An exploratory study of inter-relationships of acculturative stressors among Chinese students from six European union (EU) countries

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 55 (2016) 8–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

An exploratory study of inter-relationships of acculturative stressors among Chinese students from six European union (EU) countries Chun Cao a,b,∗ , Prof., Dr. Chang Zhu a,∗∗ , Qian Meng a,b a b

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Belgium Changchun University of Science and Technology, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 11 May 2016 Received in revised form 11 August 2016 Accepted 21 August 2016 Keywords: Chinese international student European union Acculturative stressor

a b s t r a c t This study examined the inter-relationships of acculturative stressors experienced by Chinese international students. A sample of 463 Chinese students in six EU countries (UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Spain and Belgium) responded to a web-based survey. The results showed that Chinese students in France suffered from bigger constraints in linguistic issues and dealing with life tasks than Chinese students in UK. Structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis revealed that language constraints and perceived cultural differences play a key role in influencing other stressors. The findings indicated that language constraints and perceived cultural differences accounted for 62% of the total variance of academic integration difficulty; language constraints accounted for 17% of the variance of problems in dealing with daily tasks; perceived cultural differences accounted for 56% of the variance of social integration difficulty; academic integration and problems in dealing with daily tasks explained 14% of the variance of homesickness. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction According to Mathou and Yan (2012), the total number of Chinese students in the EU in 2010 was between 118,700 and 120,000-about six times more than in 2000. Countries reporting the highest numbers of Chinese students were the UK (40% of total), France (23%) and Germany (20%), followed by the Netherlands (4%), Italy, Ireland, Sweden (3%), respectively. This inflow was higher than inflows received by other large receiving countries such as US, Australia, Canada, Korea and New Zealand. On the one hand, the EU regards China as a strategic country in terms of cooperation in higher education. An increasing number of exchange programs has been initiated to encourage Chinese students to study in the EU. On the other hand, it is increasingly important for the EU higher education institutes to be aware of international students’ adaptation as to differentiate themselves from other institutes in terms of providing academic and social support to the students. A review of the literature showed that most research related to Chinese student sojourners were conducted in the USA, Australia and New Zealand (see for example, Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006; Li & Gasser, 2005; Zhang & Goodson, 2011). In contrast, Chinese students in Europe seems a largely neglected population. Moreover, recent studies tend to ignore the pos-

∗ Corresponding author at: Changchun University of Science and Technology, China. ∗ ∗ Corresponding author at: Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Belgium. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Cao), [email protected] (Prof.,Dr.C. Zhu), [email protected] (Q. Meng). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.08.003 0147-1767/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

C. Cao et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 55 (2016) 8–19

9

sible inter-relations between different acculturative stressors (Swami, Arteche, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2010). This study is an attempt to start redressing the balance. In this study, we will focus on the psychological and sociocultural stressors that Chinese students may encounter in the EU host countries and explore their inter-relationship to better understand their operationalizing mechanism. 2. Literature review 2.1. Acculturative stressors of international students Acculturation was defined as “the dual process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups and their individual members” (Berry, 2005). International students sojourning in a culture different from their own have to go through a process of acculturating to a new socio-cultural and educational environment. Sojourning remains a difficult process involving different factors that could be highly stressful. Based on a review of acculturation models (Berry, 1997; Safdar, Lay, & Struthers, 2003; Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001), we identified the main acculturative stressors that international students may encounter. Language constraints and communication related problems are widely recognized as major adjustment issues for international students (Andrade, 2006; Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992). Many international students from Asia and other developing countries suffer from a serious language problem in UK (Li & Kaye, 1998). Again, the supporting evidence in this respect can be found in a study by Spencer-Oatey and Xiong (2006), in which the authors found that the most frequently encountered problems of Chinese students in Britain were understanding jokes and humors in English. In a more recent study by Wang et al. (2012), Chinese international students were found to experience more difficulties in adaptation and social integration due to their lower English competence compared with their European counterparts. Studies have found that higher level of English competence could lead to better academic performance (Zhang & Brunton, 2007) and better psychological and sociocultural adjustment (Zhang & Goodson, 2011). In the EU, except a few countries, such as UK and Ireland, most countries are non-English speaking countries. Therefore, Chinese international students in these countries may experience extra language obstacles. Hofstede (1980) defined cultural distance as the extent to which norms and values in one country differ from the ones in another country. Hofstede (1997) identified four dimensions of cultures: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism vs. collectivism and masculinity vs. femininity. The dimensions of individualism-collectivism and power distance have often been researched to investigate the differences between East Asian cultures and western cultures. Countries in Western Europe are rated high in individualism and low in power distance, whereas China is rated high in both collectivism and power distance (Hofstede, 2001). Chinese students brought up in collectivistic cultural traditions often experience intense acculturative difficulties in cultures valuing individualism (Li & Kaye, 1998). Redmond (2000) stated that the greater the cultural distance between the home culture and the host culture, the more cultural difficulties the international students would experience. This view was supported by Yeh and Inose’s (1993) study of international students in a northern university in the U.S. and found that European students experienced less acculturative stress than their counterparts from Asia and Africa. In addition, Waxin (2004) investigated a sample of expatriated managers (from France, Germany, Korea, and Scandinavia) in India and found that Koreans experienced greater cross-cultural adjustment than their European counterparts. Culturally, most Chinese students are caught in a deep dilemma of need to change and while at the same time they are unable or unwilling to change (Yan & Berliner, 2011). Several studies have suggested that many international students adopt a learning style preference that is at odds with their domestic peers (e.g., Barron, 2006). Students from individualist cultures tend to behave more independently, are more oriented toward competition, and tend to engage more actively in debates (Ozer, 2015). In contrast, Chinese students from high collectivist and power distance cultures are usually taught to be compliant, remain quiet in class, obey the teachers and withhold expressing their thoughts or asking questions until invited to do so by their teachers (Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006). Watkins and Biggs (1996) found that Asian students (particularly Chinese) had difficulties adjusting to an educational environment characterized by independent learning and less instructor supervision. In a more recent study, Yan and Berliner (2009) interviewed a group of Chinese international students in the U.S. and revealed that their habitual silence or verbal passiveness in class emphasized in Chinese classroom culture for both authority and social harmony contributed to considerable stress. Although academic stress is not unique to international students but rather experienced by all university students, it is likely to be intensified for international students due to the added stressors of second language anxiety and adapting to a new educational environment (Smith & Khawaja, 2011). Social integration of international students describes that how well international students initiate interactions and maintain interpersonal relations in the host country (Galchenko & van de Vijver, 2007). International students tend to have three distinct social networks: friendships with people from the same country seem to be the most common (co-national network), followed by friendships with international students from other foreign countries (multi-national network) and friendships with members of the host country (host-national network, such as students, teachers and counselors) (Bochner, McLeod, & Lin, 1977; Furnham & Alibhai, 1985). Accumulating research has provided evidence that most international students have developed close-knit compatriot social network in the host country. For instance, in a survey of international students in UK, UKCOSA (2004) found social integration to be a key problematic issue because 59% of the respondents indicated most of friendships came from co-nationals and other international students, and only 7% had local UK students as their main friends.

