Perceived versus Objective Cultural Distance: Differential Effects on Acculturation Experiences

Abstract

How do perceived and objective cultural distance compare in predicting immigrants’ acculturation experiences? Using data from a diverse sample of immigrants residing in the United States (N = 939), we examined perceived cultural distance alongside objective cultural distance measured by the Cultural Fixation Index (CF_ST), a novel and flexible metric derived from World Values Survey data that captures between-group variation in cultural values. Our findings reveal that perceived cultural distance, assessed using the Brief Perceived Cultural Distance Scale, was more often associated with psychological outcomes, including higher homesickness (β = .08) and lower psychological adaptation (β = −.08). In contrast, objective cultural distance was negatively associated with physical health (β = −.16), and stronger orientations toward host culture (β = .08). The two measures were moderately correlated (r = .34), and both predicted greater culture shock and stronger heritage culture orientation. Neither objective nor perceived cultural distance significantly predicted depressive symptoms or anxiety. These findings highlight the importance of assessing both subjective perceptions and objective measures of cultural differences when studying acculturation and considering their respective trade-offs.

Keywords

cultural distance acculturation well-being

Introduction

As international migration has become increasingly common in recent decades, driven by factors such as increased international career and education opportunities, natural disasters, and armed conflicts (International Organization for Migration, 2024), more people have been leaving their culture of upbringing to live in societies that may differ significantly from their own. In 2020, nearly 281 million people were living outside their birth country—more than triple the number in 1970 (McAuliffe & Oucho, 2024). The share of international migrants in the global population has also increased, from 2.3% in 1970 to 3.6% in 2020. The United States, which hosts the largest number of international immigrants from nearly every country worldwide, saw its immigrant population rise from 4.7% in 1970 to 14.3% in 2023, reaching a record of 47.8 million and accounting for around one-fifth of the world’s international migrants (Moslimani & Passel, 2024). As migration continues to reshape global demographics, it is increasingly important to understand the challenges individuals face when adjusting to a new country (Benkirane & Doucerain, 2022).

One factor that has been found to be relevant to how easily people are able to adapt to their acculturation experiences is cultural distance (e.g., Ward & Kennedy, 1993)—that is, the difference between the culture of the host society from one’s heritage culture. In general, greater cultural distance has been found to be associated with more difficulty adapting to the host culture and lower well-being (e.g., Demes & Geeraert, 2014), although there are exceptions to this pattern (e.g., O’Grady & Lane, 1996). Additionally, there is some debate over how best to measure cultural distance: some scholars advocate for subjective measures that reflect individuals’ perceived cultural differences (e.g., Demes & Geeraert, 2014; Suanet & Van de Vijver, 2008), while others support objective indicators derived from national-level data (e.g., Akhimien & Adekunle, 2021; Shi & Wang, 2011). Moreover, cultural distance is not just relevant to people’s psychological well-being, but also to how they navigate their adaptation to the host culture (Taušová et al., 2019).

The present research addresses these different perspectives by examining and comparing the roles of perceived and objective cultural distance in predicting immigrants’ adjustment outcomes, including their acculturation orientation, and their adjustment-related well-being. More specifically, objective cultural distance was measured using the cultural fixation index (CF_ST; Muthukrishna et al., 2020), a relatively novel way of assessing the distance between any cultural groups.

Cultural Distance

Cultural distance refers to the degree of difference in the social and environmental attributes between an individual’s culture of origin and the host culture. It has been widely studied in the fields of international business (e.g., Kogut & Singh, 1988; Shenkar, 2001) and acculturation research (e.g., Demes & Geeraert, 2014; Suanet & Van de Vijver, 2008). One of the earliest attempts to quantify this concept was by Babiker and colleagues (1980), who developed a subjective measure based on overseas students’ perceptions of differences in factors such as climate and family structure between Edinburgh and their home cultures. Since then, a myriad of approaches to measuring cultural distance have emerged, ranging from subjective self-report methods to more objective indices based on country-level indicators. Within acculturation research, cultural distance has been shown to predict key outcomes such as psychological adaptation, sociocultural adjustment, and overall well-being (e.g., Babiker et al., 1980; Searle & Ward, 1990; Ward & Kennedy, 1993; but see Bashir & Khalid, 2022).

Perceived Cultural Distance

Perceived cultural distance refers to the subjective sense of difference individuals perceive between their heritage and host cultures, particularly in terms of social and environmental aspects. It is typically assessed by asking participants to rate perceived differences between the two cultures across various domains, such as social norms, values, climate, interpersonal relationships, or everyday cultural practices (e.g., Demes & Geeraert, 2014). A variety of studies have explored how perceived cultural distance relates to psychological adjustment among migrants (e.g., Babiker et al., 1980; Suanet & Van de Vijver, 2008). A strength of perceived cultural distance is that the individual is likely best positioned to identify the ways that their host culture is at odds with their heritage culture, especially because within any country people belong to a number of different kinds of subcultures, so there is much important variation within nations in terms of people’s cultural experiences. At the same time, perceived cultural distance bears a cost in predicting adjustment outcomes, as it seems likely that an individual’s judgements about how different their host culture is from their heritage culture would be influenced by how well they are getting along in the host culture, which would confound the measures of perceived cultural distance and acculturative difficulties. For example, an individual who feels that they are struggling to fit into a new culture may conclude that the host culture is very different from their heritage culture, whereas one who has adjusted fine may be more likely to conclude the cultures are similar.

Objective Cultural Distance

In contrast to perceived cultural distance, objective cultural distance generally refers to the quantifiable differences between cultures based on standardized dimensions, typically assessed at the national level based on dimensions such as power distance, individualism-collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance (e.g., Hofstede, 2001; Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault, 2018) and less influenced by individuals’ subjective acculturation experiences. Traditional approaches to measuring cultural distance typically involve calculating Euclidean or Mahalanobis distances based on theoretical frameworks such as Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions (e.g., De Maesschalck et al., 2000; De Santis et al., 2015; Shi & Wang, 2011). Two of the more commonly used indices include Kogut and Singh’s (1988) composite score and Demes and Geeraert’s (2014) adaptation of Hofstede’s model. Other frameworks, such as S. H. Schwartz’s (1992), 2014) cultural value orientations and the GLOBE model (Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault, 2018), have also been employed. However, many of these efforts are limited as they reduce all of the complexity of a culture to a small number of identified cultural dimensions, thus potentially concealing much other cultural variation. Reflecting the limits of these past efforts to operationalize objective cultural distance, studies have found weak or inconsistent correlations between objective and perceived cultural distance (e.g., Suanet & Van de Vijver, 2008).

