Longer-term school-based study abroad experiences during secondary education have been shown to positively affect students’ personal development and educational outcomes (Hübner et al., 2021). However, beyond the length of stay, students’ psychological and sociocultural adjustment to the host culture is crucial for deriving benefits from such experiences (Behrnd & Porzelt, 2012; Bruggmann, 2009; DeLoach et al., 2021; Pedersen et al., 2011; Ward & Kennedy, 1993). Psychological adjustment refers to subjective well-being and emotional responses in a new cultural context, whereas sociocultural adjustment concerns the acquisition of skills and behaviors that facilitate effective interaction in the host society (Berry, 1997). Both dimensions are commonly subsumed under the concept of acculturation (Berry, 1980; Berry & Sam, 2016). Acculturation is shaped by characteristics of the host context, such as norms and expectations, as well as by individual and social resources students bring with them (Berry, 2006; Ward & Geeraert, 2016).

So far, it remains largely unexplored what role social background plays in the acculturation of adolescents during school-based study abroad experiences. This gap is highly relevant given current educational policies that aim to broaden access to school exchange programmes and include students from less socially privileged backgrounds. Whether such initiatives can reduce educational inequalities depends on students’ ability to cope with challenges and integrate into the host society. Empirical evidence is limited, as participation in school exchange programmes has traditionally been dominated by students from socioeconomically advantaged families (Gerhards & Hans, 2013; Hübner et al., 2021). Consequently, little is known about the potentially compensatory effects of study abroad experiences for less privileged adolescents. Initial findings from higher education suggest that social background plays a role in acculturation outcomes. International students from less privileged backgrounds report higher acculturative stress (Koo et al., 2021) and lower social connectedness in the host country (Chen et al., 2021).

Differences in acculturation by social background may be explained by unequal access to intercultural resources prior to departure. Adolescents from socioeconomically advantaged families tend to have higher foreign language competencies (Stanat et al., 2023), stronger intercultural interest (Weis et al., 2020), and more prior international mobility experiences (Weenink, 2014). These resources may facilitate early adjustment, whereas students from less privileged backgrounds may face greater initial challenges. Based on this, two hypotheses are proposed: exchange students from advantaged backgrounds are expected to report lower acculturative stress (psychological acculturation) and higher acculturative behavior (sociocultural acculturation) (H1), and these differences are assumed to be explained by disparities in intercultural resources (H2).

Acculturation is a dynamic process that unfolds over time (Ward et al., 2001). Classical models propose a U-shaped trajectory of psychological adjustment (Lysgaard, 1955; Oberg, 1960), though empirical support is mixed. Stress and coping approaches suggest an inverted U-shaped pattern, with lower well-being at the beginning and end of the stay and higher well-being in between (Ward et al., 1996, 1998). Sociocultural acculturation, in contrast, appears to follow a learning-curve trajectory rather than a U-shape (Kennedy, 1999; Schwartz et al., 2015; Ward & Kennedy, 1996). Longitudinal evidence for exchange students is still scarce. While some studies report stable average trajectories with substantial interindividual variation (Serrano-Sánchez et al., 2021), it remains unclear whether such differences are systematically related to students’ social background. Competing assumptions include a Matthew effect, implying increasing advantages for privileged students, and a compensation effect, suggesting stronger gains among less privileged students.

Given the limited and partly contradictory evidence, this study addresses the following open research questions: how psychological and sociocultural acculturation develop over the course of a school-based study abroad experience (Q1), and whether these trajectories differ according to students’ social background (Q2).

The study draws on data from an ongoing longitudinal project following three cohorts of secondary school exchange students with and without scholarships. The sample consists of N = 201 students (66% female) who attended school abroad for at least three months. Social background was measured prior to departure using parents’ highest educational attainment; 68% of participants had at least one parent with an academic degree. Psychological and sociocultural acculturation were assessed repeatedly during the early phase of the stay abroad. The first survey was conducted one to three days after arrival in the host country. Nine additional surveys were administered during the first two months after school started, beginning in the first week of school. Psychological acculturation, operationalised as well-being, was measured at all ten time points. Sociocultural acculturation, operationalised as acculturative behavior, was measured biweekly from the first week of school onward (five time points). Well-being (“How did you feel today?”) was assessed using the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Wichers et al., 2012) on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely). Positive affect was measured with three items (e.g., “cheerful”; Cronbach’s α = .78–.87) and negative affect with four items (e.g., “stressed”; Cronbach’s α = .64–.79). Sociocultural acculturation (“How often have you done the following in the last two weeks?”) was measured using the Host-Cultural Behavioral Engagement Scale (Serrano-Sánchez et al., 2021b), also on a five-point Likert scale (1 = very rarely to 5 = very often). Confirmatory factor analyses supported a two-factor structure distinguishing private and school-related acculturative behavior. The private dimension comprised two items (Cronbach’s α = .61–.78), and the school-related dimension comprised three items (Cronbach’s α = .77–.88). To address the hypotheses and research questions, linear growth curve models were estimated using the R package lavaan (Rosseel, 2012). To examine potential explanations for social background differences, English self-concept (M = 3.24, SD = .70), intercultural interest (M = 3.50, SD = .48), and prior independent international experience (53%)—all assessed before departure—were included as predictors. Missing data were handled using full-information maximum likelihood (FIML).