10

C. Cao et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 55 (2016) 8–19

It is also the case with Chinese international students who often prefer staying within their own culturally homogenous circles, communicating and seeking help with co-nationals (Jiao, 2006). In Kim’s (2001) cross-cultural adaptation theory, the author posits that co-national contacts offer the short-term support but negatively impact the long-term adaptation process. Redmond and Bunyi (1993) examined the relation of perceived cultural distance and social integration of international students in an American university. The authors found that students from South America and Europe were better integrated than those from North Korean, Taiwanese, and Southeast Asian students, presumably because of the larger perceived cultural distance of the latter groups. Homesickness faced by international students have aroused researchers’ interest and a number of studies revealed that international students might experience more loneliness and homesickness than their domestic counterparts. Maundeni (2001) found that a majority of international students yearned to have more physical contact with family members back home, missed them, and felt homesick. Overseas students in Australian universities were in frequent struggle with stress from homesickness (Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000). Researchers have found that homesickness influenced individuals’ physical and mental health. For instance, students who are homesick reported to be low on self-esteem as compared with students who are not (Tognoli, 2003). Besides all these, international students have to face problems of dealing with daily tasks. Leaving the comfort zone in the home country, international students have to manage everything on their own. According to Tseng and Newton (2002), international students face the adjustment problems in their general daily life. It includes such aspects as food, house arrangement, health care systems. These may seem to be small details, but they can consume much of students’ time and energy if the students lack an adequate knowledge of social and cultural traditions. 2.2. Inter-relationships between acculturative stressors Previous studies have demonstrated that the international students’ acculturative stressors do not exist in isolation but relate to one another. For example, the language obstacle is often regarded as one of the most stressful sources of other cross-cultural adaptation problems (Zhou & Zhang, 2014). An insufficient host language skills may lead to various negative consequences, including interference with social integration, problems in academic communication and performance as well as dealing with everyday affairs (Akhtar & Kröner-Herwig, 2015). In Yan and Berliner’ s (2011) study, the surveyed students reported that infrequent chances to practice English, inadequate language training, and a lack of contextual knowledge, were the most significant factors that influenced other aspects in the adaptation process. A number of studies have suggested that international students’ overall ability in language affected their academic success and overall adaptation (Barratt & Huba, 1994; Lewthwaite, 1996). Chen (1996) attributed loneliness of international students to a heavy load of academic work and language constraints. In a subsequent study, the strongest interaction among different concerns and problems of international students was found between English competence and homesickness (Li & Kaye, 1998). Perceived cultural difference is another variable often researched on its influence on other acculturative stressors. An inadequate knowledge of socio-cultural rules or failure to follow the rules results in communication problems (Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004). Students holding a stronger sense of ethnic identity will be less likely to interact with host nationals (Li & Gasser, 2005). Cultural distance can also influence academic adaptation because it is a struggle for Chinese students to quickly find ways to adapt to the new norms of academic behavior (Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006). Furthermore, international students with academic difficulties may also have difficulties in contact with other international students and tutors because they are afraid to seek assistance for their academic and daily problems (Quintrell & Westwood, 1994). All these can lead to a feeling of frustration and homesickness in a different culture where their familiar cues are removed (Yan & Berliner, 2011). Under such circumstances, international students’ psychological issues can also be compounded by learning cultures (Yan & Berliner, 2011) and poor social integration (Hendrickson, Rosen, & Aune, 2011). Although the literature has established the relationship of a certain stressor with another, the evidence in this aspect remains rather fragmented and limited. Very few researchers have been concerned with comprehensively investigating the interactions of acculturative stressors. The study by Li and Kaye (1998) is one of the few which surveyed 155 international students sojourning at a UK university from Western Europe, Asian and other developing countries and established the associations among eight stressors. In a more recent study, Swami et al. (2010) made this attempt by surveying Malaysian and Chinese students sojourning in Britain. Swami et al. found that higher family income led to greater sociocultural adjustment, more contact with host and co-nationals, better language proficiency, lower perceived cultural differences and less perceived discrimination. 2.3. Research model and hypotheses Based on the above review of literature, it appears that there are certain causal relationships between different acculturative stressors. Understanding the operationalizing mechanism of the stressors can help university educators and management better cope with these issues. In this study, the research model (see Fig. 1) is composed of two exogenous variables (i.e., language constraints and perceived cultural difference) and four endogenous variables (i.e., academic integration, social integration, dealing with daily tasks and homesickness). More specifically, language constraints and perceived cultural difference are likely to have an impact on acculturating to academic integration and dealing with daily life; language constraints, perceived cultural difference and academic integration difficulty may influence difficulties with social

