Transactional Analysis Journal
ISSN: 0362-1537 (Print) 2329-5244 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtaj20
Culture Shock and Identity
Ioana Cupsa
To cite this article: Ioana Cupsa (2018) Culture Shock and Identity, Transactional Analysis
Journal, 48:2, 181-191, DOI: 10.1080/03621537.2018.1431467
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03621537.2018.1431467
Published online: 15 Feb 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 507
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtaj20
TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL, 2018
VOL. 48, NO. 2, 181–191
https://doi.org/10.1080/03621537.2018.1431467
ARTICLE
Culture Shock and Identity
Ioana Cupsa
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Culture shock involves a powerful, transformative process that takes Culture shock; identity;
place at both the individual and societal levels as important cultural group survival; imago;
forces are clashing. This article provides an account of the impact global communities;
that culture shock has on individual identity and invites reflection growth; cooperation;
acculturation; change
on the social implications of culturally diverse encounters. A theor-
etical framework represented by the stages of culture shock devel-
oped by Paul Pedersen is described, and examples from the
author’s personal and professional experiences are used as illustra-
tions. In the effort to learn more about ourselves and the dynamic
world in which we live, the author suggests that becoming more
aware of and sensitive to the experience of culture shock can facili-
tate the development of expanded, more inclusive identities.
The concept of cultural identity provides a way of thinking about different aspects that
are communicated through our membership in a specific culture. Fong and Chuang
(2004) defined it as “the identification of communications of a shared system of sym-
bolic verbal and nonverbal behaviors that are meaningful to group members who
have a sense of belonging and who share traditions, heritage, language, and similar
norms of appropriate behavior” (p. 6). Through sharing symbols, people create and
give meaning to their internal and external realities. When the symbols used to
describe and conceptualize the world are not recognizable, this leads to difficulties in
producing or creating new meanings and to feeling like an alien in the world. The per-
son’s whole sense of identity is under threat.
Social psychologist Edgar Schein (2010) defined culture as
a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solves its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration which has worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (p. 18)
Schein emphasized the most important function of a system: its survival. This means
that at a particular time, a group of people develop their own values, beliefs, lan-
guage, skills, physical attributes, interests, and even religion in response to the need to
adapt not only to the external environment but also as a result of learning from
internal struggles within the group. Through this process, both conscious and uncon-
scious, each individual will identify with a certain group of people who have similar,
shared characteristics.
CONTACT Ioana Cupsa ioana.cupsa@gmail.com 86 rue de la Grande Fin, Attalens, 1616 Switzerland
ß 2018 International Transactional Analysis Association
182 I. CUPSA
Eric Berne (1963/1968b) provided a model for understanding the development of
the group as a whole and suggested his own theory of group survival and group cul-
ture. According to him, the survival of the group is concerned with the preservation of
the organizational structure of the group (based on the explicit and implicit constitu-
tion of the group or nation). This structure, if maintained over time, gives rise to an
organizational identity. Berne wrote about war and civil war as being two of the most
dramatic threats to the effective survival of a group. They affect the major structure of
the group, its external boundary, and its major internal boundary. A group can survive
physically (maintaining the individual structure), ideologically (existing in the minds of
descendants), and effectively (sustaining the organizational structure so that organizing
work is possible). For the effective survival of a group (small groups or those as large
as nations), three forces are important: external pressure, internal agitation, and group
cohesion. Cohesion is an organizing force that promotes order, whereas agitation and
pressure are disorganizing forces.
From a wider perspective on what is happening in the world today, we can better
understand the impact of the interaction between these forces as Berne (1963/1968b)
described them: “Every time a group is formed, the amount of order in the world is
increased, and every time a group breaks up through disruption, destruction or decay,
the amount of order in the world is decreased” (p. 116). Berne referred to the group
imago as “any mental picture of what a group should be or is like” (p. 125). He devel-
oped a new way of analyzing and understanding the culture of a group that was fur-
ther developed by Drego (1983), who wrote about examining and understanding the
“personality of a culture” as an essential tool that can be used for social and cultural
transformation (p. 224). Berne (1963/1968b) emphasized the importance of group cul-
ture for the individual: “The group culture gives the rules for how to be ‘acceptable’
and how to be not acceptable in any particular group” (pp. 61–62).
