!
ФЕДЕРАЛЬНОЕ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ БЮДЖЕТНОЕ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНОЕ УЧРЕЖДЕНИЕ
ВЫСШЕГО ПРОФЕССИОНАЛЬНОГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ
«САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБУРГСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ»
Ли Цзыбо
LiZibo
Сравнительный анализ процессов адаптации Китайских
студентов, обучающихся в России и Южной Корее
Chinese students in Russia and South Korea: comparative analysis of
adaptation processes
Диссертация
на соискание степени магистра
по основной образовательной программе высшего образования
по направлению 040100 «Социология»,
профиль «Европейскиеобщества» / MA «Studies in European Societies»
Научный руководитель / Scientific supervisor:
Доктор философских наук,
Профессор Резаев А.В.
Prof. Rezaev A.V.
Рецензент / Reviewer:
Доктор социологических наук,
Профессор Давыдов С.А.
Prof. Davydov S.A.
Санкт-Петербург
2017
Contents
Generating Table of Contents for Word Import ...
Abstract
With the development of globalization, borders among nations seem to be
weakened, the corporation and communication between countries frequently happen,
including the exchange of human talents. People who have the background of studying
abroad seem to get more advantages in the labor market. Therefore, studying abroad
becomes a fashion trend recently.
As the economic boom of China, an increasing number of Chinese students pursue
educations in foreign countries. When we talk about the cross-cultural adaptation of
students studying abroad, Chinese overseas students have already become a force to be
reckoned with. As culture difference is an influential factor of the international students’
cross-cultural adaptation, it is necessary to do a research to reveal the importance of
culture distance in the process of adaptation, to remind host universities and institutions
to help international students properly.
The present paper checks how culture distance affects adaptation of students
studying abroad from the perspectives of socio-cultural adaptation and psychological
adaptation, examines the hypothesis made by the author that the larger culture distance
will result in greater cross-cultural adaptation difficulties. The research takes the
Chinese students in South Korea and Russia as samples, uses both qualitative
(interview) and quantitative (survey) methods to check the validity of the hypothesis
and answer the research questions as following:
1.Is there any significant difference in cross-cultural adaptation between Chinese
international students in Russia and South Korea?
2.What is the culture distance between China and Korea and between China and
Russia?
3.To what extent can culture distance influence cross-cultural adaptation of Chinese
international students in South Korea and Russia?
By data analysis and analysis of interviews, there are following findings:
1.The culture distance between China and Russia is larger than that between China
and Korea.
2.The Chinese students in South Korea socio-culturally and psychologically adapt to
the host culture better than the Chinese students in Russia.
3.The Chinese students both in South Korea and Russia maintain a healthy
psychological state.
4.In socio-cultural adaptation, a larger culture distance results in a more difficult
adaptation for Chinese students. The correlation between culture distance and sociocultural adaptation difficulty is positive.
5.There is no significant correlation between culture distance and psychological
adaptation.
Key words: culture distance, cross-cultural adaptation, socio-cultural adaptation,
psychological adaptation.
4
Introduction
Background of the research
According to the “Hurun Report: 2016’s report on the trends to study abroad”, there
were 459 thousand Chinese students studying abroad in 2014, with a significant
increase of 11 percents than the previous year. China has already become the biggest
“students provider” for many overseas studying destinations, including the most
popular ones such as America, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada.
There is a trend that more Chinese are seeking for the opportunities to send their
children to study abroad. Such phenomenon can be explained in different ways. Firstly,
Chinese parents send their children abroad to study to enjoy better educational
resources, to benefit from the best professors, academia and first-class facility.
Secondly, there is such a view in China that studying abroad is a “gold plating” process.
It looks like an investment for the students’ future career. After several years of
studying abroad, students have better opportunity to find satisfying jobs.
As demonstrated in the Hurun report, there are two trends in the group of nowadays
Chinese overseas students: a tendency of young age and poor preparation for studying
abroad. Such trends result in the consequences, such as adaptation difficulties for
Chinese students studying abroad.
Among all the studying destinations for Chinese overseas students, Russia and
South Korea are not among the top 10 list. According to the statistic of 2015, there is a
total number of 25 thousand Chinese students in Russia and 55 thousand in South
Korea. However, those two countries, as the most influential neighbors of China, tightly
corporate with China. As a result of economic corporation among those three countries,
there is a demand for professionals, such as interpreters. This fact explains the dramatic
increase of Chinese overseas students in Russia and South Korea recent years.
Therefore, these two groups of international students require more attention from
scholars and researchers. Living in an entirely different culture may face many
difficulties. If students can not overcome those challenges, it may influence their
physical fitness, psychological health and even academic success. Compare with
Russian culture, Korean culture seems to be much more similar to Chinese culture. In
other words, it means that the culture distance between Korean and Chinese culture is
smaller than Russian and Chinese culture. As a result, we made the hypothesis that
5
“Chinese students in South Korea should be better adapted than those in Russia,”
because they can better understand the norm and value of the receiving society.
This paper, as a comparative study on the Chinese students’ cross-cultural adaptation
in Russia and South Korea, will explore the influence of culture distance and other
factors, for instance, language proficiency, social support. We hope the findings of this
paper can provide some guidance for the universities and international institutions, to
help them to provide international students detailed and accurate social support for their
successful adaptation.
Purpose of the study
With the increasing student mobility all over the world, academia has found the
importance to consider the cross-cultural adaptation of overseas students. However,
most researchers focus on the factors like individuals’ personalities, language
proficiency, social support, previous overseas experiences. Culture distance was rarely
mentioned in the earlier studies, and the gap should be filled.
This thesis examines the external and internal factors of cross-cultural adaptation
and tries to explain how culture distance influences cross cultural adaptation of Chinese
students in Russia and South Korea. In the paper, we use both quantitative method
(survey) and qualitative method (in-depth interview). We aim to check the hypothesis
which we made beforehand:
Chinese students in South Korea better adapt to the host culture than those in Russia,
and Chinese international students with larger cultural distance tend to have a lower
degree of cross-cultural adaptation.
Moreover, many scholars suggest that “bigger” culture distance will increase the
adjustment difficulties (Adler, 2002; Hutchings, 2003; Mendenhall& Oddou, 1985;
Selmer, 2007; Ward, 2001). We will also test whether this hypothesis is also right in the
content of Chinese students in Russia and South Korea.
Structure of the thesis
This thesis is an empirical study with the purpose to find out the most significant
factors of cross-cultural adaptation and to examine the impact of culture distance. The
thesis consists of five chapters:
Chapter One offers us literature review of the previous relevant studies.
Chapter Two presents the general introduction of the methodology of this study. In
6
this study, we adopt quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative research is
designed with questionnaires; the qualitative study consists of in-depth interviews with
well-selected samples. The research procedures are also mentioned in this chapter.
In Chapter Three detailed data and interview analysis are carried out. The results of
analysis are presented in this chapter.
Chapter Four answers the research questions and checks the validity of the
hypothesis made by the author.
Chapter Five points out the main findings of the study, implication and draw general
conclusion to the research. Meanwhile, the limitation and improvement for further
study are suggested by the author.
7
Chapter One: Literature review
This chapter presents the relevant literature of cross-cultural adaptation and culture
distance, introduces previous studies about the factors of cross-cultural adaptation, and
also criticizes the existing research.
1.1. Development of Comparative Sociology
With the appearance of Sociology, a concept of comparison had already existed.
From the theories of the founder fathers of Sociology like August Comte, H. Spenser,
and K. Marx, we can see the application of the comparative concept. However, in the
field of sociology, E. Durkheim and M. Weber firstly used comparative sociology to do
research. E. Durkheim is considered as the founder of Comparative Sociology. He is the
first man who used the term of “Comparative Sociology.” His “Suicide: A study in
Sociology” can be seen as his representative work of comparative sociology
(Durkheim, 1897). Another sociologist who employed comparative methods is Marx
Weber. His application of comparative methods can be seen in his book “The Protestant
Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” (Marx Weber, 1905). Robert M. Marsh is the
representative of the school of Comparative Sociology. He even wrote and published a
book which used “Comparative Sociology” as the title. In this book, Robert M. Marsh
claims that Comparative Sociology applies systematical comparison of data which are
collected in more than two societies. Moreover, there is a huge difference between the
data which are collected from more than two societies and the data collected in a single
society. Therefore, Comparative Sociology should not be confused with General
Sociology (Comparative Sociology, 1967). Comparative Sociology used to developed
slowly, however, under the current circumstance of Globalization, Comparative
Sociology has finally entered the researchers’ field of vision. The theories and methods
of Comparative Sociology play a important role in the research of homogeneity and
heterogeneity of culture under globalization. Numerous works of Comparative
Sociology have published recently. Among those works, the book “Concise
Encyclopedia of Comparative Sociology” is a great hit. In the Russian sociologist
Andrey V Rezaev’s review of this book, he highly recommended this book. He
appraised this book as “an impressive achievement” (Andrey Rezaev, 2016).
1.2. Research of Cross-Cultural, Cross-Societal or Cross-National
The author named this thesis as “Chinese students in Russia and South Korea: a
comparative analysis of adaptation processes and phenomena in everyday life.”
Through the title, it is easy to figure out that the thesis is a study using comparative
strategy. However, the author believes it is necessary to explain whether this thesis is a
“cross-national,” a “cross-societal” or a “cross-cultural” research. Many previous
researchers have already explained the differences between these three terms. The
American sociologist, Melvin L. Kohn, in his essay named “Cross-National research as
an analytic strategy” explained cross-national research in details. He stated that in broad
terms, cross-national research could be understood as “any research that transcends
national boundaries.” However, he prefers to give his definition to the term as “studies
that utilize systematically comparable data from two or more nations” (Melvin, 1987).
Moreover, in Melvin’s essay, he also pointed out that there exist four types of crossnational research, which are “those in which nation is object of study; those in which
nation is context of study; those in which nation is unit of analysis; and those that are
transnational in character” (Melvin, 1987).
In the article “Cross-cultural, cross-societal and cross-national research” of a
German sociologist Stein Rokkan, he compared these three terms. As Stein Rokkan
claimed, “the term “cross-societal” means the comparison from both the perspectives of
cultural and territory, but in social studies this term is rarely used(Stein Rokkan, 1993).
In the book of the sociologist Robert Marsh, he used the term cross-societal to name the
title “Comparative Sociology: A Codification of Cross-Societal Analysis” (Robert
Marsh, 1967). The term “cross-national” used much more frequently. As Stein Rokkan
claimed, the term “cross cultural” is used in the sphere of human relations, “cross
national” is employed in the areas of economy and policy and “cross societal”
combines the both two previous terms, it can be used for all the human activities(Stein
Rokkan, 1993).
In the same essay of Melvin, he gave his explanation to this question. Melvin claims
that “Cross-national” is unambiguous, it refers to the study among countries. However,
“cross-cultural” may refer to subcultures within one nation, for instance, in Melvin’s
essay, he cited an example of Mexico-American and Anglo-American subcultures
within the United States (Melvin, 1987). If a researcher compares these two
9
subcultures, the comparison can also be called “cross-cultural.” After reading relevant
literature, although this paper is a typical cross-national study which compares the
Chinese students in two nations, the author still insists on using the term “crosscultural” to name this study, because this study aims to make a comparison from the
perspective of cultural distance. “Culture” is the core of this study.
1.3. The concept of acculturation, adjustment, and adaptation
When studying the process of a sojourner from home culture to host culture,
scholars tend to use different terms. Those words include adaptation, acculturation,
adjustment, transculturation, etc. During the process of relevant literature reading, the
author found that adaptation, acculturation, and adjustment are much more frequently
used by scholars.
1.3.1. Adaptation
Originally, adaptation is a term used in biology, which means the change of a
species or individual in habits or structure, due to the change of environment, to cope
with the environmental stresses. “Living systems act instinctively to meet the challenge
or threat and to restore balance and harmony” (Ruben, 1983, p. 137). “Adaptation
manifests the natural human instinct to struggle for an internal equilibrium in the face
of adversarial environmental conditions” (Kim, 2005, p. 378). All species on the earth
have to adapt to the external environment. Cultural adaptation can be seen as the
extension of biological adaptation.
1.3.2. Acculturation
According to Berry, acculturation refers to both cultural and psychological changes
which happened because of interaction between two or more cultural groups and
individuals. From the perspective of group, it means changes in social structures,
institutions, and cultural practices. From the perspective of individuals, it denotes
changes in a person’s behavior (Berry, 2005, pp. 698-699). Kim( 2001) gave his
explanation to the term “acculturation” as the process when individuals gain knowledge
of host culture to adapt into it. According to these definitions, the author summarizes
that the term “acculturation” means sojourners’ change in the host culture and the
change of host culture to sojourners as respond. The key word in the study of
“acculturation” is “change.”
