ATCK TRANSCULTURATION

Adult Third Culture Kids: Conceptualizing and Measuring Transculturation

Debra R. Miller (millerdebra35@gmail.com)
December 28, 2012

Debra Miller

12/28/2012

ATCK TRANSCULTURATION

Abstract
Adult third culture kids (ATCKs) have spent significant portions of their developmental years in
cultures other than their parents own. After living a highly mobile lifestyle, they often spend
adult years living in a culture related to their parents origin. Through these transitions, they
become astute at observing multiple assumptions. They may live as hidden immigrants in
situations where they externally resemble a dominant culture to which they do not necessarily
relate. ATCKs identify with those who have a history of living between cultures more than with
those who have a history of living in a single culture. This paper describes these and other
features of ATCK adjustment, and considers possibilities for measuring related processes,
including one study shows that ATCKs may be able to transcend the gap between ethnocentric
and ethnorelative views.
Key Words: Adjustment; Acculturation; Adult Third Culture Kids; Conceptualization;
Hidden Immigrant; Measurement; Third Culture; Transculturation; Transcendence

ATCK TRANSCULTURATION

Adult Third Culture Kids: Conceptualizing and Measuring Adjustment Experiences

Introduction
Dirk, is an adult third culture kid (ATCK) who was originally from Germany, grew up in
Taiwan, and came to the United States for university. Dirk says his life is like (Microsoft)
windows. All windows are open and accessible at a given moment, but he can only work with
the particular window that appears in front of him at any point in time (Pollock & van Reken,
2009). What happens if Dirk doesnt pick the right window for the right time? You could say he
feels like a sojourner, temporarily moving through different windows of his life.
Adult Third Culture Kids (ATCKs)1 often appear to be part of a dominant culture when in
reality they relate to many different cultures. Understanding the process by which ATCKs relate
to the world helps them to better understand their own challenges, and helps those around
ATCKs to recognize the assets they have to offer.
The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize and discuss possible measures of the third
culture kid acculturation and transculturation process. To pursue this purpose, I draw from
literature on third culture kids, as well as from literature on conceptualization and measurement
of acculturation. I discuss features of ATCK experiences such as mobility; resulting challenges
such as lack of cultural identity; and positive outcomes, such as the ability of ATCKs to serve as
interlocutors or ombudsmen. I discuss dimensions of instruments that have been used to measure
various aspects ATCK realities.

Italicized terms appear in Appendix A: Glossary for definitions of terms.

ATCK TRANSCULTURATION

By reading this paper, higher educators may improve their understanding of the
ATCK learning process. Counselors may better appreciate the challenges faced by ATCKs.
People involved in intercultural activities will understand and capitalize on ATCKs capacity to
transcend cultural confounds and hiring personnel will understand finesse of ATCKs as
interlocutors.
The central question asks how the paradox of ATCK transculturation can be understood
relative an apparent tendency to be at home anywhere while only feeling at home among those
who have a similar history (Greenholtz & Kim, 2009). Research questions include: (1) What are
the essential components of ATCK experiences? (2) How does a highly mobile upbringing affect
ATCKs during their adult lives? (3) How do views of belonging differ between perceptions of
ATCKs, and expectations of those around them?
Before discussing ATCK acculturation, I acknowledge my relationship to the topic. I am
an adult third culture kid who started life in rural Indiana in 1961. My parents are American.
When I was ten months old, I accompanied my parents to Swaziland, a small country in
southeast Africa. With the exception of three one-year furloughs that my family spent in Indiana,
my formative years were spent in Swaziland and South Africa. I returned to the United States for
college a few months before my 19th birthday. As an adult, I relate to a hidden aspect of
immigration given my blonde hair, pail skin, and American accent. Differing assumptions
between instructors and myself have challenged my higher education experience. For that reason,
I want to improve the understanding of hidden immigrants.