In an effort to circumvent some of the limitations of past operationalizations of objective cultural distance, Muthukrishna et al. (2020) introduced the Cultural Fixation Index (CF_ST), a theoretically grounded metric adapted from the fixation index (F_ST) in population genetics (Holsinger & Weir, 2009; Wright, 1949). Unlike traditional methods that focus on the mean differences across predefined cultural dimensions (e.g., Hofstede’s cultural dimensions), CF_ST calculates the ratio of the between-group variance and total variance for any single or combined measured trait. In other words, it estimates the extent to which variation in cultural traits reflects differences between populations rather than differences among individuals within those populations. This allows for the comparison of the distribution of traits across regions or countries, and also accounts for within-group variability. It is a flexible index that can be applied at subnational levels or across other variables such as gender, religion, or even time (e.g., Kay et al., 2025; White et al., 2021). The original CF_ST was created using the data from the World Value Survey (Inglehart et al., 2014), which has been administered to dozens of countries around the world, in an ongoing series of waves of data collection every several years. Muthukrishna et al. (2020) identified a set of items from this survey that addressed people’s values, behaviors, and beliefs; that were not specifically relevant to any particular region; and that were non-demographic. The CF_ST does not focus solely on point estimates or predefined cultural dimensions, but instead compares entire distributions of cultural traits, making it scale-invariant, unit-free, and sensitive to within-group variability. This allows for the detection of cultural differences that traditional Euclidean or Mahalanobis distance methods may overlook, especially when group means are similar but internal variances differ. These features make CF_ST a more flexible and empirically robust tool for measuring cultural distance, especially in studies examining migration, adaptation, and acculturation. It can also accommodate continuous, binary, or nominal traits, and be applied at different levels of analysis, including within-country regional comparisons. Moreover, because this measure does not rely on respondents’ knowledge and subjective impressions, the CF_ST is less susceptible to individual biases. Much recent research has applied CF_ST across a wide range of domains, including religious and national clustering (White et al., 2021), cultural diversity (Bentzen et al., 2024), group-beneficial behaviors (Beheim & Bell, 2024), and cultural change over time (Kay et al., 2025). The method has also proven useful beyond psychology, including in anthropology (Boesch et al., 2020), folklore studies (Ross et al., 2013), and research on the evolution of cooperation (Handley & Mathew, 2020; Smith et al., 2018).

Acculturation

Acculturation refers to the psychological, social, and cultural changes that occur when individuals or groups from different cultural backgrounds engage in extended, direct contact. People’s experiences are influenced by their acculturation orientation, which reflects an individual’s approach to adapting to a new cultural context, specifically the extent to which they seek to maintain their heritage culture and adopt aspects of the host culture (Berry, 1997; Ryder et al., 2000). In the current study, we use a bidimensional approach that assesses heritage and host cultural orientations independently, as this has been argued to be the most conceptually and psychometrically robust approach (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2007; F. Rudmin, 2009; Ryder et al., 2000).

The process of adapting to a new cultural environment involves much psychological adjustment, which can threaten an individual’s well-being. Poor adjustment has been found to be linked to a variety of negative outcomes including heightened anxiety (Baeza-Rivera et al., 2022; Sullivan & Kashubeck-West, 2015; Wei et al., 2015), depression (Baeza-Rivera et al., 2022; Choy et al., 2021; Hamamura & Laird, 2014; Jackson et al., 2013; Li et al., 2014; Wei et al., 2015), loneliness (Sawir et al., 2007), homesickness (Tochkov et al., 2010), culture shock (Church, 1982), and reduced physical health (Babiker et al., 1980). These characteristics of adjustment-related well-being are typically measured through self-report scales that assess emotional functioning, comfort, and psychological symptoms during cultural transition (e.g., Demes & Geeraert, 2014).

Cultural Distance and Acculturation

Cultural distance, whether perceived or objectively measured, has long been theorized to influence individuals’ acculturation process and outcomes (Babiker et al., 1980; Demes & Geeraert, 2014; F. W. Rudmin, 2003).

A fairly consistent body of research examining individuals’ perceived cultural distance and adjustment outcomes typically finds that individuals who perceive a larger gap between their heritage and host cultures tend to report lower psychological and sociocultural adaptation, along with higher levels of homesickness, stress, culture shock, and social withdrawal (Babiker et al., 1980; Demes & Geeraert, 2014; Suanet & Van de Vijver, 2008; but see Bashir & Khalid, 2022). For example, in Russia, students from China and North Korea reported higher levels of perceived cultural distance and poorer adjustment compared to those from culturally closer regions like Georgia or Ukraine (Galchenko & van de Vijver, 2007; Suanet & Van de Vijver, 2008). In the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, higher perceived cultural distance predicted lower well-being and adaptation among international students (Demes & Geeraert, 2014; Taušová et al., 2019). Beyond between-country cultural distance, longitudinal work in China has shown that higher perceived cultural distance between one’s hometown and the host city also predicted lower sociocultural adaptation over time (Yan et al., 2024). Perceived cultural distance also shapes acculturation orientation. Individuals perceiving greater cultural distance tend to both maintain their heritage culture and endorse multiculturalism while being less inclined to adopt mainstream cultural practices (van Osch & Breugelmans, 2011). This may be because larger perceived differences between the heritage and host cultures can make engagement with the host culture more challenging or less familiar, leading individuals to rely more on cultural practices, values, and social networks associated with their heritage culture.

In contrast to the research on perceived cultural distance, findings on the relationship between objective cultural distance and adjustment-related outcomes have been more mixed. Some studies have found that shorter distances on indices such as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are associated with poorer psychological and sociocultural adaptation (e.g., Akhimien & Adekunle, 2021; Čuhlová, 2019; Hemmasi & Downes, 2013), and poorer self-rated health outcomes, particularly among first-generation migrants (Detollenaere et al., 2018). However, other studies report findings of null associations between objective distance and key indicators of adjustment such as stress, self-esteem, and psychological well-being (e.g., Geeraert & Demoulin, 2013; Selmer et al., 2007). In some cases, individuals from culturally similar backgrounds have even reported poorer adjustment than those from more culturally distant contexts, such as among repatriated Chinese expatriates (Selmer, 2002) and Venezuelan immigrants in Colombia (S. J. Schwartz et al., 2018). One possibility for the tendency for measures of perceived cultural distance to predict poorer adjustment-related well-being is that people are more likely to perceive greater cultural distance when they are having a difficult time adapting to the host culture, thereby confounding the analysis. In contrast, measures of objective cultural distance do not share this confound.

Therefore, although perceived cultural distance captures individuals’ subjective perceptions of how different the host culture feels relative to their heritage culture, which may be particularly relevant for understanding immigrants’ psychological experiences and adjustment outcomes, it may also be influenced by individual factors such as personality or current adjustment difficulties. In contrast, objective cultural distance can provide standardized estimates of cultural differences between societies, which allows researchers to compare cultural distance systematically across many cultural groups, but it may not fully capture immigrants’ personal experiences in everyday life.