C. Cao et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 55 (2016) 8–19

AI 1

AI 2

AI 3

11

AI 4

Academic integration difficulty

LC 1

LC 2

LC 3

H2 c a

SI 1 H1 b

H1

Social integration difficulty

H2a

Language constraints SI 2 H 2b

PCD 1 H3a

PDLT 1

PCD 2 Perceived cultural difference H3b

Problems in daily life tasks

b

H4c

PDLT 2 PDLT 3

e H4

4d

H4

H

PCD 4

H 4a

PCD 3

Homesickness

HS 1

HS 2

Fig. 1. Research model and hypotheses.

integration difficulty; language constraints, perceived cultural difference, difficulties in academic and social integration and dealing with daily life may have an impact on homesickness. In the present study, we were interested in expanding on previous research by developing a comprehensive conceptual model exploring the inter-relationships between the acculturative stressors using structural equation modeling. As such, the following research questions and hypotheses are posed. RQ1: Are there any significant differences in the acculturative stressors experienced by Chinese students among the six EU countries in which they studied? RQ2: What are the inter-relationships among the acculturative stressors among Chinese students in the six EU countries? The following hypotheses are put forth and presented in Fig. 1. H1: Language constraints (H1a) and perceived cultural difference (H1b) have a positive influence on academic integration difficulty. H2: Language constraints (H2a), perceived cultural difference (H2b) and academic integration difficulty (H2c) have a positive influence on social integration difficulty. H3: Language constraints (H3a) and perceived cultural difference (H3b) have a positive influence on problems in dealing with daily life tasks. H4: Language constraints (H4a), perceived cultural difference (H4b), academic integration difficulty (H4c), social integration difficulty (H4d) and problems in daily life tasks (H4e) have a positive influence on homesickness. 3. Methods 3.1. Participants and procedure Four hundred and sixty-three Chinese international students in the EU countries participated in the web-based survey. The 463 participants were in six countries representing the EU: UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Spain and Belgium. The data collection started in February of 2015 and lasted three months till the end of April of 2015. The first author of this study employed two ways of reaching the potential participants. First, with the increasing number of Chinese students studying abroad, many Chinese students and scholars associations for a particular host country, city or institution have been founded to provide services for Chinese international students. The first author contacted the representatives of the associations to get the email addresses of the association members who are all Chinese international students after explaining the objective of this study. Second, the first author tried to find Chinese international students on “Facebook”, a popular online social network site used by most Chinese international students. Once a Chinese student in the targeting countries was identified,

12

C. Cao et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 55 (2016) 8–19

Table 1 Composition and background of variables of sample students. Total sample (N = 463)

UK sample (N = 48)

Germany sample France sample (N = 85) (N = 83)

Netherlands Belgium sample Spain sample sample (N = 79) (N = 135) (N = 33)

Gender Male Female

48.6% 51.4%

39.6% 60.4%

54.1% 45.9%

47% 53%

53.2% 46.8%

48.9% 51.1%

39.4% 60.6%

Age Under 20 20–29 30–39 40–49

1.3% 87.5% 10.8% 0.4%

6.3% 81.3% 8.3% 4.2%

1.2% 87.1% 11.8% none

none 90.4% 9.6% none

2.5% 89.9% 7.6% none

none 85.2% 14.8% none

none 93.9% 6.1% none

41.9% 48.2%

25% 70.8%

57.6% 27.1%

37.3% 62.7%

34.2% 46.8%

51.1% 37%

18.2% 81.8%

Characteristics/categories

Major Physics and engineering Social sciences and humanities Life sciences

9.9%

4.2%

15.3%

none

19%

11.9%

none

Degree Bachelor program Master program Doctor and above

19.9% 54.4% 25.7%

25% 68.8% 6.3%

20% 56.5% 23.5%

28.9% 62.7% 8.4%

15.2% 59.5% 25.3%

10.4% 41.5% 48.1%

39.4% 48.5% 12.1%

Length of residence 1–6 months 6–12 months 1–2 years Above 2 years

12.7% 30.9% 17.7% 38.7%

22.9% 50% 10.4% 16.7%

10.6% 4.7% 30.6% 54.1%

6% 26.5% 9.6% 57.8%

11.4% 44.3% 8.9% 35.4%

16.3% 39.3% 18.5% 25.9%

9.1% 15.2% 33.3% 42.4%

N = 463.