Running Head: TCK TRANSCULTURATION

Third Cultures and Third Culture Kids

One way to view culture is as a pervasive set of values, habits, and ideals that permeate
every social institution and, in fact, construct the boundaries of acceptable or even imaginable
behavior (LeTendre, 2002, p. 203). Useem, Useem, and Donoghue (1963) coined the term third
culture in reference to a complex set of patterns at the intersection of cultures. Third cultures
involve behaviors shared among people of differing backgrounds in the process of relating their
cultures to one another. A third culture is more than the sum of its parts and involves composite
patterns (Useem, Useem, & Donoghue, 1963, p. 170) that transcend the individual nations of
which it is comprised. At the time Useem, Useem, and Donoghue were writing, adults who work
cross-nationally and who, by virtue of this work, supported the third culture reached this
supportive role in adulthood. Ideally, third cultures coordinate the two cultures of which they are
comprised. A third culture involves false impressions of homogeneity.
The most commonly cited description of third culture kids (TCKs, also known as global
nomads) is that they are sons or daughters of globally mobile parents who have spent a
significant portion of their formative years outside their parents cultures (Pollock & van Reken,
2009, see Appendix B: Third Culture Model). They relate to people of many cultures but do not
fully own any single culture. They may include sons and daughters of military personnel,
business expatriates, government ambassadors, or representatives of missionary agencies. Many
TCKs have lived in multiple host countries. Third culture kids may be of any age, adult or preadult. Adult third culture kids (ATCKs) are the adult subset of TCKs.
Extrapolating from Useem, Useem, and Donoghues (1963) notion of a third culture,
third culture kids may be seen as embodying the features of a third culture within them. They are

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

more than the sum of their parts. They serve as supporting agents in cross-national
settings, and they carry an internal responsibility of coordinating their multiple cultures. Third
culture kids may give a false impression of internal homogeneity. Greenholtz and Kim (2009)
describe a central paradox of global nomads (TCKs) involving their apparent tendency to be
at home in any cultural context while only feeling at home among those with a similar
cultural history (p. 391).
The ATCK Experience
Many ATCKs experience high mobility during their impressionable formative years.
Parents may travel the world multiple times within the ATCKs formative life cycle. Frequent
comings and goings leave ATCKs saying goodbye to people they are leaving or who are leaving
them and create a state of state of ongoing grief.
Throughout childhood and into adulthood, ATCKs have no single culture by which to
frame their experiences. As humans we naturally make comparisons in an effort to make sense of
our environments. Within a given cultural context, we make continual assumptions. But ATCKs
lack an established set of norms with which to compare experiences. They may not know what
assumptions to make, where their assumptions come from, or what assumptions their instructors
or mentors are making.
ATCKs experience stages of transition similar to those of immigrants and other people
negotiating multiple cultures. The stages can be conceived as starting with involvement in the
host culture, moving to preparation for leave-taking, the transition process itself, entering the
new culture, and reinvolvement in the new culture (Pollock & van Reken, 2009). To understand

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

and appreciate the ways ATCKs function in academic or professional settings, or to

provide support to an ATCK, a sense of where ATCKs are in their adjustment process may be
helpful.
People sometimes view ATCKs as lacking the ability to ascertain a right or most
appropriate path. The ATCK may not be cognizant of or confident about the approach a
particular situation calls for, while onlookers may not realize that determination of a most
appropriate path is based on the onlookers own context-specific knowledge. People may
perceive an ATCKs differences as problematic. If an ATCK is tested in an environment with
assumptions that do not hold true for the ATCK, perceived problems may become real. ATCKs
may experience a number of challenges including post-traumatic stress related to political
antecedents and the number of reentry experiences.
Boeyink (2008) found evidence that teenage TCKs encounter less cultural dissonance
(p. 37) in their culture of origin relative to peers who have had minimal experience in cultures
other than their own during their formative years. In contrast, I propose that ATCKs may
experience more cultural dissonance than their peers. I suspect that adjustment may be easier in
multicultural areas such as large cities (e.g. London, San Francisco, D.C., Chicago, New York)
and more difficult in monocultural or rural areas.
On the other hand, TCKs have many positive features to make up for this perceived
weakness. People around them (mentors, educators, would-be employers, counselors, etc.) would
do well to recognize the strengths of an ATCK and to provide opportunities for the ATCK to
capitalize on those strengths, including skills as ombudsmen, interlocutors, or liaisons.