1.3.3. Adjustment
10
The term “Adjustment” is used in the famous U-Curve Model of Lysgaard (1955),
he used “adjustment” in the third stage of intercultural adaptation (The other three
stages are the honeymoon, crisis, and biculturalism). It denotes the period when
Sojourners begin to accept and try to cope with the host culture. Therefore, according to
Lysgaard, adjustment means how a person should act to cope with the host culture. The
focus of the term “adjustment” is the reaction to challenges such as culture shock.
1.4. Theoretical frameworks
While studying cross-cultural adaptation, researchers designed different models to
explain the mechanism, for instance, the frameworks of Colleen Ward, John Berry, and
Young Yun Kim. In this section, the author will briefly introduce the frameworks of
cross-cultural adaptation.
1.4.1. Classification of cross-cultural adaptation
Different researchers classified cross-cultural adaptation differently. Most scholars
agreed with the classification of Ward. Ward and his colleagues claim that cross-cultural
adaptation has two dimensions, which is psychological adaptation and socio-cultural
adaptation (Ward, 1996). Psychological adaptation refers to mental health and
satisfaction. During the process of cross-cultural adaptation, if we seldom have the
negative emotions, such as anxious, loneliness, disappointment, we well adapt
psychologically. Socio-cultural adaptation means the ability to adapt to the host society,
the ability to communicate with locals. It has been proved by much empirical research
that psychological and socio-cultural adaptations are related. Psychological adaptation
is influenced by personality, life changes, social support, coping styles and predeparture expectancy. By contrast, socio-cultural adaptation is influenced by the length
of residence in the host culture, culture distance, interaction with locals, culture
knowledge, language ability and acculturation strategies (Ward & Kennedy, 1993).
By the classification of Ward, Black developed cross-cultural adaptation into three
dimensions: general, work and interact adaptation (Black, 1991). General adaptation
contains the adjustment of all aspects which were related to living, such as food,
housing, living expenditure, health care. Work adaptation is related to the acculturation
in working environment, it contains the change of working role, operating
responsibility, and working condition. Interact adaptation means the proficiency and
comfort when communicating with people in the host culture, because of cultural
differences, interact adaptation is regarded as the most difficult for Sojourners.
11
1.4.2. Research perspectives of cross-cultural adaptation
Cross-cultural adaptation can be studied from the perspectives of collective and
individuals. The original studies of cross-cultural adaptation studied culture changes
from the perspective of the collective, and then discriminate the differences among
various cultures. Differently, the studies of cross-cultural adaptation from the
perspective of individuals focus on Sojourners, focus on their social integration,
psychological adaptation, the changes of values and behaviors in a new cultural
environment (Yang, 2005). The objects of study contain not only immigrants and
refugees, but also students studying abroad, skilled workers, business people,
missionaries, military people, diplomatic agents, and tourists.
1.4.3. Dimensions of cross-cultural adaptation
When studying cross-cultural adaptation, some researchers prefer using the term
“cultural shock” instead of cross-cultural adaptation. Oberg in 1960 divided cultural
shock into six dimensions: feelings of stress, loss, being rejected or rejecting,
confusion, anxiety and importance. Moreover, cultural shock can also be studied from
six dimensions, include language shock, role shock, transition shock, culture fatigue,
education shock, adjustment stress and culture distance. Besides, Furnham and Bochner
summarized the study of cross-cultural adaptation into eight dimensions: loss, fatalism,
selective migration, appropriate expectations, negative life events, social support, a
clash of values and social skills deficit.
The current research demonstrates that cross-cultural adaptation is a process of
different stages and dimensions. For instance, Mansell claims that Sojourners may
experience four developing dimensions in cross-cultural adaptation, which are
alienation, marginality, acculturation, and duality. In 1994, Taylor’s transformative
learning model divided the process of cross-cultural adaptation into three dimensions:
precondition, process, and result of transformation.
1.4.4. Models of cross-cultural adaptation
Cross-cultural adaptation is a complicated process, various scholars studied it and
created different models and theories, among those models four models are widely
accepted, which are “U- Curve model,”“The stress-adaptation-growth dynamic of
Kim,”“model of Davis” and “model of Berry.”
(a)U-Curve model
12
Since the anthropologist Oberg first introduced the concept of “culture shock” in
1960, this concept has been widely used in the studies of cross-cultural adaptation.
Oberg claims that the people who are experiencing cross-cultural adaptation face four
stages in the process: honeymoon, crisis, recovery and adjustment (Oberg, 1960). The
opinions of Oberg can be demonstrated by an “U- Curve.”
1.Honeymoon: the excitement and happiness caused by the beginning of a journey.
The freshness and excitement to get into a new environment exceed the anxiety.
Sojourners are surprised by any differences. This stage may last one to two months.
2.Crisis: After the disappearing of the excitement, Sojourners face the challenges to
survive in a strange and new environment, sojourners may face culture shock.
Different negative emotions may occur the individuals. However, some researchers
claim that culture shock may not only bring negative emotions. Adeler points out that
strong culture shock is an active signal, it shows that the sojourners begin to interact
with the host culture, but not only interact with their natives. Culture shock provides
sojourners an opportunity to cognize themselves, offers them a chance to be a person
of multi-culture. This stage may last three to four months.
3.Recovery: In this stage, the individuals have a new cognition to their surrounding,
they start to admit the differences in two cultures. Meanwhile, people begin to change
their expectancy to suit the new environment.
4.Adjustment: In this stage, the individuals begin to adjust to the host culture, start
developing themselves, to remold their thinking ways and behaviors in the new
environment, they act more like an “insider.”
13
Figure 1. U curve
The research result of Drew Nesdale is similar to the “U- Curve.” Coincidently,
Drew Nesdale also divides cross-cultural adaptation into four stages: euphoria stage,
cultural shock stage, anomie stage, and assimilation or adaptation stage (Drew, 2000).
In fact, not everyone may have the feeling of excitement when entering a new
environment, some people have not experienced all stages, and some people may
experience all stages repeatedly. Moreover, although most people are keeping adapting
into the new environment, they remain many values, traditions and communication
styles of their origin culture. Although many elements of culture change frequently, the
structure and the core of a culture refuse fundamental changes. To find the stability and
consistency of life, Sojourners should find a balance between their home culture and
host culture (Chen, 1998, pp 294).
(b) The stress-adaptation-growth dynamic of Kim
Korean psychologist Yong Yun Kim studied cross-cultural adaptation and got his
adaptation theory. This theory analyzes the behaviors of individuals in the different
culture from the dynamic perspective; the method emphasizes the importance of
interaction. She supposes that during the cross-cultural interaction, there is a model of
stress-adaptation-growth (Kim, 1997). This process looks like a spiral spring, two steps
forward and one step backward, go further under pressure. The speed to adapt to the
14
host culture is determined by communicative ability, social support, age and personality
of Sojourners and so on.
Figure 2. Stress-Adaptation-Growth Dynamic
In this model, pressure is considered as a normal emotion, but not a signal of failure.
Kim claims that cross-cultural adaptation inevitable causes deculturation in some
degrees or we can say the loss of some behaviors and values.
(c) Model of Davis
Linell Davis splits cross-cultural adaptation into five stages: excitement, confusion,
frustration, effectiveness and appreciation. Similar to the “U-Curve model,” in this
model, the first impression or emotion of people when entering a new environment is
excitement and happiness, and then sojourners begin to be confused about the
differences and changes. Without any solutions and explanations, the feeling of
confusion decreases sojourners’ working efficiency and communication ability. They
start to feel frustrated. However, after a period, sojourners begin to recognize the new
environment objectively and manage their new life rationally, and they step into the
stage of effectiveness. In the last stage, sojourners begin to enjoy the differences in the
host culture and hope to live in the new environment for a long period.
(d) Model of Berry
Cultural maintenance and contact participation are two significant issues of cross15
cultural adaptation. Based on these two dimensions, Berry carried out different
strategies of adaptation. On the one hand, the preference to maintain your native culture
in host culture; On the other hand, the inclination to integrate into the host culture. As
Berry claims: when a person does not want to keep contacting with their home culture
and positively seek interaction with host culture, they employ the strategy of
assimilation. On the contrary, if a person maintain their home culture and meanwhile
positively interact with host culture, the strategy of integration is used. When a person
avoids to interact with host culture and prefers maintaining the home culture, the
strategy is separation. And when a person shows no interests in both home culture and
host culture, the strategy is marginalization (Berry, 2005,pp 698-706).
Moreover, Berry also claims that although there are four assimilation strategies to
choose, people themselves do not have free choices. Their choices of different
strategies are determined by the dominant group in the host culture. The strategies are
influenced by the attitudes of dominant groups and the settlement policies in the host
culture(Berry, 2005). In this case, Berry also clarifies four strategies for host culture:
When host culture imposed immigrants to use the strategy of assimilation, the strategy
for host culture is termed “Melting pot”; Separation corresponds with the strategy of
“segregation”; When marginalization is forced by the host culture, it is called
“exclusion”; Finally, integration is corresponded with “multiculturalism”.
Figure 3. Model of Berry
Based on the research on the immigrants in Canada, Berry claims that integration is
the best strategy, which means to maintain home culture but meanwhile to study the
16
strengths of the host culture.
1.4.5. Factors which may influence adaptation
Cross-cultural adaptation is a complicated process. It may be influenced by various
factors. Researchers with different academic backgrounds study adaptation from
different perspectives. However, till today there is still no clear classification of the
factors. Generally, the factors can be classified into external factors and internal factors.
External factors contain values, culture distance, social support, circumstance, etc.
Discrimination and prejudice, ethnocentrism, appraisal and coping styles and
demographic factors can be generalized as internal factors.
1.Main external factors of adaptation
(a)The factor of values
Stephten Bochner carried out his hypothesis of Core Value. He claims that the
differences of values are the main reason to cause culture distance, the differences
between values are also the core reason to cause culture conflict and culture shock. The
interaction between people with total opposite values may turn into hostility and
conflict (Babiker, 1980, pp 109-116). Some researchers claim that the conflict of values
is the main reason to cause culture shock of Sojourners.
(b) Culture distance
Cultural distance refers to the feeling of unfamiliar because of long geographical
and spatial distance and lack of cultural commons. Research indicated that the less the
culture distance is, the easier to understand the other culture; The bigger the culture
distance is, the harder to create and maintain cross-cultural interaction (Bochner, 1972,
pp 65-81). If we compare Chinese culture with Russian culture and Korean culture, the
culture distance between Chinese and Russian culture is bigger than the culture distance
between Chinese and Korean culture. So for the Chinese students studying in Russian,
they experience more culture shock. Culture distance can be measured by the model of
Hofstede. According to Hofstede, the differences of cultures can be identified by six
dimensions: Power Distance (PDI), Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV),
Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS), Uncertainty avoidance (UAI), Long-term versus
Short-term orientation (LTO) and Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR).
17
X
The first dimension (PDI) refers to the acceptance of hierarchy in the society. In the
second dimension (IDV), individualism means that the people care about themselves
and their relatives. On the contrary, collectivism means that the people have the willing
to look after the group and communities. In the third dimension (MAS), Masculinity
refers to the society which value money, success and competition. On the contrary,
femininity means the society of cooperation. The fourth dimension (UAI) denotes the
acceptance of uncertainty in a culture (Hofstede, 1984). The fifth dimension (LTO)
denotes the different attitude of people in cultures about life, whether they are living in
the current or planning for the future (Hofstede, 2013).
(c) Social support network
Social support network means an individual’s stable social relationship; it is one
major factor which may influence the adaptation of a Sojourner. The social support
network of a person includes all sorts of resources which one Sojourner may get, such
as money, friendship, help, and love. With the help of the social support network,
Sojourners may get mental stability, decrease the feeling of pressure, anxious, helpless
and loneliness. However, social support network is a “double-edged sword,” it may also
stunt Sojourners studying host culture and interact with people in host culture.
(d) Circumstance change
There is a series of shifts in the process of cross-cultural adaptation, such as the
change of eating habits, the pace of life, and climate. Those changes may bring big
pressure to Sojourners. In the research of Fumham and Bochner in 1986, they found
18
that there is a correlation of 0.35 between circumstance change and mental health,
which means the circumstance change of cross-cultural adaptation may influence
psychological adaptation of a Sojourner (Bochner, Fumhan, 1986, pp 109-112).