a friend request was sent to him or her on Facebook. After that, the author explained the objective of this study, and then invited them to participate. Therefore, the authors recruited participants through emails or Facebook (providing the invitation messages: the objective of the study, the link to survey and the requirements for participation: 1) from mainland China; 2) currently studying as an international student)-one initial invitation (sent in week 1) and one reminder (sent to non-responders in week 2) (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). The participants (n = 463) represented a 23.2% response rate among 1995 invitations sent. The sample cover different gender, age groups, academic status, fields of study and length of residence. The nature and composition of the total sample and country sample are presented in Table 1. 3.2. Instrument Based on an extensive literature review, we identified six acculturative stressors experienced by international students: language constraints, perceived cultural difference, academic integration difficulty, social integration difficulty, homesickness and problems in dealing with daily tasks. To measure these subscales, measures were developed by the authors except the subscale of homesickness which was adapted from Shin and Abel’s (1999). First, a list of initial items was established to represent each subscale of acculturative stressors. To ensure the content validity, two experts (one expert on higher education internationalization and the other on intercultural communication) were invited to review the scale and some items were deleted or revised for their ambiguity, weak relatedness or inappropriate wording based on their suggestions. Then a small-scale pilot test involving 62 Chinese international students was conducted to check their understanding of the instrument. Small adjustment of language and wording were made based on the feedback. For all the items, respondents used a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree or from 1 = extremely low to 5 = extremely high. Higher scores for each scale indicate a higher difficulty level in the respective aspect. For the whole instrument, Cronbach’s ␣ is 0.86. 3.2.1. Demographic information The survey contains items asking about gender, age, host country, academic status and fields of study. To assess the length of residence in the host country, participants were asked to ‘indicate the length of time you have been staying in the host country’. We decided to distinguish the sample’s host languages and asked the students to indicate English or non-English. 3.2.2. Language constraints This three-item scale assessed the degree of linguistic difficulty experienced by the participants in academic and social environment (an exemplary item: the difficulty level of communicating with professors or colleagues caused by my foreign language competence). Cronbach’s ␣ is 0.82 for this scale.

C. Cao et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 55 (2016) 8–19

13

Table 2 Correlations of acculturative stressors. Variable

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Social integration difficulty 2. Language constraints 3. Problems in daily life tasks 4. Homesickness 5. Academic integration difficulty 6. Perceived cultural difference

2.59 2.95 2.93 2.69 2.63 2.94

0.97 0.88 0.92 0.94 0.73 0.78

–

0.386** –

0.184** 0.312** –

0.130** 0.178** 0.216** –

0.463** 0.552** 0.288** 0.215** –

0.574** 0.444** 0.237** 0.213** 0.501** –

**

p < 0.01.

3.2.3. Perceived cultural difference This scale contained four items assessing the participants’ perceptions of their knowledge about the host culture and the difficulties caused by the cultural differences (an exemplary item: I have a lack of knowledge of cultural tradition of the host country). Cronbach’s ␣ is 0.73. 3.2.4. Academic integration difficulty Academic integration represented a specific aspect of acculturation pertained to international students’ adjustment to the host educational system and learning environment. This scale (4 items) tapped the difficulty level of adjusting to academic styles and environment (an exemplary item: I have difficulties in adjusting to the student-centered teaching method). Cronbach’s ␣ is 0.71. 3.2.5. Social integration difficulty Social integration was assessed with two items concerning the difficulty of building friendships with outgroup members (an exemplary item: It is hard for me build friendship with local people). Cronbach’s ␣ is 0.84. 3.2.6. Homesickness The two-item scale was adapted from Shin and Abel’s (1999) and assessed the extent to which the participants miss their family members living far away from them (an exemplary item: I miss my family while studying abroad). Cronbach’s ␣ is 0.69. 3.2.7. Problems in daily life tasks This three-item scale assessed the difficulty level of dealing with daily life trifles, such as house arrangement, health care (an exemplary item: Dealing with daily life tasks consumes a great deal of time and energy). Cronbach’s ␣ is 0.70. 3.3. Data analysis For the research question, one-way MANOVA and univariate follow-up analysis were performed to investigate whether there were significant differences in the acculturative stressors between among Chinese students in the six EU host countries. For hypotheses 1–4, this study employed the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach to analyze the research model. SEM is an analytical technique with many advantages in testing research models: 1) measurement errors can be controlled using a latent factor model; 2) SEM allows for a simultaneous examination of a system of hypothesized equations involving multiple endogenous variables along with the measurement errors to provide a better understanding of the variance accounted for by the exogenous variables; 3) it also provides multivariate goodness-of-fit indices for assessing the relationship between the variables (Kline, 2010). The AMOS 22.0 software was used for testing the SEM in this study. 4. Results 4.1. The descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables The descriptive statistics and correlations of all of the variables included in the research model were shown in Table 2. Pearson correlation revealed that significant positive associations for all acculturative stressor scales. Due to low correlations (below 0.60), multicollinearity could not be a problem (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). 4.2. Difference of acculturative stressors among Chinese students in the six EU countries In order to answer the research question 1, one-way MANOVA was used to examine if there were significant differences in the acculturative stressor. The results showed there were significant differences, F(6, 452) = 3.526, p < 0.001, ␩2 = 0.107. Posthoc tests revealed that Chinese students in France experienced significantly bigger language obstacles (M = 3.16, SD = 0.96) than those in UK (M = 2.60, SD = 0.74). In addition, Chinese students in France (M = 3.47, SD = 0.86) also suffered from significantly more problems in dealing with life tasks than those in UK (M = 2.63, SD = 0.80). No other differences were found.

14

C. Cao et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 55 (2016) 8–19

Table 3 Goodness-of-fit indices for structural model (N = 463). Model

2

df

Hypothesized structural model Added covariance between PCD 1 and PCD 2 Added covariance between AI 1 and AI 2 Added covariance between AI 2and AI 4 Added covariance between LC 1 and LC 3 (Final)

372.26 296.31 271.66 264.16 254.90

122 121 120 119 118

** ***

2 75.95*** 24.65*** 7.5** 9.26**

df

CFI

RMSEA

SRMR

1 1 1 1

0.914 0.940 0.948 0.950 0.953

0.067 0.056 0.052 0.051 0.050

0.052 0.049 0.050 0.048 0.047

p < 0.01. p < 0.001.