Current Research

In the present study, we aim to advance the measurement of cultural distance by comparing the roles of perceived and objective cultural distance in predicting acculturation orientations, psychological adaptation, and well-being. Perceived cultural distance captures individuals’ subjective sense of difference between their heritage and host cultures, whereas objective cultural distance is operationalized using the Cultural Fixation Index (CF_ST; Muthukrishna et al., 2020). We hypothesized that greater cultural distance would be associated with reduced psychological adaptation and poorer overall well-being (e.g., Demes & Geeraert, 2014; Hemmasi & Downes, 2013; Suanet & Van de Vijver, 2008; Taušová et al., 2019), and higher maintenance of the heritage culture and lower orientation toward the host culture (van Osch & Breugelmans, 2011). We anticipate that perceived and objective cultural distance may offer distinct yet complementary insights into immigrants’ adjustment-related well-being and acculturation orientations in the United States.

Method

Participants

We recruited participants who had migrated to the United States from other countries, as the United States hosts one of the largest and most culturally diverse immigrant populations in the world (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2024). Advertisements were posted on Prolific Academic in January 2024 to recruit individuals who met the following criteria: (a) be 18 years of age or older and (b) have been born outside of the United States but currently reside within the country. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the University of British Columbia, with the approval number H23-03311. All participants provided written informed consent prior to participating.

We aimed to collect data from a large sample to reliably detect any correlations larger than Pearson's r = .10. An a priori power analysis (assuming r = .10, α = .05, and power = .80) indicated a required sample size of n = 782. We initially recruited 1050 participants, and excluded any who failed an attention check, which asked: “Did you approach this survey with seriousness and attentiveness, answering questions thoughtfully?" Also, participants who did not meet the eligibility criteria were excluded, which resulted in a total of 111 excluded participants, yielding a final sample of 939 participants (51.22% women, M_age = 40.57 years, SD_age = 14.77 years, 17.68% White). More details on the sample characteristics can be found in the Supplemental Materials (see Table S1).

Measures

Objective Cultural Distance

Objective cultural distance was calculated based on the Cultural Fixation Index (CF_ST; Muthukrishna et al., 2020; www.culturaldistance.com), a metric that quantifies cultural differences in people’s responses to the World Values Survey by comparing the distribution of culturally relevant beliefs, values, and behaviors across populations. The CF_ST is derived from the fixation index (F_ST) used in population genetics and measures the proportion of variance in cultural traits that occurs between groups relative to the total variance. As we focused on cross-national comparisons of cultural distance, objective cultural distance was calculated based on the CF_ST -based cultural distance between each participant’s country of birth and the United States.¹

Perceived Cultural Distance

Perceived cultural distance was assessed using the Brief Perceived Cultural Distance Scale (Demes & Geeraert, 2014). This 12-item scale measures participants' subjective perceptions of differences between their home country and the United States across various domains, including climate, social environment, daily customs, and more. Participants rated each item on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Very similar, 7 = Very different), with higher scores indicating a greater perceived cultural gap.

Psychological Adjustment

Psychological adjustment was measured through multiple scales that capture different aspects of cultural adjustment.

Psychological Adaptation

Psychological adaptation was assessed using the eight-item Brief Psychological Adaptation Scale (Demes & Geeraert, 2014), which evaluates participants’ emotional adjustment to life in the United States through items such as “In the last two weeks, how often have you felt happy with your day-to-day life in the United States”. Participants rated each item on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 7 = Always), with higher scores indicating better psychological adaptation.

Culture Shock

Culture shock was measured using the 12-item Culture Shock Questionnaire (Mumford, 1998), which assesses difficulties participants experienced while adapting to American culture through items such as “Have you found things in your new environment shocking or disgusting?”. Items were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 5 = Always), with higher scores indicating greater culture shock.

Homesickness

Homesickness was evaluated using the ten-item Homesickness Questionnaire (Archer et al., 1998), which examines feelings of longing for one's home country. Items included “I cannot help thinking about my home” and “I often dream about my family back home” and were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 5 = Always), with higher scores indicating greater homesickness.

Loneliness

Loneliness was measured using the six-item Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Wongpakaran et al., 2020), a widely used measure of social and emotional isolation. Example items included “How often do you feel left out” and “How often do you feel that you are no longer close to anyone?” and were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 5 = Always), with higher scores indicating greater loneliness.

Mental Health

Mental health as indicated by psychological distress, specifically depressive symptoms, was measured using the eight-item PROMIS Emotional Distress Depression Short Form Scale (PROMIS Health Organization, 2013), while symptoms of anxiety were assessed using the eight-item PROMIS Emotional Distress Anxiety Short Form Scale (Pilkonis et al., 2011). Items included “In the past seven days, I felt worthless” for the measure of depressive symptoms and “In the past seven days, I felt nervous” for the measure of anxiety. Both scales were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 5 = Always), with higher scores indicating more psychological distress.

Physical Health

Physical health was evaluated using the nine-item Brief Health Inventory (Derogatis & Spencer, 1982), which captures common symptoms such as headaches and other physical ailments felt in the past week. Items were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 5 = Always) and were reverse-coded. Higher scores indicate fewer physical health symptoms, or better physical health.

Acculturation Orientation

Acculturation orientation was measured using the Vancouver Index of Acculturation (VIA; Ryder et al., 2000), an 18-item scale that assesses individuals’ engagement with both their heritage culture and the mainstream American culture. The VIA assesses heritage and host culture orientations independently, thus yielding two independent continuous and reflecting the bidimensional nature of acculturation orientation (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2007; Berry, 1997; Demes & Geeraert, 2014; Ryder et al., 2000). Example items included “I often participate in my native cultural traditions” for heritage culture orientation and “I believe in mainstream American values” for host culture orientation. Participants rated each item on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree), with higher scores indicating stronger orientation towards the respective cultural domain.

Each of these measures has been validated in previous research and provides a comprehensive assessment of participants’ acculturation experiences and well-being outcomes (see Supplemental Materials, Table S2, for more detailed information on each measure. The complete survey materials² are available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/kthn3. The study was preregistered, and the preregistration document is also accessible at the same OSF link.

Results

Bivariate correlations among all of the key variables are summarized in Table 1. Of particular relevance, we found that objective and perceived cultural distance were moderately correlated (r = .34, p < .001). Although this association may appear relatively small, it reflects the relationship between an individual-level variable and an aggregate country-level indicator, which represent different levels of analysis, and thus some divergence between the two measures is expected. This suggests some convergence between individuals’ subjective impressions and empirically derived cultural differences, while also indicating that the two constructs capture distinct aspects of cultural distance.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Demographic, Cultural Distance, and Outcome Variables.