In transactional analysis, we refer to the theory of script and cultural scripting
(White & White, 1975), which is defined as a “mechanism for species survival, enabling
most of the individuals to reach a generative stage” (p. 15). N. James (1994) described
a social matrix and cultural frame of reference that can be used to understand inter-
group encounters. He defined the cultural frame of reference as a “subsystem of both
the personality and the individual’s frame of reference. It is the primary source of one’s
intergroup identity and social standing” (p. 207).
In reviewing the transactional analysis literature, I found one brief mention of the
phrase culture shock in J. James’s (1983) article entitled “Cultural Consciousness: The
Challenge to TA.” He described the experience of being “like a fish out of water” when
people from the dominant culture are moved into a different cultural environment.
Today we face the challenges of a global life in which we experience and witness
fragmentation and isolation even as we strive to develop global communities.
The progress and evolution of technology has provided us with instant access to infor-
mation: Everyone knows (or thinks they know) what is happening everywhere, so we
become more aware of global life that exists in different shapes and colors. We can be
easily overwhelmed or frightened.
The wars in different parts of the world today need to be understood not in terms
of black-and-white truths but rather by working to understand the clash between dif-
ferent cultures and values. One of the questions that arises from this reality is how do
TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL 183
we develop more inclusive societies? What do we need to learn in order to become
less disconnected and more inclusive?
Recognizing Culture Shock
I propose that becoming aware of and learning about culture shock and the impact it
has on an individual’s identity can help us to develop a more understanding and
resourceful way to respond to the challenges that we face at the personal, interper-
sonal, and group levels. Through understanding culture shock, we can build the capac-
ity for compassion toward ourselves and others and become more sensitive to what
individuals need when they are dealing with radical life changes. We can thereby nour-
ish our deep evolutionary drive for cooperation.
In this article, I describe the challenges someone faces when experiencing culture
shock. I use the theoretical framework of the five stages of culture shock described by
Pedersen (1995) and provide examples drawn from my own and my clients’ experiences.
I (Cupsa, 2016) offered a workshop called “Culture Shock and Identity” at the 2016
European Association for Transactional Analysis (EATA) Conference in Geneva,
Switzerland, on “Identity—Integration—Boundaries.” In it I shared some of what I expe-
rienced and learned related to culture shock as part of my own journey as a Romanian
living abroad in two very different countries and cultures: the United States of America
and Switzerland. I intuitively knew that giving the workshop would be an opportunity
to bring my own contributions to the TA community and to the Geneva Conference
theme. I also hoped that the experience would add to my effort to integrate my own
experience of living the past 4 years in Switzerland, my current adoptive country.
I was curious to meet other people who were willing to explore the acculturation
process and share their own understanding of it. Acculturation is a two-way process of
change (social, psychological, and cultural) that occurs at the group and individual lev-
els when two different cultural groups interact with one another. During the 3-hour
workshop, we experienced a powerful, intimate meeting between different cultures,
identities, and experiences. The aim was to find out to whom we really say “hello“ (in
terms of cultural identity) as well as to experience saying “hello,” as Berne (1972) said,
“to see the other person, to be aware of him as a phenomenon, to happen to him and
to be ready for him to happen to you” (p. 4) (which would mean experiencing the risks
that come with culture shock).
Cultural Identity: To Whom Do We Really Say Hello?
By the time I was an adolescent, I knew something about living in a closed social
system that promoted oppression, the abuse of power, and the fear of annihilation
for anyone who did not share the communist ideology. I was familiar with the domin-
ant-submissive dynamic between the members of that society. I experienced the silent
threat of the communist plans for “rural and urban systematization” (as it was called
by the Communists). I grew up in silent fear that our house would be the next one to
be destroyed as part of the plan of building a “proper socialist town.”
