LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL
YOUTH EXCHANGE
David Bachner
Scholar-in-Residence
School of International Service
American University
bachner@american.edu
Ulrich Zeutschel
Transfer Beratung & Training
ulrich.zeut schel@wtnet.de
ABSTRACT:
This paper session will report on a research study of the long-term effects of a high school home-
stay experience for German and American students who participated in the Youth For
Understanding (YFU) program in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. With emphasis on the German
sample, the 45-minute session will (1) briefly describe the study’s methodology; (2) provide an
overview of major findings; and (3) generate audience discussion on future programming and
further research in relation to the findings by posing the question: What Next?
Introduction
It is natural, and often automatic, for exchange educators to assume that the intercultural
experiences they facilitate result in any number of enduring and positive effects, including an
enhanced international perspective, greater knowledge of the world, increased personal maturity,
improved interpersonal and learning skills, higher foreign language proficiency, and a greater
reluctance to perpetuate inaccurate stereotypes and distortions of other cultures. In the interest of
the exchange field and its involved constituencies at all levels – K-12, high school, university,
scholar, and professional – a constant question for programmers and researchers alike should be
whether or not such expectations are justified.
Students of Four Decades (Bachner & Zeutschel, 2009) was a research study spanning 14 years that
addressed the question of justifiable expectations at the youth exchange level (i.e., ages 15 to 18). In
1988, with a grant from The German Marshall Fund of the United States to Youth For
Understanding (YFU) International Exchange, a bi-national (German and American) research team
set out to examine the ways in which both German and American high school exchange students
who participated in YFU homestay exchanges between 1951 and 1987 - i.e., across four decades -
claimed to have been affected by their experiences in the other country.
Figure 1
! Identifying response categories and
underlying dimensions
! Formulating central study questions and
hypotheses
! Constructing, field testing, and translating
study questionnaires for exchange
participants and peers
! Quantitative analyses of rating responses
(multivariate and descriptive statistics)
! Qualitative analysis of open-ended responses
(categorizing, coding, descriptive statistics)
! Narrative interviews with 40 YFU re-
turnees in Michigan and in Germany
! Discussion of exploratory findings
with Advisory Group
! Surveys of 208 U.S. YFU program
participants (1954-'87) and 83 peers
and 453 German YFU program par-
ticipants (1951-'87) and 303 peers
! Review of first draft of Preliminary
Final Report by Advisory Group
(December 1989)
Exploration
August - December, 1988
! Formulating conclusions and recommenda-
tions for exchange program design and
follow-up, and for evaluation research
! Final Report to German Marshall
Fund of the United States
! Presentations in int'l. YFU community
and at professional conferences
! Publication of various articles
Focussing on
! verbatim descriptions of the exchange
experience
! patterns of utilization and transfer of
experiences
! Workshops and narrative interviews
with 15 YFU returnees (survey partici-
pants) in Germany
! Publication of comprehensive results
Questionnaire Survey
January - July, 1989
Data Analysis
March, 1989 - May, 1990
Dissemination
since June, 1990
Follow-up Study
since April, 2002
FIGURE 1 Overview of the Study Sequence
The research incorporated two phases. (See Figure 1, Overview of the Study Sequence.) In the
original study, a large-scale effort conducted in 1988-90, Germans and Americans who participated
in YFU programs during the four decades were queried through a combination of in-depth
exploratory interviews and a comprehensive survey questionnaire that was constructed in both
German and English to be especially sensitive to generational and contextual differences among
respondents (Bachner, Zeutschel, & Shannon, 1993). The questionnaire incorporated items relevant
to 18 study hypotheses that were derived largely from the exploratory interviews. A total of 1187
returnees received the survey, with 661 responding. This represents a 56 percent response rate, an
excellent return for field research going back so many years. The study also included a control
group of 384 individuals, each nominated by a returnee, who had not participated in a high school-
level exchange but were of the same gender, similar age, and similar educational background as the
nominator. (See Figure 2, Summary of the Study Sample.)