4.3. Measurement model Prior to the structural model analysis, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was recommended to examine if the measurement model provides an acceptable fit to the data (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). As suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999), three primary fit indices were used to test model fit: comparative fit index (CFI; best if greater than 0.95, acceptable if between 0.95 and 0.90), standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR; best if close to 0.08 or less), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; best if close to 0.06 or less). The measurement model was estimated using maximum-likelihood method and the results showed an acceptable model-data fit:2 /df = 3.0 (df = 120), reaching a desirable threshold level of less than 3 (Kline, 2010); CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.05. The composite model fit indices suggested that the proposed model acceptably explained the actual relationships among the six latent variables. Moreover, all of the factor loadings of the observed variables on the latent variables were statistically significant (p < 0.001, ranging from 0.41 to 0.92), showing that all of the latent variables seem to be adequately operationalized by their respective indicators (Brown, 2015). 4.4. Structural model Once an acceptable measurement model is developed, the structural model can be tested. In this study, the structural model is composed of two exogenous variables (i.e., language constraints and perceived cultural difference) and four endogenous variables (i.e., academic integration, social integration, dealing with daily tasks and homesickness). An initial test of the structural model provided relatively acceptable fit indices,2 (122) = 372.26, CFI = 0.914, RMSEA = 0.067, SRMR = 0.052 (see Table 3). Nonetheless, the modification indices showed that the model fit could be improved significantly if a covariance was added between PCD 1 and PCD 2, the two observed measures on the same latent variable. The Chi square difference test confirmed that chi square change was significant at the level of p < 0.001. The model fit was enhanced significantly:2 (121) = 296.31, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.056, SRMR = 0.049. Thereafter, adding covariance between AI 1 and AI 2, another covariance between AI 2 and AI 4 and the last one between LC 1 and LC 3, once at a time, produced our final model with good fit to the data:2 (118) = 254.9, CFI = 0.953, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.047 (see Table 3). These measurement error covariances show that there are correlations among error variances in the observed measures in the latent variable. In the model, the structural paths from language constraints to social integration and homesickness, from cultural differences to dealing with daily tasks and homesickness, from academic integration to social integration and from social integration to homesickness were not significant (␤s = −0.11, −0.20, 0.13, 0.10, 0.13 and −0.09, respectively). All other path coefficients were significant at p < 0.01 or p < 0.001 level. Therefore, we constrained these six paths to zero to check if they influenced significantly the model fit to the data. The results for this modified model (see Fig. 2) also showed a good fit to the data: 2 (124) = 266.7, CFI = 0.951, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.05. The Chi square difference test showed no significant difference in the fit for these two models, 2 = 11.81, df = 6, p > 0.05. This suggests that the six paths did not significantly contribute to the fit of the model. Hence the results supported H1 which posited that both language constraints and perceived cultural difference positively associated with academic integration difficulty; H2 received a partial support because perceived cultural difference (H2b) had a positive influence on social integration difficulty, whereas language constraints (H2a) and academic integration difficulty (H2c) did not; H3 received a partial support due to the finding that language constraints (H3a) had a positive influence on problems in daily life tasks, while perceived cultural difference (H3b) emerged as insignificant; H4 also received a partial support due to the finding that only academic difficulty (H4c) and problems in daily tasks (H4e) positively associated with homesickness, whereas language constraints (H4a), cultural difference (H4b) and social integration difficulty (H4d) did not. Table 4 presents the direct, indirect and total effects of the exogenous variables on the endogenous variables. Language constraints exhibited a stronger direct effect on academic integration difficulty than cultural differences (0.52 vs. 0.36). As a single predictor, perceived cultural difference had a strong direct effect on social integration difficulty (0.75). Accordingly, language constraints had a strong effect on problems in dealing with daily life tasks (0.42). Among all the predictor variables, academic integration difficulty exhibited the strongest total effect on homesickness (0.25). Moreover, it is important to note that 62% of the variance in academic integration difficulty was explained by language constraints and cultural difference; 56% of the variance in social integration difficulty was explained by cultural difference; 17% of the variance in problems of

C. Cao et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 55 (2016) 8–19

-.17***

.22*** AI 2

AI 1

.24

AI 4

.69

Academic integration difficulty (R2=.62)

***

LC 3

LC 2 .80

.36 **

.88

.5 2

.73

*

**

*

LC 1

AI 3

.54 .68

.57

15

.81

Social integration difficulty (R2=.56)

Language constraints

.89 ***

.75

SI 2

.59***

PCD 1 .41***

SI 1

.57 PCD 2

PCD 3

.54

.42 ***

Perceived cultural difference

.79

.59 Problems in daily life tasks (R2=.17)

.25**

.73

PCD 4

PDLT 1

.70 PDLT 2 .89

PDLT 3

**

.22

Homesickness (R2=.14) .90

.59 HS 1

HS 2

Fig. 2. results of SEM testing. N = 463.**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Table 4 The direct, indirect and total effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables. Direct effects AI LC PCD AI PDLT

0.52 0.36

SI

Indirect effects PDLT

HS

0.42 0.75

AI

SI

Total effects PDLT

HS

AI

0.22 0.09

0.52 0.36

0.25 0.22

SI 0.75

PDLT

HS

0.42

0.22 0.09 0.25 0.22

Note: LC, language constraints; PCD, perceived cultural differences; AI, academic integration difficulty; SI, social integration difficulty. PDLT, problems of daily life tasks; HS, homesickness.