At the same time, in my home community, I learned to get along with children of
different ethnic backgrounds, to play and talk in their mother languages. That was
184 I. CUPSA
how I learned to swear in Serbian, Hungarian, German, and Romani (Roma). That com-
mon space of play, in which we shared our languages and symbols, helped us to find
meaning and to value our differences. We became resilient and strong, even during dif-
ficult times, because we found a way to gain “strength at a collective level from the
positive connections with the others” (Campos, 2012, p. 209) while each of us was capa-
ble of holding and securing “a sense of personal identity” (Landaiche, 2012, p. 193).
My life assumptions changed dramatically when I lived the reality of breaking
through walls that became possible with the fall of communism in 1989. As a result of
my new “possible life,” many years after this change I experienced living abroad with
my family. This was an important time when I become increasingly aware of my cul-
tural heritage and cultural identity while also experiencing having a difficult time
adapting to a new culture.
Whether we are immigrants, refugees, sojourners, or local people within an adoptive
or host country, we face important questions in relation to current realities about cul-
tural contact and change: “Who am I?” and “How do members of my group relate to
other groups of people?” Erikson described identity as being “a conscious sense of
individual uniqueness, an unconscious striving for a continuity of experience, and a
solidarity with a group of values and ideals” (as cited in Hess, Hess, & Hess, 2008,
p. 31).
As individuals, we all have bonds to our culture, starting with our family culture,
which provides us with our first implicit memories in the form of primary relational
patterns. The concept of self-identity is related to something that a person feels or
senses (Hess et al., 2008). “Who am I?” is a question that looks into our identity, which
holds the imprint of our immediate family and/or transgenerational family culture,
home or country culture, and social context and continues to evolve throughout our
life. Berne (1972) illustrated this beautifully in his introduction to What Do You Say
After You Say Hello? when he described the uncorrupted, authentic smiles of Fiji
Islanders: “It starts slowly, it illuminates the whole face, it rests there long enough to
be clearly recognized and to recognize clearly, and it fades with secret slowness as it
passes by” (p. 4). Berne went on to say that those smiles are matched in the unique
encounter of a mother and her baby (p. 4).
The Phenomenon of Culture Shock
The term culture shock was first used by the anthropologist Kalervo Oberg in an infor-
mal talk that he gave in Rio de Janeiro in 1954. Contemporary with Eric Berne, Oberg
was a pioneer in applied anthropology. Like Berne, he was born into an immigrant
family (Finnish) who became established in British Columbia, Canada, and through his
work, he traveled and lived in various countries, including Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, and
Surinam. Based on his observations and understandings of the cross-cultural experi-
ence, Oberg named the phenomenon of culture shock and described it as
an occupational disease of people who have been suddenly transplanted abroad. Like
most ailments, it has its own etiology, symptoms, and cure.
Culture shock is precipitated by the anxiety that results from losing all our familiar signs
and symbols of social intercourse. These signs or cues include the thousand and one ways
in which we orient ourselves to the situations of daily life: when to shake hands and what
TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL 185
to say when we meet people, when and how to give tips, how to give orders to servants,
how to make purchases, when to accept and when to refuse invitations, when to take
statements seriously and when not. Now these cues which may be words, gestures, facial
expressions, customs, or norms are acquired by all of us in the course of growing up and
are as much a part of our culture as the language we speak or the beliefs we accept. All of
us depend for our peace of mind and our efficiency on hundreds of these cues, most of
which we do not carry on the level of conscious awareness. (Oberg, 1954, p. 1)
Culture shock is a process that someone goes through as he or she is experiencing
a new, unfamiliar situation or environment that requires developing new modes of
symbolic representation and new perspectives on self, others, and the environment.