Figure 2
United States
Germany
Decade
No. sampled
Participant
Responses
Peer
Responses
No. sampled
Participant
Responses
Peer
Responses
1950s
74
43
21
79
46
6
1960s
84
34
15
168
75
34
1970s
213
76
26
141
114
59
1980s
179
53
21
249
218
202
Totals
550
208
83
637
453
301
FIGURE 2 Summary of the Study Sample
The data from the survey were analyzed according to eight criteria which were developed by the
research team to assess the success of exchange. The criteria, which will be elaborated upon later in
this article, included:
(1) Overall Satisfaction/Success of Exchange, defined as one’s feelings about the experience
and the degree to which one assessed the exchange as fundamentally beneficial.
(2) Individual Changes Associated with Exchange, which refers to self-perceived alterations in
one’s attitudes, behaviors, and skills induced by the exchange experience.
(3) Ripple Effects and Utilization of Exchange Effects, the degree to which one actually has
applied the results of exchange and influenced others’ attitudes and behaviors based on the results
of exchange.
(4) Involvement in Exchange-Related Activities Since the Sojourn, meaning the degree to
which one participated in subsequent exchange programs or otherwise involved oneself in
international relations and exchange.
(5) Educational and Professional Directions Attributed to Exchange, which refers to the
influence of the exchange experience upon one’s academic and career choices and plans.
(6) Bilateral (Germany-USA) Perspective and Involvement Since the Exchange, which is the
degree to which one’s orientation since the exchange has been host-country specific.
(7) Globalism: Multilateral Perspective and Involvement Since the Exchange, defined as the
degree to which one’s orientation since the exchange has been other than or in addition to a host-
country specific emphasis.
(8) Evaluation of the YFU Program, which refers to participants’ assessments of program
content and administration.
The study’s second phase was the result of a recommendation in the final report on the original
study that follow-up interviews of early interviewees be conducted some years later to re-assess
their perspectives on the exchange experience from a longer-term vantage point. Accordingly, in
April 2002 the original research team convened several two-day workshops in northern Germany to
explore further the original findings with 15 German YFU returnees whose exchange experiences
were spread across the four decades.
Findings
The survey-based findings from the original study, which were largely reinforced, albeit anec-
dotally, in the follow-up study with German returnees, lend considerable weight to the notion that
the exchange experience contributes to positive and long-lasting attitudinal, behavioral, and cogni-
tive changes in the majority of individual participants. Generally, it was found that:
The host family experience is a singularly important and influential aspect of exchange.
The longer the exchange, the greater its impact.
An exchange experience enhances one's international perspective.
The effects of the experience support prospects for international peace and cooperation.
Former exchange students apply what they learn and influence others.
An overwhelming majority of respondents characterized exchange as both satisfying and successful.
Such effects were claimed by a large proportion of former exchange participants irrespective of
nationality, gender, decade of participation, or program auspices, although significant differences
do appear among those subgroups as well in a number of instances. In addition, the largely benefi-
cial impact of the exchange experience was reinforced when analyzed in relation to responses from
the peer-nominated comparison group.
The findings from the study are summarized below under ten headings, which are presented in a
chronology or sequence that roughly reflects an “exchange life cycle” – that is, from the time one
first had the inclination to participate through longer term career and other experiences.
Motives for Program Participation
For most respondents, the decision to exchange was primarily their own idea. Parents and teachers
were also influential.
The stronger one's motivation was for specific aspects of the exchange prior to the experience, the
more one attributed lasting effects in these areas afterwards.
For both Americans and Germans, the most important reasons for becoming an exchange student
were a desire for increased independence, a sense of adventure/desire to travel enhanced intercultu-
ral understanding, greater foreign language proficiency, the honor of being an exchangee, and an
increased sense of uniqueness.
Two specific motives for participation and subsequent ratings of corresponding effects were very
clearly related in both samples: Establishing ties with one's family/ethnic heritage and increases in
foreign language proficiency. In the U.S. sample alone, a third relationship was found with regard
to German language proficiency specifically. In the German sample alone, two additional positive
relationships were found with regard to increased interest in international affairs and gaining
another perspective on Germany by viewing it from afar.
U.S. and German students who participated in the exchange in order to avoid certain difficulties at
home (school and family problems; breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend) were less likely to
rate the exchange experience as successful/satisfactory. This so-called "escape orientation" was also
identified as the single most important negative predictor of program success, and thus should be
given special attention in participant selection and in on-program counseling.