2.Primary internal factors of adaptation
(a) Ethnocentrism
Anthropologists believe that ethnocentrism exists in every culture. Sumner is the
first researcher to introduce this concept into the study of culture. Under the influence
of ethnocentrism, people use the values of their culture to judge the behaviors of people
who belong to other culture, they frequently subconsciously disparage other culture. In
the cross-cultural adaptation, ethnocentrism may stunt the interactions and
understandings between home and host culture.
(b) Discrimination and prejudice
Discrimination may influence psychological and social adaptation of a sojourner. A
series of research has found that there is a strong negative correlation between
discrimination and mental satisfaction of Sojourners.
If we see adaptation from the perspective of culture distance, Chinese should be
quite easy to adapt to Japanese culture, However, as indicated in research, the
adaptation degree of Chinese is much lower than the Westerners in Japan, one primary
explanation is that Chinese are discriminated in Japan because of some historical
reasons. In this case, we can say discrimination and prejudice are primary factors of
cross-cultural adaptation (Chen, 2003).
(c) Appraisal and coping style
Different appraisal and coping styles may also influence the degree of cross-cultural
adaptation. The researchers pay much attention to the expectancy of Sojourners. The
expectancy of Sojourners refers to the imagination of the host culture before departure.
Practically, if the expectancy can match the reality, Sojourners may well adapt to the
host culture. Much research indicates that when the expectancy of a Sojourner is lower,
his or her real life satisfaction will be higher.
(d) Coping resources: knowledge and skills
Knowledge and skills of the new environment may improve psychological
adaptation. On one hand, knowledge and skills may gain from previous abroad
experiences, many research has discovered that the students who has the experiences of
being abroad may adapt better. On another hand, another way to gain knowledge and
19
skills is to train and study. For instance, the knowledge of language can be gained
through training.
(e) Personality
Personality is another internal factor which may influence cross cultural adaptation.
Some research found that there is a positive correlation between “Outgoing personality”
and cross cultural adaptation, some insisted on a negative correlation and the others
claimed that there is no correlation. Thus, the influence of personality in cross cultural
adaptation is controversial. Ward and Chang suggested the theory of “cultural fitting” in
1997. They claimed that in most situations it is not personality which may determine
cross cultural adaptation. On the contrary, the question is that whether the personality of
a sojourner is correspond to the host culture (Ward, Chang, 1997).
Besides, foreign language proficiency, previous abroad experience, reasons and
motivation for transition, knowledge of the host culture and also the demographic
factors (gender, age, income, education level) may also influence cross-cultural
adaptation.
1.4.6. Research on cultural distance and cross-cultural adaptation
Previous research has proved that cultural distance had a great impact on the crosscultural adaptation. Redmond and Bunyi (1993) examined the correlation between
cultural distance and the social integration among International students in America.
They claimed that the correlation is positive, which means that the larger the cultural
distance is, the more difficult the social integration is. Furukawa (1997) conducted
empirical research in Japan and claimed that cultural distance was associated with
psychological distress. In addition, Russian scholars, Irina Galchenkoa, Fons J. R. Van
de Vijver (2007) conducted research in exchange students from Russia and found that
the larger cultural distance caused less psychological and socio-cultural adaptation;
Moreover, they found out that larger cultural distance is connected with more stress and
homesickness, fewer interactions with locals.
1.5. Overview of the Literature Review
The author reviewed literature by searching the databases of CNKI and Academic
Search Premier (EBSCO), the author also used the search engines such as Google
Scholar and Baidu.
Cross-cultural adaptation refers to an individual’s physical and psychological
responses to cross-cultural environment. When it comes to the classification of cross20
cultural adaptation, Ward and his colleagues classified cross-cultural adaptation into
two dimensions: psychological and socio-cultural adaptation. Later, Black developed
the classification of Ward into three dimensions: general, work and interact adaptation.
Moreover, the author found different models of cross-cultural adaptation provided by
various scholars, for instance, the “Curve model,”“The stress-adaptation-growth
dynamic of Kim,”“model of Davis,” and “model of Berry.” Besides, the author also
summarized the factors which may influence cross-cultural adaptation conducted by
previous researchers, the factors can generally be divided into external (values, cultural
distance, social support, circumstance change) and internal factors (ethnocentrism,
discrimination, appraisal and coping style, foreign language proficiency, previous
abroad experience, knowledge of host culture and demographic factors). Moreover, as
this thesis aimed to explore the influence of culture distance on the cross-cultural
adaptation, the author also introduced a lot of previous empirical studies, which claim
that cultural distance plays significant role in Sojourners’ cross-cultural adaptation(e.g.,
Redmond and Bonyi, 1993; Furukawa, 1997). However, there is not enough research
which may prove the positive correlation between cultural distance and cross-cultural
adaptation. Some scholars claim that there is a negative correlation between these two
concepts. Therefore the relationship between these two concepts is still controversial.
Thus, this thesis tried to explore the relationship between cultural distance and
cross-cultural adaptation by a comparative study between the Chinese international
students in Russia and South Korea. In this thesis, the author decided to employ Albert
Bandura’s (1977) “Social learning” theory as the theoretical framework. In his book,
Bandura claims that a newcomer in a new environment may behave by observing other
people’s behavior or imitating role models behavior. The theory suggests that when a
foreigner comes to a new environment, he tends to see the similarities between his
home culture and the host culture. The new comers are willing to act in the host culture
using their past experiences which has been proved successful. However, in a new
environment, past experiences may be useless. In turn, the inappropriate behaviors may
cause bad consequences. If the culture distance between host and home cultures is
large, the newcomers have more probabilities to behave wrongly in the receiving
society (Torbiorn, 1982).
21
Chapter Two: Methodology
The research aims to test the hypothesis which has been suggested earlier: There is a
positive correlation between culture distance and cross-cultural adaptation. The primary
materials for research were gathered through the use of both qualitative and quantitative
methodologies such as in-depth interviews and a survey. To gather enough participants,
the author employed the snowball method to recruit participants.
2.1. Research questions and hypotheses
Questions:
1.Is there any significant difference in cross-cultural adaptation between Chinese
international students in Russia and South Korea?
2.What is the culture distance between China and Korea and between China and
Russia?
3.To what extent can culture distance influence cross-cultural adaptation of Chinese
international students in South Korea and Russia?
Hypothesis:
1.Chinese students in South Korea better adapt into host culture than those in
Russia.
2.The culture distance between China and Korea is smaller than the culture distance
between China and Russia.
3.Chinese international students with larger culture distance tend to have a low level
of cross-cultural adaptation. Therefore, there is a positive correlation between culture
distance and cross-cultural adaptation.
2.2. Interview
2.2.1. Selection of interviewees
To study the relationship between culture distance and cross-cultural adaptation, a
qualitative research approach is used by the author. Fourteen semi-structured interviews
were conducted with the Chinese students in Saint- Petersburg State University and
Seoul National University- seven in each university. The seven interviewees in SaintPetersburg are friends of the author. They are doing their master degree. The
interviewees in Seoul were found with the help of the author’s friend living in Seoul.
All interviewees have studied abroad more than two years.
22
2.2.2. Interview plan
All the interviews were conducted in a designed framework. During the interviews,
the author firstly expressed his gratitude to the interviewees and got their permissions to
record the interviews. Besides, the author promised to protect the privacy of the
interviewees. So the interviews are anonymous. Then the author briefly introduced the
purpose of the research. After all of these preparations, the author began to ask the
prepared questions with the help of an interview guide. 11 prepared questions were
asked during the interviews (Appendix 2).
The informants were asked to talk about their experience of studying abroad, about
their adaptation processes. All of the informants shared with us their aim to study
abroad, their expectations about the new environment before departure, and the
difficulties they met in the adaptation process. The questions would be sound like: Why
do you choose to study in Russia/ Korea? What are the biggest differences between
Chinese culture and Russian/ Korean culture for you? Have you already adapted to the
differences? Do you have any Russian/ Korean friends? How often do you interact with
Russian/ Korean? The interview will end with some questions relevant to the previous
literature, like “U-curve model.”
2.3. Survey
2.3.1. Participants of survey
In the second part of the research, the author also used the quantitative approach to
study the relationship between culture distance and cross-cultural adaptation. To fulfill
the demands of our research, there are several standards for the participants: Firstly, the
participants should be Chinese and should be born and grew up in mainland of China.
Secondly, the participants should be studying or have the experiences of studying in
Saint Petersburg State University or Seoul State University. Thirdly, the participants
should have lived in Russia or South Korea for more than two years.
The author used the snowball method to recruit enough participants. As the author
has no so many familiars both in Russia and South Korea, the author sought help from
all his friends who are now living or used to study in Russia and South Korea. The
friends who fulfilled the demands are enrolled into the survey. Besides, the author
asked his friends to recruit qualified participants. In the end, 100 participants were
recruited in total to do a survey, 50 in Russia and 50 in South Korea. All participants
completed the same questionnaire. After eliminating invalid questionnaires, the final
23
sample contained 91 in total, 48 in Saint- Petersburg State University and 43 in Seoul
National University.
2.3.2. Instrument
The design of the questionnaire begins with demographic information. The
informants were asked to answer questions about their gender, age, years abroad and
educational status. The questionnaire includes two sections: In the first section, the
author adopted Black and Stephen’s (1989) cultural Novelty scale to calculate cultural
distance. The scale consists of eight items such as climate, living condition, customs.
The informants were asked to answer questions about the similarity of these eight
conditions. The score serves as a measurement of the culture distance. The second
section was designed to measure the informants’ degree of adaptation. As we mentioned
in the theoretical framework, it consists of two dimensions, socio-cultural adaptation,
and psychological adaptation.
(a)Socio-cultural adaptation
To measure the informants’ degree of socio-cultural adaptation, the author adopted
Socio-cultural Adjustment Scale (SCAS). The scale was introduced by Ward and
Kennedy in their sojourner adjustment framework (Ward & Kennedy, 1999). The
original scale is an instrument consists of 41 items, in the research the author selects
and adopts 18 items. SCAS is a scale of five points, from not difficult to extremely
difficult. The subjects rate the difficulties they experienced in the host culture. The
higher score represents higher difficulty to adapt to the host culture.
(b)Psychological adaptation
To measure the degree of the informants’ psychological adaptation, the author
selected to adopt the short version of General Health Questionnaire. It consists of 12
items, so it is called “GHQ-12” (David Goldberg and Paul Williams, 1970). Although
the items are limited in this version, it is reliable and efficient for research. It is a fourpoint scale, half of the items are reverse coded. The lower score reflects better
psychological adaptation.
2.3.3. Validity and Reliability
The questionnaires used in the research are borrowed from previous studies. As the
author slightly changed the questionnaires, it is necessary to check validity and
reliability of all three questionnaires. Validitytest means that a test should be
corresponded to what it aims to measure. The check of reliability refers to the
24
consistency of result. After collecting the questionnaires, it is important to do the check
of validity and reliability beforehand. Otherwise, the findings or conclusions we draw
from the research are invalid.
Table 2.3.3a Validity check of the scale of cultural distance
Table 2.3.3b Validity check of the scale of socio-cultural adaptation
Table 2.3.3c Validity check of the scale of psychological adaptation
25
The author used SPSS to analyze the data of questionnaires. To check validity, the
author used “Factor Analysis-Principal Component Analysis.” As demonstrated in the
tables above (Table 2.3.3a, 2.3.3b and 2.3.3c), the KMO value of cultural distance,
socio-cultural adaptation, and psychological adaptation are 0.809, 0.793 and 0.715
respectively. For reference, Kaiser put the following values on the results of KMO test:
when the value is 0.70 to 0.79, the result is middling; The result is meritorious with the
value of 0.80 to 0.89 (Kaiser, 1974, pp. 31-36). Therefore the items of all three
questionnaires well measured what they are supposed to measure. The designs of the
questionnaires are acceptable.
Table 2.3.3d Reliability check of the scale of cultural distance
Table 2.3.3e Reliability check of the scale of socio-cultural adaptation
26
Table 2.3.3f Reliability check of the scale of psychological adaptation
As presented in the tables of 2.3.3d, 2.3.3e, and 2.3.3f, the Cronbach’s Alpha for
the scale of culture distance is 0.873; The Cronbach’s Alpha for the scale of sociocultural adaptation is 0.896; The Cronbach’s Alpha for the scale of psychological
adaptation is 0.755. All three values are higher than 0.70. Therefore, the results of all
three questionnaires are reliable.
With the check of validity and reliability, the author proved the good design of
questionnaires and the reliability of the results. Meanwhile, it also guaranteed the
validity of the author’s conclusions of the research.
2.3.4. Questionnaires analysis
All questionnaires were distributed to the informants in the electronic version. After
filling the questionnaires, the questionnaires were also reclaimed in the electronic
version. After removing the invalid questionnaires, the valid ones were calculated into
scores. The results which we got from the questionnaires were analyzed with the help of
SPSS 18.0. We calculated the correlation between the independent variable (culture
distance) and the dependent variables (socio-cultural adaptation and psychological
adaptation).
