Talk:Culture shock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Edits[edit]

Why are there 0 criticisms of the "four stage" model? It's just presented as being fact. Who researched this? How do we know it's true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.145.100 (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"Culture shock displays common articule symptoms, in four stages. The first is the honeymoon or tourist stage, which lasts a few weeks. In this stage, people perceive everything around them as great. The next stage is shock, described above. The shock people experience could be expressed in many different ways. After that, there is negotiation, wherein people work to resolve the differences in culture. The final stage is acceptance when people realize that there are both good and bad things about the culture, and they can work with it." 'This text cannot be utilized unless properly sourced.' Madangry 08:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not? The German article (de:Kulturschock) says essentially the same thing and credits it to Kalvero Oberg. I would think that a quick consultation of works by Oberg would be enough to substantiate the material. As someone who has observed many people in culture shock, I feel that the description was accurate (no, I did not write it).
I also had doubts about other deletions from this article you made today, and was about to revert them because I saw no explanation for them here on the talk page. The list of real-world examples seem to me to be quite pertinent, and none contained overtly POV statements. I would like to put them back. Could you share your opinion as to why they don't belong?
You also shortened the list of steps a person experiencing culture shock could take to deal with the situation, even though the advice (though ungrammatical in places) seemed sound. (These are not intended as a challenge or provocation, it's request—I'm truly interested in knowing your thoughts.)
Finally, I believe the final section—that titled Commentary—reads more like an editorial than an encyclopedic article, and therefore that it should be rewritten to provide information (rather than opinion) or be removed. Any thoughts on this matter, too? Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Why can it not be included unless properly sourced? NOthing on this website can be included unless already sourced. I agree, the commentary does read like an editorial...but believe it or not the sections I deleted felt more like someone's journal entry full of opinions and assumptions and felt more like an editorial than even the commentary!!!! As someone who has experienced culture shock...none of the text I deleted applied to me. And so this cannot be left in as being attributed to ALL who experience it. Furthermore...culture shock is not reserved for vacationers....and so all of the "Have fun while you are on vacation and don't stay indoors, and remember humans are bad everywhere" stuff came out. Again, it should read like an encyclopedia entry, not a travel guide. None of the text said "You may try..." Or "A feeling of disgust may arise" it was all stating that culture shock is "this" and only this. Which obviously is not true as in the case of disgust, I never felt disgust when in culture shock. Quite the opposite. Anyway, everything I deleted was due to POV issues. Everything left is notable and NPOV. Now for the text above regarding the four stages...if you put a link to the exact non-wiki article you paraphrased it from I have no problem including it. Or if you add things back A) It must read like an encyclopedia entry (which the previous article did not) and b) you must attribute all of the ideas to Oreberg and that all of the text is based on his opinions or all text from his article. You cannot list it as truths or facts as they are not. Also...remember, you cannot use WIKIPEDIA to verify information. It MUST be an outside source. I stand by all of my deletions. Madangry 19:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to get into either a pissing contest or an edit war with you, but much of the deleted material (which, again, I did not write, so I do not have a vested emotional interest in it) is sourced at the bottom of the article: in particular, deleted material seems close to the content of the sources cited at http://www.doctortravel.ca/culture_shock.asp and http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/CGuanipa/cultshok.htm. Do you believe those sources lack credibility?
If you felt that it was POV because in wasn't couched in non-committal wording, then rather than simply delete it, wouldn't it be better to rewrite it so it was no longer POV? As far as using Wikipedia to verify information is concerned, I think you might be misinterpreting the policy. Of course, it could be me who is erroneous, but we are repeatedly encouraged to translate articles from other languages, and to draw on other-language articles for expanding and improving articles (for instance, through the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Echo); doesn't this conflict with the interpretation cite above of not using Wikipedia to verify information?
The previous content did not strike me as being particularly unencyclopedic in presentation, let alone travelogue-like. Deleting sourced material as unsourced and of inappropriate tone while leaving other material that is obviously an expression of opinion (not bad in itself, however) seems a bit incongruous to me. Jim_Lockhart 05:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me start off by saying that I live in the United States and have been to Canada, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, etc. Each country afforded me with completely different feelings of culture shock, none of which these articles touch on, and in fact what they do touch on I've never felt. So no, I do not believe these articles to be anything more than opinion. Having the article linked at the bottom does not work as a casual reader would not know those were the sources being used for this text. You must include a disclaimer in the text otherwise it will be implied that you DID write it on your own. "The following is this author's interpretation of culture shock and how to deal with it," etc. All you did was atrribute the coining of the term. This is not sourcing it. Echoing is something completely different than using another wiki article to determine credibility.... Now, if you want to add that stuff back in do it. I don't really care anymore. I just want the wiki world to know that I do not feel the deleted sections were factual nor written as an encyclopedia entry and rather than mark the article for deletion I took out the highly questionable material (When happening on the page it was marked for cleanup, and cleanup is what I did.) I will now remove the commentary. Even though it is MUCH more well written and much more believable than the text based on the articles linked at the bottom, it too is not written in encyclopedia form. Madangry 19:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Coping with Culture shock" section DOES read like a travelguide. It talks about telephone signals, staying in contact with family, psychological help, remembering there is no perfect holiday, not spending time alone in a room all day, getting taken advantage of, and what to do when preparing for a holiday (business men flying to another country also feel culture shock, as do foreign exchange students....culture shock is not a vacationers disease). The "examples" section was all opinion and if these two sections are based on the article....let readers click to read the article. These opinions and helpful hints for vacationers should not be included in the article about what culture shock is. Madangry 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Avoid being offended themselves, offending locals or any more general cultural misunderstanding, they can familiarise themselves with the local customs and language."