Anticipated and Experienced Difficulties
Among both samples, there was a moderate-to-high tendency to experience more difficulty in those
areas that one was worried about prior to the exchange: Homesickness, loneliness, inadequate host
language ability, inability to make friends, cultural "blunders", and prejudices by host country
nationals. Also, in contrast to the Americans, those Germans who were worried about their own
feelings of prejudice towards Americans subsequently had more difficulty in this area while in the
U.S.
There was some tendency among Americans who evaluated the exchange experience positively
nevertheless to have experienced difficulty in Germany with homesickness, loneliness, and making
friends. Germans who viewed the experience positively tended to have experienced difficulties in
the U.S. with cultural misunderstandings, homesickness, loneliness, making friends, and their own
feelings of prejudice towards Americans.
Host Family Placement
The more positive one's relationship was with the host family, the more one attributed positive
impact to the exchange.
A number of specific findings point to the central importance of a close, positive relationship with
the host family. As determinants of a successful exchange experience, U.S. respondents identified
compatibility with basic interests, values/beliefs of host family members, as well as an interest on
the part of the host family in other cultures or international affairs generally and in the U.S. specifi-
cally.
Prior host family involvement with exchange (e.g., previous hosting, program participation by host
siblings) was not found to affect program satisfaction.
There was some tendency for Germans who had only one host family to view the exchange more
positively. Among Americans, there was no significant relationship between the number of host
families and their overall evaluation of exchange.
Perceptions of the Host Country
For both Germans and Americans, evaluation of the exchange experience is more closely linked to
liking or disliking the host country as a nation rather than to a regard or liking of individual mem-
bers of the host country.
Americans who agreed that their German peers had a greater interest in world affairs and other cul-
tures than their American peers, tended to view their overall exchange experience positively. Ger-
mans who found more opportunities to socialize and make friends in the U.S. than in Germany, and
who considered their U.S. peers to be more open-minded and tolerant of differences than their Ger-
man peers, tended to view their exchange experience positively.
When they were asked to name the most prevalent issues or topics of discussion in the host country
during their exchange period, no topics common to both national samples were mentioned with any
substantial frequency. For Americans, the most prevalent issues of the day in Germany were east-
west relations, life/ events/image of the home country, popular culture, and the economic situation.
For Germans, domestic policy, world politics, sports, and boy/girl issues were most prevalent in the
U.S.
Both prior to the exchange in the home country and then during the exchange in the host country, a
higher incidence of Germans than Americans who exchanged in certain historical eras perceived the
issues of the day similarly. The concept of "exchange generations" – i.e., a greater commonality of
perspective or shared perception of issues according to the period in which one was an exchange
student – seemed more applicable to Germans than Americans.
Overall Evaluation of the Exchange Experience
The large majority of participants in both national samples (approximately 90%) rated the exchange
experience positively.
Americans and Germans had in common the five categories of evaluation with the highest fre-
quency of responses. These included student-host family relations; broadening of viewpoint; con-
tacts and friendships; immersion, acceptance, and adaptation during the exchange; and personal
growth and maturation.
On the criterion called "Overall Satisfaction/Success", U.S. respondents scored significantly higher
than Germans.
As the U.S. sample was composed of participants in three programs of varying length (Academic
Year program, two-month Summer program, 4-week Chorale tour), it was possible to make com-
parisons with program duration as an independent variable. Significant differences between the
three groups were found with regard to the item cluster labeled "Overall Satisfaction/Success": Aca-
demic Year program participants scored significantly higher than both Summer and Chorale, while
Summer students scored higher than Chorale – in short, the longer the program's duration, the
higher the overall feeling of success/satisfaction. Academic Year students also scored higher than
the other two groups with regards to the criteria "Educational and Professional Directions Attributed
to Exchange" and "Bilateral Perspective/ Involvement" and higher than Chorale students on the cri-
terion "Utilization and Ripple Effects".
For Germans, the best indicator/predictor of satisfaction was the degree to which one felt the
exchange had a positive effect on one's level of self-development and maturity. For Americans, the
best predictor was the degree to which the exchange had a positive effect on one's desire to meet
and interact with people from other countries.