27
Chapter Three: Results of the research
In this chapter, the author presented the results of the survey and interviews. All the
data which the author collected from questionnaires were analyzed by SPSS
18.Meanwhile, the interview transcripts were analyzed.
3.1. Demographic information
In total, the number of subjects is 91. 43 informants are Chinese students in Seoul
State University, while 48 are Chinese students in Saint Petersburg State University. In
Table 3.1, the demographic information shows the specific information of the
informants.
Table 3.1. Demographic information of the informants
Male
Female
Korea
18
Russia
25
25
Korea
23
Russia
Average age
25.33
Korea
23.42
Russia
Years abroad(average)
3.06
Korea
3.71
Russia
BA
17
Korea
Russia
MA
22
24
Korea
Russia
PHD
25
2
Korea
Russia
1
28
3.2. Results of Cultural distance survey
To measure the Chinese students’ cultural distance level in both Russia and Korea,
the author employed Black and Stephen’s (1989) cultural Novelty scale. The scale
consists of eight items. The eight items cover all aspects of our life. According to their
realities, the informants were asked to choose from point 1 to 5 for each item. The
higher score you got, the larger cultural distance you have with the host culture. After
reclaiming the questionnaires, the author analyzed the data with SPSS. In Table 3.2.a,
the means, standard deviation and standard error for each item and total score were
presented. Rely on these values, we may discover if the Chinese students in Russia
enjoy a larger cultural distance than the Chinese students in South Korea or not.
Meanwhile, in Table 3.2.a, the author also calculated the significance to test whether the
differences in cultural distance between Russia and Korea is significant.
Table 3.2.a. Means, standard deviation, standard Error and significance for
cultural distance
Country you
studied in：
N of
items
Mean
SD
S.E. Mean
Korea
43
2.55
1.252
.218
Russia
48
3.97
.545
.088
43
2.79
1.193
.208
Russia
48
3.68
.662
.107
Health care
facilities
Korea
43
2.85
1.228
.214
Russia
48
3.39
.595
.096
Transportation
systems
Korea
43
2.70
1.262
.220
Russia
48
2.87
.906
.147
General living
costs
Korea
43
3.21
.960
.167
Russia
48
3.68
.662
.107
Quality and
types of food
Korea
43
2.70
1.334
.232
Everyday
customs
General living
conditions
Korea
29
Table 3.2.a. Means, standard deviation, standard Error and significance for
cultural distance
Country you
studied in：
N of
items
Mean
SD
S.E. Mean
Korea
43
2.55
1.252
.218
Russia
48
3.97
.545
.088
43
2.79
1.193
.208
Russia
48
4.47
.725
.118
Korea
43
2.42
1.200
.209
Russia
48
4.68
.471
.076
G e n e r a l
h o u s i n g
conditions
Korea
43
2.79
1.269
.221
Russia
48
3.79
.664
.108
Total score of
c u l t u r a l
distance
Korea
43
22.00
7.185
1.251
Russia
48
30.55
2.101
.341
Everyday
customs
General living
conditions
types of food
Climate
Korea
30
Table 3.2.b. Independent samples test of cultural distance
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std.
F
Everyday
E q u a l
customs
variances
31.131
Sig.
.000
t
df
-6.37
69
Difference
Mean
Error
Sig.(2-
Differ
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
tailed)
ence
nce
r
r
-1.87
-.981
.000
-1.42
6
.224
8
5
assumed
E q u a l
-6.07
42.38
variances
2
6
-3.98
69
n
o
.000
-1.42
.235
8
-1.90
-.954
3
t
assumed
G e n e r a l
E q u a l
l i v i n g
variances
conditions
assumed
10.034
.002
.225
-1.34
-.447
5
-3.83
48.41
variances
5
4
o
-.896
3
E q u a l
n
.000
.000
-.896
.234
-1.36
6
t
assumed
31
-.426
Table 3.2.b. Independent samples test of cultural distance
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std.
F
Everyday
E q u a l
customs
variances
31.131
Sig.
.000
t
df
-6.37
69
Difference
Mean
Error
Sig.(2-
Differ
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
tailed)
ence
nce
r
r
-1.87
-.981
.000
-1.42
6
.224
8
5
assumed
Health care
E q u a l
facilities
variances
16.712
.000
-2.43
69
.017
-.546
.224
-.994
-.099
.024
-.546
.234
-1.01
-.074
5
assumed
E q u a l
-2.33
44.75
variances
0
4
-.664
69
n
o
9
t
assumed
Transportatio
E q u a l
n systems
variances
6.352
.014
.509
-.171
assumed
32
.258
-.687
.344
Table 3.2.b. Independent samples test of cultural distance
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std.
F
Everyday
E q u a l
customs
variances
31.131
Sig.
.000
t
df
-6.37
69
Difference
Mean
Error
Sig.(2-
Differ
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
tailed)
ence
nce
r
r
-1.87
-.981
.000
-1.42
6
.224
8
5
assumed
-.649
E q u a l
o
.519
-.171
.264
-.701
.358
69
.017
-.472
.194
-.859
-.086
.021
-.472
.199
-.870
-.074
4
variances
n
57.13
t
assumed
G e n e r a l
E q u a l
living costs
variances
1.573
.214
-2.43
7
assumed
E q u a l
-2.37
55.65
variances
6
5
n
o
t
assumed
33
Table 3.2.b. Independent samples test of cultural distance
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std.
F
Everyday
E q u a l
customs
variances
31.131
Sig.
.000
t
df
-6.37
69
Difference
Mean
Error
Sig.(2-
Differ
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
tailed)
ence
nce
r
r
-1.87
-.981
.000
-1.42
6
.224
8
5
assumed
Quality and
E q u a l
types of food
variances
12.391
.001
-7.09
69
.000
-1.77
4
.250
7
-2.27
-1.27
6
7
-2.30
-1.25
0
3
-2.68
-1.83
1
9
assumed
E q u a l
-6.82
47.81
variances
3
4
-10.7
69
n
o
.000
-1.77
.260
7
t
assumed
Climate
E q u a l
variances
27.517
.000
.000
-2.26
09
0
assumed
34
.211
Table 3.2.b. Independent samples test of cultural distance
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std.
F
Everyday
E q u a l
customs
variances
31.131
Sig.
.000
t
df
-6.37
69
Difference
Mean
Error
Sig.(2-
Differ
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
tailed)
ence
nce
r
r
-1.87
-.981
.000
-1.42
6
.224
8
5
assumed
E q u a l
-10.1
40.51
variances
62
4
-4.24
69
n
o
.000
-2.26
.222
0
-2.70
-1.81
9
1
-1.47
-.531
t
assumed
G e n e r a l
E q u a l
h o u s i n g
variances
conditions
assumed
16.043
.000
.236
2
-4.07
46.74
variances
6
7
o
-1.00
5
E q u a l
n
.000
.000
-1.00
2
t
assumed
35
2
.246
-1.49
6
-.507
Table 3.2.b. Independent samples test of cultural distance
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std.
F
Everyday
E q u a l
customs
variances
31.131
Sig.
.000
t
df
-6.37
69
Difference
Mean
Error
Sig.(2-
Differ
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
tailed)
ence
nce
r
r
-1.87
-.981
.000
-1.42
6
.224
8
5
assumed
Total score of
E q u a l
cultural
variances
distance
assumed
34.069
.000
-7.00
69
1.221
3
-6.59
36.75
variances
7
5
o
-8.55
7
E q u a l
n
.000
.000
-8.55
3
1.296
-10.9
-6.11
87
8
-11.1
-5.92
80
5
t
assumed
As showed in Table 3.2.a, the mean score for the Chinese students in South Korea is
22.00, it is lower than the mean score of the Chinese students in Russia (30.55), so the
author concluded that Chinese students in Russia enjoy larger culture distance than the
Chinese students in South Korea. In Table 3.2.b, the author calculated independent
sample test for cultural distance with the help of SPSS. The author’s aim to make this
table is to show whether the differences of cultural distance between these two groups
36
are significant. Based on this table, except the item of “General living costs,” the Sig.
Values of the rest items are smaller than 0.05. In this case, the assumption of equal
variances has been violated. Thus, the data in “Equal variances not assumed” should be
used for all items except the item of “General living conditions.” On the contrary, for
the item of “General living conditions,” the data in “Equal variances assumed” should
be used. To clarify if there is a significant difference between the two groups of
students, the values in the column of “Sig (2-tailed)” should be used. If the value in this
column is smaller than 0.05 (p<0.05), there is a significant difference between the two
groups of students. In the table, the Sig (2-tailed) value in total is 0.00(<0.05), which
means there is a highly significant difference about their degrees of culture distance
between the Chinese students in South Korea and Russia. To be more specific, the
Chinese students in South Korea and Russia enjoy significant differences in all aspects
of customs, living condition and costs, health care, food, climate, housing condition
except public transportation. The Sig (2-tailed) value for transportation is 0.519
(>0.05). So the difference between the two groups for the aspect of public
transportation is not significant.
Such significant differences among the students in those two nations can also be
seen in the interview. The author found that the Chinese students in South Korea
believed that Korean culture is quite similar to Chinese culture, during the interviews,
all of them had used the term “similar” to compare Korean and Chinese cultures. When
the author asked the interviewees to conclude the similarities and differences between
Korean and Chinese cultures, one interview conducted with a female student in South
Korea as following:
I did not see so many differences between their culture and ours. As we all know,
Korean culture drew on the experiences of our culture during Yuan Dynasty. So the
cultures are quite similar. The only difference for me is that they value seniority and
hierarchy more than us. In Korea, there are so many customs and rules that everybody
should follow, including the young. For example, when you are drinking with an elder.
You should turn over your body because drinking in front of an elder is impolite. As I
know, Chinese young do not value the traditional custom any more. So I suppose
Korean people do better in this aspect.
One interview conducted with a male student in South Korea for three years
answered the question like this:
37
Well, I can list a lot of similarities between our culture and the Korean culture. For
example, although the Korean language is not pictogram, the pronunciations of many
words are similar to Chinese ones. So our Chinese students can quickly know well
thousands of Korean vocabulary in the first months. Besides, the architecture type in
Korean is also quite similar to ours, as well as the dietary structure. So I can easily
adapt the life here. When I walked on the street, I even forget that I am living abroad.
There are too many similarities, if I do not speak to one person, I even can hardly
distinguish whether he is a Chinese or a Korean.
Another interviewee in South Korea answered the question like this:
I come from the north of China, Liao Ning Province. It is boarded with North Korea.
So for me there is no difference to be in Korea. I can list a lot of similarities between
Chinese and Korean culture. The same appearance made me not look like a foreigner in
South Korea. The pace of life and the circumstance is quite similar to Chinese one. I do
not need to adapt the Korean food, because it is what I eat everyday in my hometown,
such as Kimchi, cold noodles and Bibimbap. Besides, both Chinese and Korean culture
belong to Oriental culture, our values are quite similar, that is why I seldom face
conflict in Korea. What is more, nowadays in China E-commerce is very developed,
very! I can do everything at home, such as shopping, food delivery. We can enjoy such a
convenience in South Korea, too. From my point of view, China and South Korea are
the only two countries which has such a developed E-commerce circumstance.
Through these three fragments of interviews, the results of our qualitative research
match the findings in the quantitative research, the Chinese students in South Korea see
many similarities between Chinese culture and Korean culture. However, the same
question got opposite answers when the interview was conducted with the Chinese
students in Russia. A male student who has already stayed in Russia for seven years
responded to the question in this way:
If you mean the difference between cultures, well, the Russians always comply with
the rules. You very seldom see anyone cross the road when the traffic light is red, they
don’t talk loud in public, like restaurants. And they have faith, they believe in the
Orthodox church. Um.....More differences... Like Russian food. No matter how many
years I live in Russia, I will never adapt into Russian cuisine. It is too different from
Chinese one, and it is drab. And the climate, there are only two seasons in Russia:
Summer and Winter. The Summer time here is good, very cozy, not so hot. But I can not
38
accept the long winter here. It is frozen in Winter. And it lasts more than four months.
Walk in the heavy snow, besides, in Saint Petersburg the wind is so strong, it is a huge
torture. So I prefer staying in the room in Winter.
Another female student answered the same question like this:
It is hard to identify any similarity. Because Russian culture and our culture belong
to different genres. Our culture is influenced by Confucianism, but Russian culture is
affected by the Orthodox church. Besides, Russian language and our language belong
to different language families. And because of the cold Winter in Russia, they have
different food structure and daily life habits from us. So it is very tough to find some
similarities. The only one which comes to my mind is that both of us used to belong to
Socialism. Our previous generation may still have some similar memories about that
period.