dealing with daily life tasks was explained by language constraints; 14% of the variance in homesickness was explained by academic integration difficulty and problems of dealing with daily tasks. 5. Discussion This study illuminated the interrelationship of the acculturative stressors. The findings support our research model to a large extent, showing that language constraints and culture difference play a key role among all the acculturative stressors experienced by Chinese students in the EU. 5.1. Differences of acculturative stressors among Chinese students in the six EU countries The results showed that Chinese international students generally shared similar experiences of the acculturative stressors in the six European countries except in the domains of language constraints and dealing with life tasks. Chinese students in France experienced significantly bigger linguistic obstacles than those in UK. Actually, based on the mean scores of language constraints scale, Chinese students in all the non-English speaking European countries experienced harsher language obstacles (MFrance = 3.16, MGermany = 3.02, MBelgium = 3.02, MSpain = 2.81 and MNetherlands = 2.79) than those in UK (M = 2.60). It

16

C. Cao et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 55 (2016) 8–19

is just that the linguistic issue seems more salient in the France sample. This finding is in line with a previous study by Wang and Hannes (2014) in which the authors, using a qualitative method, found out that Asian international students in Belgium suffered from language barriers both from academic English (e.g. difficulties in understanding professional English and following lectures in English) and the host country’s native language (e.g. difficulties in understanding books, newspapers written in local language and in communicating with local people). English language learning are highly valued in Asian countries (Chen & Short, 2010). Considering foreign language learning in China, an overwhelming majority of university students learn English as their second language. In contrast, only a small number of students learn other foreign languages either as their majors or out of interest. Local languages which are new to most Chinese students, add more difficulties to their academic and social life, although the main language of instruction for their courses is English. Chinese students in France also experienced significantly more problems in daily life tasks than those in UK. According to Redmond (2000), the greater the cultural difference, the more one might expect problems in meeting social needs and communicating effectively. Therefore, although the present study found little evidence accounting for the significant difference, Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions may shed some light on it. Regarding individualism dimension, France and UK are close to each other rating high in individualism (scores are 89 and 71 for UK and France respectively), while China is very low (the score is 20). Hence Chinese students in UK and France may experience similar life stress caused by culture shock in this aspect. Regarding uncertainty avoidance and masculinity, however, China (30 for uncertainty avoidance and 66 for masculinity) and UK (35 for uncertainty avoidance and 66 for masculinity) are close to each other, while France differs greatly from them (86 for uncertainty avoidance and 43 for masculinity). Hence Chinese students may experience more life stress in France than in UK in the two dimensions. Finally, regarding power distance, China (80) is more similar to France (68) than to UK (35). Although Chinese students may experience bigger culture shock in this dimension in UK, the relatively equal and decentralized status between different social classes characterized by low power distance may facilitate Chinese students’ dealing with daily tasks. These cultural differences between the three countries may provide a possible explanation to Chinese students’ more problems in dealing with daily tasks in France than in UK. However, difficulties in life trifles can involve many other aspects in social life. Further studies, especially using qualitative method, are needed to capture the richness of Chinese international students’ more stressful experience in dealing with life tasks in France and explore the underlying reasons. 5.2. Interrelationships among acculturative stressors Using structural modeling equation techniques, the research model was tested, and the results indicated a good fit with the data. Overall, the present results suggested that language constraints and cultural differences perceived by Chinese students play a key role in influencing other acculturative stressors. More specifically, language constraints were found to be a significant antecedent to the academic integration difficulty and problems in dealing with daily tasks; cultural difference was found to predict academic and social integration difficulty. Students with a higher level of linguistic obstacles may feel more difficult in adapting academic settings in the western countries. This finding was consistent with the study by Lewthwaite (1996). It makes sense because insufficient language competence may refrain students from speaking up during class, initiating conversation with classmates and asking for assistance to professors or colleagues when needed. It is also important to note that although English is widely taught in China, previous research indicated that speaking is usually the least developed skill in Chinese students’ learning English as a second language (Burnaby & Sun, 1989; O’Neill & Gish, 2008). The results indicated that the greater cultural difference Chinese students perceived, the more difficult they could feel to adapt to the academic settings. Our findings are consistent with the prior research (Ozer, 2015) that found cultural values had a direct effect on classroom communication and integration. As discussed in the section of literature review, students from collectivism and high power distance cultures often behave differently as compared to students from individualism and low power distance cultures. Furthermore, most Chinese students are socialized with the belief of saving face which is an important aspect of Chinese culture (Kim, Atkinson, & Umemoto, 2001). An inappropriate behavior would result in a loss of face and bring shame to the individual. The Chinese notion of face may further discourage many Chinese international students from finding group partners, active participation in class collaboration, communication with professors and speaking up in class if they have an insufficient knowledge of local cultural customs and traditions or lack in confidence in spoken English. Based on the present results, however, efforts to improve Chinese students’ proficiency in both English and local languages and bridge the gap between the host culture and Chinese culture can be important in order to achieve this goal. To this end, language training program integrated with cultural aspects can be made available on campus for free or at a low cost to encourage all international students’ participation. Besides, Students could form or join social support groups or community clubs during the initial academic semester to intensify the interaction with outgroup members and gain cultural knowledge to cope with their new environment through the interaction. The results of this study indicated that Chinese international students who encountered difficulties in developing friendships with outgroup members tended to be the ones who perceived the cultural distance to be great. The strong positive association between the perceived cultural difference and social integration difficulty was also reported in previous studies (Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004; Mori, 2000) in which the authors found that Asian students had difficulty in getting along with local students due to different cultural and social norms. For instance, humbleness and modesty are stressed in Chinese social way of life. However, Chinese students often report to be looked down upon by local students due to their habitual