				Panel A
Variables	M	SD	Gender	Age at immigration	Years in the US	SES	Objective CD	Perceived CD
Gender	0.50	0.50	—	—	—	—	—	—
Age at Immigration	17.17	12.51	.02	—	—	—	—	—
Years in the US	23.64	14.71	−.04	−.36***	—	—	—	—
SES	5.69	1.59	−.05	.13***	.06	—	—	—
Objective CD	0.13	0.05	−.07*	.08*	−.05	.09*	—	—
Perceived CD	5.11	1.37	.06	.09*	−.23***	.00	0.34***	—
Psych. Adapt.	5.07	1.12	−.11***	−.19***	.23***	.08*	.02	−.13***
Culture Shock	2.27	0.66	.05	.09**	−.11***	−.02	.15***	.16***
Depression	1.93	0.97	.11***	−.11***	−.10**	−.32***	−.03	.04
Anxiety	2.06	0.99	.13***	−.10**	−.07*	−.25***	.00	.02
Homesickness	2.02	0.74	.11***	.16***	−.08*	.00	.04	.10**
Loneliness	2.39	1.06	.11***	−.03	−.11***	−.26***	−.06	.07*
Physical Health	4.20	0.67	−.09**	.06	−.03	.10**	−.14***	−.03
Heritage CO	5.39	1.12	.09**	.13***	−.04	.13***	.11**	.12***
Host CO	5.53	0.97	−.04	−.12***	.13***	.05	.07*	.01
				Panel B
Variables	M	SD	Psych. Adapt.	Culture shock	Depression	Anxiety	Homesickness	Loneliness	Physical health	Heritage CO
Psych. Adapt.	5.07	1.12	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Culture Shock	2.27	0.66	−.68***	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Depression	1.93	0.97	−.42***	.43***	—	—	—	—	—	—
Anxiety	2.06	0.99	−.43***	.46***	.83***	—	—	—	—	—
Homesickness	2.02	0.74	−.70***	.64***	.42***	.48***	—	—	—	—
Loneliness	2.39	1.06	−.49***	.47***	.69***	.64***	.51***	—	—	—
Physical Health	4.20	0.67	.30***	−.43***	−.54***	−.58***	−.45***	−.45***	—	—
Heritage CO	5.39	1.12	−.14***	.11***	−.17***	−.12***	.19***	−.12***	.09**	—
Host CO	5.53	0.97	.42***	−.36***	−.21***	−.17***	−.31***	−.23***	.15***	.21***

Note. Gender was recoded into a binary variable (1 = woman, 0 = non-woman). SES = Socioeconomic status, Objective CD = Objective cultural distance, Perceived CD = Perceived cultural distance, Psych. Adapt. = Psychological adaptation, Depression = Depressive symptoms, Heritage CO = Heritage culture orientation, Host CO = Host culture orientation.

*p < .05. **p < .01.***p < .001.

The bivariate results interestingly showed that both heritage and host cultural orientation were associated with fewer depressive symptoms, lower anxiety, lower loneliness, and better physical health. This pattern suggests that engagement with both cultural contexts may be overall associated with more positive adjustment-related outcomes.

Cultural Distance and Psychological Adjustment

We conducted a series of multivariate regression models using the stats package in R (R Core Team, 2025) to examine the relationships between the independent variables (objective cultural distance and perceived cultural distance) and the dependent variables (adjustment-related well-being and orientation). These analyses allowed us to examine how each form of cultural distance uniquely influenced adjustment outcomes and acculturation orientation. Each dependent variable was analyzed in a separate regression model to examine its associations with objective and perceived cultural distance while controlling for sociodemographic covariates.

Participants’ gender, socioeconomic status (SES), age of migration to the United States, and the length of stay in the United States³ (Sam, 2024) were included in all models to account for potential confounding factors. By including these variables, we aimed to isolate the effects of cultural distance on the outcomes of interest (see (Tables 2 –5)). Results from bivariate regression models without these covariates are reported in the Supplemental Materials (Tables S4.1–S4.4).

Table 2.

Regression Results Predicting Psychological Adjustment from Objective and Perceived Cultural Distance.

	Culture shock			Psychological adaptation			Homesickness			Loneliness
Variables	β	95% CI	Adj. R²	β	95% CI	Adj. R²	β	95% CI	Adj. R²	β	95% CI	Adj. R²
Objective CD	.15***	[0.08, 0.21]	.03	.02	[−0.04, 0.09]	.08	.03	[−0.03, 0.10]	.03	−.03	[−0.10, 0.04]	.06
Gender	.13	[0.00, 0.27]	—	−.21**	[−0.34, −0.08]	—	.18**	[0.05, 0.32]	—	.15*	[0.01, 0.28]	—
Age at Immigration	.07	[0.00, 0.15]	—	−.18***	[−0.25, −0.11]	—	.17***	[0.09, 0.24]	—	−.04	[−0.11, 0.04]	—
Years in the US	−.06	[−0.14, 0.01]	—	.14***	[0.07, 0.21]	—	.01	[−0.06, 0.09]	—	−.04	[−0.12, 0.03]	—
SES	−.03	[−0.10, 0.04]	—	.12***	[0.05, 0.18]	—	−.03	[−0.10, 0.04]	—	−.23***	[−0.29, −0.16]	—
Perceived CD	.14***	[0.08, 0.21]	.03	−.08*	[−0.14, −0.01]	.08	.08*	[0.02, 0.14]	.04	.05	[−0.01, 0.11]	.08
Gender	.08	[−0.04, 0.20]	—	−.19**	[−0.31, −0.07]	—	.21***	[0.08, 0.33]	—	.18**	[0.06, 0.30]	—
Age at Immigration	.06	[0.00, 0.13]	—	−.14***	[−0.21, −0.08]	—	.15***	[0.09, 0.22]	—	−.04	[−0.11, 0.02]	—
Years in the US	−.05	[−0.12, 0.02]	—	.15***	[0.08, 0.22]	—	.00	[−0.07, 0.07]	—	−.10**	[−0.16, −0.03]	—
SES	−.02	[−0.09, 0.04]	—	.08**	[0.02, 0.14]	—	−.02	[−0.08, 0.04]	—	−.24***	[−0.30, −0.18]	—

Note. Gender was recoded into a binary variable (1 = woman, 0 = non-woman). All variables are standardized. Objective CD = Objective Cultural Distance; Perceived CD = Perceived Cultural Distance.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Regression Results Predicting Mental Health from Objective and Perceived Cultural Distance.

