Here is what "an average person" (of
the same height) weighs around the world:
North American: 162 pounds
Southern European: 156 pounds
Eastern European: 150 pounds
Western European: 147 pounds
South American: 145 pounds
African: 137 pounds
Asian: 128 pounds
Newcomers to this country surely notice this difference.
Many have told me they've never in their lives seen such overweight
people as in the US. And, they say with dismay, they (and their
children) gained weight while living here.
They're not alone. Research studies show that children
of Asian and Hispanic immigrants are much more likely to be overweight
than their foreign-born parents. And, while obesity is quite rare
for Japanese people living in Japan, it is higher for Japanese living
in Hawaii, and higher still for Japanese living in California. More
contact with US culture seems to yield bigger waistlines.
An interesting study* has just been published about
what its authors call the "French paradox" - the finding
that people in France eat more total fat and more saturated fat
than people in the US, yet the mortality rate from heart disease
is lower in France than the US. Yes, yes, maybe it's all that red
wine they drink. But these researchers also quantified something
that any visitor to the two countries has surely noticed: The French
eat less. Specifically:
· The researchers weighed the food delivered
in 22 fast food and local restaurants in Paris and Philadelphia.
Of the 35 dishes compared, 25 of the portions were larger in the
US - and much larger (25%), at that.
· They compared the descriptions of restaurants given in
Zagat guides for Paris and Philadelphia. Big portion size was mentioned
more in Philadelphia, and all-you-can eat options were mentioned
in 18 of Philadelphia's 637 restaurants, and zero of Paris' 891.
· They compared recipes for meat, vegetables, starches, and
soups in two common cookbooks (The Joy of Cooking in the US and
Je sais cuisiner in France) and computed an American: French ratio
of portion size directed by the recipes. American recipes yielded
much bigger soup (1.68) and meat (1.53) portions, slightly bigger
starch portions (1.05), and, no surprise, smaller vegetable portions
· They compared the size of individual-serving food products
sold in French (Carrefour) and US (Acme) supermarkets - things like
candy bars, ice cream bars, yogurts, fruits, and frozen dinners.
In 14 of the 17 cases, American portions were bigger (ratio 1.37).
· They watched how long Americans and French people sat in
McDonald's - 22.2 minutes in Paris and 14.4 minutes in Philadelphia.
Americans may eat more but they gobble it up on the go.
This month, in the newsletter I write for newcomers
to the United States (Newcomer's Almanac) I'll be discussing this
issue, and will include behavioral tips for how readers (and their
children) can avoid new weight gain. Other topics: an update on
the Presidential election campaign (with background information
Americans take for granted but is rarely spelled out for newcomers),
historical background and tips for the February holidays, and lots
more. For information on the cost-effective ways you can get this
monthly newsletter - and other support materials - for your international
transferees to the US, please see www.interchangeinstitute.org/html/relocation.htm.
Interested in collecting this kind of data in other
countries around the world? Let me know and I'll organize it!
How does "rugged individualism" look
to a person from a culture built on valuing group loyalty? Why does
American-style friendliness feel like intrusiveness to some? How
do Americans come to be so optimistic about their ability to control
the future? What is the "honest" thing to do (and why
are Americans' answers to this question so different from those
from other cultures)?
These are some of the questions I'm going to be
answering next month at the Families in Global Transition conference
at my talk (called "Red, White and Blue Through a Cultural
It is relatively easy to understand how the problems
of US culture - materialism and violence, for example - are viewed
from the outside. But what about those aspects of US culture that
we US Americans hold dear, the ones we love? Besides the questions
above, I'll be talking about how we try to:
1) TREAT EVERYONE THE SAME. I know, I know. We
don't actually succeed at this - that's a whole other important
issue. What I'm focusing on is that Americans tend to BELIEVE that
equality is possible, and get upset when someone gets preferential
treatment. The daughter who is admitted to a university because
her father donated a library. The cousin of the mayor who gets the
city's contract for snow removal. The politician who used family
influence to avoid military service. These situations are embarrassing
when they come to light in the US because they conflict with the
value that everyone should be treated the same. But it's not universally
so - in some cultures, there's an acceptance and expectation that
power will be distributed unequally.