not always the case. our experience moving from los angeles to miami was learning the lesson that you have to be fiercely more aggressive in miami or you get taken advantage of. also points on racism from local people in the new place of residence should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.124.18 (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may add to the discussion - I am a psychiatrist employeed by the US State Department and serve at a US embassy overseas. The concept of 'culture shock' is recognized by myself and my colleagues and we deal with individuals who are having difficulty with adapting to a new culture frequently. I am unfamiliar with the methodologies used by Wikipedia in posting articles and the requirements for citations so have not added any content to the article or made edits. The idea of culture shock is that many individuals will go through a period of adaptation lasting weeks to months when moving to a foreign country that has a significantly different culture than what they are used to. The term does not apply to tourists or the short term disorientation on first arriving to a new place. We recognize distinct stages which include the honeymoon phase, culture shock phase, adjustment phase, and finally adaptation. We recognize that frequently individuals will move into the adaptation phase after 8-12 months and then dip back into a shorter term period of culture shock/adaptation. Not all individuals go through this and there is significant variability in how this is experienced. In dealing with the travel guide or 'how to' issue perhaps you could simply say that experts reccomend a variety of techniques to lesson the impact of this phenomena and then list a few of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPSB (talkcontribs) 09:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

DrPSB: I read your comment after my edit (explained above) and agree with you fully. Since you have more experience in the field (and find the better words to describe it), could you improve the page further? Thanks! Frank, 17:38, 31.Oct.2008

Culture shock's effect depends much upon where you are going and where you come from. American person might not have such a huge impact when entering other Western country, opposed to going to some other country (Asian country for example!). For example, I didn't have much of a culture shock when I moved to live in Germany and UK, I adapted pretty quickly as they are culturally pretty similar to my country of origin (Finland). I usually knew what to do. But when I moved to Japan, I had a HUGE culture shock. It took me somewhere between 13 to 15 months to adapt to Japanese way of life and culture. And it was a huge shock, really, especially since I come from a minority culture and I didn't have ANY contact with my own culture besides some contact with friends over internet. I was all alone. So the way I figure it, it depends on person and I wouldn't completely judge these opinions mentioned in the article :) --88.112.11.193 (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

transwiki to wikibooks[edit]

Seriously,if it reads like a travel guide a little, then make it one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.66.213 (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

I've reverted revision 135025088, made by User:Mattcain at 15:42, 1 June 2007 to revision 104497059, made by User:155.33.160.222 at 13:34, 31 January 2007, reasons being:

  • At the time of my first edit the new article was less than half the size of the original article, and lacked specific information that the previous one offered and adequate structure
  • All of the information that was previously unsourced now properly cite references

I've incorporated all the additional information from the later revision into the earlier one. If you have any concerns, please raise them on this discussion page or my talk page. Guycalledryan 09:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

01/08/07[edit]

Removed vandalism from 'Coping with culture shock section "* and also you remember your wife and you want to do sex" 195.8.190.54 10:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

October 2008[edit]

In addition to re-writing some text, I have added information I read somewhere (and found very enlightening) about the three groups of people after negotiation phase. This is recollected from memory (incl. percentages) and I do not know a reference to cite. I wish I had, but I forgot where I saw it. Please add a citation if you have one! Frank, 17:28, 31. Oct. 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.248.183.66 (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

July 2009[edit]

I deleted this section, but preserved it here. It reads like a bad travel guide, actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.203.36 (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

==Coping with culture shock==
{{howto}}
Experience makes it easier to cope with the difficulties of relocation. Some common strategies used to make the transition easier are<ref>Working Abroad
Unravelling the Maze http://www.voyage.gc.ca/main/pubs/working_abroad-en.asp</ref>:

*Learning about the country and its culture before departing: E.g. reading, studying the language or attending cultural classes. This way, the country and its people are more familiar upon arrival, one is more aware of differences and better prepared to deal with them.
*Avoiding offence: Trying to not be offended, not offend locals, or be entangled in cultural misunderstanding.
*Being [[open mind|open-minded]] about the culture one visits and tolerant / accepting of its unfamiliar aspects.
*Taking a 'time out' or rest apart from cultural exchange in order to reduce the 'shock' of adjustment.

Some  [[intercultural communication]] researchers claim that culture shock has many positive effects on intercultural sojourners, like increasing [[self-efficacy]]<ref>Milstein, T. (2005). Transformation abroad: Sojourning and the perceived enhancement of self-efficacy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 29, pp.217-238</ref> and helping improve self-motivation.<ref>Lin, C. (2007). Intercultural sojourning: Self-motivation and ecoshock/reentry ecoshock.Master's thesis (Unpublished). Department of Communications, University of Hdsawai'i at Manoa.</ref>

A disease?[edit]

"Culture shock is a state of dis-ease, just like a disease. " <-- what is that trying to say? It makes absolutely no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.165.17 (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Stendhal syndrome?[edit]

Why is Stendhal syndrome listed as under "See also"? The connection seems tenuous - Stendhal has nothing to do with being immersed in a foreign culture per se, and the effects of Stendhal are different from culture shock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.140.240.14 (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

reverse culture shock[edit]

In Peter Metcalf's ( http://anthropology.virginia.edu/faculty/profile/pam5r ) book 'Anthropology: The Basics' ( http://books.google.de/books?id=UQfNLBzMohUC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false ), he says: "In the 1970's the term 'culture shock' came into circulation. As originally used by anthropologists, it described the disorientation that often overtakes a fieldworker when returning home from a prolonged period of immersion in another culture." (p. 2) and "When journalists started using the term, however, they left out the reflexive angle. Culture shock came to mean simply the reaction to entering another culture, and that can be disorienting enough." (p. 3). Is he wrong? If not, where's the difference between the original defintion of "culture shock" and the definition of "reverse culture shock"? I think it's worth mentioning! --193.175.206.234 (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)