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

8
Acculturation

Acculturation involves negotiating multiple cultures. Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits

(1936) defined a group aspect of acculturation as the comprehension of phenomena resulting
from groups of individuals with differing cultural backgrounds coming into continuous firsthand contact, and the changes that subsequently occur in the cultural patterns of either or both
groups (p. 149)
More recently, Chirkov (2009) describes an individual aspect of acculturation as a
process executed by reflecting, cognitively comparing, and attempting to understand meanings
and frames of references between home and new cultures. The process is ongoing, and includes
progression and relapse.
Acculturating people experience the world in entirely different ways than do
monocultural people who have not had an opportunity to live for extended periods of time
outside their culture of origin. Another consideration in measuring acculturation is that the
culture in which an acculturating person is located also experiences on-going adjustment [CITE
Berry?].
In more distant years, writers described acculturation as a unidimensional construct (e.g.
Gordon, 1964). In more recent years, however, acculturation is understood to be a
multidimensional construct (e.g. Berry, 1989/2003; and van de Vijver & Phalet, 2004). Various
intrapersonal dimensions may be involved at varying stages of acculturation (Ryder, Alden, &
Paulhus, 2000). Furthermore, each contributing culture can be seen as a dimension of the
process, assuming that acculturating individuals should not be expected to forego their original
cultural identity for the sake of the new culture.

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

Berrys (1989 and 2003) two-dimensional model of acculturation is based on the

premise that an individual may be healthily acculturating while identifying with more than one
culture. Berry (2003) describes the need to maintain identity with both "heritage" and
"mainstream" cultures for immigrant groups. For ATCKs, I adapt this to parents culture(s) and
host cultures. Relating to both groups leads to integration. Relating to neither leads to
marginalization. Relating only to the mainstream or culture of origin becomes assimilation.
Relating only to the host culture becomes separation. (See Appendix C: Acculturation
Strategies).
Redefining Acculturation for the ATCK Context
For ATCKs, the challenges in acculturation are two-fold. First, to the extent they lack
identification with a single culture, ATCKs may be in a constant state of negotiation. Second,
they may be perceived as having deficits that are actually assets. An increasing number of third
culture kids spend a significant portion of their formative years in a culture outside their parents
own. They are not fully part of the culture(s) in which they are raised, but neither do they fit in
their parents culture. ATCKs fit best with other ATCKs who identify with living betweencultures. Third culture kids offer a great deal of cultural intelligence if they can negotiate the
hidden reality of fitting in neither their host culture nor their culture of origin. Their appearance,
language, or other features often hide the cultures with which they primarily relate. This leads to
unrealistic expectations that ATCKs will become one of us.
Pollock and van Reken (2009) pose a bidimensional model of cultural identity in
relationship to [the] surrounding culture (p. 55; see Appendix D: Cultural Identity Model). A
person described as a mirror looks and thinks like the surrounding culture. In contrast, a
foreigner looks and thinks differently. An adopted person looks different but thinks similarly

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

10

whereas a hidden immigrant looks and sounds like the surrounding culture but thinks
differently. Appreciating the hidden nature of an ATCKs experience is key to understanding
their ongoing adjustment process. They may look (and sound) like their culture of origin but their
experiences may be drastically different.
Measurement
Measuring ATCK acculturation can be helpful for interpreting the results of academic
tests, for counseling purposes, or for organizations that want to understand the unique skills that
ATCKs often possess. Many ATCKs have attended school in multiple systems, including local
schools in their host country, home schools, expatriate schools, boarding schools, or schools in
their country of origin. Their academic formation may have been interrupted at various points.
ATCKs may struggle emotionally and scholastically to know what is expected in which context.
Appropriate measurement may help mentors know how to help ATCKs, and may help ATCKs
better understand where they fit relative to the process of adjusting to their culture of origin.
Such measurement may also help educators know how to appreciate and interpret the academic
performance of ATCKs.
Lyttle, Barker, and Cornwell (in press) recently conducted an empirical test of the
popular belief that third culture kids acquire a heightened sense of perception from their
experiences of adapting interculturally. The authors designed web surveys to measure emotional
and social aspects of interpersonal sensitivity. Social sensitivity was found to be higher among
ATCKs than among individuals with a monocultural background. However, emotional
sensitivity was higher among monocultural than among adult third culture individuals.

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

11

ATCKs and Intercultural Sensitivity

According to Bennett (1986), intercultural sensitivity is the tendency to attach meaning to
cultural differences, assumedly varying with perception of those differences. I now discuss a
series of related studies that build upon one another to describe and test intercultural sensitivity,
and its relevance to adult third culture kids.
In the field of intercultural communication, Milton Bennett proposed a developmental
model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS)2 in hopes of training people to become more sensitive
to differences between cultures. Bennett conducted a grounded theory study to explain how
people view differences across cultures, and their propensity to think and behave in ways that are
appropriate across multiple cultures. (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). The basis of the
model was an assumption that as people experience cultural difference in increasingly complex
ways, they become more competent in intercultural relations (p.423). The model resulted in a
continuum of six stages between ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism (see Appendix F:
Continuum of Ethnocentrism to Ethnorelativism). The stages believed to relate to ethnocentrism
include denial (a persons own culture is the only real one); defense (a persons own culture is
the only reasonable one); and minimization (aspects of a persons own culture are believed to be
universal). The stages believed to relate to ethnorelativism include acceptance (a persons own
culture is only one of many complex worldviews); adaptation (a person experiences a culture
other than their own and views that cultures aspects as appropriate within its context); and
integration (a person moves in and out of multiple cultural worldviews). The theory posited
that people experiencing ethnocentristic stages tend to avoid cultural differences whereas people

