and the subarea of cross-culturaladjustment has been no different.
Researchon cross-cultural adjustmenthas beengearedmoretowarda some-
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 "U-
CurveTheory"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.
The thirdstage("adjustmentstage")is characterized by gradualadaptation
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 -

- Honeymoon Mastery
5.0 -

4.5-
Adjustment
4.0-

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0 Culture Shock

1.5

1.0 - I I I 1 I I_ _I ,
0-2 3-4 4-6 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 1968 77 Students CS/Q +I-Ins
Chang 1973 209 Students CS/Q +/-
Davis 1963 286 Students CS/Q +/ns
Davis 1971 222 Students CS/RR/Q +/ns
Deutsch & Won 1963 94 Trainees CS/Q +/ns
Golden 1973 77 Students L/I + /-
Greenblat 1971 140 Students CS/Q +/ns
Heath 1970 110 Students CS/RR/Q +/ns
Hull 1978 955 Students CS/Q +I-
Klineberg & Hull 1979 68 Students L/I -
Klineberg & Hull 1979 2536 Students CS/Q -I+
Lysgaard 1955 200 Students CS/RR/l +/ns
Morris 1960 318 Students CS/Q +/ns
Ruben & Kealey 1979 14 Technical Advisors CS/RR/l +/ns
Selby & Woods 1966 44 Students CS/RR/Q -/ns
Sewell & Davidsen 1961 40 Students CS/RR/l +/ns
Surdam & Collins 1984 143 Students CS/Q +
Torbiorn 1982 641 Managers CS/Q +/ns
Method Legend: CS=Cross sectional, RR=Retrospective recall, L= Longitudinal,
Q=Questionnaires, I=Interviews.
Findings Legend: +/-/ns=Nonsignificant mixed support for UCT; +/ns=Supports UCT but nonsig-
nificant; -/ns=Doesn't support UCT but nonsignificant; +/-=Mixed support,
primarily positive, statistically significant; -/+=Mixed support, primarily negative,
statistically significant; -=Doesn't support UCT, statistically significant; +=Sup-
ports UCT, statistically significant.

Lysgaardofferedno theoreticalexplanationof these findingsor any statis-

tical 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 recallretrospec-
tively 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 statis-
tical tests of the data were conducted. Davis [1971]later examinedthe
adjustmentof a separatesample of 222 Turkishstudentsby asking them
to recallretrospectivelytheiradjustmentto the U.S. Davis [1971]concluded
that the patternof adjustmentsupportedUCP,however,no statisticalanal-
yses wereconducted,and the time sincereturnfromthe U.S. variedconsid-
erably 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-curvehypoth-

esis, 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 deter-
mineif theiradjustmentresembledthe U-curvepattern.Beckerfound a U-
curve 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 recallretro-
spectivelytheir 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 140Colum-
bian, 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 seventy-
sevenAmericanstudentsin 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 adjust-
ment 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'adjust-

ment 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,indi-
cating no improvementor decline in adjustmentover time. The report,
however,excludesany discussion of the reliabilityof the various inter-
viewers'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]askedfourteenCanadianInternationalDevelop-
ment 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 statis-
tical tests of the differencesin adjustmentat differenttimes werereported.
Evenif statisticaltests had been reported,the abilityof subjectsto accur-
ately 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.Torbiornoperationalizedadjust-
ment 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 U-
curve 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],psycho-
logicalmood [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 differ-
ences 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 exhibitingappropriatebeha-
vior 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 cross-

culturaladjustmenthad 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 whyindi-
vidualsmove from one stageto the next. For example,thereis little theore-
tical discussion of why the honeymoon phase emerges or what factors
might tend to exaggerateor limit it; also, there is little theoreticaldiscus-
sion 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 begin-
ning, a beginningthat starts from a theoreticaldiscussion of the cross-
culturaladjustmentprocess.For example,what is the natureof the cross-
culturallearningand adjustmentprocess?Whywould one expectto see or
not to see a U-curveor J-curvepatternof cross-culturaladjustment?If one
adoptsthe perspectivethat in a cross-culturaladjustmentsituationthe indi-
vidual 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
mentalprocessingof informationandthe subsequentdetermination of beha-
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. Simi-
larly,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 asso-
ciated with the UCT hypothesis.
Beforediscussingthe particularrelevanceof SLTto cross-culturaladjust-
ment, 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 associatedconse-
quencesand 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:atten-
tion, 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 modeledbeha-
vior 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

