not need to acquire the PSI schemas of the host culture because her native PSI schemas worked equally well inside the walls of Unity School. Had Ms. Gibbons been constantly made aware of the local PSI schemas (naming an animal after the Prophet Muhammad is unacceptable) she may have adapted and not allowed the children to name the teddy bear Muhammad. Naming a teddy bear was not a novel situation to her as a children's school teacher, but she was not in England. After the bear's naming she certainly encountered a novel situation where she experienced cognitive uncertainty and anxiety because of her lack of the PSI schemas in the situation. Hence the difficulties of cross-cultural adaptation for sojourners like Ms. Gibbons. They do not intend to stay and thus will not adapt/experience the stages of axioms which will best prepare them to appropriately fit in. Contrasting theory Cultural schema theory is often compared and contrasted with the cultural consensus theory. Both theories present distinct perspectives about the nature of individual and cultural knowledge. However, unlike the cultural schema theory, the cultural consensus theory helps to describe and mathematically measure the extent to which cultural beliefs are shared. The central idea is the use of the pattern of agreement or consensus among members of the same culture. Essentially, the more knowledge people have, the more consensus is observed among them. Unfortunately, the cultural consensus theory does not help others to better understand intracultural variability or how cultural knowledge is interrelated at a cognitive level. Cultural consensus theory anticipates intracultural variation but views variation as analogous to performance on a cultural test, with certain individuals functioning as better guides than others to the cultural information pool (Garro, 2000). Further use and development of the theory Simply put, cultural schema theory can be described as cultural-specific world knowledge (Razi, 2002). As mentioned above, the concept of cultural schemas is not new, but the theory is. Future studies must generate theorems and further tests must be conducted in order to better formulate theory itself and the axioms it proposes. Once this is complete the theory can be used in cross-cultural training purposes in order to facilitate individuals' adaptation to their respective host-culture environments (Nishida, 1999). There has been efforts to make this task done. For example, Ehsan Shahghasemi and D. Ray Heisey (2009) introduce the notion of "cross cultural schemata" as "abstract mental