C. Cao et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 55 (2016) 8–19

17

humbleness and modesty (Yan & Berliner, 2011). Cultural differences like this are obstacles preventing Chinese students and outgroup members from understanding each other and developing friendships with each other. However, if we consider it the other way round, learning and following the host cultural customs and traditions can facilitate the process of integrating to the local society. According to the culture learning theory (Furnham & Bochner, 1986), the learning of culture-specific skills takes place as a response to social interactions in the new communicative situation. In this sense, a well-organized informative orientation program can be an effective strategy for the new Chinese international students to be aware of academic requirements and the main differences between the mainstream host culture and the Chinese culture. Language constraints was a strong predictor of problems in dealing with daily life tasks, indicating that Chinese students with insufficient foreign language competence may encounter more problems in fulfilling daily tasks. Many life tasks require direct face to face communication with local people. A lack of English or local language proficiency may cause misunderstandings. Moreover, things like signposts, webpage, newspaper in local languages tend to make Chinese students without a command of the local language feel confusing. As depicted in Fig. 2, academic integration difficulty influenced by language constraints and perceived cultural differences and problems of daily tasks influenced by language constraints in turn had a direct effect on homesickness. This suggests that Chinese students who found themselves hard to be integrated into western academic settings and/or encountered many problems in dealing with daily tasks may feel homesick and lonely. These frustrating experiences may cause students to feel helpless, reminding them of the comfort zone provided by family members and friends at home country. Additionally, language constraints and cultural difference had indirect effects on homesickness. Among the predictors, academic integration was found to be the strongest on homesickness. It is surprising that there was an absence of the effect from social integration on homesickness because this result was contrary to previous studies (Andrade, 2006; Hendrickson et al., 2011). The lack of association was probably due to the scale of social integration which mainly measures social integration with outgroup members. Although Chinese students reported to have social integration difficulty, they may have actually formed a close friendship network with co-nationals in the destination countries as many other studies indicated. According to Maundeni (2001), co-national friendships are beneficial for international students because they provide a feeling of home cultural identity and offer emotional support. Similar view was also reported in Kim’s (2001) study that co-national friendships may serve to attenuate the stress that students experience when crossing cultures. Therefore, for Chinese students in the EU countries, their co-national friendships, instead of interaction with outgroup members, may provide emotional support to relieve them from homesickness. 5.3. Limitations and conclusion There are several limitations that should be addressed concerning this study. First, participants were solicited from only six main target countries for Chinese students within the EU Member States. Thus, the generalizability of this sample to Chinese students in other geographical regions is limited. Second, the sample selection might have a bias in the study because a large majority of participants were “Facebook” users or members of Chinese international student associations. Thus, extended data collection is necessary in future studies. Third, this is the first test of the research model, which should be subjected to further testing with different participants and contexts. Fourth, in this study the scale of social integration difficulties measures integration with outgroup members (international students from other countries and local people). An additional scale of integration with co-nationals should be included in future studies to examine its relationship with homesickness and other acculturative stressors. Lastly, each scale in this study contains only a few items. Although the small number of items encouraged more students to complete the questionnaire and they are the important indicators of the latent variables based on the literature, they may not cover all the aspects. Future studies using more comprehensive indicators to measure these stressors need to be conducted to investigate the inter-relationships of the acculturative stressors. Despite these limitations, the present study contributes to the existing research on Chinese international students’ adjustment for the two research objectives achieved by this study. First, the results of this study can arouse the university management’s attention that many Chinese students in non-English speaking European countries suffer from harsher language obstacles than those in English speaking countries. Therefore, measures need to be taken to resolve these linguistic issues resulting from both English and the local language in order for them to be better acculturated. Second, this study has provided new insights into the comprehensive inter-relationships of the acculturative stressors. For instance, language constraints can affect students’ academic integration and result in more problems in dealing with life tasks, and these two issues, in turn, increase students’ feeling of homesickness. Perceived cultural difference can impact students’ academic integration and social integration with outgroup members. The identification of the inter-relationships of the acculturative stressors can provide further information on the nature of the problems and their underlying causes and help to facilitate the adaptation process, enhance students’ intercultural experiences, and generate better academic performance. As the number of Chinese international students is growing steadily each year, understanding their adjustment issues will become even more important. Findings from this study are potentially useful for educators, administrators working with international students and researchers interested in international academic mobility, sojourner relations and intercultural contact. References Akhtar, M., & Kröner-Herwig, B. (2015). Acculturative stress among international students in context of socio-demographic variables and coping styles. Current Psychology, 34(4), 803–815.

