"Following a wonderful overseas experience: What happens when Thai youths return home?" (Talawanich, Jianvittayakit, & Wattanacharoensil, 2019)

Core Research Problem & Rationale

Why This Study Matters

• Increasing numbers of Thai youth participate in working holidays (e.g., Australia’s Work and Holiday Visa – from 200 to 500 visas between 2005–2018) and study exchange programmes (Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs data).

• These sojourners invest significant time, money, and effort – reverse culture shock (RCS) can diminish or negate the positive value of the overseas experience.

• RCS is often under-anticipated by returnees and by people at home.

• Gap identified: Most RCS research focuses on international students or expatriates, not on youth tourists (working holidaymakers + exchange students). Also, RCS frameworks (e.g., W-curve) originated in Western contexts; their applicability to Asian / Thai contexts is questionable.

Research Aims (3 stated aims)

1. Explore perceptual and emotional stages Thai returnees experience after overseas work/holiday or educational trips.

2. Investigate coping strategies used by two groups (working tourists vs. educational tourists, with the latter split into short-term and one-year exchange).

3. Identify the degree to which Western-originated RCS frameworks (especially the W-curve) can explain the phenomenon in an Asian (Thai) context.

2. Key Definitions (from the Literature Review)

Culture Shock (Oberg, 1960; Adler, 1975)

• Psychological anxiety from losing familiar signs/symbols of social interaction.

• Symptoms: frustration, uncertainty, stress, depression, homesickness, longing for home, ineffective communication, adjustment problems, voluntary isolation.

Reverse Culture Shock (RCS) (Allison et al., 2012; Gaw, 2000)

• Phenomenon affecting sojourners after returning home after time in a different cultural environment.

• Leads to alienation from one’s own culture and norms.

• Can be more problematic than initial culture shock (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963; Adler, 1981) because:

  • Returnees under-anticipate the difficulty.

  • People at home also under-anticipate the returnee’s changes.

U-Curve (Lysgaard, 1955) – initial sojourn

Three stages:

1. Honeymoon – excitement in new environment.

2. Culture shock – confusion, isolation.

3. Recovery/adjustment – sensitivity, understanding, appreciation.

W-Curve Proposition (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963)

• Extends U-curve by adding a second U-curve upon return home.

• Represents full cycle: departure → host country adjustment → return → home country readjustment.

• Stages of second U-curve (return):

  • Honeymoon at home (very short: hours to <1 month – Adler, 1981).

  • RCS crisis (2nd–3rd month, can last up to 6 months – Furukawa, 1997).

  • Readjustment (by 6 months to 2 years – Enloe & Lewin, 1987; Gaviria & Wintrob, 1982).

• Adler’s (1981) addition: flattened end of second U – happiness level never returns as high as during host country stay.

Coping Strategies (Adler, 1981)

Four modes defined by two axes:

• Optimism vs. Pessimism

• Active vs. Passive

3. Methodology (In-Depth)

Philosophical Stance

• Ontology: Relativism – each person perceives the world through their own culturally influenced experience.

• Epistemology: Interpretive paradigm – reality is represented through shared meanings and individual accounts.

Participant Criteria

• Youth definition: ages 15–26 (Horak & Weber, 2000).

• Three groups:

  1. 1-EP (One-year exchange programme): ages 16–18.

  2. Sh-EP (Short-term exchange programme): ages 19–22.

  3. WT (Work and Travel programme): ages 19–22.

Pre-screening conditions:

• Minimum 3 months overseas.

• Spent time in a non-Asian country (to ensure significant cultural difference).

• Returned to Thailand more than 6 months ago, up to 5 years (to allow RCS cycle to complete).

Sample size: 26 Thai youth returnees.

Three-Step Data Collection (to reduce memory bias/distortion)

Step 1 – Pre-interview essay activity (Ellis, Amjad & Deng, 2011)

• Participants wrote 0.5–1 page on feelings/perceptions during travel periods (shortly before and after return).

• Encouraged to use diaries and photos to aid recall.