At the beginning of the stay abroad, exchange students reported, on average, high levels of positive affect, low levels of negative affect, and high levels of private and school-related acculturative behavior. Contrary to expectations, no differences were found between students from academic and non-academic family backgrounds at baseline (H1), rendering a test of H2 unwarranted. The developmental trajectories largely align with theoretical expectations of increasing adjustment during the early phase of the stay (first half of the inverted U-shaped curve as a learning curve). Across all students, positive affect increased while negative affect decreased over time. Private acculturative behavior also showed a positive growth trajectory, independent of social background. Although mean trajectories did not differ significantly between social groups, interindividual variation in growth parameters was partly explained by social background. Overall, however, no evidence emerged for systematic differences in the development of psychological or sociocultural acculturation between privileged and less privileged exchange students. Consequently, the findings provide no support for either a Matthew effect or a compensation effect. Instead, psychological and sociocultural acculturation followed similar developmental patterns across social backgrounds. Importantly, students from less privileged families were equally successful in adapting to their new cultural environment, thereby creating a crucial precondition for benefiting from their study abroad experience in the medium and long term.

Berry, J.W. (1997), Immigration, Acculturation, and Adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46, 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (2016). Theoretical perspectives. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Hrsg.), The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology (2. Aufl., S. 11–29). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316219218.003 Chen, A. S., Lin, G., & Yang, H. (2021). Staying connected: Effects of social connectedness, cultural intelligence, and socioeconomic status on overseas students’ life satisfaction. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 83, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.06.002 Gerhards, J. & Hans, S. (2013). Transnational human capital, education, and social inequality. Analyses of international student exchange. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 42(2), 99-117. Hübner, N., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2021). Should I stay or should I go? Predictors and effects of studying abroad during high school. Learning and Instruction, 71, 101398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101398 Koo, K., Baker, I., & Yoon, J. (2021). The First Year of Acculturation: A Longitudinal Study on Acculturative Stress and Adjustment Among First-Year International College Students. Journal of International Students, 11(2), 278–298. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v11i2.1726 Oberg, K. (1960). ‘Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments’. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177–182. Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., Córdova, D., Mason, C. A., Huang, S., Baezconde‐Garbanati, L., Lorenzo‐Blanco, E. I., Des Rosiers, S. E., Soto, D. W., Villamar, J. A., Pattarroyo, M., Lizzi, K. M., & Szapocznik, J. (2015). Developmental Trajectories of Acculturation: Links With Family Functioning and Mental Health in Recent‐Immigrant Hispanic Adolescents. Child Development, 86(3), 726–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12341 Serrano-Sánchez, J., Zimmermann, J., & Jonkmann, K. (2021). When in Rome… A longitudinal investigation on the predictors and development of student sojourners’ host cultural behavioral engagement. International Journal of Intercultural relations, 83, 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.04.005 Ward, C., & Geeraert, N. (2016). Advancing acculturation theory and research: The acculturation process in its ecological context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.021. Ward, C., Okura, Y., Kennedy, A. and Kojima, T. (1998). ‘The U-curve on trial: A longitudinal study of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during crosscultural transition’. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 277–291. Weenink, Don (2014). Pupils’ Plans to Study Abroad: Social Reproduction of Transnational Capital? In: Jürgen Gerhards, Silke Hans und Sören Carlson (Hg.): Globalisierung, Bildung und grenzüberschreitende Mobilität. Springer Fachmedien, S. 111–126. Weis, M., Reiss, K., Mang, J., Schiepe-Tiska, A., Diedrich, J., Roczen, N. & Jude, N. (2020). Global Competence in PISA 2018. Waxmann Verlag.