Readjustment to the Home Country
Upon returning home from the exchange, approximately 90% of both Germans and Americans
claimed that they wished to go back to the host country some day, that they felt thankful for the
experience and obligated to do something with what they had gained, and that their natural families
were interested in hearing about their exchange experience.
Both Germans and Americans who missed their primary host family and were "homesick" for the
host country tended to rate the exchange more positively. Germans also tended to rate exchange
more positively if they agreed that they preferred the U.S. over Germany and if they wished to
return to America some day. Americans who were also thankful for the experience and felt obli-
gated to do something positive with its results tended to rate the exchange more positively.
Follow-up Contacts with the Host Country
Three-quarters of the Germans and one-half of the Americans currently remain in contact with their
former primary host family.
Those who remained in contact with their main host family for more than three years tended to view
exchange more positively.
More German (94%) than U.S. (50%) participants tended to have contact with people in the host
country other than their host family, and also currently remain in contact with those others (60%
Germans vs. 21% Americans).
Although nearly all American participants (99%) indicated their desire to return to Germany some
day, only 53% actually had done so at the time of the survey; a relatively large number (26 = 13%)
had returned in connection with university studies. Among German participants, 83% wished to
return to the U.S. some day, and 68% had already done so at the time of the survey, the large
majority (58%) as tourists, while only 19 Germans (4%) had returned to study at U.S. universities.
German respondents scored significantly higher on a cluster of items called "Bilateral Perspec-
tive/Involvement" than on the contrasting cluster called "Globalism: Multilateral Perspective/
Involvement", while the reverse was true for Americans. This means that Germans remain more
exclusively interested and involved with their former host country than is the case for their U.S.
counterparts.
The last-mentioned difference was demonstrated particularly with regard to utilization of the host
country language: Nearly all (99%) Germans reported studying/using English and reading English
literature – as opposed to 71% Americans who studied/used the German language, and 55% who
read German publications. Similarly, more Germans (74%) reported to have assisted visitors from
their former host country with difficulties than did Americans (48%). On the other hand, sending
one's own children on exchanges to the former host country and to other countries was much more
common among U.S. respondents than among Germans (to the host country: 46% vs. 28%; to other
countries: 50% vs. 21%).
Involvement in YFU and Other International Exchange Organizations
Mostly due to the organizational structure of YFU in Germany, which heavily relies on volunteer
involvement of former program participants, nearly half of the German respondents claimed to have
been active as YFU volunteers, for an average of 3 years. Employment in international organiza-
tions, on the other hand, was much higher among U.S. respondents (17%) than among Germans
(4%).
About equal rates of U.S. and German alumni have been in contact with YFU, periodically or regu-
larly. YFU in the U.S. relies more heavily on newsletters, while YFU in Germany keeps in contact
primarily through notices of events and telephone calls. As to the reasons for contact, German
returnees were more than three times as likely to be called upon to host students or to volunteer than
returnees in the U.S. (69% vs. 21%), and a much higher percentage of German returnees (59% vs.
7%) were called upon to give presentations.
Generally speaking, German respondents reported a significantly higher degree of exchange-related
activities after their sojourn, which points to their more longitudinal view of the exchange experi-
ence going beyond the exchange year itself.
Perceived Effects of the Exchange Experience
Well over 90% of both Germans and Americans said that the exchange experience was valuable in
the sense that they acquired abilities or traits that were subsequently useful to them.
The large majority of respondents attributed significant and positive personal changes to the
exchange experience. This attribution applied overall, as well as by nationality, decade of exchange,
gender, duration of exchange, and type of scholarship support.
Approximately 85% of all respondents indicated that the exchange experience caused an attitudinal
change, as a result of which they began to individualize people, versus categorize or stereotype
them by nationality.
The large majority of respondents claimed effects from the exchange experience that would seem to
have positive implications for international peace and cooperation. This claim was constant when
broken down by nationality, gender, decade of exchange, program duration, and type of scholarship
support.