The word shock refers to the immediate felt impact at the somatic, emotional, and
cognitive level of a disturbance in processing information related to a new, unknown
reality. This happens at both conscious and unconscious levels. People experience that
they are not themselves anymore. It is as if the software they used to run automatic-
ally is not working because an unknown virus is affecting the optimal functioning of
the system and leads to incongruities or errors. There is a sense of loss, unfamiliarity,
strangeness, and anxiety in relation to the change. In studies about intercultural con-
tact, the word shock was put in relation to deficit skills (Bochner as cited in Ward,
Bochner, & Furnham, 2001, p. 40) and acculturative stress (Berry as cited in Ward et al.,
2001, p. 40). This leads to the development of more recent approaches: the learning
experiences and coping approaches. These view the person as an active participant in
negotiating with the new reality in search of better solutions as opposed to an earlier
medical model of culture shock.
We can distinguish two categories of culture contact: between members from differ-
ent societies (immigrants, refugees, sojourners) and within pluralistic societies among
multiethnic groups. Most of the research on culture shock has focused on the first of
these categories.
Why Culture Shock?
Culture shock is frequently experienced, normal, and unavoidable. According to the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2017) annual global trends report for
2016, 65.6 million people are displaced worldwide, one person flees every 3 seconds,
and over half of the world’s refugees are children. We hear about the global displace-
ment and migrant crises and increasing anti-immigrant sentiment in host countries.
Many people who are thrown into such circumstances have little or no experience
with other cultures and are unprepared. Most of the time they are relocated into alien
cultures with little or no choice. To all of this we can add the preceding traumatic
experience of war and/or famine. Individuals are not equipped, especially in the ear-
liest stage of the transition, to manage and cope effectively with these novel situations
and unfamiliar patterns of interaction.
Culture shock has a profound impact on the individual level because it affects who
you are as a person, but it also has a huge effect at the societal level. This needs to be
considered if we want to build communities that are inclusive and that facilitate inte-
gration. I believe that an important value for us as practitioners and humans is to find
a healthier balance between a commitment to the individual and also to society in the
186 I. CUPSA
form of social responsibility and respect for cultural differences (J. James, 1983).
Although we all share membership in one community—the human race—we might
not share similar perspectives and hopes about living in inclusive communities, and
this needs to be taken into account.
Antonio Guterres (2017), the Secretary-General of the United Nations, said at the
2017 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that
recognizing that all societies are now multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multicultural, [we need]
to invest in the social cohesion of those societies; for diversity to be a richness, not a
threat. For people to be able first of all to see their identities valued, but also for people
to feel that they belong to the larger community. (para. 14)
Individuals experiencing culture shock are developing a specialized form of learning
and educational growth, one that can lead to being able to see “the bigger picture.”
At the beginning of the workshop in Geneva, people explored each others’ cultural
identity by observing and asking questions about specific symbols that they used to
describe their cultural identity background. I was surprised by the high level of energy
that resulted. Participants were deeply engaged in an encounter with a different other
and learning not only about differences but also similarities, like in a dance of tensions
between two forces that continue to gravitate around the same energy field.
The Stages of Culture Shock
In my experience, going through the stages of culture shock involves a continuous
processing, reorganization, and restructuring that takes place at different levels: cogni-
tive, emotional, and physical. This nonlinear process fosters transformation and change
in individuals in the direction of developing a more real, authentic self that can inte-
grate multiple cultural identities and has a sense of “feeling larger than oneself”
(Tronick as cited in Bromberg, 2017, p. 37).
Based on research carried out with students enrolled in the University of
Pittsburgh’s Semester at Sea Project, Paul Pedersen (1995), a pioneer researcher in
cross-cultural psychology, described the qualitative experience of culture shock in
terms of five stages. I have found these useful in understanding my own experiences
and those of my clients.
First Stage: The Honeymoon
Pedersen (1995) called the first stage of culture shock “the honeymoon” (p. 26), and I
refer to it as “the rising stage.” During it, the person experiences hope that something
will become possible, such as moving from what might have been just a dream or
wish for a better situation to a life that is actually better.