2) BE VERBALLY ARTICULATE. In the US we put a high value on the
ability to express what we are thinking - on being an articulate
speaker. In other cultures, a similarly high value is put instead
on being able to read between the lines, of discerning the nuances
of a communicated message - on being an "articulate listener"
if you will. And in these cultures, it's rather insulting to have
everything spelled out in words.
3) NOT WASTE TIME. Ben Franklin wrote that "Time is money"
and we've been working to save both ever since. We show our respect
to others by being careful with time - by being punctual, sticking
to the agenda, and making appointments a polite interval in the
future. But this view of time is not shared around the world. Elsewhere,
respect is shown by engaging with people as long as necessary (even
if it makes you "late" to see someone else), and by listening
to their input (even if it is not on the agenda).
Frankly, I find the colors I see through this prism
(that is, the multi-faceted view of values and attitudes we see
when we understand other cultures) to be brilliant and stimulating
- more interesting than plain red, white, and blue (or any other
short list). The Families in Global Transition conference is a prism
too - it draws attendees from many walks of life, including institutions
with centuries (literally) of experience in sending families around
the world - foreign service, corporations, military, and missions.
These attendees come with a common concern for helping families
move to new countries in a way that facilitates their lifelong growth.
But they bring many differences too - in policies, obstacles, goals,
and values. And therein lies the prism, and the stunning outcome,
as these differences reveal a new array of possibilities and solutions.
It's the "conference with a heart," in my book.
(Full Disclosure Department - I'm on the conference's
Board! But this enote reflects only my personal views, not necessarily
those of FIGT or its Board.)
My work is really important to me. And so it's
very hard for me to picture what I would do if I were suddenly told
I would not be able to work for a few years so I could accompany
my husband overseas. Imagine that situation - your spouse or partner
has the job offer of a lifetime overseas (or
an offer she/he
doesn't dare refuse) and, because of visa restrictions or other
aspects of your career that make it non-portable, you're faced with
the prospect of an employment-free period.
Certainly, lots of couples decide to embrace this
opportunity for all it has to offer, with joy and excitement. Others
"just say no," and accept the consequences. But there's
a big group that decides to give it a try even though they're somewhat
skeptical or worried about how it will work.
In our research study of accompanying spouses (Many
Women Many Voices, underwritten by Prudential Financial) living
in one of 17 countries around the world, we found that women who
had previously been working but could not work while living abroad
chose one of three labels for themselves: "homemakers,"
"not-currently-employed" or "volunteers." I've
recently done some analyses comparing these groups and found some
It's important to note that, in general, this was
a highly-educated, career-oriented sample. These not-currently-employed
and volunteer groups were just as career-oriented as those who were
working, and they had all had similarly high salaries in the past.
But on assignment, they were taking different paths, which led to
In fact, these paths started differently. The not-currently-employed
group felt more coerced into accepting the assignment, and said
they spent less time before the move talking with their spouses
about how the assignment would affect them personally.
The groups approached the assignment differently
too. We asked the participants how they coped with the various challenges
of living in a new country. The volunteers used a "problem-solving"
approach more than any other group in the sample - that is, they
said they faced challenges by doing things like this:
- I just concentrated on what I had to do next
- the next step.
- I made a plan of action and followed it.
- Changed something so things would turn out all right.
That is, they treated their situation like a problem
to be solved, and solved it. This was the coping strategy related
to best adjustment in the sample.
The volunteer group also reported having more local
friends than any of the other groups, especially friends to whom
they could turn if they needed advice, and who supported them emotionally.
The not-currently-employed group, in contrast, relied more on email
and international telephone calls. This reliance on long-distance
support was a red flag in our study, a consistent sign of adjustment
As you might guess, the not-currently-employed
group scored in consistently troublesome directions on our measures
of satisfaction with the assignment, too.
We do not know all the factors that led to some
women in this sample to describe themselves as "homemakers"
and others as "not-currently-employed." In some sense,
this is a matter of self-definition - both groups included women
who had had careers and who were now not working, but who summarized
their current situations differently in these labels.
In the same way, we do not know all the factors
that led some non-employed women to seek volunteer opportunities,
and others not to. The volunteer group may have had more portable
skills, or less need for income. It's possible that their local
friendship networks led them to volunteer work (rather than the
other way around).
But we do know that the women who took control
of their lives and found meaningful work - even if it was unpaid
- were doing better emotionally than the ones who described themselves
as not currently employed. They were maintaining their professional
identities, meeting and being supported by friends, and contributing
to their communities in meaningful ways.