Model Status Similarity of Behaviors Instrumental Expectancies

Model Attractiveness Self-efficacy Self-efficacy
Factors Similarityof Model Past Rewards Past Rewards
Similarityof Behaviors Current Rewards Current Rewards
Influencing Exposure to Model Expected Rewards Expected Rewards

Motivation Past Rewards

Expected Rewards

Learning
Processes ATTENTION - RETENTION- REPRODUCTION

Motivation Motivation Motivation

Degree of Attention Degree of Attention
Factors Cognitive Rehearsal Degree of Retention
Participative Rehearsal Physical Abilities
Influencing Repeated Exposure

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 beha-
viors arelearned.He concludedthat individualslearnnumerousbehaviors
which are not usually emitted because they are not positivelyrewarded.
However,if the rewardstructureis changed,the behaviorspreviouslyunex-
ecuted are performed.
In relationto the motivationalprocessesof learning,Bandura[1977]distin-
guishedbetweentwo 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 perform-
ance" 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 imitatingmodeledbeha-

vior 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-of-
performance-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 expec-
tancies 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, espe-
ciallyif 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 par-
ticipativereproductionis 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 vicariousassociationsbetweenbeha-
viors and consequences.These associationsform cognitivemaps that are
used to anticipateconsequencesacrossa varietyof futurecircumstances.In
the contextof cross-cultural
adjustmentwhichplacesan individualin a situ-
ation 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(anticipatoryadjust-
ment 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 theore-
tical 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 J-
curvepatternas 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,individ-
uals 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,indi-
vidualsare likelyto exhibitinappropriateactions. In turn, these inapprop-
riate 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 exhibitinappro-
priatebehaviors,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 resultingnegativeconse-
quences. Second, there is a likelihoodthat the form of the negativerein-
forcementsprovidedby the host country nationals (HCNs) may also be
differentfromthose of the home culture,whichmaypreventthe individual
from recognizingthe cues as instancesof negativefeedback.Third, indi-
viduals' 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 individ-
uals 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 caseswhereanticipatoryadjust-
ment 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 experi-
ence 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 indi-
vidualsthat 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 exhib-

iting inappropriatebehaviorduringthe early part of his overseasassign-
ment in Japan, but he does not know what appropriatebehaviors to
substitutefor the inappropriate ones. Thisis whatleadsto the typicalsymp-
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,repeatedavail-
ability,importance,and similarityof the model. First,the degreeof differ-
ence 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.Althoughcorpo-
rateculturenoveltywouldprobablyvarywith 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
likelythe individualis to exhibitinappropriatebehaviors.The morethe indi-
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 inappro-
priatebehaviorsbetweenthe 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 repeatedlyavail-
able 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.Conse-
quently,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 beforeatten-
tion 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.Theseimped-
iments 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,appro-
priate 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 inter-
action 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(cul-
ture shock stage) to utilizingmodeledbehaviorand therebyincreasingthe
abilityto exhibitappropriatebehaviors.Duringthe adjustmentstage indi-
vidualsbegin to acquirethe abilityto behaveappropriately,which results
in an increasein positiveconsequencesand the reductionof negativeconse-
quences[Oberg1960;Torbiorn1982].As individualshavemorechancesto
observe models in relevantsituations, they have a higher likelihood of
focusingattentionon the modeledbehaviorand its consequencesand retain-
ing the associatedrelationshipsbetweenthe behaviorand the consequences.
240 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES, SECOND QUARTER 1991