For Germans, decade of exchange/"generation" was a significant differentiating factor on the effects
criteria of "Individual Changes," "Educational or Professional Directions," "Multilateralism," and
"Program Evaluation". Americans varied by decade of exchange on "Educational or Professional
Directions," "Overall Satisfaction/ Success," and "Bilateralism".
More than half of both national samples claimed instances in which they influenced a person or sit-
uation because of what they themselves had learned during the exchange experience.
Educational Directions and Professional Careers
A majority of all respondents did not attribute current and future educational and occupational
directions to exchange. However, approximately 60% of those Germans and Americans who actu-
ally attended, were attending, or planned to attend university said that their choice of major was
influenced by their YFU exchange experience. Similarly, slightly more than 50% of those Germans
and Americans who actually attended, were attending, or planned to attend graduate/ professional
school said that their choice of specialization was influenced by their YFU exchange experience.
Statistically, U.S. respondents claimed significantly stronger educational and professional directions
as a result of exchange than did German respondents.
Those Germans and Americans who, prior to the exchange, expected that the experience would be
helpful when they eventually applied for a job, generally felt that the exchange was a positive influ-
ence in that regard.
Evaluating the Success of Exchange
As noted in the introduction, the research findings reported here are the results of a multi-year study
meant to address the question of justifiable expectations, in this instance, whether or not the long-
term effects of international educational exchange experiences for teen-agers are what the
organizers had in mind as outcomes. In other words, was the program successful?
To help answer this question, the research team conducted a cluster analysis of the study’s various
survey questions and derived the eight “Criteria for the Success of Exchange” introduced earlier.
Principal findings associated with each criterion, which were tested for internal consistency and
construct validity (Bachner, Zeutschel, & Shannon, 1993), are summarized here.
Criterion 1: Overall Satisfaction/Success of Exchange
This is defined as one’s feelings about the experience and the degree to which one assessed the
exchange as fundamentally beneficial. Key findings for this criterion were that:
Approximately 90 percent of both samples rated the exchange experience positively.
The best predictor of success/satisfaction for Americans was the extent to which the exchange
helped them to meet people from other countries.
Exchange’s effect on self-development and maturity was the best success predictor for Germans.
As one participant in the follow-up interviews put it in illustration of this criterion, “I was not an
independent person of my own. And I thought, this is the chance to get rid of this and to develop my
own personality. And I’m sure this is what this exchange experience did.”
Criterion 2: Individual Changes Associated with Exchange
This refers to self-perceived alterations in one’s attitudes, behaviors, and skills induced by the
exchange experience. Key findings showed:
Increased self-confidence, independence, and sense of personal responsibility.
Increased ability to differentiate in one’s perceptions of others, as well as between one’s own and
others’ perspectives.
As described by one interviewee, “Before, I was concentrated completely on myself and very
egotistic. Afterwards I was very caring for other people, whenever there was a person who had
trouble in any sense and I would get to know about it – I had developed some sort of help-
syndrome.”
Criterion 3: Ripple Effects and Utilization of Exchange Effects
This is defined as the degree to which one actually has applied the results of exchange and
influenced others’ attitudes and behaviors based on the results of exchange. An extensive discussion
of the findings associated with this particular criterion can be found in Bachner & Zeutschel (1994).
For present purposes, those findings essentially indicated that more than half of both the German
and American samples claimed instances in which they influenced a person or situation because of
what they themselves had learned during the exchange experience.
According to one respondent, “It is a kind of match-making approach: when there is a new team
member you think ‘Who could be of interest to that new person?’ and you try to get them together.
This is something I think is not very German, but it must have come from my year in America – to
get people into good company and see that they have a good start.”
Criterion 4: Involvement in Exchange-Related Activities Since the Sojourn
This is the degree to which one participated in subsequent exchange programs or otherwise
involved oneself in international relations and exchange. The main finding here was that Germans
reported a significantly higher degree of exchange- and internationally-related activities after their
sojourn than Americans.
“A group of us doctors got the idea to train Russian doctors,” said a German returnee. “It was very
important to America to give some ideas about democracy and whatever to young people in
Western Europe, especially to Germans, and what we are trying to do now is to do that on a more
elevated level.”