	Depressive Symptoms			Anxiety
Variables	β	95% CI	Adj. R²	β	95% CI	Adj. R²
Objective CD	.01	[−0.05, 0.08]	.12	.03	[−0.04, 0.09]	.07
Gender	.12	[−0.01, 0.26]	—	.21**	[0.07, 0.34]	—
Age at Immigration	−.11**	[−0.18, −0.03]	—	−.11**	[−0.18, −0.04]	—
Years in the US	−.07	[−0.14, 0.01]	—	−.06	[−0.13, 0.01]	—
SES	−.31***	[−0.38, −0.25]	—	−.22***	[−0.28, −0.15]	—
Perceived CD	.02	[−0.04, 0.08]	.13	.00	[−0.06, 0.07]	.08
Gender	.18**	[0.07, 0.30]	—	.23***	[0.11, 0.35]	—
Age at Immigration	−.11***	[−0.18, −0.05]	—	−.11***	[−0.17, −0.04]	—
Years in the US	−.11***	[−0.18, −0.05]	—	−.10**	[−0.16, −0.03]	—
SES	−.30***	[−0.36, −0.24]	—	−.22***	[−0.28, −0.16]	—

Note. Gender was recoded into a binary variable (1 = woman, 0 = non-woman). All variables are standardized. Objective CD = Objective Cultural Distance; Perceived CD = Perceived Cultural Distance.

**p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4.

Regression Results Predicting Physical Health from Objective and Perceived Cultural Distance.

	Physical health
Variables	β	95% CI	Adj. R²
Objective CD	−.16***	[−0.23, −0.09]	.04
Gender	−.17*	[−0.31, −0.04]	—
Age at Immigration	.00	[−0.07, 0.08]	—
Years in the US	−.08*	[−0.15, −0.01]	—
SES	.11**	[0.04, 0.18]	—
Perceived CD	−.04	[−0.10, 0.02]	.02
Gender	−.17**	[−0.29, −0.05]	—
Age at Immigration	.04	[−0.03, 0.10]	—
Years in the US	−.03	[−0.10, 0.04]	—
SES	.09**	[0.03, 0.15]	—

Note. Gender was recoded into a binary variable (1 = woman, 0 = non-woman). All variables are standardized. Objective CD = Objective Cultural Distance; Perceived CD = Perceived Cultural Distance.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 5.

Regression Results Predicting Acculturation Orientation from Objective and Perceived Cultural Distance.

	Heritage culture orientation			Host culture orientation
Variables	β	95% CI	Adj. R²	β	95% CI	Adj. R²
Objective CD	.10**	[0.03, 0.17]	.05	.08*	[0.01, .15]	.02
Gender	.19**	[0.06, 0.33]	—	−.13	[−0.27, 0.01]	—
Age at Immigration	.14***	[0.06, 0.22]	—	−.11**	[−0.19, −0.04]	—
Years in the US	−.05	[−0.13, 0.02]	—	.05	[−0.02, 0.13]	—
SES	.10**	[0.03, 0.17]	—	.02	[−0.05, 0.09]	—
Perceived CD	.11***	[0.05, 0.17]	.05	.05	[−0.01, 0.11]	.03
Gender	.18**	[0.06, 0.30]	—	−.08	[−0.20, 0.05]	—
Age at Immigration	.11**	[0.04, 0.17]	—	−.10**	[−0.16, −0.03]	—
Years in the US	.02	[−0.04, 0.09]	—	.11**	[0.04, 0.17]	—
SES	.12***	[0.06, 0.18]	—	.05	[−0.01, 0.12]	—

Note. Gender was recoded into a binary variable (1 = woman, 0 = non-woman). All variables are standardized. Objective CD = Objective Cultural Distance; Perceived CD = Perceived Cultural Distance.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Culture Shock

Our regression analyses revealed that both objective (β = .15, p < .001) and perceived cultural distance (β = .14, p < .001) were weakly associated with higher levels of reported culture shock. These results indicate that greater cultural dissimilarity, whether measured objectively or experienced subjectively, contributes to more difficulty adjusting to the host culture.

Psychological Adaptation, Homesickness, and Loneliness

Objective cultural distance was not significantly related to psychological adaptation (β = .02, p = .48), homesickness (β = .03, p = .32), and loneliness (β = −.03, p = .39). However, several demographic variables emerged as significant predictors across models. For example, greater SES (β = .12, p < .001) and more years spent in the host country (β = .14, p < .001) were weakly associated with better psychological adaptation, while being female predicted more homesickness (β = .18, p = .007) and loneliness (β = .15, p = .03).

Perceived cultural distance, in contrast, was significantly and weakly associated with poorer psychological adaptation (β = −.08, p = .02) and higher homesickness (β = .08, p = .01). However, it was not significantly related to loneliness (β = .05, p = .11). These findings highlight the psychological burden of perceived cultural dissimilarity, even when objective cultural differences may not show the same pattern.

Cultural Distance and Mental Health

Neither objective nor perceived cultural distance was significantly related to depressive symptoms (βs = .01 and .02, respectively) or anxiety (βs = .03 and .004, respectively). However, demographic variables were consistently predictive. For instance, in the objective cultural distance model, lower SES and having immigrated at an earlier age were associated with poorer mental health outcomes. Specifically, lower SES and earlier age at immigration predicted both more depressive symptoms (βs = −.31 and −.11, respectively) and anxiety (βs = −.22 and −.11, respectively) tendencies, whereas female gender was moderately linked to higher anxiety (β = .21, p = .002). A similar pattern emerged in the perceived cultural distance model, with lower SES, earlier age at immigration, female gender, and fewer years in the U.S. all predicting poorer mental health outcomes.

Cultural Distance and Physical Health

Objective cultural distance was negatively and weakly associated with self-reported physical health (β = −.16, p < .001), suggesting that individuals from more culturally distant countries reported worse physical health. Perceived cultural distance, however, was not significantly related to physical health (β = −.04, p = .22).

Gender, SES, and years spent in the host country also emerged as significant predictors: women (β = −.17, p = .01) and participants with lower SES (β = .11, p = .002) or longer duration in the host country (β = −.08, p = .04) tended to report worse physical health.

Cultural Distance and Acculturation Orientation

Heritage Culture Orientation

Greater objective cultural distance was significantly and weakly associated with stronger orientation toward one’s heritage culture (β = .10, p = .006), suggesting that immigrants from more culturally distant societies tended to retain stronger ties to their original culture. Perceived cultural distance showed a similar pattern (β = .11, p < .001).

In both models, gender (coded higher for women; βs = .19 and .18), earlier age of migration (βs = .14 and .11), and higher SES (βs = .10 and .12) were significant positive predictors of heritage orientation.

Host Culture Orientation

Contrary to our hypothesis, objective cultural distance was positively but weakly related to orientation toward the host culture (β = .08, p = .03). In contrast, perceived cultural distance did not significantly predict host culture orientation (β = .05, p = .12). Age of migration negatively predicted host orientation in both models (βs = −.11 and −.10), while years spent in the host country positively predicted host orientation in the perceived cultural distance model only (β = .11, p = .002).

