Variation in acculturative stressors over time: A study of Taiwanese students in the United States

Abstract

With globalization, more people than ever before are engaged in cross-cultural living. The literature suggests that encounter with the unfamiliar is accompanied by a myriad of acculturative stressors which rise and ebb across time. However, few studies have employed a longitudinal design to specify their presence and intensity at various time points. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by examining acculturative stressors in Taiwanese international students over a 2-year period, using the Migration–Acculturation Stressors Scale. Of the five stressor domains identified by factor analysis (i.e., Homesickness, Cultural Difference, Social Isolation, Academics, and Unfamiliar Climate), Academic challenges posed the greatest difficulty. The stressors appeared most intense early on, and declined significantly either from the Fall to Spring semesters in the first academic year (Academics and Unfamiliar Climate) or from the Spring of the first academic year to the Fall of the second academic year (Homesickness, Cultural Difference, and Social Isolation). Implications of the findings are discussed.

Introduction

With globalization, more people than ever before are engaged in cross-cultural living. The 2000 Census documented that 11.5% of the American population were born elsewhere (Schmidley, 2003). This is likely to be an undercount, as illegal migrants may not have participated in the national survey. Traditionally, immigrants and refugees were considered permanent migrants, while international students and employees of international corporations were viewed as temporary migrants. However, the meaning of this distinction has become increasingly tenuous, as permanent migrants may return frequently for visits to their birthplace and temporary migrants may settle permanently in the host country. Some scholars have suggested that the migration experiences of permanent and temporary migrants actually approximated each other, especially if the latter's stay was extensive (Furnham & Bochner, 1986). Furthermore, the encounter with the unfamiliar may be accompanied by acculturative stressors for all migrants.

The meaning of the term “acculturative stress” has been clouded by its inconsistent use to refer both to the stimulus or source of discomfort during the acculturation process and the response to it (Ben-Sira, 1997; Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987). To better differentiate the two, in the current study, “acculturative stressors” refers to the stimuli the migrant encounters, while the “stress” is reserved for the migrant's response, which some scholars have termed “culture shock” (Oberg, 1960; Pedersen, 1995). While the current study is concerned with the documentation of acculturative stressors, it should be noted that cross-cultural living is not without its rewards. The process of negotiating cross-cultural differences and re-assessing long-held weltanschauungen often precipitates significant personal transformation and growth in the migrant (Furnham & Bochner, 1986). The significance of the study is presented below, followed by a review of the literature on acculturative stressors.

This study is important because it uses a longitudinal design to assess the dynamic nature of acculturative stressors which rise and ebb in severity over time, depending on the migrant's ability to understand and cope with them. Half a century ago, Lysgaard (1955) suggested that cross-cultural adjustment among sojourners approximated the shape of a U curve during the first year, where initial euphoria and optimism are followed by disorientation and confusion, and, an eventual return to equilibrium secondary to successful coping. This would suggest that acculturative stressors take on the shape of an inverse U, where problems are most prominent between two periods of minimal difficulties. Empirical studies testing the U curve hypothesis have been inconclusive (Church, 1982; Zapf, 1991). One methodological problem with this literature is that Lysgaard (1955) and subsequent researchers usually used a cross-sectional design to study a longitudinal process (Church, 1982; Pedersen, 1995). The rare study that did employ a longitudinal design suffered from very small sample sizes (e. g., Ward, Okura, Kennedy, & Kojima, 1998) or relied on anecdotal evidence (Pedersen, 1995). Using a quantitative design, the current study followed a sample of 97 Taiwanese students for 2 years after arriving in the United States. Extending the study beyond 1 year allows for the assessment of further variation in acculturative stressors.

Second, in spite of a significant early literature on acculturative stressors in general (Berry et al., 1987; Church, 1982; Lysgaard, 1955; Oberg, 1960), and in Taiwanese students in particular (Klein, Miller, & Alexander (1971), Klein, Miller, & Alexander (1980)), more current research is needed. Due to advancement of technology, the world continues to shrink. Information is now rapidly transmitted worldwide, greatly facilitating knowledge about life in other cultures. Thus, while cross-cultural living still entails exposure to the new, the degree of unfamiliarity is now significantly reduced. It is important to assess to what extent acculturative stressors continue to challenge migrants.

Third, the study is significant by targeting acculturative stressors in international students from Taiwan. Currently, there are over a million international students worldwide, half of whom are studying in the United States (Institute of International Education, 2003). The five top sending nations are all Asian: India, China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Among them, Taiwan is smallest in size but her students number more than 28,000 in the United States (Institute of International Education, 2003). Studying Asian students is important because the significant cultural gap between Asia and the United States results in their encountering more acculturative stressors than European students (Church, 1982; Yeh & Inose, 2003). Furthermore, it is particularly interesting to document acculturative stressors among Taiwanese students, as the majority of them remain in the United States upon graduation and eventually become permanent residents (Chang, 1988).