Cited tests are summarized in Appendix E: Measurement Tools for TCK Transculturation

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

12

experiencing ethnorelative stages tend to embrace cultural differences. Note that this is
not a continuum of assimilation into a particular culture, but away from a centrist view of a
persons own perceived culture. Perhaps the IDI could be viewed as measuring acculturation to
the world and away from ones own culture rather than toward a single culture.
A couple of stages of ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism need to be revisited, especially
for ATCKs. At the defense stage, instead of defending ones own or passport culture, a TCK
may go native and believe that a culture they have adopted (e.g. a host culture) to their
passport culture. At the integration stage, a person runs the risk of becoming culturally marginal
by identifying only with the margins of multiple cultures and not with the center of any culture.
Cultural marginality can take the form of either encapsulated or constructive marginality
(Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). Encapsulated marginality involves a sense of alienation
from cultures, whereas constructive marginality involves moves between cultures in a way that is
positively consistent with a persons identity. Note that integration may not be advantageous
over adaptation.
Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman (2003) operationalized the stages proposed by the DMIS
resulting in an Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) to measure respondents cultural
competence (p. 421). In an early stage of instrument development, the authors conducted indepth interviews among people from various cultural backgrounds within the United States
(Greenholtz, 2005). Content validity was determined through the use of raters and an expert
panel. The instrument is administered by paper-and-pencil, and includes 50 psychometric items
in addition to ten demographic items. The designers conducted applied confirmatory factor
analysis to validate the following five key dimensions from the DMIS: Denial/Defense, Reversal,
Minimization, Acceptance/Adaptation, and Encapsulated Marginality (Hammer, Bennett, &

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

13

Wiseman, 2003). The test designers did not consider constructive integration, but
verified that five factors fit better than seven or two. To determine construct validity, they
compared the results of the IDI to two related scales: the Worldmindedness and the Intercultural
Anxiety scales.
Relative to the DMIS, Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman (2003) encountered problems
distinguishing between denial and defense (p. 433) A marked difference between the DMIS
and the IDI was the finding that Reversal is not simply the opposite of Defense, in spite of the
test designers expectation that the each represented polarized views. This makes sense to me
because perceiving another culture as better than ones own seems to require a broader global
mindset than perceiving ones own culture as better than others.
Greenholtz and Kim (2009) used mixed qualitative and quantitative methods to study a
single case. Lena, an ATCK with a Korean passport who was born in Hong Kong, spent
significant portions of her developmental years in the France, the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and
Japan. As an adult, Lena completed graduate degrees in Canada and the U.S. Because Lena is
completely bilingual in English and Korean, Greenholtz and Kim administered the IDI to her in
both languages to minimize any confounding effects of language. Lena commented on the
translation along with three other bilingual Korean and English speakers. Greenholtz and Kim
calculated an Interclass Correlation Coefficient to ensure that results were equivalent (the
average measure was 0.91). Twelve ninety-minute interviews were conducted with Lena in
addition to the two administrations of the IDI. The interviews addressed various stages of her
life, her culturally hybrid identity, and relationships with people who have minimal exposure to
cultural differences.