Criterion 5: Educational and Professional Directions Attributed to Exchange
This refers to the influence of the exchange experience upon one’s academic and career choices and
plans. Key findings associated with this criterion were that:
A majority of respondents did not directly attribute educational and occupational directions to
exchange.
However, 60 percent said their choice of university major and/or graduate school specialization was
at least influenced by the experience.
Many said it influenced their attitude or approach to their job.
As an example of the third item, one returnee reflected that “In my profession I use a lot of things
that I probably developed or that started to develop in the States, such as positive thinking, seeing
the good things in very nasty situations in order to make the best out of them.”
Criterion 6: Bilateral (Germany-USA) Perspective and Involvement Since the Exchange
This is defined as the degree to which one’s orientation since the exchange has been host-country
specific. The principal finding here was that Germans remained more interested in and involved
with their former host country than was the case for their U.S. counterparts.
One returnee described the bi-lateral perspective this way: “I got a very strong feeling of being
European, and the longer I stayed in the USA, the more European I got. And when I’m a longer
time in Germany, then I’m getting more German. … But on the whole I have a very, very strong
feeling even today about the USA.”
Criterion 7: Globalism: Multilateral Perspective and Involvement Since the Exchange
This is the degree to which one’s orientation since the exchange has been other than or in addition
to a host-country specific emphasis. Main findings were that:
Germans indicated a significantly lower degree of globalism than the American returnees.
However, the experience in the U.S. eventually led to the development of a more global
perspective.
The global perspective, as defined here, was captured by this returnee: “Exchange to me is much
more than my stay in the United States, as we have been hosting many exchange students. We
belong together no matter where we live. This personal connection is so strong that it is something
that is beyond any cultural or political or whatever differences.”
Criterion 8: Evaluation of the YFU Program
This refers to participants’ assessments of program content and administration. Key findings were
that:
The pre-departure orientation seminars in Germany were mentioned often and were generally seen
as the starting point for a conscious reflection and learning process that helped to set the frame of
reference for later impressions and experiences.
The selection process and counseling services during the exchange were positively contrasted to
other exchange organizations’ practices.
Regarding the first item, one German returnee recalled that “Before the orientation it was just a
combination of adventure, fun, and language, ‘I just want to get over there’. And suddenly you see
all areas of intercultural experience – what is culture, how to integrate into a culture, how to
interpret a culture… Well, tough stuff!”
Conclusions
International educational youth exchange is a clearly consequential and positive experience in the
estimation of the majority of study respondents. Particular findings, however, require interpretation
so that both their generalizable and unique characteristics are recognized. In Students of Four
Decades (Bachner & Zeutschel, 2009), the most comprehensive compilation of the research
findings, certain areas of findings are posited as conclusions of the research, and the implications of
each are discussed at length. It will be useful to summarize and provide some interpretation of eight
of those conclusions here.
Conclusion 1: Exchange is a multivariate and complex reality.
Exchange is frequently considered in monolithic, under-delineated terms. More accurately, it is a
complex matrix of activities and circumstances which requires differentiation among types of
programs (e.g., homestay), program goals, sponsorship (e.g., government), length of program,
nationality, gender, historical time period, and the like.
This study attempted such differentiation in order to interpret reported exchange effects in their
proper context. For example, one of the pivotal variables to emerge from this analysis, one which
must be considered a key element in differentiating the effects of exchange, is program duration –
i.e., the longer the sojourn, the better in terms of the depth and quality of impact. A second example
is nationality, which seems to be a consequential variable on several exchange effect dimensions,
including “Overall Satisfaction/Success”, “Individual Changes”, “Professional or Educational
Directions”, and “Exchange-Related Activities”. (The last dimension seems most readily
explainable, insofar as YFU in Germany encourages a longer range perspective on exchange and
offers more opportunities for alumni involvement than does YFU in the USA.) A third example is
decade of exchange, which constitutes an important variable as well. For Germans, decade of
exchange was a significant differentiating factor on four effects criteria (“Individual Changes”,
“Professional or Educational Directions”, “Multilateralism”, and “Program Evaluation“);
Americans varied by decade of exchange on one of those criteria (“Professional or Educational
Directions“) and on two others (“Overall Satisfaction/Success” and “Bilateralism“).
Conclusion 2: Contact and relationships between students and their host families are singularly
important aspects of exchange.