Step 2 – Graph drawing (visualisation of affective experience)

• Participants drew a graph of their feelings after return, from 1 month before return to 8 months after return.

• Axes: timeline (x) vs. positive/negative emotion (y).

Step 3 – Semi-structured interview (in Thai)

• Used graph as a probing tool: “Tell us why you drew the graph in this period… what did you feel?”

• Covered dimensions: relationship, family, work, daily lifestyle.

• Interviews recorded, transcribed verbatim, translated to English with cross-checking among three researchers.

Analysis

• NVivo 11 for thematic coding.

• Two researchers coded separately, cross-checked for inter-coder reliability.

• W-curve used as broad theoretical framework, but open to emerging concepts.

4. Findings: Perceptual Aspects

Individual Viewpoints (across all three programmes)

Programme-Specific Perceptions

• WT returnees: Better adaptive skills at work, respect for colleagues’ ideas, more empathy toward service workers (cleaners, waiters).

• 1-EP returnees: Questioned power/control of government and school authorities; pondered purpose of education.

Social Viewpoints (comparisons between host and home country)

Counterpoint – Home Country Favourable Aspects

• Safety (vs. gun ownership in host country – WT, 1-EP).

• Extremely rigid religious values / homeschooling in host country made some appreciate returning home.

5. Findings: Emotional Stages (Second U-Curve Timeline)

Weeks 0–1 month after return

• Dominant negative feelings: alienation (7), loneliness/depression (7), frustration (9), anger (3), boredom (3), sadness (7).

• Willingness to leave Thailand (5 returnees: 2 from 1-EP, 3 from WT).

• Positive feelings (minority): comfortable relationships (4 from 1-EP, 1 from Sh-EP), happiness with Thai food (5), safety/familiarity (2).

2–6 months after return

• Strong conflicts with parents: 9 (1-EP), 3 (WT).

• Frustration: 12 across programmes.

• Anger (toward family, school, society): 11 (7 from 1-EP, 4 from WT).

• Positive adjustment (minority): 5 from 1-EP reported satisfaction; 13 reported positive family/friend relationships (8 from 1-EP, 5 from WT).

7–8 months after return

• Majority: more positive feelings, more friends, comfortable with home environment.

• Minority still negative: anger (1 from Sh-EP), boredom (1 WT, 1 1-EP), wanting to leave (3 from 1-EP).

Key Institutions Affecting Emotions

Family – Two Reaction Patterns

1. Listened – adjusted – exercised patience (8 returnees)
   → Parents listened to experiences, asked questions, provided comfort → reduced RCS.

2. Frustrated – argued – resisted – adapted (10 returnees)
   → Returnees seen as “quarrelsome,” “stubborn,” “impolite” → worsened RCS.
   → Most eventually adapted over time.

School

• 1-EP returnees returning to traditional Thai high schools faced major difficulties:

  • Discouraged from expressing ideas.

  • Teachers threatened by higher authority.

  • Friends talked behind backs.

  • Public shaming by teachers.

• Improvement when entering university (especially international programmes): more freedom, ability to express ideas.

6. Findings: Coping Strategies (Adler’s 4 Types Applied)

Key observation: 19/26 returnees used optimistic coping (proactive + resocialised).
Majority within optimistic group used resocialised (passive) – not active integration.

Additional coping mechanism mentioned (especially WT):

• Thinking about or planning another trip abroad as a recovery method.

Relationship between coping type and RCS duration:

• Alienated: longest RCS (5 months → >1 year)

• Rebellious: 4.5–6 months

• (Resocialised/proactive: shorter, not explicitly quantified but implied)

7. Findings: Graph Patterns (Second U-Curve Shapes)

Method

• Participants plotted emotional level (−6 to +6) from 1 month pre-return to 8 months post-return.

• Zero = neutral.

Pattern 1: Well-Fit W-Curve (7/26 returnees)

• Honeymoon at home: first few weeks → up to 2 months.

• RCS stage: 1.5–6.5 months.

• Readjustment: 2–8 months.

• Flattened end: positive feelings never return to host-country peak (consistent with Adler, 1981).