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

14

Results were considerably different than Greenholtz and Kim (2009) expected
relative to expectations based on Bennett (1986) and Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman (2003).
Greenholtz and Kim (2009) noticed a discrepancy between Lenas perception of her intercultural
sensitivity (in the Acceptance/Adaptation range) and her actual development (in the
Minimization range). Because there were no unresolved issues on the ethnorelative side of the
continuum (i.e. with acceptance/adaptation or with encapsulated marginality), the test
administrators concluded that Lena simultaneously embodied both ethnocentric and
ethnorelative positions. Practitioners who use the IDI instrument are trained to disregard scores
that are strong in both Acceptance/Adaptation and the ethnocentric end of the proposed
continuum, and to attribute the discrepancy to a respondents unsophisticated interpretation of
items that relate to adaptation or acceptance. However, based on extensive interviews and
observations of Lena, Greenholtz and Kim (2009) believe that she relates both to the true intent
of items and successfully shifts frames to build bridges on a daily basis. The authors propose the
possibility that ATCKs can straddle the ethnocentric/ethnorelative divide (p. 395), hence the
paradox of appearing to be at home anywhere but feeling at home only among those who share a
similar cultural history (p. 391).
In speculating about the TCK milieu (p. 397), Greenholtz and Kim (2009) propose that
the TCK attraction to people who share a similar culturally hybrid background fosters a tendency
toward Minimization. The fact that Lena attended international schools when living in Tokyo
and Paris may have contributed to this Minimization. Lena felt that she would always need to
live in a multicultural city (such as Vancouver) to truly feel comfortable. Lena described this
idea and other overseas-living experiences as living in a unique cultural bubble or mini

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

15

United Nations (p. 397). In Lenas case, even when she changed locations every few
years, she remained in a multicultural bubble by living among the most cosmopolitan groups.
Reflecting on my own situation, I expect that my overseas-living experiences were less
bubble-like than Lenas in that my family was more involved in local situations than is true of
many expatriate families. However, like Lena, I feel the pull toward cosmopolitan environments.
I am interested in knowing how the degree of involvement with local people affects the
Minimization score. I suspect the number of differing cultures and the degree of cultural
differences would also impact scores on the IDI. Greenholtz and Kim (2009) call for more
quantitative research regarding whether Minimization is a transitional stage (p.397) or whether
the division between ethnocentric and ethnorelative orientations are unbridgeable. I suspect that
for other TCKs, they may be bridgeable, as they appear to have been in Lenas case. I
recommend administering the IDI to a larger group of ATCKs with diverse passport countries
and host countries.
Discussion
ATCKs experience the paradox of feeling at home (only) among others of nationally
mobile background but appearing to be at home anywhere. The paradox found by Greenholtz
and Kim (2009) is that ATCKs may be able to transcend the ethnocentric and ethnorelative
divide proposed by Bennett (1986). I expect that all of the above are true. But in attempt to
resolve the paradox of these two paradoxes, perhaps ATCKS feel at home only among others of
nationally mobile background but are able to transcend the ethnocentric and ethnorelative divide
in the way they function (mentally and in their behavior).

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

16

Several factors may interact to impact an ATCKs position on the bridge

between ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism. These factors include the age at which the ATCK
left their passport country (if indeed they were born there), the number of varying cultures they
have experienced, and the distance of those cultures from each other. Other factors include the
extent to which the ATCK was involved in local cultures, attendance at international versus host
country schools, parental origin from a single or multiple cultures, and the number of times the
ATCK traversed the divide between passport and host cultures. Experience of traumatic political
upheaval or personal situations (single-incident or ongoing) would also impact an ATCKs ability
to travel the bridge between ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism. Perhaps an ATCK propensity to
transverse the ethnocentric and ethnorelative divide carries Berrys multidimensional view of
acculturation into a level of transculturation.
This discussion has focused on adult third culture kids, many of who return to their
passport country as adults. However, TCKs are a subset of cross-cultural kids, all of whom
experience similar phenomena. Pollock and van Reken (2009) describe cross-cultural kids
(CCKs) as people who have interacted in meaningful ways with multiple cultures for a
significant portion of their childhood. Cross-cultural kids include such well-known multicultural
descriptions such as international adoptees and children of bi- or multiracial marriages,
minorities, and immigrants (Pollack & van Reken, 2009). To further understand the similarities
and differences among TCKs and CCKs, I would like to see a study that compares TCKs with
non-TCK cross-cultural kids using the IDI model.
As I have mentioned before, a key difference between many TCKs and non-TCK crosscultural kids is that the former may be more likely to live as hidden immigrants during their adult
years where as non-TCK cross-cultural kids often live as adoptees or foreigners in that they look

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

17

different than most people from the culture in which they live. However, we must add
to this complexity by saying that as the world becomes more global, these distinctions will hold
less true. Imagine the U.S.-born child of a Philippine immigrant who then relocates to Germany
for an adult work assignment. The children of the U.S. born adult may return to the United States
continuing to appear as foreigners or adoptees, but their internal complexity will be even greater
than would be the case for TCK children of monocultural American expatriates. On the other
hand, imagine that the grandchild of a Philippine immigrant to the United States return to the
Philippines to work for a couple years. The adult grandchild would then be a hidden immigrant
in a country they appear to belong to but may have never visited and of which they may have
minimal understanding.