From these two different answers to the same question “Do you see any similarities
or differences between host culture and your home culture?”, the author found that the
results of qualitative research highly coincided with the finding of the quantitative
research, which means that the Chinese students in South Korea enjoy smaller culture
distance, compared with the Chinese students in Russia.
3.3. Results of cross-cultural adaptation survey
In this section, the author presented the results of cross-cultural adaptation survey.
As demonstrated in the chapter of “Method,” cross-cultural adaptation is divided into
two dimensions: socio-cultural adaptation and psychological adaptation. The author
used both the data analysis and interview to test the adaptation level of Chinese students
in both countries.
3.3.1. Results of socio-cultural adaptation survey
To calculate the socio-cultural adaptation level of students, the author employed
Socio-cultural Adjustment Scale (SCAS) which was introduced by Ward and Kennedy
in their sojourner adjustment framework (Ward & Kennedy, 1999). SCAS is a fivepoint scale consists of 18 items. The task for informants is to choose the most
appropriate option for their reality. The higher score they got, the more difficulties they
face in the host culture. Their scores were analyzed in SPSS, Table 3.3.1.a, and Table
3.3.1.b below were drew by the author to demonstrate the results of this survey.
39
Table 3.3.1.a Mean, standard deviation and S.E. Mean of socio-cultural
adaptation
Country you
N of
studies in
items
Whether it is difficult for
dimension1
me to make friends with
Korea
locals：
Russia
Whether it is difficult for
Mean
SD
S.E. mean
43
1.94
.899
.157
48
2.45
.978
.159
43
1.36
.549
.096
48
1.24
.431
.070
43
1.45
.905
.157
48
2.08
.818
.133
43
1.48
.834
.145
48
2.13
.906
.147
43
1.48
.906
.158
48
3.61
1.386
.225
43
2.52
1.202
.209
48
2.58
1.030
.167
43
2.30
1.015
.177
48
2.74
1.083
.176
43
2.12
.960
.167
48
2.74
1.057
.172
dimension1
me to use public
transportation：
Korea
Russia
Whether it is difficult for
me to adapt to local food：
dimension1
Korea
Russia
dimension1
Whether it is difficult for
me to adapt to living
Korea
condition：
Russia
Whether it is difficult for
me to deal with climate：
dimension1
Korea
Russia
Whether it is difficult for
dimension1
me to understand locals’
Korea
humor：
Russia
Whether it is difficult for
dimension1
me to participate social
Korea
events
Russia
dimension1
Whether it is difficult for
me to learn local language
Korea
Russia
40
Table 3.3.1.a Mean, standard deviation and S.E. Mean of socio-cultural
adaptation
Country you
N of
studies in
items
dimension1
Whether it is difficult for
me to make friends with
Korea
locals：
Russia
Whether it is difficult for
Mean
SD
S.E. mean
43
1.94
.899
.157
48
2.45
.978
.159
43
1.36
.549
.096
43
1.94
.933
.162
48
2.58
.919
.149
43
2.03
.810
.141
48
2.21
.905
.147
43
1.67
.890
.155
48
1.71
.835
.136
43
1.39
.747
.130
48
1.29
.460
.075
43
2.21
1.083
.188
48
2.97
1.026
.166
43
1.97
.810
.141
48
2.50
1.133
.184
43
2.15
1.228
.214
48
3.00
1.162
.189
43
1.79
.893
.155
48
2.13
.704
.114
dimension1
me to use public
transportation：
Korea
Whether it is difficult for
me to communicate with
locals
dimension1
Korea
Russia
dimension1
Whether it is difficult for
me to adapt to traditional
Korea
custom
Russia
Whether it is difficult for
dimension1
me to adapt to the pace of
Korea
life
Russia
Whether it is difficult for me
to go shopping
dimension1
Korea
Russia
Whether it is difficult for me
to deal the conflicts with
dimension1
Korea
locals
Russia
dimension1
Whether it is difficult for
me to handle study
Korea
Russia
Whether it is difficult for
me to express my opinions
dimension1
Korea
in class
Russia
Whether it is difficult for
me to interact with teachers
dimension1
Korea
Russia
41
Table 3.3.1.a Mean, standard deviation and S.E. Mean of socio-cultural
adaptation
Country you
N of
studies in
items
dimension1
Whether it is difficult for
me to make friends with
Korea
locals：
Russia
Whether it is difficult for
Mean
SD
S.E. mean
43
1.94
.899
.157
48
2.45
.978
.159
43
1.36
.549
.096
43
2.21
1.083
.188
48
2.82
.926
.150
43
2.39
1.029
.179
48
4.05
.957
.155
43
34.42
10.903
1.898
48
44.82
8.825
1.432
dimension1
me to use public
transportation：
Korea
Whether it is difficult for
me to understand the locals’
dimension1
Korea
values
Russia
Whether it is difficult for
me to complain dissatisfied
dimension1
Korea
service
Russia
Total
dimension1
Korea
Russia
42
Table 3.3.1.b. Independent samples test of socio-cultural adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
make friends with
assumed
.328
Sig.
.568
t
df
-2.26
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.027
-.508
.224
-.955
-.061
.026
-.508
.223
-.953
-.063
5
locals：
E q u a l
-2.27
68.75
variances
9
9
1.090
69
.280
.127
.116
-.105
.359
1.071
60.44
.288
.127
.118
-.110
.364
.003
-.624
.204
-1.03
-.217
n
o
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
use
assumed
public
4.904
.030
transportation：
E q u a l
9
variances
n
o
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
adapt to local
assumed
.095
.759
-3.05
69
4
2
food：
43
Table 3.3.1.b. Independent samples test of socio-cultural adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
make friends with
assumed
.328
Sig.
.568
t
df
-2.26
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.027
-.508
.224
-.955
-.061
.003
-.624
.206
-1.03
-.213
5
locals：
E q u a l
-3.03
65.17
variances
2
0
-3.11
69
n
o
6
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
adapt to living
assumed
1.057
.308
.003
-.647
.208
3
-1.06
-.232
1
condition：
E q u a l
-3.13
68.74
variances
2
8
-7.50
69
n
o
.003
-.647
.207
-1.05
-.235
9
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
deal
assumed
with
9.346
.003
.000
-2.12
3
0
climate：
44
.283
-2.68
-1.55
4
7
Table 3.3.1.b. Independent samples test of socio-cultural adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
make friends with
assumed
.328
Sig.
.568
t
df
-2.26
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.027
-.508
.224
-.955
-.061
.000
-2.12
.275
-2.66
-1.57
9
2
5
locals：
climate：
E q u a l
-7.72
64.34
variances
2
0
-.241
69
.810
-.064
.265
-.592
.465
-.238
63.49
.812
-.064
.268
-.599
.471
.088
-.434
.250
-.933
.065
n
o
0
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
understand locals’
assumed
.724
.398
humor：
E q u a l
5
variances
n
o
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
participate social
assumed
.185
.669
-1.73
69
3
events
45
Table 3.3.1.b. Independent samples test of socio-cultural adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
make friends with
assumed
.328
Sig.
.568
t
df
-2.26
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.027
-.508
.224
-.955
-.061
.086
-.434
.249
-.931
.063
.013
-.616
.241
-1.09
-.135
5
locals：
events
E q u a l
-1.74
68.57
variances
1
5
-2.55
69
n
o
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
learn
assumed
local
1.432
.235
3
7
language
E q u a l
-2.57
68.84
variances
0
8
-2.90
69
n
o
.012
-.616
.240
-1.09
-.138
3
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
communicate with
assumed
.404
.527
.005
-.640
.220
3
-1.07
-.200
9
locals
E q u a l
-2.90
67.30
variances
0
9
n
o
.005
-.640
.221
-1.08
0
t
assumed
46
-.199
Table 3.3.1.b. Independent samples test of socio-cultural adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
make friends with
assumed
.328
Sig.
.568
t
df
-2.26
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.027
-.508
.224
-.955
-.061
-.879
69
.383
-.180
.205
-.589
.229
-.886
68.93
.379
-.180
.204
-.586
.226
5
locals：
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
adapt to traditional
assumed
1.198
.277
custom
E q u a l
variances
n
o
2
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
adapt to the pace of
assumed
.024
.878
-.214
69
.831
-.044
.205
-.453
.365
-.213
66.19
.832
-.044
.206
-.455
.367
.474
.104
.145
-.185
.394
life
E q u a l
variances
n
o
3
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
go shopping
assumed
3.778
.056
.719
69
47
Table 3.3.1.b. Independent samples test of socio-cultural adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
make friends with
assumed
.328
Sig.
.568
t
df
-2.26
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.027
-.508
.224
-.955
-.061
51.64
.489
.104
.150
-.197
.405
.003
-.762
.251
-1.26
-.262
5
locals：
E q u a l
.697
variances
n
o
8
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
deal the conflicts
assumed
.216
.643
-3.04
69
0
1
with locals
E q u a l
-3.02
66.43
variances
8
7
-2.23
69
n
o
.004
-.762
.251
-1.26
-.260
4
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
handle study
assumed
5.453
.022
.029
-.530
7
.237
-1.00
3
48
-.057
Table 3.3.1.b. Independent samples test of socio-cultural adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
make friends with
assumed
.328
Sig.
.568
t
df
-2.26
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.027
-.508
.224
-.955
-.061
.025
-.530
.232
-.993
-.068
.004
-.848
.284
-1.41
-.282
5
locals：
E q u a l
-2.29
66.65
variances
0
3
-2.98
69
n
o
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
express
assumed
my
.704
.404
8
5
opinions in class
E q u a l
-2.97
66.40
variances
7
8
-1.81
69
n
o
.004
-.848
.285
-1.41
-.279
8
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
interact with
assumed
3.049
.085
.074
-.344
2
teachers
49
.190
-.722
.035
Table 3.3.1.b. Independent samples test of socio-cultural adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
make friends with
assumed
.328
Sig.
.568
t
df
-2.26
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.027
-.508
.224
-.955
-.061
.080
-.344
.193
-.729
.042
.014
-.604
.238
-1.07
-.128
5
locals：
teachers
E q u a l
-1.78
60.60
variances
2
4
-2.53
69
n
o
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
understand the
assumed
.627
.431
3
9
locals’ values
E q u a l
-2.50
63.42
variances
5
1
-7.03
69
n
o
.015
-.604
.241
-1.08
-.122
5
t
assumed
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
c o m p l a i n
assumed
1.654
.203
.000
-1.65
4
.236
9
-2.12
-1.18
9
8
-2.13
-1.18
2
5
dissatisfied service
E q u a l
-6.99
65.95
variances
7
3
n
o
.000
-1.65
9
t
assumed
50
.237
Table 3.3.1.b. Independent samples test of socio-cultural adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Whether it is
E q u a l
difficult for me to
variances
make friends with
assumed
.328
Sig.
.568
t
df
-2.26
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.027
-.508
.224
-.955
-.061
69
.000
-10.3
2.342
-15.0
-5.71
64
9
-15.1
-5.63
45
9
5
locals：
Total
E q u a l
variances
2.591
.112
-4.43
7
92
assumed
E q u a l
-4.37
61.54
variances
1
2
n
o
.000
-10.3
2.377
92
t
assumed
As demonstrated in Table 3.3.1.a, the mean of all items in South Korea is 34.42, the
same value in Russia is 44.82. It is much higher than the value in South Korea. So the
author drew the conclusion that the Chinese students in Russia face more difficulties
than the Chinese students in South Korea in the process of socio-cultural adaptation.
Moreover, in Table 3.3.1.b, the Sig (2-tailed) for total items is 0.000 (<0.05). Thus, it is
reasonable to draw the conclusion that there is a highly significant difference between
Russian and Korean informants in socio-cultural adaptation. However, for the aspects
of “Using public transportation,”“Understanding locals’ humor,”“Participating social
events,”“adapting to custom,”“Adapting to the pace of life,”“Going
shopping,”“Interacting with teachers,” the differences are not significant.
51
Although in the quantitative research, the author found that the Chinese students in
South Korea adapt better than the Chinese students in Russia, it does not mean that
there is no obstacle in their social adaptation process. In the qualitative research, the
author asked both groups of students, whether they have faced any difficulties in their
social adaptation, both sides gave the author a positive answer. One common obstacle
for most students in both groups is language. As one male student who has just stayed
in South Korea for two years said:
Well, the biggest obstacle for me is language. In China, I can well express myself,
but in Korea because of my poor language ability, I am afraid of expressing my
opinions. I hate such feeling. It makes me look stupid. With the lapse of time, my
confidence is lost.