That's why we included an article in the April
2004 issue of Newcomer's
Almanac (a newsletter for newcomers to the US) about
volunteering - why many newcomers do it, what kinds of work they
might do, and how to find organizations that need their skills.
If you're in the business of helping people make a successful move
to the US, check us out.
"History is bunk," said Henry Ford, focusing
America's turn-of-the-20th-century eye on its promising future.
Look forward, plan ahead. Don't cry over spilled milk. Nothing ventured
nothing gained. If at first you don't succeed, try try again. It's
part of the US cultural fabric to target future opportunity.
This explains, I guess, the resistance I used to
get when I began the History of the Host Country unit in my training
of trainers seminar, Crossing
Cultures with Competence (which prepares trainers to
offer cross-cultural orientations for people moving to a new country):
"I'm not good at history." And "there's
so much else that's more important than history." And "history
is boring." OK. So now we don't have a History unit anymore.
Instead, we have a unit on "The Roots of Current Social Values
and Issues" -- and I have to work hard to limit the discussion!
What does a newcomer to a country need to know
about a country's past to understand today's current events and
its laws and unwritten rules? For those moving to the US, for example:
· how is it that the US is the most individualistic
country in the world (hint: figure out what the colonists didn't
like about King George III, plus what it took to survive in the
pioneering days of western expansion)
· how and why did the US end up with the gun ownership laws
it has (hint: check out the secret weapon of the American Revolution
and learn about law and order in the Wild Wild West)
· how and why did the concept of "political correctness"
develop in the US in the 70s and 80s (hint: study the 50s and 60s
and the forces that led to and from the civil rights movement)
· why do Americans react as they do when politicians are
dishonest (hint: start with cherry trees and log cabins and don't
stop when you get to Watergate)
Are you involved in helping people who are moving
to another country besides the US? Focus on that country's pivotal
moments that shaped lives and values there. Suddenly, when the implications
for today's news and values are spelled out, the Meiji Restoration,
the Greek resistance movement in World War II, and the Raj are no
longer just topics in a history lesson, but vital aspects of a culture
I've stopped using the H Word. But I haven't stopped
trying to understand where we've been or helping people understand
how this affects the choices they make.
In our training program, I have a list of 10 Moments
That Shaped A Nation - 10 individual dates (years) that, I suggest,
had a profound influence on American culture (and why). What dates
would you list and why? Send me your list - I'll send a free copy
of our book, Understanding American Schools, to the person
whose list most closely matches mine!
Do you know anyone moving to a new country with
an infant? Are you sure they know:
· That immunization recommendations and
requirements differ from country to country, even among countries
with similar medical systems and philosophies? And that saying,
"my baby's shots are up to date" will not mean anything
to a doctor in another country? And that pre-schools in a new country
may require adherence to local immunization regulations?
· That medications differ from country to country, too? What
is sold over the counter may require a prescription elsewhere, and
vice versa. Both brand and generic medications differ, so they really
need to bring detailed information about any antibiotics or other
drugs their infant has successfully or unsuccessfully taken.
· That they might need that old-fashioned thing, the fax
number, of previous doctors, for across-the-time-zone, reading-in-a-foreign-language,
fast transmittal of information.
· The pro's (many) and con's (few) of buying Baby his/her
own seat on the airplane?
· The rules of their host country's medical insurance system?
Ha ha ha. That's a joke. No one knows the rules to any country's
medical insurance system. I should say: Do they have a way to get
help managing the host country's medical insurance system, from
the very day they arrive?
· The status of the host country's regulations about water
cleanliness, fluoride in water, and lead in the ceramic glazes used
in dishes? All these can have profound effects on a baby's health.
· The things they absolutely must put in their carry-on bag
for the plane trip? Hint: not everything is for Baby; parent sanity
is the name of this game. For example, enough diapers for a 24-hour
flight delay. Zip lock plastic bags in a variety of sizes to hold
the smelly banana peel. Or other smelly things
(too precious to trust to checked luggage). A tiny flashlight to
find things in the bottom of the carry-on bag without waking Baby.
Can you tell I write from experience? It's been
a few years, but a while ago I moved to London with one infant and
moved home with two. Living there at that point in our family's
life was the defining feature of our assignment, and for that, I'm
very grateful. Where we went, whom we met, what we did - all these
were colored and enriched by our having very young children with
But still, there was stuff I wish I hadn't had
to learn on my own. So I've written Global
Baby: Tips to Keep You and Your Infant Smiling Before, During, and
After Your International Move.