Conclusion
ATCKs are capable of benefitting people across a range of cultural settings when they
and those around them understand what they have to offer. These benefits partly relate to the
ability of ATCKS and those around them to accept their hidden differences. ATCKs have
inherent skills as ombudsmen, interlocutors, and liaisons. By virtue of experiencing so many new
situations throughout their lives, and particularly during their formative years, ATCKs are able to
enter new situations with minimal difficulty. They intuitively assess multiple dynamics and may
be able to offer suggestions when others are at a loss for ideas.
This paper has focused primarily on the conceptualization and measurement of adult
third culture kid transculturation. Further work also needs to consider the impact of
ethnocentric/ethnorelative complexities on educational, psychological, and industry testing.

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

18

However, my hope is that the present paper may help educators, counselors and
industry professionals to understand the depth of potential carried by ATCKs. The world is
becoming increasingly multicultural such that it is vital for persons with less breadth of cultural
exposure to understand the complexities that affect globalizing persons and contexts. ATCKs
must also understand the richness they have to offer, and must work to better communicate that
richness to those around them.

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

19
Appendix A: Glossary

Acculturation3 can be viewed as a process that an individual executes when reflecting,

cognitively comparing, and attempting to understand meanings and frames of references between
home and new cultures (Chirkov, 2009). The process is ongoing, and includes both progression
and relapse.
Adult third culture kids (ATCKs) are adult (university age or older) sons or daughters
of globally mobile parents who have spent a significant portion of their formative years in a
culture other than their parents own (Pollock & van Reken, 2009). They are also known as
global nomads or hidden immigrants.
Business brats are third culture kids whose parents were (or are) business executives or
business employees. They are also known as corporate kids (Wielkoszewski, 2006).
Corporate kids are third culture kids whose parents were (or are) business executives or
business employees. They are also known as business brat[s] (Wielkoszewski, 2006).
Creative marginality integrates concepts of cultural hybridity and ideas of a creative
self (Wurgaft, 2006).
Cross-cultural kids (CCKs) are people who have interacted with multiple cultures in
meaningful ways for a significant portion of their developmental years (Pollock & van Reken,
2009, p. 31).

I describe an individual rather than a group acculturation process here because ATCKs tend to function as
individuals among groups of non-TCKs rather than continuing to live among ATCK groups as adults.

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

20

Cultural frame switching is the process of responding to differing cultural

cues based on differing interpretive lenses (Benet-Martinez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002). Cultural
frame switching is moderated by multicultural identity integration (MII), and is not uniform
across all adult TCKs.
Cultural hybridity is a phenomenon that involves cultural marginality, fluid identity,
hidden diversity, multidimensional views of the world, and unusual perceptions of belonging
(Wurgaft, 2006).
Cultural identity gives a person a way of being and an expectation of how to act (Yep,
1998). These identities are fluid and nonsummative meaning that various aspects of identity are
not easily delineated (Yep, 2004). A persons perception of the ethnic group to which they
belong may or may not coincide with their perceived cultural identity. The process of
globalization has heightened our awareness of cultural identity (Tomlinson, 2003).
Cultural intelligence (CQ) can be thought of as a persons ability to perform effectively
in diverse cultural settings (Ang & Dyne, 2008).
Cultural marginality involves embracing only the margins of multiple cultures without
embracing the center of any culture (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003)
A cultural worldview embraces distinctions that are relevant for a particular culture
(Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003)
Culture can be thought of as a pervasive set of values, habits, and ideals that permeate
every social institution and, in fact, construct the boundaries of acceptable or even imaginable
behavior. (LeTendre 2002)

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

21

Ethnocentrism is the notion that a persons own culture is central to reality

(Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003, p. 423)
Ethnorelativism is the notion that a person experiences his or her own culture in the
context of other cultures (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003, p. 425)
Global nomads are sons or daughters of globally mobile parents who have spent a
significant portion of their formative years in a country other than that of their passport. The term
was coined by Norma McCaig (1992) and is synonymous with third culture kids.
Hidden immigrants are foreigners who are not easily recognizable as such (Pollock &
van Reken, 2009, p. 102).
Intercultural competence is the propensity to think, communicate, and relate
appropriately across various cultural settings (Bennett & Bennett, 2004; Hammer, Bennett, &
Wiseman, 2003)
Intercultural sensitivity is the tendency to attach meaning to cultural differences,
assumedly varying with perception of differences (Bennett, 1986)
Multicultural identity integration (MII) is similar to Bicultural Identity Integration
(BII) and results from an individual feeling like their multiple cultural identities are capable of
coexisting and that these identities do not conflict with each other (Hoersting & Jenkins, 2011;
Benet-Martinez & Haritatos, 2005).
A third culture is a complex set of patterns at the intersection of cultures. It involves
behaviors shared by people of different cultures in the process of relating their cultures to one
another (Useem, Useem, & Donoghue, 1963).