A male student in Russia also mentioned language as one of his most serious
obstacles:
Language and climate are the barriers for me. I can overcome all the other
difficulties except these two. The Russian language is so difficult! A lot of grammar
rules. So I still can not fluently use the Russian language. By the way, the Russians must
be very proud of their language. They tend to believe all the foreigners in Russia should
speak Russian fluently as they do. So whenever I try to explain my opinion using my
poor language, I can feel their feeling of impatience. It is a vicious spiral, can you get
my point? Now I seldom speak Russia in public. And the climate is another challenge
for me. I live in the south of China. I have never experienced such a cold Winter. I even
seldom saw snow before. But in Russia, the Winter is frozen and lasts long. I can not
imagine how I survived!
It is worth mentioning that when asking about the obstacle of their social adaptation,
all Russian interviewees suggested language, but some Chinese studying in South
Korea claim that the Korean language is not difficult for them. As one female student
who has studied in South Korea for three years said:
I haven’t faced any real difficulties yet. The first months to study the Korean
language can be seen as a small obstacle for me. But it is not so difficult to learn the
Korean language. The pronunciation of many Korean words is quite similar to Chinese.
So it is much easier for Chinese to learn the Korean language. Besides, when I can not
clearly explain something, I can write it in Chinese. Many Koreans have studied
Chinese characters in high school.
52
Besides language, all Chinese students in Russia complained about the bad weather
in Russia. Some argued that the security is the biggest obstacle in their daily life. A girl
who has stayed in Russia for four years said like this:
The life here is like an adventure. We need to protect ourselves from Central Asians,
and Russian policies. All of the friends around me have the experience such as stolen or
robbed by the Central Asians, and extorted by the Russian policemen. I can share with
you a real story of myself. Once I took the bus to our university. At one stop a group of
Central Asians, around five young persons, got on the bus. The bus was not so crowded,
but they stood around me, quite close to me. I did not care about them. And they got off
the bus quickly at the next stop. Only when I got to the university, I had noticed that
they opened my backpack and stole my wallet. So how to ensure my safety is the biggest
obstacle for me in Russia. Now I very seldom go out after 8 p.m.
Another male student in Russia shared his experience with us:
I lived in the south of China, from my childhood, I had seen snow only for several
times. But in my three years of staying in Russia, I had seen the snow for so many times.
The temperature in winter is around -20, without sunshine. I had no entertainment in
winter. So I feel quite upset in every winter. Besides the bad weather, the Russian
language is another obstacle for me. I came to Russia with no knowledge of Russian
language, and I used to study English. However, the Russian language is so different
from English, more difficult, I would say, with more prefixes and suffixes. The biggest
challenge for me to study Russian is declension. I am still struggling against Russian
language. Without the language as the tool of basic communication, I can hardly
adapte into the Russian society.
Through the interviews and data analysis, the author found that both the Chinese
students in Russia and South Korea face some challenges in the process of social
adaptation, the difficulties may stem from different aspects of life. But the Chinese
students in South Korea adapt into the host culture better than the Chinese students in
Russia, and the difference of the adaptation degree between two groups is significant.
3.3.2. Results of psychological adaptation survey
For the measurement of psychological adaptation, the author adopted one existing
questionnaire which is called “GHQ-12” (David Goldberg and Paul Williams, 1970).
This questionnaire is a method to measure whether a person is under the risk of
psychological illness. GHQ-12 is a test of 12 items with a four-point scale for each
53
informant. The informants choose an option from 1 to 4 according to their reality. To
calculate the scores of the informants, the values are coded as “0-0-1-1”. In total, the
score interval of one informant is 0-12. The higher score represents more risks of
developing psychiatric disorders, which means the worse psychological adaptation into
host culture in this thesis.
Table3.3.2.a. Mean, standard deviation and S.E. Mean of socio-cultural
adaptation
Country you
studied in：
N of
items
Concentrate on things you
are doing?
dimension1
Mean
SD
S.E. Mean
43
.18
.392
.068
48
.32
.471
.076
43
.45
.506
.088
48
.63
.489
.079
43
.15
.364
.063
48
.32
.471
.076
43
.30
.467
.081
48
.32
.471
.076
43
.21
.415
.072
48
.42
.500
.081
Korea
Russia
Lost much sleep over
worry?
dimension1
Korea
Russia
Able to play useful parts in
things?
dimension1
Korea
Russia
Able to make decisions?
dimension1
Korea
Russia
Felt constantly under strain?
dimension1
Korea
Russia
54
Table3.3.2.a. Mean, standard deviation and S.E. Mean of socio-cultural
adaptation
Country you
studied in：
N of
items
Concentrate on things you
are doing?
Mean
SD
S.E. Mean
43
.18
.392
.068
48
.32
.471
.076
dimension1
43
.45
.506
.088
dimension1
43
.21
.415
.072
48
.29
.460
.075
43
.06
.242
.042
48
.24
.431
.070
43
.15
.364
.063
48
.26
.446
.072
43
.27
.452
.079
48
.47
.506
.082
43
.12
.331
.058
dimension1
Korea
Russia
Lost much sleep over
worry?
Korea
Unable to overcome
difficulties?
Korea
Russia
Enjoy normal activities?
dimension1
Korea
Russia
Able to face up to
problems?
dimension1
Korea
Russia
Feeling unhappy and
depressed?
dimension1
Korea
Russia
Losing confidence?
dimension1
Korea
55
Table3.3.2.a. Mean, standard deviation and S.E. Mean of socio-cultural
adaptation
Country you
studied in：
N of
items
Concentrate on things you
are doing?
dimension1
Mean
SD
S.E. Mean
43
.18
.392
.068
48
.32
.471
.076
43
.45
.506
.088
48
.18
.393
.064
43
.03
.174
.030
48
.13
.343
.056
43
.21
.415
.072
48
.53
.506
.082
43
2.36
2.608
.454
48
4.11
2.115
.343
Korea
Russia
Lost much sleep over
worry?
dimension1
Korea
Russia
Thinking of self as
worthless?
dimension1
Korea
Russia
Feel reasonably happy?
dimension1
Korea
Russia
Total
dimension1
Korea
Russia
56
Table 3.3.2.b. Independent samples test of psychological adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Concentrate on
E q u a l
things you are
variances
doing?
assumed
Sig.
7.118
.010
t
df
-1.29
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.201
-.134
.104
-.341
.073
.195
-.134
.102
-.338
.070
1
E q u a l
-1.30
68.88
variances not
8
3
-1.49
69
.139
-.177
.118
-.413
.059
.140
-.177
.118
-.414
.059
assumed
Lost much
E q u a l
sleep over
variances
worry?
assumed
1.667
.201
8
E q u a l
-1.49
66.90
variances not
4
7
-1.62
69
.109
-.164
.101
-.366
.037
.103
-.164
.099
-.362
.034
assumed
Able to play
E q u a l
11.75
useful parts in
variances
6
things?
assumed
.001
5
E q u a l
-1.65
68.13
variances not
5
5
assumed
57
Table 3.3.2.b. Independent samples test of psychological adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Concentrate on
E q u a l
things you are
variances
doing?
assumed
Able to make
E q u a l
decisions?
variances
Sig.
7.118
.010
t
df
-1.29
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.201
-.134
.104
-.341
.073
-.114
69
.909
-.013
.112
-.235
.210
-.114
67.78
.909
-.013
.112
-.235
.210
69
.062
-.209
.110
-.429
.011
.059
-.209
.109
-.426
.008
.462
-.077
.105
-.286
.131
1
.053
.819
assumed
E q u a l
4
variances not
assumed
Felt constantly
E q u a l
13.90
under strain?
variances
5
.000
-1.89
7
assumed
E q u a l
-1.92
68.87
variances not
2
1
-.740
69
assumed
Unable
to
E q u a l
overcome
variances
difficulties?
assumed
2.254
.138
58
Table 3.3.2.b. Independent samples test of psychological adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Concentrate on
E q u a l
things you are
variances
doing?
assumed
Sig.
7.118
.010
t
df
-1.29
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.201
-.134
.104
-.341
.073
68.88
.459
-.077
.104
-.285
.130
69
.041
-.176
.085
-.345
-.007
.035
-.176
.082
-.340
-.013
1
-.745
E q u a l
2
variances not
assumed
Enjoy normal
E q u a l
22.28
activities?
variances
4
.000
-2.08
0
assumed
E q u a l
-2.15
59.70
variances not
9
2
-1.14
69
.257
-.112
.098
-.306
.083
.250
-.112
.096
-.304
.080
assumed
Able to face up
E q u a l
to problems?
variances
5.605
.021
4
assumed
E q u a l
-1.16
68.75
variances not
0
4
assumed
59
Table 3.3.2.b. Independent samples test of psychological adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Concentrate on
E q u a l
things you are
variances
doing?
assumed
F e e l i n g
E q u a l
unhappy and
variances
depressed?
assumed
Sig.
7.118
.010
t
df
-1.29
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.201
-.134
.104
-.341
.073
69
.084
-.201
.115
-.430
.028
.082
-.201
.114
-.428
.026
1
9.183
.003
-1.75
3
E q u a l
-1.76
68.93
variances not
7
4
-.724
69
.471
-.063
.087
-.237
.111
-.733
68.95
.466
-.063
.086
-.234
.109
.130
-.101
.066
-.233
.030
assumed
L o s i n g
E q u a l
confidence?
variances
2.173
.145
assumed
E q u a l
variances not
1
assumed
Thinking of self
E q u a l
10.93
as worthless?
variances
0
.002
-1.53
69
4
assumed
60
Table 3.3.2.b. Independent samples test of psychological adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Concentrate on
E q u a l
things you are
variances
doing?
assumed
Sig.
7.118
.010
t
df
-1.29
Std.
Interval of the
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
69
.201
-.134
.104
-.341
.073
.115
-.101
.063
-.228
.025
1
E q u a l
-1.60
56.49
variances not
0
9
-2.83
69
.006
-.314
.111
-.535
-.093
.005
-.314
.109
-.532
-.096
.003
-1.74
.561
-2.86
-.623
assumed
Feel reasonably
E q u a l
17.75
happy?
variances
3
.000
3
assumed
E q u a l
-2.87
68.79
variances not
3
7
-3.10
69
assumed
Total
E q u a l
variances
1.482
.228
6
2
assumed
61
0
Table 3.3.2.b. Independent samples test of psychological adaptation
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
1-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Sig.
F
Concentrate on
E q u a l
things you are
variances
doing?
assumed
7.118
Sig.
.010
t
df
-1.29
Difference
(2-
Mean
Error
tailed
Diffe
Differe
Lowe
Uppe
)
rence
nce
r
r
.201
-.134
.104
-.341
.073
.003
-1.74
.569
-2.87
-.604
1
-3.06
61.61
variances
0
9
o
Interval of the
69
E q u a l
n
Std.
2
9
t
assumed
In Table 3.3.2.a the total means for the Chinese students in Korea and Russia are
2.36 and 4.11 respectively. The mean scores for both groups of students are not high, so
both groups well adapt to host cultures psychologically. To make a horizontal
comparison, the author claims that the Chinese students in South Korea better adapt in
the host culture than the Chinese students in Russia. Meanwhile, as demonstrated in
Table 3.3.2.b, the sig (2-detailed) value in total is 0.003 (<0.05), so the author drew the
conclusion that the difference of psychological adaptation between two groups is highly
significant. Though the difference in total is significant, most Sig (2-tailed) values for
the specific items are bigger than 0.05. Only when answering the questions of “Can you
enjoy normal activities?” and “Do you feel reasonably happy?”, the students in South
62
Korea and Russia show different attitudes and the differences are significant.
According to the interviews conducted with both groups, the author also found that
both groups well psychologically adapted to the host culture. As one interviewee who is
studying in South Korea said during the interview:
Well, I am quite satisfied with my life here. Generally, I keep the same habits like in
China. The pressure of study is not so huge, so I get time to hang out with my buddies.
At the weekend, I will go shopping with my friends, have a big dinner, when there are
concerts of my idol, I can easily purchase a ticket and go to the show. Usually, people
may think that the life of students studying abroad is boring. But I try to make myself
busy. I regularly go to the gym. I have almost walked around the whole country. I enjoy
taking photos. Those years I have already taken thousands of pics about my Korean life.
Another female student who is studying in Russia has a unique casual life, she
works as an overseas buyer for Chinese, as she said, such experience make her happy
and make her have the feeling of being needed:
My life in Russia is quite busy. During my casual life, I spend most of it in shopping
malls. I accidentally did my friend a favor, helped her buy a lipstick from Russia. Since
then, I started doing such thing as a way to earn money. I made a lot of Russian friends
during this period, most of them are shopping guides of different brands. I regularly
post some new cosmetics in my social network. Now I have more than 1500 followers.