Quick, multiply 190 by .6. That's how fast we were
going (in miles-per-hour, converted from kilometers-per-hour) when
I lost it. My multiplication skills are not enhanced by panic, but
I was pretty sure I didn't want to be there. Last week, my family
and I were in a country where we spoke hardly a word of the language,
and where we were being hosted by a lovely guy who was trying to
be very, very nice to us because of a business connection to my
husband. We were returning from a day trip to a fascinating historical
site. My daughters and husband were in the back seat. A driver who
spoke no English, hired by our host, and I were in the front seat.
We'd taken a wrong turn, according to our map (which my husband
and I tried, unsuccessfully, to communicate to the driver), which
meant we were on a back road (with tractors and hairpin turns) instead
of the motorway, and were running an hour behind the assigned schedule.
The "190" on the speedometer shouted, "Do something!"
Despite all apparent odds, we survived and now
I can afford to intellectualize a bit about this experience. That
endless car-ride was, in some ways, a microcosm of the intercultural
· As often happens while crossing cultures,
we started questioning whether our own knowledge was reliable. We
had the map and it was clear we were turning south when we wanted
to go north. But maybe the driver had been instructed to take us
the scenic route, or knew of road construction delays on the motorway.
We were frustrated by our lack of knowledge and our inability to
· We also knew that people in other countries drive faster
than we do in the US, and were trying to be cool (i.e. conform to
local practice). But at some point (along about 130 kph) we also
didn't care about local practice, sure that a slower speed would
be safer. (In fact, traffic fatalities in this country are significantly
higher than in the US.) Being in intercultural transition means
finding the line between openness to new ways and commitment to
one's own values.
· We were in a country that values the guest-host relationship
highly and it seemed important for us to be "good guests."
That, I assumed, meant not screaming "SLOW DOWN!" at the
top of my lungs, but I was struggling to find a way to play my role
· And we were in a country that interculturalists describe
as more collectivist, hierarchical, polychronic, and patriarchal
than the US. Our host had not consulted us about where we would
visit, how long we would stay, when we needed to be back to the
how we would travel there. He arranged what he felt
was best and our job was to enjoy and, presumably, be grateful.
The ensuing (and preceding) interlinked obligations for my husband's
business were thick and complicated. In the US, we might have said,
"Tomorrow, we'd like to make our own plans, thank you very
much" but saying that here would have complex consequences.
· Our inability to communicate with the driver taught a powerful
lesson. This was a country whose language is not spoken in many
parts of the world, and I had gone on our 4-day visit knowing how
to say only "thank you," "please," "hello,"
"good-bye," "yes," "no," "I'm
sorry," and "coffee with milk but no sugar" - my
bare minimum. I'll never go anywhere again without adding: "Please
drive more slowly or I'm going to jump out of the window."
· Finally, we caught a glimpse of what those in intercultural
transition often face: the challenge of keeping one's family safe
under novel and occasionally careening circumstances. As the countryside
barreled by, I was thinking, "Every day I take a teeny weeny
aspirin to prevent heart disease; we all apply sunscreen before
going outside; I buy organic lettuce - all to improve our chances
of living a healthy life by some miniscule amount. And now we find
ourselves in this situation!"
The lesson? Even well-prepared people get in situations
they'd like to revise; even with knowledge, new challenges need
new solutions. Next time, I vow to marshal my understanding of the
culture and local practice, and come up with a coordinated plan
that balances obligations with our own needs. Plus carry a dictionary
Yesterday I worked with a group of American business
people who had recently signed a contract to work closely with a
Korean company. They wanted me to review the important cultural
differences between the US and Korea and to help them understand
how to sustain a smooth relationship with their new partners.
I drew on the usual intercultural resources - research
studies on value differences, descriptions of how business is conducted
in the two countries, case studies, and the like.
But I also had access to an unusual, perhaps unique,
resource - writings from a group of Korean women who are raising
their children in the US and who are working hard to understand
the cultural differences they see. These women meet with me monthly
for cultural, emotional and language support. They give contemporaneous
accounts of how deep cultural differences develop and show up later,
in the business place. For example:
- The mothers write about how odd it seems to them
that American "play dates" include only one other friend,
and about how American mothers step in to resolve squabbles much
faster than they do. They ask, "How will children learn to
work in groups and to negotiate with their peers?" That individualism-collectivism
difference that so characterizes US-Korean interactions begins to
be taught in a child's very early years.