Studies on inter-group relations from social psychological, communications, and cross-cultural
perspectives have consistently maintained that contact which occurs between groups under
favorable conditions will enhance understanding and positive attitudes between those groups. In the
exchange literature, Amir’s (1969) argument that favorable contact should be defined, at least in
part, as intimate rather than casual contact has been reinforced in studies by a number of researchers
(see Van den Broucke, et al., 1989).
Findings from the current study corroborate the expectation that intensive, positive contact
with members of the host culture will result in positive views of the exchange experience and, by
inference, positive views of the host culture. The primary source of this contact, however, should be
specified as the main host family with whom the student lived during the exchange period. This
volunteer host family is perhaps the most essential, irreducible feature of the YFU exchange. A
number of the study findings illuminate its importance for the individual exchangee, and also imply
its importance as a vehicle for improving inter-group relations.
Conversely, intensive student-host family contact which is negative in nature holds the
potential of resulting in an exchange experience which is deleterious to inter-group relations.
Student-host family selection and matching, therefore, should be emphasized as priority responsi-
bilities for exchange programs.
Conclusion 3: Exchange typically results in personal changes that can be characterized as
significant, demonstrable, positive, and enduring.
The findings from this study were unequivocal in corroborating the contention that exchange is an
undertaking of favorable, useful, and long-lasting consequence in the estimation of most returnees.
A multitude of specific cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral effects were claimed by the large
majority of respondents. The practical applicability of exchange learnings, both in one’s own
activities and in influencing others in positive ways, was also claimed by the majority.
Such findings are both predictable and gratifying. At the same time, however, it is important to
note, as was discussed earlier in this section under Conclusion 1, that exchange effects should be
differentiated so that the experience of subgroups of participants can be more fully understood. This
is especially true for that minority of exchangees whose sojourn may have been problematic, and in
some cases harmful.
Conclusion 4: Educational and professional directions are not a significant result of exchange for
most participants.
This result is problematic, in that the literature on exchange as reviewed by Van den Broucke et al.
(1989) indicates that returnees may be more inclined than non-exchange participants to study
foreign languages, and that their greater interest in world affairs and other cultures may also be
influenced by their exchange experience. Van den Broucke and his colleagues also found evidence
as a result of their own research that exchange influences the subsequent professional careers of
returnees as well.
It should be noted, however, that among certain subgroups of American respondents in the present
study an actual majority (Congress-Bundestag alumni) or near-majority (1980s Participants and
Academic Year Participants) did attribute professional and career directions to exchange. This
would reinforce the discussion of the first conclusion, which is that exchange effects are variegated
depending on subgroups.
Conclusion 5: Involvement with exchange after the sojourn is not typical.
Many youth exchange organizations, YFU certainly among them, rely heavily upon involvement of
volunteers in the full range of programmatic activities, including screening, selection, orientation,
and logistical and counseling support of exchange students and families. Given the high proportion
of returnees who evaluated the exchange period positively (92%, inclusive of both national
samples) and who felt both thankful for the experience and somehow obligated to reciprocate (95%
all-inclusive), it would seem logical to assume that the majority of alumni would become involved
in exchange-related activities after their own sojourn.
This was not the case. Neither nationality, nor any other subgroup, was excepted. German
alumni, however, were significantly more involved in post-program exchange-related activities than
their American counterparts. Even though the German involvement still did not constitute the
majority of cases, its higher incidence probably reflects the operational philosophy of YFU in
Germany, which inculcates a longer range view of the exchange experience than holds true in
America.
Conclusion 6: An international perspective is a significant result of exchange.
Reductions in ethnocentrism and corresponding increases in internationalism, or worldmindedness,
have been posited as results of exchange by a number of researchers, and specifically at the high
school level by Detweiler (1984), Kagitcibasi (1978), and more recently by the AFS “Educational
Results Study” (Hansel, 2005).