Discussion

The present study examined how both perceived and objective cultural distance, with the latter measured using the Cultural Fixation Index (CF_ST; Muthukrishna et al., 2020), relate to immigrants’ acculturation orientations and well-being. Our findings revealed several noteworthy patterns. Overall, our results generally found that greater cultural distance was associated with worse adjustment outcomes, although the specific role of cultural distance on different measures of adjustment-related well-being differed depending on whether it was objectively or subjectively conceptualized.

Our findings suggest that perceived cultural distance was a robust predictor of several psychological outcomes. Specifically, greater perceived distance was associated with stronger heritage culture orientation, higher culture shock, poorer psychological adaptation, and greater homesickness. However, it was not related to host culture orientation, physical health, depressive symptoms or anxiety. These results suggest that perceived cultural distance reflects individuals’ subjective experience of cultural dissimilarity in psychologically meaningful ways, as it was more consistently associated with acculturation-related psychological outcomes such as psychological adjustment and homesickness. This aligns with previous research (e.g., Demes & Geeraert, 2014; Suanet & Van de Vijver, 2008), showing that perceptions of cultural difference are important determinants of acculturative stress and psychological well-being. This pattern likely arises because perceived distance captures individuals’ felt discrepancies and internal responses to cultural differences. This raises the possibility that measures of perceived cultural distance may themselves reflect perceived difficulties in acculturation, thereby confounding the relation between these variables.

In contrast, objective cultural distance was more predictive of physical health outcomes, although it was less predictive of measures of psychological distress, with the exception of culture shock. It was also more strongly associated with acculturation tendencies, particularly identification with both heritage and host cultures. The positive association between objective cultural distance and host culture orientation was surprising, as we assumed that people who are from more distant cultures would be less likely to adopt preferences for the host culture. To the extent that this finding is reliable, it may suggest that individuals from more culturally distant societies engage more deliberately with the host culture, as a proactive adaptation strategy among migrants facing larger cultural gaps. But this is purely speculative, and it is possible that the unexpected effect is a false positive. An advantage of the objective cultural distance measure is that it is not confounded by participants’ subjective impressions, which may color both their assessments of cultural distance and their acculturative experiences. Hence, it may provide a more direct assessment of the relation between cultural distance and acculturation-related challenges such as physical health.

Beyond their differences, the results also revealed overlap between the two measures of cultural distance. Perceived and objective cultural distance were moderately correlated (r = .34), suggesting that individuals’ subjective experiences of cultural differences partly align with cultural distances derived from population-level data. Moreover, both cultural distances were linked to increased experiences of culture shock and heritage culture orientation. The convergence of the results suggests that, despite their conceptual differences, the subjective and objective measures of cultural distance capture some shared aspects of migrants’ acculturation experiences.

Beyond cultural distance, several demographic variables were also consistently related to adjustment-related outcomes. For instance, higher socioeconomic status was associated with better adjustment overall, including better psychological adaptation and physical health, and lower loneliness, depressive symptoms, and anxiety. There were also clear gender differences, with women reporting poorer adjustment overall. More specifically, women reported poorer psychological adaptation, more homesickness and loneliness, higher depressive symptoms and anxiety, and poorer physical health. Age at immigration and time spent in the host country were also systematically related to adjustment outcomes. Consistent with prior research suggesting that people who immigrate earlier tend to acculturate more readily to the host culture, possibly because of greater developmental plasticity at younger ages (Cheung et al., 2010), our results showed that immigrating at an older age was associated with poorer psychological adaptation, greater culture shock and homesickness, stronger heritage culture orientation, and lower orientation toward the host culture, although it was also linked to fewer depressive symptoms and lower anxiety. Similarly, having spent more years in the United States was associated with better psychological adaptation, less culture shock, depression, anxiety, homesickness, and loneliness, as well as greater orientation toward the host culture. Together, these patterns highlight that demographic and life-course factors also play an important role in shaping immigrants’ acculturation experiences and well-being alongside cultural distance.

Overall, these findings support and add nuance to the common finding that greater cultural distance is associated with poorer adjustment. However, they also illustrate the importance of distinguishing between perceived and objective cultural distance. Importantly, we do not posit that one measure is inherently better than the other. Perceived distance may better capture the emotional and psychological aspects of acculturation, perhaps because the perception of cultural distance itself is shaped by people’s acculturation experiences, while objective distance is more predictive of physical health-related outcomes. These findings are also consistent with critiques of traditional acculturation research suggesting that cultural distance alone may not be a strong determinant of immigrant well-being, and that subjective experiences and contextual factors often play a more important role in shaping adjustment-related outcomes (Chirkov, 2009). It is also worth noting that the observed associations were generally small in magnitude (e.g., β < .20), which we therefore interpret as weak relationships. At the same time, small effects are relatively common in psychological research and may still be informative when studying complex processes such as acculturation (Funder & Ozer, 2019; Götz et al., 2022). Together, these two forms of cultural distance offer complementary but distinct insights into immigrants’ acculturation experience and examining both may provide a more comprehensive understanding of how immigrants adapt to a new cultural context. Future research could further explore how objective cultural distance relates to immigrants’ acculturation experiences alongside subjective perceptions and contextual factors such as socioeconomic status, migration circumstances, and time spent in the host country.

Measuring objective cultural distance using the CF_ST, adds a novel, empirically grounded perspective that covers a broader swath of cultural values than calculating distance with other cultural dimensions (e.g., Hofstede’s cultural dimensions). Rather than comparing countries on a small set of predefined dimensions, the CF_ST quantifies how different two cultures are by comparing the distribution of a large set of culturally relevant beliefs, values, and behaviors. The CF_ST can account for cultural variance both within and across populations, rather than focusing on mean differences, and thus allows for more accurate cross-cultural comparisons and strengthens theoretical models of cultural adaptation. Additionally, although this application was not examined in the present study, the CF_ST can also serve as an objective method to calculate the cultural distance between any societies, regions, or groups and is not limited cross-national comparisons. This flexibility can also help researchers in examining cultural variation more systematically across diverse populations, which makes CF_ST a promising tool for studying contexts beyond WEIRD populations by providing a standardized way to quantify cultural distance.

Practically, these findings highlight the importance of addressing both perceived and objective cultural distance in immigrant support services and integration policies. To improve outcomes such as psychological adjustment and homesickness, interventions may focus on reducing perceived cultural distance through strategies like fostering cross-cultural understanding and social support networks. At the same time, objective cultural gaps in values, norms, and behaviors may prove to be better addressed through immigrant orientation programs and culturally tailored health resources.

Limitations

Our conclusions are constrained by a number of limitations in our study. First, while the CF_ST offers a robust method for estimating objective cultural distance, the current index focuses on national-level cultural differences. We would expect that the measure would be even more sensitive at capturing cultural distance if it was applied across more granular cultural differences, such as the regional level. Future research would benefit from further exploring the use of CF_ST in acculturation research by examining within-country cultural variation to improve precision.