- They write about how strange - but appealing - the concept of
"Show and Tell" seems, where children get the spotlight
to talk about their own lives to the applause of their friends.
They link this activity to the self-confidence they perceive in
Americans, and to Americans' willingness to voice their opinions.
Is it a surprise that Americans tend to prefer work situations in
which individual achievement is recognized publicly, and the expression
of unusual suggestions is seen as a mark of a creative mind, while
Koreans tend to prefer work situations in which team consensus and
team achievement are rewarded?
- They write about how American mothers' way of talking to their
children feels blunt and even rude: "Stop making all that noise!"
In the same situation, they would find a way to signal, indirectly
and maybe even silently, that their children should play more quietly.
I sum it up this way: Americans value being an articulate speaker;
Koreans value being an articulate listener. So are we shocked to
learn that, in a recent research study, when presented with a manager's
evaluation ratings of his staff, Korean participants were better
able to read between the lines and understand what the manager really
felt, compared with Americans?
These simple cultural situations go a long way
to illustrate the intercultural differences we see in the business
world - in how employees talk to their managers, how bosses treat
their staff, what employees are expected to do with their perceptions
and suggestions, how decisions are made, and what constitutes a
"good leader." Without a good handle on these roots, business
trainees just learn a list of do's and don'ts and are ill-prepared
to handle the specific issues they encounter in the course of their
The work we do at The Interchange Institute is
some amalgam of all the experiences I've had - as a child and family
psychologist and as an organizational trainer and consultant. I'm
the luckiest person I know, to have found a way to use all these
seemingly disparate threads of expertise at once. I'd love to hear
your stories about how you have woven apparently-unrelated sources
of expertise into a new endeavor!
Please - think back to September 1994 for a moment.
Were you doing your work the same way you do it now?
This month marks the tenth anniversary of our newsletter
for newcomers to the US (Newcomer's Almanac - no, not this
e-note you're reading here, but an actual 8-page newsletter). Ten
· I literally cut and pasted the pictures
in. With scissors and rubber cement.
· I knew the reference librarian really well. Now I know
Internet Explorer really well.
· My five-year-old put the stamps and labels on the newsletters.
Today most people receive it electronically, stripping my daughter
of employment, but hey, she's 15 now and too busy anyway.
More importantly, what I wrote back in 1994 was
happier. It was before having to explain
to my readers what was going on in the OJ Simpson trial (1995),
the Monica Lewinsky scandal (1998) or the shootings at Columbine
high school (1999). It was before narrating three presidential campaigns
(1996, 2000, 2004) for newcomers and trying to explain campaign
financing, low voter turnout and - ee gads - the electoral college.
It was before having to explain the background to the assault weapons
ban (1994), the Family and Child Leave Act (1995), or the No Child
Left Behind Act (2001). It was before I really studied international
comparisons of kids' school achievement, drunk driving, gender equality,
and energy usage - some of which made me proud and others sad, but
all of which helped me understand how the US looks to newcomers'
And of course, this was before September 11 (2001)
and all that has followed in its wake.
The events of this decade have colored my work
indelibly, as perhaps they have yours. I find myself writing about
why the bureaucracy newcomers face is so slow. Or why their American
neighbors react to them as they do. The movies and books I recommend
now are ones that show the roots of the choices American voters
make. I work hard to explain the background to events without a
political bias, to give the kind of information I would want if
I had just moved to the US.
Interestingly, though I'm sadder but wiser on one
hand, I have a renewed and deeper sense of the importance of the
work you and I do, helping others to live and work within the intercultural
space. And from this understanding comes hope and optimism.
An anniversary can be a time to celebrate (see
below) but also to reflect. I'd love to hear stories about how your
work has changed in the last 10 years. Write to me!
Well now, don't we American interculturalists have
our work cut out for us right here at home? The 2004 Presidential
election campaign revealed the kinds of differences within the US
that we surely should consider cultural - in attitudes, values,
beliefs and behavior. The media seemed to delight in putting these
differences in high relief. The name-calling, demonizing, recrimination,
and vilification was almost enough to make me afraid to venture
out of my own little insulated world, and I don't like it. I don't
like the implication that I am deeply and morally estranged from
my cousins, neighbors, colleagues and compatriots. And I don't like
that map they keep showing on TV of the red states and blue states,
with the connotation of looming dominance and submission.