The findings from this study corroborated their results, indicating that the entire range of subgroups
felt that the exchange experience had positively influenced their level of tolerance, respect for other
nations, sense of cultural relativism, attitude of universal brotherhood, desire for peace and
cooperation, desire to interact with foreigners, interest in international affairs, and level of social or
political involvement. Moreover, both nationalities’ alumni claimed an exchange-induced attitude
of internationalism, which was evidenced either bilaterally (i.e., focus on German-U.S. activities for
Germans) or multilaterally (i.e., focus on activities other than or in addition to those involving
Germany and the U.S.).
Conclusion 7: Problems which participants expected to experience occurred, but these did not have
a negative effect on the perceived success of exchange.
The notion of the “self-fulfilling prophecy”, which states that imagined possibilities will be brought
to realization chiefly as a result of having been expected or predicted, is lent some credence by the
findings of this study. For example, the pre-program anxieties of both Germans and Americans with
respect to language proficiency, cultural faux pas, loneliness, making friends, managing the
demands of schoolwork, and experiencing prejudice (either towards themselves or from themselves
towards host country nationals) largely came to pass: In other words, the potential problems they
worried about beforehand were the problems they actually experienced during the exchange.
A related, quite interesting finding was that those participants, both Germans and Americans, who
in retrospect tended to view the exchange more positively claimed to have actually experienced
most of the difficulties they had been most anxious about before the sojourn.
Conclusion 8: Specified variables can be used to predict satisfaction with the exchange experience.
A growing body of exchange and sojourn research has focused on the topic of overseas
effectiveness by attempting to identify those characteristics in individuals which will predict
success in another culture and (less frequently) by attempting to establish adequate criteria for
measuring such success. This study contributes to the prediction of success by focusing on
perception, expectation, and social relations. Using multiple regression analysis, a number of
variables (17 for the overall sample, 14 for the Germans, and five for the Americans) were found to
correlate significantly with respondents’ evaluations of their general satisfaction with the exchange
experience and, in their perception, its success.
Generally speaking, the single best predictor, or indicator, of satisfaction/success is the extent to
which one felt the exchange had a positive effect on one’s level of self-development and maturity.
Interestingly, however, when key variables were examined by national sample, the prediction of
satisfaction/success was totally different for German and U.S. participants: of 14 specific predictors
identified for Germans and five for Americans, none was common to the two nationalities. This
would seem to reinforce a key hypothesis/tenet of the study, which was discussed earlier under
conclusions 1 and 4: namely, that exchange effects can be extremely variegated, with nationality
being a fundamental source of variation on certain dimensions.
References
Amir, Y. (1969) The contact hypothesis in ethnic relations, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 71, pp.
319-342.
Bachner, D., Zeutschel, U., & Shannon, D. (1993) Methodological issues in researching the effects
of U.S.-German educational youth exchange: A case study. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 41-71.
Bachner, D. & Zeutschel, U. (1994) Utilizing the effects of youth exchange: A study of the
subsequent lives of German and American high school exchange participants. CIEE Occasional
Papers on International Exchange (No. 31). New York: Council on International Educational
Exchange.
Bachner, D. & Zeutschel, U. (2004) “Ripple effects” or “quiet waters”?, in: Zeutschel, U. (Ed)
Jugendaustausch – und dann …? Bensberg: Thomas-Morus-Akademie. pp. 97-114.
Bachner, D. & Zeutschel, U. (2009) Students of Four Decades: Participants’ reflections on the
meaning and impact of an international homestay experience. Münster: Waxmann.
Detweiler, R. (1984) Final report on cross-sectional study of 1977 to 1982 participants and
longitudinal study of 1983 participants. Washington, D.C.: Youth For Understanding.
Hansel, B. (2005) The Educational Results Study: The AFS internal descriptive report of the
complete findings. New York: AFS Intercultural Programs, Inc.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1978) Cross-national encounters: Turkish students in the United States, International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 140-159.
Van den Broucke et al. (1989) Traveling to learn: Effects of studying abroad on adolescents’
attitudes, personality, relationships, and career. Brussels: European Educational Exchanges – YFU.
Biography
David Bachner is Scholar-in-Residence at the School of International Service, American
University, Washington, DC, USA, where he also chairs the advisory council of the Intercultural
Management Institute.
Ulrich Zeutschel is senior consultant in human resources and organization development with osb
Hamburg GmbH, as well as a free-lance consultant with transfer beratung & training GbR.