18

C. Cao et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 55 (2016) 8–19

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154. Barratt, M. F., & Huba, M. E. (1994). Factors related to international undergraduate student adjustment in an American community. College Student Journal, 28(4), 422–436. Barron, P. (2006). Stormy outlook? Domestic students’ impressions of international students at an Australian university. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 6(2), 5–22. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration: Acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–68. Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712. Bochner, S., McLeod, B. M., & Lin, A. (1977). Friendship patterns of overseas students: A functional model. International Journal of Psychology, 12(4), 277–294. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications. Burnaby, B., & Sun, Y. (1989). Chinese teachers’ views of western language teaching: Context informs paradigms. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 219–238. Chapdelaine, R. F., & Alexitch, L. R. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of culture shock for international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 167–184. Chen, Y., & Short, M. (2010). Oral English, culture, and strategies: Propellers and road-blockers in learning for Chinese international students. Cultures of Learning, 4. Chen, S. F. (1996). Learning multiculturalism from the experiences of international students: The experience of international students in a teacher training program. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the american educational research association [ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 398177]. Dillman, A. D., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Furnham, A., & Alibhai, N. (1985). The friendship networks of foreign students: A replication and extension of the functional model. International Journal of Psychology, 20(3–4), 709–722. Furnham, A., & Bochner, D. (1986). Culture shock: psychological reactions to unfamiliar environments. London: Methuen. Galchenko, I., & van de Vijver, F. J. (2007). The role of perceived cultural distance in the acculturation of exchange students in Russia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(2), 181–197. Hendrickson, B., Rosen, D., & Aune, R. K. (2011). An analysis of friendship networks, social connectedness, psychological stress, and satisfaction levels of international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 281–295. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Jiao, J. (2006). Exploring the reasons for student ethnic groupings: the case of Chinese students at the University of Windsor. ProQuest. Kim, B. S., Atkinson, D. R., & Umemoto, D. (2001). Asian cultural values and the counseling process current knowledge and directions for future research. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(4), 570–603. Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: an integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lewthwaite, M. (1996). A study of international students’ perspectives on cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 19(2), 167–185. Li, A., & Gasser, M. B. (2005). Predicting Asian international students’ sociocultural adjustment: A test of two mediation models. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(5), 561–576. Li, R. Y., & Kaye, M. (1998). Understanding overseas students’ concerns and problems. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 20(1), 41–50. Mallinckrodt, B., & Leong, F. T. L. (1992). International graduate students, stress, and social support. Journal of College Student Development, 33(1), 71–78. Mathou, C., & Yan, J. (2012). EU-China student and academic staff mobility: Present situation and future developments. International Journal of Chinese Education, 1(2), 282–300. Maundeni, T. (2001). The role of social networks in the adjustment of African students to British society: Students’ perceptions. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 4(3), 253–276. Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 137–144. O’Neill, S., & Gish, A. (2008). Teaching English as a second language. South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press. Ozer, S. (2015). Predictors of international students’ psychological and sociocultural adjustment to the context of reception while studying at Aarhus University, Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(6), 717–725. Quintrell, N., & Westwood, M. (1994). The influence of a peer-pairing program on international students’ first year experience and use of student services. Higher Education Research and Development, 13(1), 49–58. Redmond, M. V., & Bunyi, J. M. (1993). The relationship of intercultural communication competence with stress and the handling of stress as reported by international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 235–247. Redmond, M. V. (2000). Cultural distance as a mediating factor between stress and intercultural communication competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(1), 151–159. Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S., & Thomas, S. (2000). International students, learning environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), 89–102. Safdar, S., Lay, C., & Struthers, W. (2003). The process of acculturation and basic goals: Testing a multidimensional individual difference acculturation model with Iranian immigrants in Canada. Applied Psychology, 52, 555–579. Shin, H., & Abell, N. (1999). The homesickness and contentment scale: Developing a culturally sensitive measure of adjustment for Asians. Research on Social Work Practice, 9(1), 45–60. Smith, R. A., & Khawaja, N. G. (2011). A review of the acculturation experiences of international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(6), 699–713. Spencer-Oatey, H., & Xiong, Z. (2006). Chinese students’ psychological and sociocultural adjustments to Britain: An empirical study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 37–53. Swami, V., Arteche, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). Sociocultural adjustment among sojourning Malaysian students in Britain: A replication and path analytic extension. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 45(1), 57–65. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Tognoli, J. (2003). Leaving home: Homesickness, place attachment, and transition among residential college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 18, 35–48. Tseng, W. C., & Newton, F. B. (2002). International students’ strategies for well-being. College Student Journal, 36(4).

C. Cao et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 55 (2016) 8–19

19

UKCOSA. (2004). Broadening our horizons: international students in UK universities and colleges. Report of the UKCOSA survey.. Available at http://institutions.ukcisa.org.uk/Info-for-universities-colleges-schools/Publications-research/resources/90/Broadening-Our-Horizons-Survey-2004 Accessed 27.06.16 Wang, Q., & Hannes, K. (2014). Academic and socio-cultural adjustment among Asian international students in the Flemish community of Belgium: A photovoice project. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 39, 66–81. Wang, C. C. D., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2006). Acculturation, attachment, and psychosocial adjustment of Chinese/Taiwanese international students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(4), 422–433. Wang, K. T., Heppner, P. P., Fu, C. C., Zhao, R., Li, F., & Chuang, C. C. (2012). Profiles of acculturative adjustment patterns among Chinese international students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 424–436. Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Routledge. Watkins, D., & Biggs, J. (Eds.). (1996). The Chinese learner: cultural, psychological and contextual influences. In. Melbourne: CERC & ACER. Waxin, M. F. (2004). Expatriates’ interaction adjustment: The direct and moderator effects of culture of origin. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 61–79. Yan, K., & Berliner, D. C. (2009). Chinese international students’ academic stressors in the United States. College Student Journal, 43(4), 939–960. Yan, K., & Berliner, D. C. (2011). Chinese international students in the United States: Demographic trends, motivations, acculturation features and adjustment challenges. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(2), 173–184. Yeh, C. J., & Inose, M. (2003). International students’ reported English fluency, social support satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 16, 15–28. Zhang, Z., & Brunton, M. (2007). Differences in living and learning: Chinese international students in New Zealand. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 124–140. Zhang, J., & Goodson, P. (2011). Acculturation and psychosocial adjustment of Chinese international students: Examining mediation and moderation effects. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(5), 614–627. Zhou, G., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A study of the first year international students at a canadian university: Challenges and experiences with social integration. Comparative and International Education/Éducation Comparée Et Internationale, 43(2). Article 7.