What if all of us in the intercultural field turned
our professional heads to the problem of how to improve the level
of dialogue with each other?
What would we do if we were consulting to a group
of people from two different countries rather than people from "red"
states and "blue" states? We'd look for the roots of the
two groups' values - the historic, geographic, political and economic
forces that led to growth in different directions - and use this
knowledge to improve mutual understanding. We'd watch for and challenge
mistaken assumptions. We'd help people listen to each other, and
make sure that light shone on shared beliefs. We'd recognize and
accept the real core differences that exist, but focus attention
on the benefits (to the US and the world) of working together rather
than competing against each other. We'd marshal evidence that, in
fact, most individuals' beliefs are complex and nuanced, not simplistic
and combative, leaving room for many points of connection and agreement.
You know that red and blue map I hate? Well, here
are two better ones, produced by some folks at the University of
In the first, they drew the states proportional to their population
size not their acreage, with the result that the red and blue look
more equal in size, an accurate reflection of the popular vote:
And second, they fought back against the forces
of division and
remembered the color purple. They colored
the counties on a continuum from red to blue (with purple in the
middle), reflecting the percentage of the vote in each county.
Note that there are some true blue and some true
red spots, but mostly not. Mostly we are not totally divided. Mostly,
we can have this conversation together.
That's our work. Our most recent research (commissioned
by Prudential Financial) shows that expatriates who have had cross-cultural
training have more positive views of host nationals and better adjustment
to the assignments. (Let me know if you'd like to see the report.)
Hope you'll join us in our efforts to increase intercultural dialogue
Researchers are supposed to be objective, boldly
pursuing truth and facts regardless of their implications. I think
I do that as well as anyone (although, really, who lives in a vacuum?).
But sometimes my research results make me happy, ee gads I admit
In a recent study I conducted of accompanying spouses
who had moved to the United States from one of 26 different countries*,
I asked whether they had received any cross-cultural training. Here's
some of what I found:
· Those who had gotten cross-cultural training
had significantly better mental health than those who hadn't, and
they reported that their children were happier too. (Nice!)
· They also said their spouses (the ones whose jobs instigated
the move and who, presumably, had the cross-cultural training too)
enjoyed their co-workers significantly more. (That's what companies
are paying for!)
· Indeed, those who had received training described "the
typical American they had met" as significantly more patient,
friendly, respectful, polite, and less verbally aggressive. (Hooray!
All that work we trainers do to interpret the cultural context of
Americans' approach to time, values about interaction with others,
and communications style pays off!)
· And if the training included direct mention of common emotional
reactions to moving (and not just topics like US business practice,
and American attitudes and behavior), the participants were significantly
less depressed. (Yes! That's what we've been saying! Normalizing
culture shock - communicating that it's common and explaining why
it happens and how to manage it - really helps.)
· We also took a look at the experiences of those who did
NOT receive cross-cultural training. Some said they really hadn't
needed it - their home countries were pretty similar to the US,
their English was good, and they had a lot of American friends.
Makes sense. Or does it? In fact, 63% of the participants from Canada,
the UK, Australia and New Zealand who did not get cross-cultural
training said that, in fact, it would have been very helpful.
· And thinking that cross-cultural training would have been
helpful and not having been offered it was a nasty combination -
those in that situation were significantly more depressed, said
their children were having a less positive experience in the US,
and (get this!) felt their spouses were less productive on the job.
OK, I'll put my white lab coat back on in a minute.
But for now I am going to enjoy the moment of validation - I have
built our Training of Trainers program (Crossing
Cultures with Competence), designed to teach people how
to develop and deliver high-quality cross-cultural orientations,
on the belief that, if we help expatriates understand their new
cultures, see the world through their hosts' eyes, and understand
the reasons it can be hard to move to a new country, they and their
families will be better off. They'll be more productive at work.
They will be better able to take advantage of the opportunity cross-cultural
living provides. And they'll be more likely to have positive relationships
with their hosts.
And it turns out I was right. How cool is that?
(Let me know if you'd like to see a copy of the 57-page research