The greaterthe level of retention,the greaterchance of properlyrepro-

ducing the behaviorsin subsequentsituations [Bandura1977].
Using Mr. Smith again as an examplemay help illustratethese points. As
Mr.Smithbeginsto exhibita greaternumberof appropriatebehaviorswith
increasingaccuracy,he receivesmorepositiveconsequencesand fewernega-
tive 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 self-
worth, 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 beha-
viors 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 appro-
priatebehaviors,whichresultsin the increasedpositiveand decreasednega-
tive 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 cul-
tureand 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 expat-
riateto HCNas modelsof new,appropriatebeha-
vior,thesooner the expatriatewill receivepositive
reinforcement and the quickerhe or she willadjust
to the host culture.
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 makeanti-
cipatoryadjustmentsto 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 mayelim-
inate 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 infor-
mation, the informationwill havea positiveeffect on the actualreproduc-
tion of the anticipatorilydeterminedbehaviorsin the new culture.Black
and Mendenhall[1990]providea reviewof the various aspects of cross-
culturaltrainingthat might increasethe attentionand retentionprocesses
and therefore,theseissuesand potentialpropositionsarenot exploredhere.
However,based on the generaldiscussionof SLTand anticipatoryadjust-
ment, severalpropositionsfor future researchcan be made.
Proposition7: The greater the anticipatory adjustment, the
greaterthepredeparture symbolicandparticipative
rehearsal (e.g., and theshorterthe honey-
training),
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 individualdifferencescauseindi-
vidualsto experienceU-curvepatternsof varioustimeand amplitudedimen-
sions. Thus, in cross-sectional"snap-shots" it is possible that all the
individualsexperiencea U-curvepatternof adjustmentbut that the indi-
vidual 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 U-
curvepatternof adjustment,the differentshapesof the curvewould then
dilute and perhapshide an aggregateU-curve patternwhen adjustment
measureswereaveragedat specifiedpoints in time. Thiswouldsuggestthat
within-personratherthan between-personsanalysiswouldbe moreappro-
priate [Church1982].
THE U-CURVE ADJUSTMENT HYPOTHESIS 243

Placingcross-culturaladjustmentwithinthe theoreticalframeworkof SLT

allowsresearchersto hypothesizemuchmoresystematicallyabout the indi-
vidualvariablesthat mightaffect adjustment.For example,past reviewsof
the adjustmentliteraturesuggestthat willingnessto communicate,willing-
ness to establishrelationships,tolerancefor ambiguity,degree of ethno-
centricity,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 under-
stood. For example,in their reviewof cross-culturaladjustment,Menden-
hall 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 appropriatebeha-
vior in the new culture.Becauserepeatedavailabilityof modelshas a posi-
tive impact on the attentionprocess,and becauseattentionhas a positive
impacton retentionand reproduction,this would explaintheoreticallythe
positiverelationshipbetweenwillingnessto establishrelationshipsand cross-
culturaladjustment.
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 establishrelation-
ships with HCNs.
Perhapsanother examplewill help illustratethe utility of SLT in under-
standinghow and whythese individualdifferenceshavebeen found to have
an impact on adjustmentand what that impact might be relativeto a U-
curvepatternof 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 ethno-
centricindividualto pay little attentionto HCNs as models of new beha-
vior. 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 indi-
viduals believe they can successfully execute expected behaviors. This
belief leads individualsto persistat imitatingnew behaviorslongeras well
as to beingmorewillingto try to imitatenewbehaviors.Consequently,indi-
vidualswith higherlevelsof self-efficacywill be morewillingto learnnew
behaviorsin the host countrythan individualswith lower levels of self-
efficacy. 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 self-
efficacy 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 adjust-
ment 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 spec-
ulating 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 anticip-
atory 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 highestlike-
lihoodof returninghomeearly,and individuals
with high self-efficacy who are sent to non-
novelcultureswillhavethe 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,rela-
tional 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 inquirychar-
acteristicof 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 Soci-
ology, 73: 43142.
Black, J. Stewart.1988.Workroletransitions:A study of Americanexpatriatemanagersin Japan.
Journalof InternationalBusinessStudies, 19: 277-94.
&MarkMendenhall.1990.Cross-cultural A reviewandtheoreticalframe-
trainingeffectiveness:
work for futureresearch.Academyof ManagementReview,15: 113-36.
Black, J. Stewart& GregStephens.1989.The influenceof the sponseon Americanexpatriateadjust-
ment and intentto stayin Pacificrimoverseasassignments.Journalof Management,15:529-44.
Brislin,RichardW. 1981.Cross-cultural encounters.New York:PergamonPress.
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.
Golden,JeshuaS. 1973.Studentadjustmentabroad:A psychiatrist's Educationaland
view.International
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.
Heath,Louis.1970.Foreignstudentsattitudes.International Educationaland CulturalExchange,5(3):
66-70.
Hilgard,ErnestR. & GordonH. Bower.1975.Theoriesof learning.EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall.
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 Americanmultinationalcorpora-

tions. 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 InterculturalRelations,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.
Stening,BruceW. 1979.Problemsof cross-cultural contact:A literaturereview.InternationalJournal
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.