Pattern 2: Left-Shifting U-Curve (12/26 returnees – most common)

• No honeymoon period upon return.

• Positive emotions decline before re-entry (unwillingness to return).

• Graph dips into negative zone immediately upon landing.

• Causes:

  • Unorganised infrastructure.

  • Undisciplined social norms.

  • Authoritative roles of schools/parents.

  • Inability to seek self-identity at home.

• Explanation: Strong contrast between host country (more favourable) and home country; young age + Thai culture (large power distance, seniority system, collectivism) aggravates suffering.

Pattern 3: No RCS / Unfit for W-Curve (6/26 returnees)

• No negative emotional zone after return.

• Reasons:

  • Poor relationship with host family (1-EP) → wanted to return.

  • Exhaustion at work (WT).

  • Unsafe host environment (WT).

  • Strong friendships at home.

  • Familiar normal lifestyle.

• Key point: Desire to return home (moderate to strong) can eliminate or reduce RCS.

8. Discussion & Theoretical Contributions

Perception

• Individual perceptions (independence, confidence, open-mindedness) align with Western literature.

• Programme-specific emphasis:

  • Educational tourists → self-management, appreciation of freedom.

  • Working tourists → self-growth, work-related values.

• Cultural dimension interpretation: Individualism + low power distance (host) vs. collectivism + high power distance (Thailand) shapes how returnees construct values and their roles in family, school, and workplace.

Emotion & Coping

• Duration matters: 1-EP (1 year) → longer, more intense negative emotions than WT (3–4 months) and Sh-EP.

• Majority resocialised coping matches other Asian studies:

  • Chinese (Zhu & Gao, 2016)

  • Vietnamese (Le & LaCost, 2017)

  • Japanese (Kidder, 1992; Enloe & Lewin, 1987)

  • Sri Lankan (Pritchard, 2011)

• Explanation: High collectivism + large power distance → passive coping (resocialised or alienated) is more feasible than active coping (proactive or rebellious), because higher-ranked others (parents, teachers) block change.

Graph Patterns – Key Theoretical Feedback to W-Curve

1. W-curve is not universal – left-shifting pattern (no honeymoon) is common in Thai youth, especially when host country is more developed/socially favourable.

2. Left-shifting also inferred in other studies where sojourners return from more developed to less developed economy (Gama & Pedersen, 1977; Gaviria & Wintrob, 1982; Pritchard, 2011).

3. Western youth returning from less developed countries (e.g., British/German youth from Greenland, Cuba, Costa Rica) show well-fit W-curve because the less developed host country toughens them and makes home seem better by comparison (Allison et al., 2012; Dettweiler et al., 2015).

“Imagined West” (Bui et al., 2013)

• Thai (and other Asian) sojourners associate Western host countries with modernity, progress, advancement, freedom.

• Mental immersion in this “cosmopolitan” host culture can amplify RCS and even lead to rejection of home environment.

• Paradox: The very openness and reduced judgment learned abroad may be shadowed by severe RCS.

9. Managerial Implications

For Educational Organisations & Travel Agencies

• Three emotional patterns (well-fit, left-shift, no RCS) require differentiated consultation – not all returnees can be treated the same way.

Post-Orientation Programmes (Christofi & Thompson, 2007; Martin & Harrell, 2004)

• Psychological readjustment support for work, social interactions, relationships.

• Suggested activities:

  • Sharing sessions

  • Counselling

  • Seminars

  • Training

  • Online documentation

• Should be housed in International Relations Office or Student Exchange Department.

Family Involvement

• In Thai/Asian societies, family is critical.

• Educating parents about RCS can reduce conflict.

• Empathic understanding from family → shorter, less severe RCS.

10. Limitations & Future Research

• Sample size (26) may not represent all Thai youth returnees.

• Quantitative research needed to confirm new left-shifting pattern.

• Thai context only – may not fully represent diverse Asian youth.

• Future research should include multiple Asian nationalities.

11. Key Analogies & Illustrative Examples from the Article

12. Important Case Studies / Citations Used as Comparative Evidence