Second, as our study indicated, there are inherent trade-offs with each approach to measuring cultural distance. Perceived cultural distance captures personal experience but may be influenced by current emotional states or adaptation challenges, whereas objective cultural distance is less vulnerable to individual bias but does not account for individual variation within groups (e.g., treating everyone from a given country as the same although some individuals from the same country may fit better than others). These limitations, however, highlight the complementary nature of perceived and objective cultural distance measures.

Additionally, the sample may not fully represent the broader immigrant population in the United States. For example, recent estimates from Pew Research Center (2025) suggest that approximately 22% of immigrants in the United States were born in Mexico, whereas only 4% of the participants in the present sample were born in Mexico. These discrepancies suggest that the findings should be interpreted with caution when generalizing to the broader immigrant population, particularly groups that may be underrepresented on online research platforms.

Another limitation is that immigrants may move to the United States for a variety of reasons and under different circumstances, which can shape their acculturation experiences and adjustment outcomes. In addition, acculturation experiences may vary depending on the region of the United States that immigrants have settled into due to regional differences in demographic, cultural, and political contexts. We also acknowledge that acculturation is a multidirectional and dynamic process in which not only immigrants but also members of the host society interact in their experience of cultural change and adaptation (van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2022). Measures of objective cultural distance, including the CF_ST used in the present study, inevitably simplify complex and dynamic cultural processes, while culture is continuously negotiated across social contexts and cannot be fully captured by any single quantitative index. Objective cultural distance measures should therefore be interpreted as approximations of broad cultural differences.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jcc-10.1177_00220221261455895 – Supplemental material for Perceived versus Objective Cultural Distance: Differential Effects on Acculturation Experiences

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jcc-10.1177_00220221261455895 for Perceived versus Objective Cultural Distance: Differential Effects on Acculturation Experiences by Yangyilin Guo, Frankie Y. Zhong and Steven J. Heine in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Yangyilin Guo

Steven J. Heine

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to Heine: 435-2019-0480.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Akhimien

O. G.

Adekunle

S. A.

(2021). Cultural distance and expatriates’ psychological adjustment: The moderating role of perceived social supports. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31(5), 1841–1866. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-06-2021-2817

Archer

Ireland

Amos

Broad

Currid

(1998). Derivation of a homesickness scale. British Journal of Psychology, 89(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1998.tb02681.x

Arends-Tóth

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2007). Acculturation attitudes: A comparison of measurement methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(7), 1462–1488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00222.x

Babiker

I. E.

Cox

J. L.

Miller

P. M. C.

(1980). “A Generation of Homosexuals” — an Unusual Case of Anorexia Nervosa. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 26(3), 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/002076408002600301

Baeza-Rivera

M. J.

Salazar-Fernández

Manríquez-Robles

Salinas-Oñate

Smith-Castro

(2022). Acculturative stress, perceived social support, and mental health: The mediating effect of negative emotions associated with discrimination. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), 16522. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416522

Bashir

Khalid

(2022). Determinants of psychological adjustment of Pakistani international students. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2113214. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2022.2113214

Beheim

B. A.

Bell

A. V.

(2024). Why cultural distance can promote – or impede – group-beneficial outcomes. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 6, e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2024.8

Benkirane

Doucerain

M. M.

(2022). Considering intersectionality in acculturation: Bringing theory to practice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 91, 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2022.10.002

Bentzen

J. S.

Knudsen

A. S. B.

Sperling

L. L.

Norenzayan

(2024). Religion and global cultural diversity. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5609419/v1

10.

Berry

J. W.

(1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x

11.

Boesch

Kalan

A. K.

Mundry

Arandjelovic

Pika

Dieguez

Ayimisin

E. A.

Barciela

Coupland

Egbe

V. E.

Eno-Nku

Michael Fay

Fine

Adriana Hernandez-Aguilar

Hermans

Kadam

Kambi

Llana

Maretti

. . Kühl, H. S. (2020). Chimpanzee ethnography reveals unexpected cultural diversity. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(9), 910–916. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0890-1

12.

Cheung

B. Y.

Chudek

Heine

S. J.

(2010). Evidence for a sensitive period for acculturation: Younger immigrants report acculturating at a faster rate. Psychological Science, 22(2), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610394661

13.

Chirkov

(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), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.004

14.

Choy

Arunachalam

Gupta

Taylor

Lee

(2021). Systematic review: Acculturation strategies and their impact on the mental health of migrant populations. Public Health in Practice, 2, 100069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhip.2020.100069

15.

Church

A. T.

(1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 540–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.540

16.

Čuhlová

(2019). Intercultural Adaptation Process And Its Determinants. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 7(6), 215. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20190706.16

17.

De Maesschalck

Jouan-Rimbaud

Massart

D. L.

(2000). The Mahalanobis distance. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 50(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-7439(99)00047-7

18.

De Santis

Maltagliati

Salvini

(2015). A measure of the cultural distance between countries. Social Indicators Research, 126(3), 1065–1087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0932-7

19.

Demes

K. A.

Geeraert

(2014). Measures matter: Scales for adaptation, cultural distance, and acculturation orientation revisited. In Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (Vol. 45, Issue 1, pp. 91–109). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113487590

20.

Derogatis

L. R.

Spencer

P. M.

(1982). The Brief Symptom Inventory: Administration, scoring and procedures manual I. Clinical Biomedical Research. https://doi.org/10.1037/t00789-000

21.

Detollenaere

Baert

Willems

(2018). Association between cultural distance and migrant self-rated health. The European Journal of Health Economics, 19(2), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0881-y

22.

Funder

D. C.

Ozer

D. J.

(2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202

23.

Galchenko

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2007). The role of perceived cultural distance in the acculturation of exchange students in Russia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(2), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.004

24.

Geeraert

Demoulin

(2013). Acculturative stress or resilience? A longitudinal multilevel analysis of Sojourners’ stress and self-esteem. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(8), 1241–1262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113478656

25.

Götz

F. M.

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

(2022). Small effects: The indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620984483

26.

Hamamura

Laird

P. G.

(2014). The effect of perfectionism and acculturative stress on levels of depression experienced by East Asian international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 42(4), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2014.00055.x

27.

Handley

Mathew

(2020). Human large-scale cooperation as a product of competition between cultural groups. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 702. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14416-8

28.

Hemmasi

Downes

(2013). Cultural distance and expatriate adjustment revisited. Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research, 1(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/jgm-09-2012-0010

29.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed). Sage.

30.

Holsinger

K. E.

Weir

B. S.

(2009). Genetics in geographically structured populations: defining, estimating and interpreting FST. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10(9), 639–650. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2611

31.

Inglehart

Haerpfer

Moreno

Welzel

Kizilova

Diez-Medrano

Lagos

(Eds.). (2014). World Values Survey: All rounds – Country-pooled datafile 1981–2014. World Values Survey Association. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp

32.