In anticipation of a change that is chosen and desired, people usually feel excite-
ment, curiosity, and joy coupled with anxiety about entering unknown territory. For
those who are forced into changing their life and country, the experience of this stage
is more about pursuing the hope of survival in the search for safety. Regardless of
whether the move has been chosen or forced, special attention needs to be given to
migrants who are experiencing a variety of life changes as they enter into a new
TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL 187
cultural environment. For refugees, this journey often takes place at the edge between
life and death. Cornell and Landaiche (2008) acknowledged the importance of “the cre-
ation of script out of a sense of purpose and aspiration” (p. 214) as our life energy or
physis (Berne, 1968a) pulsates within us as long as we are alive and becomes the
spring of our aspirations. For most refugees, loss, grief, and traumatic experiences
become sources of pre- and postmigration stress.
At this stage, most of the co-national clients I work with experience the bliss of a
dream that became true as they emigrated. Many of them are highly qualified people
in pursuit of better conditions for fulfilling their potential and aspirations. One client
entered therapy after 4 years of living in a country in Europe that she described as
“beautiful and cold” (not referring to the temperature), whereas her home country had
been “ugly and warm.” She felt depressed and anxious and had low self-esteem. She
asked for help because she was coming to an end of the long-standing illusion of
“living in wonderland” as a tourist and was starting to struggle to maintain the same
home-based sense of identity—in particular, her professional identity as a physician.
As the differences between her adoptive country and her home culture emerged, her
sense of identity was threatened: “I don’t know who am I anymore.”
Second Stage: Disintegration
The second stage, which Pedersen (1995) called “disintegration” (p. 7), I have renamed
“the fall” because it is the most painful. Imagine that you have to change your shoes
to a random pair that belonged to someone else. You expect to be able to walk as
usual, and you might find the most comfortable or perfect shoes. Still, there is a differ-
ent quality to the experience because your foot does not really fit within the shoes’
footprint, or you do not like how warm or cold they keep your feet, or they make your
feet too sweaty. And what if the new shoes are too small or too big or have high
heels? Imagine the pain and the blisters that will develop if you try to walk in those
shoes.
In this stage of culture shock, the person experiences more complex states of mind
that are dominated by confusion and disorientation in relation to what is expected
from others and what is expected of the individual, a sense of disconnection from
one’s surroundings. As in the example of my client just described, the person’s sense
of identity is threatened as she or he blames herself or himself for those inadequacies
and the sense of failure he or she feels.
This stage can begin with the experience of a different landscape, missing home
and a sense of familiarity, the first misunderstandings with locals or coworkers, or the
increasing difficulty in reading the cues that translate social interactions. There is so
much new information to process that the person feels overwhelmed. The increased
awareness of differences can bring shame and lead to withdrawal and isolation. The
person may feel like he or she is getting sick but without an obvious cause. Others
may then perceive her or him as being sick without understanding what that sickness
is all about. That can then lead to strained relationships.
Now I understand why, when I was going through this stage myself, I disconnected
from my supervision group, with which I had been working for several years. At that
moment I felt that I was an alien to them because I was not feeling like myself
188 I. CUPSA
anymore, and it seemed that they could not understand and perceive the pain with
which I was living. My client described her experience in very few words: “On the
street, I am an immigrant, cautious … someone else.”
Third State: Reintegration
The third stage described by Pedersen (1995) is “reintegration” (p. 134) or, as I call it,
“learning to walk again.” This is characterized by increased hostility and anger directed
toward others: “These are bad shoes!” This manifests as strong rejection of the host
culture with the polarized experience of everything being good that comes from the
home culture and everything being bad in the new culture. The person also experien-
ces cognitive dissonance related to “being in and feeling out” as in “I am here for
good and I feel bad about it.” This conflict can either progress toward resolution and
movement to the next stage or possibly to a regression to the previous stage.