The success of my part-time job makes me feel being needed. I enjoy the moment when I
found a cosmetic which someone in China has dreamed for a long time.
Besides, students of both groups have experienced the process of feeling lonely and
being isolated. Most of them need some periods to psychologically adapt to the host
culture. During this period, the students have psychological fluctuation. But such
feelings gradually decrease over time. A student recalled his first month in Russia as:
Well, of course, the first month was tough, very tough. I knew nothing about the
Russian language, the living condition of our dormitory is terrible. The first week was a
challenge for me. I even cried once in the midnight because of homesickness. But
luckily, my roommates were Chinese too. So at least I got some companies. And when
the class of Russian language began, I was busy with the study. So I had no time to sad.
I got used to my life in Russia.
Students use different strategies to overcome the feeling of loneliness in Russia and
South Korea. Some of them chose to immerse in the virtual world; some actively took
63
part in different social events, some students chose to find a companion. One male
student who has already studied in Russia for four years told the author during the
interview:
I met my girlfriend during the prior course. Both of us just got to a new
environment. Girls need to be taken care. So I got the chance... Now we have been
together for almost four years. We live together, I seldom feel lonely, because my
girlfriend is talkative, haha. It is so great that there is someone with you in an
unacquainted place. In those four years, we traveled a lot, we have been to the Nordic
countries, we have been to France, Germany, Britain and Turkey. I am quite sure
without her, my life here will be very boring.
To conclude, through data analysis and interviews, the author found that all students
have experienced a period of psychological fluctuation during their adaptation.
However, all of them have their strategies to overcome this psychological discomfort.
To make a horizontal comparison, the Chinese students in South Korea psychologically
adapt better than the Chinese students in Russia, and the difference of psychological
adaptation between two groups is highly significant. However, to make a vertical
comparison, both groups well psychologically adapt into the receiving society.
3.4. Relationship between culture distance and cross-cultural
adaptation
In this section, the author aims to find the relationship between culture distance and
cross-cultural adaptation. Thus, the data analysis tool “SPSS” was used once again by
the author. The author calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). The Pearson
correlation coefficient ranges from-1.0 to 1.0. -1.0 refers to perfect negative correlation,
while 1.0 refers to perfect positive correlation. In this thesis, the independent variable is
“Culture distance,”“socio-cultural adaptation” and “psychological adaptation” are
named as the dependent variables (Pearson, 1895).
3.4.1. Relationship between culture distance and socio-cultural
adaptation
As demonstrated in Table 3.4.1, the Pearson correlation is 0.310, and the Sig (2tailed) value is 0.008 (<0.01). Thus, there is a significant medium positive correlation
between culture distance and socio-cultural adaptation, which means the larger the
culture distance is, the more difficulties students will face in the process of socioculturaladaptation.
64
Through the interviews, the author also found that the Chinese students in Russia
face some questions in their interaction with Russians, and the students themselves
attributed these difficulties to cultural distance.
I would like to make friends with Russians, but the problem for me is that we do not
have so many commons, so sometimes I do not know how to get along well with them. I
believe the different values among us is a major reason for this problem (A male student
in Russia for four years).
I have several Russian friends. Firstly, I can not accustom to their etiquette.
Russians shake hands a lot, even with close friends. But in my understanding, “shaking
hands” is used in some formal occasions, like a business negotiation. Secondly,
sometimes, we Chinese tend to show our hospitality, so we prefer inviting Russian
friends to some Chinese restaurants. But most of them insist on splitting the bill. This
behavior slightly distances us (A male students in Russia for five years).
I still feel that there are some distances between my Russian friends and me, such
feeling just exists. You know? Though we hang out together a lot, we chat on the social
network, I do not feel I am relaxed as with my Chinese friends. Perhaps the differences
in languages impede our friendship to be closer, but I suppose I can blame on the
differences between our cultures, too. I can have fun with my Russian friends, but when
I am in troubles, I will firstly come to my Chinese friends seeking for help (A female
student in Russia for three years).
3.4.2. Relationship between culture distance and psychological
adaptation
65
In Table 3.4.2 below, the value of Pearson correlation is 0.14, and the Sig (2-tailed)
value is 0.905 (>0.05). Therefore, there is no significant correlation between culture
distance and psychological adaptation.
The author asked the interviewees some questions which may reflect their
psychological adaptation in the interviews and found that the students in Russia and
South Korea both deny that they face some psychological discomforts. As recently
there are several cases of suicide caused by Chinese students in Russia, the author
asked the interviewees in Russia an additional question which sounds like “How do you
judge the suicide of Chinese students recently? Is it caused by the culture differences?”
The replies from two of them as following:
Well, I heard that piece of news. But I do not think we can connect such thing
together with culture differences. There are so many cases of suicide everywhere, even
in our home country. How do you explain a suicide of Chinese student in China? I
admit we face many pressures in different cultures, but I believe most people will
regulate themselves by different ways (A female student staying in Russia for six years).
Um...I do not want to judge so much about the behavior of some dead person. But I
do not believe the death is caused by culture distance. A simple example, I may be upset
because of something, but it will not last long. I definitely will do something to make me
happy, to distract my attention. It is our self-regulation. In the circumstance of a
different culture, it also works. We definitely will do something physically or mentally to
avoid ourselves from being crazy, right? (A male student staying in Russia for three
years)
66
Depend on the data analysis and interviews, the author drew the conclusion that
there is no significant correlation between culture distance and psychological
adaptation. Both the students in South Korea and Russia deny they face any
psychological discomfort. Most students believe in self-regulation and are optimistic
about psychological adaptation.
67
Chapter Four: Discussion on Hypothesis
In this chapter, the research questions and hypothesis which was raised in Chapter
Three will be discussed.
4.1. Question One and the hypothesis of the author
Question: Is there any significant difference in cross-cultural adaptation between
Chinese international students in Russia and South Korea?
Hypothesis: Chinese students in South Korea better adapt into host culture than
those in Russia.
According to data analysis, the author got the conclusion that Chinese students in
Korea enjoy a better degree of cross-cultural adaptation than the Chinese students in
Russia.
To be more specific, the mean value of socio-cultural adaptation of the informants
in South Korea is 34.42, the same value in Russia is 44.82, higher than the value in
South Korea. It may reveal the fact that the Chinese students in South Korea enjoy a
better socio-cultural adaptation than the Chinese students in Russia. Besides, regarding
psychological adaptation, the mean score for the informants in South Korea is 2.36
while the mean score for the informants in Russia is 4.11. As scores of GHQ-12 range
from 0 to 12, both 2.36 and 4.11 can be seen as good in general. Therefore, the Chinese
students in South Korea and Russia are psychologically healthy.
Although in the interviews, most students had claimed that they had faced some
psychological discomfort, they frequently mentioned the terms like “lonely,”
“homesick,” “stressful” and “communication disorders.” However, all interviewees
have their methods to overcome the discomfort. For instance, developing new interests
like fitness, traveling or photography; Some interviewees prefer using another method
like seeking for companions, to make some friends or find a lover; Some keep in touch
with his or her relatives and friends in China through Internet, by using social support
from their home country to cure psychological discomfort.
In the Independent Sample T-tests of socio-cultural adaptation and psychological
adaptation, the Sig (2-tailed) for the former is 0.000 (<0.05), and the Sig (2-tailed)
value for the latter is 0.003 (<0.05). Thus, there is a highly significant difference in both
socio-cultural adaptation and psychological adaptation between the informants in
68
Russian and South Korea. In the interviews, some participants from South Korea also
claimed that they enjoy their lives in Korea, most respondents said they face no
difficulties in Korea, including the aspects of climate, food and living condition.
However, many interviewees in Russia showed a negative attitude toward their lives in
Russia. The most frequently mentioned problem they faced is the inclement weather
and different dietary structure in Russia. The phrases of interviewees coincide with the
result of data analysis.
According to the results and discussion above, the Chinese students in South Korea
culturally and psychologically adapt to the receiving society better than the Chinese
students in Russia. Therefore, the first hypothesis was supported.
4.2. Question Two and the hypothesis of the author
Question: What is the culture distance between China and Korea and between
China and Russia?
Hypothesis: The culture distance between China and Korea is smaller than the
culture distance between China and Russia.
The data results showed that the mean score of culture distance for the informants in
South Korea is 22.00, while the mean score of culture distance for the students in
Russia is 30.55 (>22.00). As larger score represents a larger culture distance between
the host culture and home culture, the students in Russia enjoy a larger culture distance
than the students in South Korea. The Independent samples T-test proved the difference
of culture distance between those two groups was significant. The interview showed the
same results as the author got from the data analysis. The Chinese students in Korea
claimed that there are similarities between Chinese and Korea cultures. They frequently
mentioned the impacts of “Buddhism,” and “Confucism” to Korean culture. They
claimed that many Koreans well know Chinese culture, because they used to study
Chinese culture and language as an optional course in high school. Many interviewees
also mentioned the complex relationship between Korean culture and Chinese culture.
Korea had been China’s dependency for many years in ancient time, so they borrowed
many traditions and cultural customs from Chinese culture. Thus, it is reasonable that
Korean culture and Chinese culture share lots of similarities. On the other hand, the
students studying in Russia stated the culture distance between Chinese and Russia
cultures are huge. They had mentioned the different religions, customs, traditions and
69
values between those two cultures.
To better understand the culture distance of those two groups of Chinese students,
the author believes it is necessary to clarify the culture distance between China and
those two countries.
The cultural exchange between China and Korea can be traced back to three
thousand years before. From “Three Kingdoms period,” the Korean king of every
dynasty had canonized by the Chinese emperors. The Korean kings sent envoys to
China and brought lots of codes and records back to Korea. Before establishing Korean
written language, the Koreans had used the Chinese characters for many centuries.
“Confucism” influenced Korean culture a lot. It brought Korea into the “Confucian
culture cluster” together with Chinese culture. Early in the first-century A.C, the works
of Chinese philosopher “Confucius,” like “The Spring and Autumn Annals,”
“Confusion Analects,” had already been widely read in Korea (Li Yingwu, 2005). Thus,
there are many commons in Korean and Chinese cultures.
Unlike Korean culture, though in the fifties of last century, China and USSR had a
period of “Honeymoon” and the common ideology obscured the differences between
these two countries, Russian culture shares few similarities with Chinese culture. China
and Russia are different in geography, religion, history, and social system, dietary
structure, and language.
To conclude, Korean culture share many similarities with Chinese culture, while
Russian culture is different from Chinese culture. Therefore, the culture distance
between Russia and China is larger than the culture distance between Korea and China.
Hypothesis Two was supported.
4.3. Question Three and the hypothesis of the author
Question: To what extent can culture distance influence cross-cultural adaptation of
Chinese international students in South Korea and Russia?
Hypothesis: Chinese international students with larger culture distance tend to have
a low level of cross-cultural adaptation. Therefore, there is a positive correlation
between culture distance and cross-cultural adaptation.
According to the data analysis, the author drew the conclusion that there is a
significant medium positive correlation between culture distance and socio-cultural
adaptation, which means the larger the cultural distance is, the more difficulties the
70
students will face in their socio-cultural adaptation. In the interviews, the informants in
Russia mentioned various difficulties they faced, many of them had mentioned
interaction with Russians. They claimed that different cultural backgrounds made them
difficult to find common points with the Russians. But for the students in South Korea,
though some interviewees also mentioned that they do not know how to communicate
with the Koreans, the phenomenon is caused by language, but not culture distance.
Most interviewees pointed out that because of the similar culture, it is much easier for
them to adapt to Korean culture. This finding coincides with some previous research,
such as the research carried out by Waxin (2004), who claimed that the larger culture
distance might result in less adjustment.
However, the data analysis showed that there is no significant correlation between
culture distance and psychological adaptation. And in the interviews, the students from
both groups admitted that they had experienced a period of psychological discomfort.
They mentioned negative feelings like “Loneliness,” “homesickness,” “stressful,” and
“grief.” But they claimed that they have already come out from those shadows. The
finding does not conform with the author’s hypothesis. The author gave his
explanations to the unconformity. Firstly, people are not willing to admit they have any
psychological problem, even in an anonymous condition. Secondly, the psychological
mechanism is complex; the author ignored the role of mental self-regulation in the
process of psychological adaptation. People will mentally regulate themselves to adapt
to a new environment. As the informants of current study had already lived abroad for
minimum one year, so it is reasonable that they had already psychologically adapt into
the host culture. It explains why culture distance had no more impacts on their
psychological adaptation. The finding is inconsistent with some previous research, such
as the research of Furukawa (1997), and Irina Galchenko, Fons. J. R, van de Vijver
(2007). They both found that there is a positive correlation between culture distance and
psychological adaptation.