International Organization for Migration. (2024). World Migration Report 2024. https://publications.iom.int/books/world-migration-report-2024-chapter-2

33.

Jackson

Ray

Bybell

(2013). International students in the U.S.: Social and psychological adjustment. Journal of International Students, 3(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v3i1.515

34.

Kay

N. R.

Shariff

Guo

Heine

S. J.

Schaller

(2025). Cultural churn: Global variation in the instability of national cultures. Manuscript submitted for publication.

35.

Kogut

Singh

(1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490394

36.

Wang

Xiao

(2014). East Asian international students and psychological well-being: A systematic review. Journal of International Students, 4(4), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v4i4.450

37.

McAuliffe

Oucho

L. A.

(Eds.). (2024). World migration report 2024. International Organization for Migration.

38.

Moslimani

Passel

J. S.

(2024, September 27). What the Data Says about Immigrants in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/27/key-findings-about-us-immigrants/

39.

Mumford

D. B.

(1998). The measurement of culture shock. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 33(4), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001270050037

40.

Muthukrishna

Bell

A. V.

Henrich

Curtin

C. M.

Gedranovich

McInerney

Thue

(2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) Psychology: Measuring and Mapping Scales of Cultural and Psychological Distance. Psychological Science, 31(6), 678–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620916782

41.

O'Grady

Lane

H. W.

(1996). The psychic distance paradox. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(2), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490137

42.

Ollier-Malaterre

Foucreault

(2018). GLOBE’s cultural dimensions: Implications for global work-family research. In Shockley

K. M.

Shen

Johnson

R. C.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the global work–family interface (pp. 69–85). Cambridge University Press.

43.

Pew Research Center. (2025, August 21). What the Data Says about Immigrants in the U.S. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/08/21/key-findings-about-us-immigrants/

44.

Pilkonis

P. A.

Choi

S. W.

Reise

S. P.

Stover

A. M.

Riley

W. T.

Cella D., & PROMIS Cooperative Group. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®): DepresSion, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18(3), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111411667

45.

PROMIS Health Organization. (2013). Level 2—Depression—adult (PROMIS emotional distress—Depression—Short form). American Psychiatric Association.

46.

R Core Team. (2025). In R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

47.

Ross

R. M.

Greenhill

S. J.

Atkinson

Q. D.

(2013). Population structure and cultural geography of a folktale in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1756), 20123065. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.3065

48.

Rudmin

(2009). Constructs, measurements and models of acculturation and acculturative stress. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.001

49.

Rudmin

F. W.

(2003). Critical History of the acculturation psychology of assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.3

50.

Ryder

A. G.

Alden

L. E.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2000). Is acculturation unidimentional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1037//0O22-3514.79.1.49

51.

Sam

D. L.

(2024). 50+ years of psychological acculturation research: Progress and challenges. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 103, Article 102076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2024.102076

52.

Sawir

Marginson

Deumert

Nyland

Ramia

(2007). Loneliness and international students: An Australian Study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), 148–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307299699

53.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6

54.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2014). National culture as value orientations: consequences of value differences and cultural distance. In Ginsburgh

V. A.

Throsby

(Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture (pp. 547–586). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-53776-8.00020-9

55.

Schwartz

S. J.

Salas-Wright

C. P.

Pérez-Gómez

Mejía-Trujillo

Brown

E. C.

Montero-Zamora

Meca

Scaramutti

Soares

M. H.

Vos

S. R.

Javakhishvili

Dickson-Gomez

(2018). Cultural stress and psychological symptoms in recent Venezuelan immigrants to the United States and Colombia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 67, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.09.001

56.

Searle

Ward

(1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14(4), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(90)90030-z

57.

Selmer

(2002). The Chinese connection? Adjustment of Western vs. overseas Chinese expatriate managers in China. Journal of Business Research, 55(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(00)00132-6

58.

Selmer

Chiu

R. K.

Shenkar

(2007). Cultural distance asymmetry in expatriate adjustment. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 14(2), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600710745750

59.

Shenkar

(2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490982

60.

Shi

Wang

(2011). Cultural distance between China and US across GLOBE model and Hofstede model. International Business and Management, 2(1), 11–17.

61.

Smith

K. M.

Larroucau

Mabulla

I. A.

Apicella

C. L.

(2018). Hunter-Gatherers maintain assortativity in cooperation despite high levels of residential change and mixing. Current Biology, 28(19), 3152-3157.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.07.064

62.

Suanet

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2008). Perceived cultural distance and acculturation among exchange students in Russia. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(3), 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.989

63.

Sullivan

Kashubeck-West

(2015). The interplay of international students’ acculturative stress, social support, and acculturation modes. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v5i1.438

64.

Taušová

Bender

Dimitrova

van de Vijver

(2019). The role of perceived cultural distance, personal growth initiative, language proficiencies, and tridimensional acculturation orientations for psychological adjustment among international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 69, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.11.004

65.

Tochkov

Levine

Sanaka

(2010). Variation in the prediction of cross-cultural adjustment by Asian-Indian students in the United States. College Student Journal, 44(3), 677. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A238474689/AONE?u=anon~3321ac05&sid=googleScholar&xid=e584acc0

66.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2024). International Migrant Stock 2024. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/content/international-migrant-stock

67.

van der Zee

van Oudenhoven

J. P.

(2022). Towards a dynamic approach to acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 88, 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2022.04.004

68.

van Osch

Y. M. J.

Breugelmans

S. M.

(2011). Perceived intergroup difference as an organizing principle of intercultural attitudes and acculturation attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(5), 801–821. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111407688

69.

Ward

Kennedy

(1993). Psychological and Socio-cultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions: A comparison of secondary students overseas and at home. International Journal of Psychology, 28(2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599308247181

70.

Wei

Liang

Y.-S.

Botello

C.-I.

(2015). Moderating effects of perceived language discrimination on mental health outcomes among Chinese international students. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 6(3), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/aap0000021

71.

White

C. J. M.

Muthukrishna

Norenzayan

(2021). Cultural similarity among coreligionists within and between countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(37), e2109650118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109650118

72.

Wongpakaran

Pinyopornpanish

Simcharoen

Suradom

Varnado

Kuntawong

(2020). Development and validation of a 6-item Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (RULS-6) using Rasch analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 25(2), 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12404

73.

Wright

(1949). The genetical structure of populations. Annals of Eugenics, 15(1), 323–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1809.1949.tb02451.x

74.

Yan

English

A. S.

Zheng

Bender

Zhou

(2024). Longitudinal examination of perceived cultural distance, psychological and sociocultural adaptation: A study of postgraduate student adaptation in Shanghai. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 103, Article 102084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2024.102084

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.04 MB

0.00 MB