In this stage, the person may become more at ease with managing different tasks
or demands as he or she establishes a routine. There is a quicker recovery toward a
sense of power and one’s own capabilities because adjusting to new things or changes
requires less energy. The person is returning to his or her sense of identity while expe-
riencing more direct contact with the host culture that forms the basis for developing
new aspects of identity. For example, my client was confronted with struggling to
practice as a physician in a system that was completely different from the one that
she trained in and knew from her country of origin. She started feeling angry toward
the host health system and completely different working conditions that required that
she see a new patient every 10 minutes. In a short time she became exhausted and
anxious. This was an important moment because she gradually become more aware
and accepting of the limitation she experienced in the new social context. This facili-
tated a process of reconsideration and rediscovery of her professional identity.
Fourth stage: Autonomy
What Pedersen (1995) called “autonomy” (p. 201) I like to call “juggling” because it is
characterized by a level of organization of experience that facilitates the development
of new perspectives, skills, and understandings about the host culture and the person’s
identity. As in juggling two or three balls, the person becomes more skillful in learning
how to balance more things in life: activities, family, work, and different aspects of the
new culture. Differences are perceived as nonthreatening, and there is increased
awareness of the self/other that fosters less dependency and more autonomy. The per-
son develops the ability to care empathically in relationships with others and to be
warmer and more relaxed as a more balanced perspective about reality is constructed.
In this stage, there is “little of the illusion of the first stage nor the pain of the second
stage nor the anger of the third stage but rather a synthesis in a more complex role
but also a competent role for the student in the host culture” (p. 243). For example, in
this stage my client was going to interviews for jobs and was able to hold a more bal-
anced perspective on her own vulnerabilities as a person and professional who had to
learn about the new medical system. She also felt more accepted by locals. She
TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL 189
described how she was feeling that her home country culture and her host culture are
“each an important part of me, like I need both of them.”
Fifth Stage: Interdependence
Pedersen (1995) called the fifth stage “interdependence,” and I refer to it as “walking
and juggling” at the same time. This stage is not the end of a process but rather the
expression of a dynamic tension that occurs at the boundary between self and culture
where new perspectives can be developed. “Walking and juggling” is taking place as
the person walks on different cultural grounds while still balancing different self-
expression balls. The person feels at home in the second culture, integrating different
aspects that enlarge his or her identity and forming a multicultural (or bicultural) iden-
tity. Pedersen wrote about this multicultural identity as being flexible, adaptable, and
able to adjust to multiple cultural contexts. I think this is a continuous process of
re-creation in the face of differences. For me, “walking and juggling” is a work in pro-
gress that facilitates learning continuously about myself and the world. And I know
that I love learning.
Conclusions
Experiencing culture shock is an active process of dealing with change in a way that
the whole sense of identity is deconstructed, restructured, and reorganized over a long
time. It necessitates learning new social skills for dealing with life in a new environ-
ment and developing multiple coping strategies for dealing with the stress of change.
I see this process as part of what Cornell and Landaiche (2008) described as our matur-
ation and commitment to discovering reality as it is, with its struggles and potential
for growth:
Maturation, in other words, is the process of coming to terms with the facts of our lives—
in our minds and bodies—in the same way that we begin learning as babies to live with
our experiences of hunger, fear, anger, other people, separation, and the world. … We
mature for the whole of our lives to the extent that we want to learn more about the
world and ourselves in it. (p. 216).
We need the contact with a different other in order to learn and grow. But for this
to happen, we must feel safe and develop a basic trust in the relationship, which
means we need to allow and treasure differences. As Siegel (2014) wrote, “And that
means to embrace each other’s differentiated selves, to put time, energy and attention
toward connecting with each other in reflective ways” (para. 7).
In my experience of living difficult times, when I found myself lost in between cul-
tures, identities, and not being able to connect, one thing I learned was how I am part
of something greater than myself, that my group is your group and others’ group: one
group, our humanity.