The author admits that there are some drawbacks in the design of psychological
adaptation scale (GHQ-12). Because this questionnaire is designed to measure the
psychological health level by investigation on the mental status of recent two weeks,
the results can not reflect the difficulties and time consumed to adapt to the host culture
psychologically. Further research should improve this point.
According to the results of data analysis and interviews, the findings partly
71
coincided with the author’s hypothesis. Thus, Hypothesis Three was partly supported.
72
Chapter Five：Conclusion
5.1. Conclusion
In conclusion, the research used both qualitative and quantitative methods, tries to
examine the cross-cultural adaptation degree of the Chinese students in Russia and
South Korea. Besides, by comparison, current research tries to explore the correlation
between culture distance and cross-cultural adaptation. After data analysis by SPSS 18
and interviews discussion, the study discovered several significant findings as
following:
1.The culture distance between China and Russia is larger than that between China
and Korea.
2.The Chinese students in South Korea socio-culturally and psychologically adapt to
the host culture better than the Chinese students in Russia.
3.The Chinese students both in South Korea and Russia maintain a healthy
psychological state.
4.In socio-cultural adaptation, a larger culture distance results in a more difficult
adaptation for Chinese students. The correlation between culture distance and sociocultural adaptation difficulty is positive.
5.There is no significant correlation between culture distance and psychological
adaptation.
To conclude, Hypothesis One that Chinese students in South Korea better adapt to
the host culture than those in Russia and hypothesis Two that the culture distance
between China and Korea is smaller than the culture distance between China and
Russia are well proved by the research. However, the third Hypothesis which Chinese
international students with larger culture distance tend to have a low level of crosscultural adaptation is partly proved by the research. The study proved that there is a
positive correlation between culture distance and socio-cultural adaptation difficulty.
However, Current research has not found any significant relationships between culture
distance and psychological adaptation. This research contributes some findings to the
research field of “culture distance and cross-cultural adaptation.” The findings of the
research partly support the previous studies but also partly contradict with them.
73
5.2. Implication
Current research has several implications. On the one hand, from the perspective of
home culture, in this paper, it denotes China, current research could be treated as
guidance for Chinese students who are preparing to study abroad; inform them to take
culture distance seriously and make better preparation before departure. On the other
hand, from the perspective of the host culture, this study prompts the institutions and
governments to think deeply: How could they weaken the impacts of culture distance
for international students and provide them a better circumstance of cross-cultural
adaptation? Moreover, current study can be seen as a reference to the host culture to
make strategies toward international students, to provide them social support.
5.3. Limitation
Like all research, the current research has several limitations. Firstly, the limited
sample is a major limitation of the current research. Although the author tried his best to
recruit informants, the sample of the research was still limited. The findings of the
research will be more convincing if the sample could be larger. Secondly, as it had been
mentioned in the previous chapter, the poor choice of psychological adaptation scale
could not reflect the psychological adaptation difficulties of students. Thus, the
correlation between culture distance and psychological adaptation did not clearly
investigate. Besides, the author only found that there is no significant correlation
between culture distance and psychological adaptation. However, it lacks an
explanation of this phenomenon. In further studies, the weaknesses should be improved.
Thirdly, the interview guidance was designed by the author. Obviously, it lacks
professionalism and needs to be improved. Some questions could not be clearly
understood and led to answers that out of the author’s expectations. Last but not the
least, although the study discovered the correlation between cross-cultural adaptation
and culture distance, the research lacks the study of factors which may lead to better
cross-cultural adaptation and the suggestions about how to overcome culture distance.
As those two directions are more pragmatic, in the further study, some detailed research
should be carried out.
74
Bibliography
Babiker, I. E. , Cox, J. L.,& P. Miller. (1980). The measurement of Cultural Distance and
its Relationship to Medical Consultations, symptomatology, and Examination Performance
of Overseas Students at Edingbury University. Social Psychiatry, 109-116.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29,697-712.
Black, J. S.,& G. K. Stephens. (1989). The Influence of the Spouse on American Expatriate
Adjustment in Overseas Assignments. Journal of Management, 15, 529-544.
Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & G. Oddou. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of
international adjustment: an integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of
Management Review, 16 (2), 291-317.
Bochner, S. (1972). Problems in Culture Learning. In S. Bochner & P. P. Wicks, eds.
Overseas Students in Australia. 65-81.
Durkheim, E. (1897). Suicide: a study in sociology. The Free Press.
Furnham, A.,& S. Bochner. (1986). Culture shock: Psychological relations to unfamiliar
environments. London: Methuen, 109-112.
Furukawa, T. (1997). Depressive symptoms among international exchange students, and
their predictors. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 96, 242-246.
Goldberg, D. P.,& B. Blackwell. (1970). Psychiatric illness in general practice: A detailed
study using a new method of case identification. British Medical Journal, 1, 439-443.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequence: International differences in Work-Related
Values, Abridged Edition, Vol 5. Publisher: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2013). National culture: Dimensions. (Online). Avaliable at: http://geerthofstede.com/dimensions.html (Accessed: 25th April 2017).
Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factor simplicity. Psychometrika , 39, 31-36.
Kim, Y. Y. (1998). Adapting to a New Culture, in Intercultural Communication: A Reader,
8th ed. , ed. L. Samovar and R. Porter (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1997),
404-17; and, Y. Y. Kim, Communication and Cross Cultural Adaptation (Clevedon, UK:
75
Multilingual Matters, 1988) and, Y. Y. Kim, Cross-Cultural Adaptation: An Integrative
Theory, in Reading in Cultural Contexts, ed. J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, and L. A.
Flores (Mountain View, CA: Mayfeild, 1998), 295-304.
Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and
cross-cultural adaptation. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, Y. Y. (2005). Adapting to a new culture: An integrative communication theory. In W.
B. Gudykunst, eds. Theorizing about intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. 375-400.
Kohn, M. L. (1987). Cross-National Research as an Analytic Strategy: American
Sociological Association. American Sociological Review, vol. 52, No. 6, 713-731.
Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society. International Social Science Bulletin,
7, 45-51.
Marsh, R. M. (1967). Comparative Sociology: A Codification of Cross-societal Analysis.
New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. 11.
Nesdale, D.,& A. S. Mak. (2000). Immigrant acculturation attitudes and host country
identification. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, (10), 483-495.
Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural Shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical
Anthropology, 7 (3), 177-182.
Pearson, K. (1895). Notes on regression and inheritance in the case of two
parents.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 58, 240–242.
Redmond, M. V.,& J. M. Bunyi. (1993). The relationship of intercultural communication
competence with stress and the handling of stress as reported by international students.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 235-247.
Rezaev, A. V. (2016). The book review of “Concise Encyclopedia of Comparative
Sociology”. International Sociology reviews, 196-198.
Rokkan, S. (1993). Cross-cultural, cross-societal and cross-national research. Historical
Social Research 18, 2, 6-54.
Ruben, B. D. (1983). A system- theoretic view. In W. B. Gudykunst, eds. International and
intercultural communication annual: Vol. 12. International communication theory. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage. 131-145.
76
Schmitz, N., Kruse, J.,& W. Tress. (1999). Psychometric properties of the General Health
Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 in a German primary care. Acta Psychiatr Scand, 100, 462-468.
Torbiorn, I. (1982). Living Abroad: Personal Adjustment and Personal Policy in the
Overseas setting. New York: Wiley.
Ward, C., & Chang W. C. (1997). Cultural fit: A new perspective on personality and
sojourner adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(6), 525-533.
Ward, C.,& A. Kennedy. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. National
University of Singapore, Singapore.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & A. Furnham. (2001). The Psychology of Culture Shock. 2nd
edition. Hove: Routledge. Black, J. S. and Stephens, G. K. (1989) The influence of the
spouse on American expatriate adjustment in Pacific Rim overseas assignments. Journal of
Management, 15, 529-544.
Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Land & R. S. Bhagat, eds. Handbook of Intercultural
Training. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 124-147.
Waxin, M. F. (2004). Expatriates’ interaction adjustment: The direct and moderator effects
of culture of origin. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 61-79.
Weber, M. (1905). The Protestant Ethic and "The Spirit of Capitalism". Transl. by Stephen
Kalberg. 2002. Roxbury Publ. Co.
陈慧，车宏⽣，朱敏. 2005. 跨⽂化⼼理学中的⽂化适应研究, ⼼理科学进展, 2005.
陈向明 (1998). 旅居者和外国⼈-留美中国学⽣跨⽂化⼈际交往研究., 湖南教育出版
社, page 294.
李英武，郝淑媛. 2005. 古代中韩⽂化交流探析, 东北亚论坛, 第五期。
杨红军 (2005). 来华留学⽣跨⽂化适应问题研究, 华东师范⼤学博⼠论⽂, page 32.
2016留学趋势特别报告. [EB/OL].http: //https://sanwen8.cn/p/1a8D1sq.html, 2016 05
31/2017 03 18.
77
Appendices
Appendix 1: Questionnaire of cross-cultural adaptation of Chinese
students studying abroad.
Block 1. Personal information
1.What is your nationality?
2.Your gender: male or female?
3.How old are you?
4.How many years have you studied abroad?
5.In which university are you studying?
6.What is your education degree?
Block 2. Scale of culture distance
Scores from 1 to 5 represent the degree of similarity from very similar to very
dissimilar (1=very similar; 2=similar; 3=not sure; 4=dissimilar; 5= very dissimilar).
1.Local customs.
2.Living conditions.
3.Using health care systems.
4.Transportation system.
5.Living costs.
6.Quality and kinds of food.
7.Climate.
8.Language.
Block 3. Scale of socio-cultural adaptation
Please indicate the difficulties you are facing abroad. It is a five point likert scale, 1=not
difficult; 2=slightly difficult; 3=moderately difficult; 4=very difficult; 5=extremely
difficult.
1.Making friends with Russian/Korean.
2.Using the public transportation system.
78
3.Adapting to the local food.
4.Being used to local living condition.
5.Dealing with the climate.
6.Understanding locals’ jokes and humor.
7.Participating social events and gathering.
8.Understanding the local language.
9.Communicating with locals.
10.Adapting to local customs.
11.Adapting to the pace of life.
12.Going shopping in food stores or shopping malls.
13.Dealing the conflicts with locals.
14.Coping with the study at university.
15.Expressing your opinions in class.
16.Interacting with teachers at university.
17.Understanding the locals’ values.
18.Overcoming and dealing dissatisfied service.
19.What is your favorite Russian/ Korean food?
20.How often do you go to social events and what kind of event is it?
21.What differences in customs between the host culture and your home culture have
you seen?
22.How often do you go shopping? You prefer going shopping alone or finding yourself
some companions?
Block 4. Scale of psychological adaptation
Answering the following questions using four options: 1= not at all; 2= no more than
usual; 3= rather more than usual; 4= much more than usual. Your answers should
depend on your psychological state of last two weeks.
1.Can concentrate on things.
2.Loss sleep because of worry.
3.Feeling yourself playing a useful part in things.
4.Able to make decisions.
5.Frequently have the feeling of under stress.
79
6.Unable to overcome challenges and difficulties.
7.Can enjoy working and holiday activities.
8.Able to face problems.
9.Feeling unhappy and depressed.
10.Losing confidence.
11.Consider yourself useless.
12.Feeling reasonably happy.
Appendix 2: Guide of interview
1.Why do you choose to study in Russia/ South Korea?
2.Is it a decision of yourself? What is the role of your parents in your decision-making
process?
3.Do you know Russia/ South Korea well before your departure?
4.What are the biggest differences between Chinese culture and Russian/ Korean
culture for you? Have you already adapted to the differences?
5.Is there any similarity between Chinese culture and Russia/ Korean culture?
6.Can you adapt the living conditions/ food/transportation in Russia/ South Korea?
7.What is the biggest obstacle/difficulty for you in Russia/ South Korea?
8.Do you have any Russian/ South Korean friends? How often do you interact with
Russian/ Korean? (Further questions to seek reasons).
9.Do you spend more time with Chinese or with the locals? (Further questions to seek
reasons).
10.From your perspective, what is the Russians/ Koreans’ attitude toward Chinese?
11.When you first come to Russia/ South Korea, what differences do you notice and
shock you?
12.Can you call back your first months in Russia/ South Korea? Is it tough? You spend
how many time to adapt into Russia/South Korea?
13.Did you ever have homesickness? If yes, how do you overcome it?
80
Отзывы:
Авторизуйтесь, чтобы оставить отзыв