Finally, consistent with Lazarus's (1976) theory of stress and coping, acculturative stressors have been repeatedly demonstrated to mediate mental and physical health and adjustment in across all types of migrants from and to various parts of the world (Berry et al., 1987; Church, 1982; Ritsner, Modai, & Ponizovsky, 2000; Ryan & Twibell, 2000; Smart & Smart, 1995; Ying, 1996; Ying & Liese (1991), Ying & Liese (1994)). Thus, the identification of specific time periods during which certain stressors are particularly salient will assist the prediction of the migrant's well-being, and inform the development of prevention and remedial intervention programs.

Migration-related acculturative stressors may be viewed as stressful life events that arise due to significant physical, cultural, social, political differences between the sending and receiving nations. They moderate the relationship between the experience of acculturation and psychological distress (Berry et al., 1987). Oberg (1960) coined the term “culture shock” to describe the migrant's confusion and anxiety secondary to the loss of familiar and meaningful social norms and cues. Whether a migrant suffers from such significant distress as to merit the description “culture shock” is likely to be mediated by several factors: type of acculturating group (e.g., voluntary versus involuntary migrants); nature of the receiving country (for instance, monocultural or culturally diverse, assimilationist or pluralist); cultural dissonance between the sending and receiving nations; the migrant's personal characteristics (demographic and psychological characteristics); and mode of acculturation (approaching versus avoiding the cultures of origin and resettlement) (Berry et al., 1987).

With regard to the nature of acculturative stressors, Berry et al. (1987) identified five major categories: physical environmental, biological, social, cultural, and psychological. A review of the acculturative stressor literature suggested an additional category of functional stressors. As Berry et al.'s (1987) psychological category did not pertain to externally based stressors but the pre-existing psychology of the migrants, it was deleted from the current study. The literature supporting the remaining five categories of acculturative stressors is reviewed below.

There is significant support that the migrant may encounter physical stressors, including climate (Ben-Sira, 1997; Ritsner et al., 2000); unfamiliar setting (Ben-Sira, 1997; Juffer, 1987); housing (Ben-Sira, 1997; Ritsner et al., 2000); and safety (Ben-Sira, 1997; Ryan & Twibell, 2000). Additionally, biological stressor, such as food (Ben-Sira, 1997; Ryan & Twibell, 2000) and disease (Ben-Sira, 1997; Ritsner et al., 2000; Ryan & Twibell, 2000) may be experienced. Particularly emotionally taxing are social stressors, including homesickness for the country and family and friends left behind (Church, 1982; Van Tilburg, Vingerhoets, & Van Heck, 1996; Yeh & Inose, 2003; Ying, 1996); estrangement from others and difficulty making new friends (Ben-Sira, 1997; Juffer, 1987; Ryan & Twibell, 2000; Stephen & Stephen, 1992; Yeh & Inose, 2003); and loneliness (Church, 1982; Ritsner et al., 2000; Ryan & Twibell, 2000; Yeh & Inose, 2003). Cross-cultural living also engenders cultural stressors, such as difference in cultures values of the sending and receiving societies (Ben-Sira, 1997; Pedersen, 1995; Ritsner et al., 2000), and the encounter of racial discrimination (Ben-Sira, 1997; Church, 1982; Ying, 1996; Ying, Lee, & Tsai, 2000). Finally, functional stressors, in the areas of language (Berry et al., 1987; Church, 1982; Ryan & Twibell, 2000; Yeh & Inose, 2003; Ying, 1996); work and/or study of the migrant and family members (Ben-Sira, 1997; Church, 1982; Ritsner et al., 2000; Ryan & Twibell, 2000); financial difficulty (Ben-Sira, 1997; Church, 1982; Ritsner et al., 2000; Ryan & Twibell, 2000); transportation (Ryan & Twibell, 2000). These domains of stressors were included in the Migration–Acculturative Stressor Scale (MASS) used in the current study.

Furthermore, the study assessed gender variation in acculturative stressors. The existing literature remains inconclusive as to whether such difference exists among Asian migrants. While some scholars found no gender difference in the experience of acculturative stressors among Asian migrants (Yeh & Inose, 2003; Ying, 1996), others did report such differences. Furnham and Shiekh (1993) found Asian immigrant women reported more acculturative stressors, while Kibira (1993) reported Vietnamese men to encounter more stressors. Interestingly, in both cases, the stressor arose due to the gap in gender role between the sending and the receiving nation. The question appeared to be: Is the move from a traditional (male dominant) Asian society to a more modern (gender egalitarian) Western one accompanied by more stressors for Asian women who gain greater social status, or for Asian men who lose social position? This will be tested in the current investigation.