How can we foster the experience that we are, indeed, part of an interconnected
world? It is worth looking for answers to this question in our everyday lives now
more than ever, bearing in mind that “cultural diversity is an absolute given, as
highly desirable and probably an essential condition for the future survival of
humankind” (Ward et al., 2001, p. 17).
190 I. CUPSA
As therapists, consultants, teachers, and counselors, we strive to understand our cli-
ents and build relationships that facilitate our clients’ understanding of themselves. In
this process, we also learn about ourselves. Becoming aware of and knowing about
the cultural forces that shape our being (which are mostly outside of our awareness) is
essential for holding the dynamic frame of differences and similarities in the construc-
tion of inclusive identities.
Disclosure Statement
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Notes on Contributor
Ioana Cupsa is a psychologist and Provisional Teaching and Supervising Transactional Analyst
(psychotherapy) who maintains a private practice as a psychotherapist, supervisor, and trainer
under supervision in Timisoara, Romania. For the last 4 years, she has been living with her family
in Switzerland, where she is interested in developing her practice. She can be reached at 86 rue
de la Grande Fin, Attalens, 1616 Switzerland; email: ioana.cupsa@gmail.com.
References
Berne, E. (1968a). A layman’s guide to psychiatry and psychoanalysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
Berne, E. (1968b). The structure and dynamics of organizations and groups. New York, NY: Grove
Press. (Original work published 1963)
Berne, E. (1972). What do you say after you say hello? The psychology of human destiny. New
York, NY: Grove Press.
Bromberg, P. M. (2017). Psychotherapy as the growth of wholeness: The negotiation of individu-
ality and otherness. In M. Solomon & D. Siegel (Eds.), How people change: Relationship and
neuroplasticity in psychotherapy (pp. 17–52). New York, NY: Norton.
Campos, L. (2012). Cultivating cultures of courage with transactional analysis. Transactional
Analysis Journal, 42, 209–219. doi:10.1177/036215371204200307
Cornell, W. F., & Landaiche, N. M., III. (2008). Nonconscious processes and self-development: Key
concepts from Eric Berne and Christopher Bollas. Transactional Analysis Journal, 38, 200–217.
doi:10.1177/036215370803800303
Cupsa, I. (2016, 8 July). Culture shock and identity. Workshop presented at the European
Association for Transactional Analysis Conference, Geneva, Switzerland.
Drego, P. (1983). The cultural parent. Transactional Analysis Journal, 13, 224–227.
Fong, M., & Chuang, R. (2004). Communicating ethnic and cultural identity. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Guterres, A. (2017, 19 January). Secretary-General’s remarks at the World Economic Forum.
Retrieved from http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2017/01/secretary-generals-
remarks-at-the-world-economic-forum/
Hess, A., Hess, K., & Hess, T. (2008). Psychotherapy supervision. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL 191
James, J. (1983). Cultural consciousness: The challenge to TA. Transactional Analysis Journal, 13,
207–216.
James, N. (1994). Cultural frame of reference and intergroup encounters: A TA approach.
Transactional Analysis Journal, 24, 206–210.
Landaiche, N. M., III. (2012). Learning and hating in groups. Transactional Analysis Journal, 42,
186–198. doi:10.1177/036215371204200305
Oberg, K. (1954, 3 August). Culture shock. Presentation to the Women’s Club, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi¼10.1.1.461.5459&rep
¼rep1&type¼pdf
Pedersen, P. (1995). The five stages of culture shock: Critical incidents around the world. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Siegel, D. J. (2014, 25 February). Changing the cultural conversation about adolescence. Huffpost:
The Blog. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-j-siegel-md/changing-the-cul-
tural-conversation-about-adolescence_b_4851222.html
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR]. (2017). Global trends forced displace-
ment in 2016. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/globaltrends2016/
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). Hove:
Routledge.
White, J., & White, T. (1975). Cultural scripting. Transactional Analysis Journal, 5, 12–23.