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

22

Third culture kids are sons or daughters of globally mobile parents who have
spent a significant portion of their formative years outside their parents cultures (Pollock & van
Reken, 2009). They are also referred to as global nomads, internationally mobile children
(Ezra, 2003), or hidden immigrants. Greenholtz and Kim (2009) use the label cultural
hybrids4 (p. 391).
Transculturation can be described as a process in which two cultural entities give and
take from each other. The idea implies an absence of domination or subordination (Gutierrez,
2004). Whereas cross-culturation studies the interaction between individuals with identities,
transculturation views all parties as having a mixed identity (Kraidy, 2005).

Bhabha (1994) first used the term hybrid to describe cultures in general and former colonial cultures
specifically.

Running Head: TCK TRANSCULTURATION

Appendix B: Third Culture Model5

First Culture
Culture of parents
origin, or passport
culture

Third Culture
Shared belonging with
nationally mobile peers

Adapted from Pollock and van Reken (2009, p. 14).

Second Culture
Host culture

Running Head: TCK TRANSCULTURATION

Appendix C: Acculturation Strategies6

Adapted from Berry (2003), p. 23.

Running Head: TCK TRANSCULTURATION

Appendix D: Cultural Identity Model7

Adapted from Pollock and van Reken (2009, p. 55).

Running Head: TCK TRANSCULTURATION

Appendix E: Measurement Tools for TCK Transculturation
Topic
Cultural Intelligence
Scale (CQS; Ang et al.,
2007): Metacognition

Scale Name

Subscales / Description

Developmental Model of
lntercultural Sensitivity
(DMIS)

Conceptualized dimensions for intercultural

competence; basis for the IDI

Bennett (1986);
Hammer

Worldmindedness

IDI validated against

Hammer, Bennett, &

Wiseman (2003)

Intercultural Anxiety

IDI validated against

Hammer, Bennett, &

Wiseman (2003)

Cross-Cultural Adaptability
Inventory (CCAI)

CQS: Metacognition

Compare with CQS;

nonability, individual
differences

Citation

Intercultural Development
Inventory (IDI)

Kelley and Meyers

(1995)
Denial/Defense (DD); Reversal (R);
Minimization (M); Acceptance/Adaptation
(AA); Encapsulated Marginality (EM)

Hammer, Bennett, &

Wiseman (2003)

Multicultural AwarenessKnowledge-Skills Survey

(MAKSS)

DAndrea, Daniels,
and Heck (1991)

Sociocultural Adaptation Scale

(SAS)

Ward and Kennedy

(1999)

Cross-Cultural World
Mindedness (CCWM)

Der-Karabetian (1992)

Intercultural Adjustment
Potential Scale (ICAPS)

Matsumoto et al.
(2001)

TCK TRANSCULTURATION
Topic

Global Relocation

27
Scale Name

Subscales / Description

Citation

(BII)

Haritatos (2005)

Adolescent International
Living Scale (AILS)

Hayden, Rancic, and

Thompson (2000)

Pulse Survey: Repatriation,

Mobility for Executives

Global Relocation
Trends Survey (2010)

Running Head: TCK TRANSCULTURATION

Appendix F: Continuum of Ethnocentrism to Ethnorelativism8

Denial

Defense (Reversal)

Ethnocentrism

Minimization

Acceptance

Adaptation

Ethnorelativism

This figure is a direct recreation of Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman (2003, p. 424)

Integration

Running Head: TCK TRANSCULTURATION

References
Ang, S., van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A.
(2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision
making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organizational
Review, 3(3), 335-371. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x
Ang, S., & Dyne, L. van. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition,
distinctiveness, and nomological network. In S. Ang & L. van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of
cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3-15). Armonk, NY:
Sharpe.
Benet-Martnez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism:
Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural
identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 492-516. doi:
10.1177/0022022102033005005.
Benet-Martnez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural Identity Integration (BII): Components
and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 1015-1050.
Bennett, M. J. (1986). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural
sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations and
applications (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of American.
Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (2004). Developing Intercultural Sensitivity. In D. Landis, J. M.
Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Training (3rd ed., pp. 147165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

30

Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed Etics--emics--derived etics: The operationalization of a

compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology, 24(6), 721-735.
Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual Approaches to Acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, &
G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in Theory, Measurement, and Applied
Research (pp. 17-38). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Chirkov, V. (2009). Critical psychology of acculturation: What do we study and how do we
study it, when we investigate acculturation? . International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 33(2). doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.004 .
Ezra, R. (2003). Culture, Language and Personality in the Context of the Internationally Mobile
Child. Journal of Research in International Education, 2, 123-149. doi:
10.1177/14752409030022001.
Global Relocation Trends Survey. (2010). Retrieved October 4, 2011, from
http://www.brookfieldgrs.com/insights_ideas/grts/.
Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The Role of Race, Religion and National
Origins. New York: Oxford University Press.
Greenholtz, J. F. (2005). Does intercultural sensitivity cross cultures? Validity issues in porting
instruments across languages and cultures. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 29(1), 73-89.

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

31

Greenholtz, J., & Kim, J. (2009). The cultural hybridity of Lena: A multi-method case
study of a third culture kid. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(5), 391398. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.05.004.
Gutierrez, R. A. (2004). Ethnic Mexicans in historical and social science scholarship. In J. A.
Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The
intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
27(4), 421-443.
Hoersting, R. C., & Jenkins, S. R. (2011). No place to call home: Cultural homelessness, selfesteem and cross-cultural identities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
35(1), 17-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.11.005.
Kraidy, M. M. (2005). Hybridity, or the cultural logic of globalization. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
LeTendre, G. K. (2002). Advancements in conceptualizing and analyzing cultural effects in
cross-national studies of educational achievement. In A. C. Porter & A. Gamoran (Eds.),
Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 198230). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rosenthal, G. (1997). National identity or multicultural autobiography?: theoretical concepts of
biographical constitution grounded in case reconstructions. In A. Lieblich & R. Josselson
(Eds.), The narrative of lives, volume 5 (pp. 21-39). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

32

Lyttle, A. D., Barker, G. G., & Cornwell, T. L. (in press). Adept through adaptation:
Third culture individuals interpersonal sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations.
McCaig, N. (1992). Birth of a Notion. The Global Nomad Quarterly, 1(1), 1-2.
Pollock, D. C., & Reken, R. E. van. (2009). Third Culture Kids: The experience of growing up
among worlds (3rd ed.). Boston: Nicholas Brealey North America.
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the Study of
Acculturation. American Anthropologist, New Series, 38(1), 149-152. Retrieved from
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00027294%28193601%2F03%292%3A38%3A1%3C149%3AMFTSOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D.
Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is Acculturation Unidimensional or
Bidimensional? A Head-to-Head Comparison in the Prediction of Personality, SelfIdentity, and Adjustment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79(1), 49-65.
University of British Columbia.
Tomlinson, J. (2003). Globalization and cultural identity. In D. Held & A. McGrew (Eds.), The
global transformations reader: An Introduction to the globalization debate (2nd ed., pp.
269-277). Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Useem, J., Useem, R. H., & Donoghue, J. D. (1963). Men in the middle of the third culture.
Human Organization, 22(3), 169-179.
Vijver, F. J. R. van de, & Phalet, K. (2004). Assessment in Multicultural Groups: The Role of
Acculturation. Applied Psychology, 53(2), 215-236.

TCK TRANSCULTURATION

33

Wielkoszewski, A. (2006). Among Worlds Magazine: Encouraging and Empowering

Adult Third Culture Kids (ATCKs): Glossary for Among Worlds. Among Worlds.
Retrieved April 16, 2011, from http://amongworlds.blogspot.com/2006/09/glossary-foramong-worlds.html.
Wurgaft, N. (2006). Also known as: An exploration of cultural hybridity. Antioch New England
Graduate School.
Yep, G. A. (1998). My three cultures: Navigating the multicultural identity landscape. In J. N.
Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (p. 7985-).
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Yep, G. A. (2004). Approaches to Cultural Identity: Personal Notes from an autoethnographical
Journey. In M. Fong & R. Chuang (Eds.), Communicating ethnic and cultural identity
(pp. 69-82). Rowman & Littlefield.