Belonging on Campus

Abstract

With the rise of Asian international students choosing to pursue higher education in the United States, research that identifies ways to promote Asian international students’ sense of belonging on campus is needed. We used consensual qualitative research methodology to examine factors that contribute to university belonging in a sample of Asian international students (N = 11) from a large university in the Midwestern United States. Through data analysis, we identified 14 categories across five domains (i.e., Interpersonal Interactions, Experiences of Acculturation, Campus Environment, Emphasis on Academic Achievement, and Intrapersonal Factors) that contributed to university belonging. Our findings highlight the importance of within-group social connection, acculturative stress, and academic success on Asian international students’ sense of university belonging. We discuss differences between Asian international and domestic students’ sense of belonging as well as implications for counseling psychologists, including interventions at the individual and institutional levels.

Keywords

consensual qualitative research Asian international students belongingness acculturative stress

Colleges and universities across the United States have maintained a growing interest in understanding the experience of Asian international students (AIS) on campus as well as what influences their desire to persist until degree completion (Constantine, Okazaki, & Utsey, 2004; Malinckrodt & Leong, 1992; Zhang & Moradi, 2013). This interest parallels the significant increase in AIS enrollment over the past decade (Institute of International Education, 2014). Recent surveys have indicated that AIS make up the largest international subgroup population in U.S. higher education (Lin & Betz, 2009), with Chinese students alone composing approximately 31% of all international students (Institute of International Education, 2014). AIS face unique challenges as they attempt to undergo the acculturative process (Rice, Chou, Zhang, Morero, & Anderson, 2012), study in a secondary language (Lin & Betz, 2009), manage pressure from their family of origin to achieve academically (Fritz, Chin, & DeMarinis, 2008), and complete a degree while being thousands of miles away from their systems of support (Y. Wang, Lin, Pang, & Shen, 2007).

The field of counseling psychology has taken particular interest in understanding AIS’ experiences and has dedicated attention to researching their psychosocial needs over the past decade (Du & Wei, 2015; Iwamoto & Liu, 2010; Rice et al., 2012; Swagler & Elis, 2003; K. T. Wang, Wei, & Chen, 2015; Wei, Wang, Heppner, & Du, 2012; Yeh & Inose, 2003; Zhang & Moradi, 2013). In particular, counseling psychologists have explored AIS’ acculturative stress, social self-efficacy, college adjustment, and overall well-being (Lin & Betz, 2009; Rice et al., 2012; Smart & Smart, 1995; K. T. Wang et al., 2015). A growing body of research has also indicated that AIS experience a considerable amount of psychological distress as they negotiate this adjustment process (Koehne, 2006; J. Lee & Rice, 2007). Understanding how to assist the AIS population with their adjustment to U.S. universities and the psychological distress associated with such an adjustment continues to be an area of interest for the field of counseling psychology and the university system at large.

Although researchers have explored AIS’ college adjustment, the vast majority of the work has been related to the exploration of acculturation and enculturation. One plausible mechanism by which AIS may experience less distress and a better adjustment to U.S. universities is through a sense of belonging. Various scholars have reviewed different contributing factors and methodologies in their research and have found that there is a strong need to assist AIS in feeling connected to the university or college that they attend (K. T. Wang et al., 2015; Wei, Wang, Heppner, & Du, 2012). Previous research involving students at the K-12 level has suggested that students who experience a strong sense of belonging in academic settings also experience better adjustment to academic life, lower levels of depressive symptoms, lower attrition rates, and better social adjustment than students with a weak sense of school belonging (Baskin, Quintana, & Slaten, 2014; Haslam, Jetten, Postmes, & Haslam, 2009; Tao, Dong, Pratt, Hunsberger, & Pancer, 2000).

Rice et al. (2012) found that AIS who endorse symptoms of acculturative stress and self-critical perfectionism are more likely to experience symptoms of depression as well. Moreover, they concluded that programs focused on normalizing the experiences of AIS and assisting them in connecting to the university community early in their adjustment to campus are needed. Similarly, Lin and Betz (2009) recommended that, to alleviate acculturative stress, AIS should be provided encouraging, supportive, and comfortable interactions with English-speaking peers to facilitate a stronger connection the university.

Most recently, in light of previous findings, there have been several quantitative studies examining the concept of belonging (Wei et al., 2012) and its relationship to acculturative stress and other psychosocial outcomes (Du & Wei, 2015; K. T. Wang et al., 2015; Wei et al., 2012). Berry’s (1997) theory of acculturation states that individuals experience connection to their ethnic culture and the mainstream culture of the host country, rather than simply one or the other. The results of this line of work suggest that belonging plays a vital role in AIS’ experience of distress. Ethnic social connectedness has been found to act as a buffer in the face of racial discrimination (Wei et al., 2012) and mainstream social connectedness has been found to buffer subjective well-being (K. T. Wang et al., 2015). Although these studies have examined sense of belonging and the relevance of the construct for AIS, researchers have yet to examine sense of belonging in the academic environment specifically. Moreover, researchers examining social aspects of college adjustment for AIS have yet to utilize qualitative methodologies to examine AIS’ understanding and beliefs about what influences and/or deters from their sense of belonging on campus. The current study is an attempt to begin the process of seeking this pivotal information.

Academic Belonging

The idea of connecting to one’s academic institution has often been referred to as school belonging at the K-12 level (Goodenow, 1993) or university belonging (Slaten et al., 2014) at the university level. The term belonging originated from the work of Maslow (1970) and became popularized in the field of psychology by Baumeister and Leary (1995), who referred to the construct as the perception of consistent interaction and persistent caring from others. Since that time, the construct has been applied to university students by a few scholars (Hoffman, Richmond, Marrow, & Salomone, 2002; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Pittman & Richmond, 2008; Slaten et al., 2014), indicating the powerful impact belonging has on student outcomes, both psychologically and academically.

In their examination of university students’ sense of belonging, Pittman and Richmond (2008) concluded that student belonging was linked to students’ experiences of stress and focus on academic work. Furthermore, they theorized that the underlying factors contributing to university belongingness included a sense of commitment to the institution, individual commitment to work in this setting, and a sense of one’s abilities being recognized by others. Slaten et al. (2014) conducted a qualitative examination to explore the experiences of university belonging and the factors that contributed to it using a stratified random sample of undergraduate students at a large Midwestern university in the United States. Their results included four overarching themes pertinent to university belonging: Feeling Valued by Others in Group Settings, Sustaining Meaningful Personal Relationships, Being Aware of the Campus Culture, and Feeling Supported by the University Environment.

Although both of these studies suggest movement toward understanding the concept of university belonging, little research has explored how international students feel about belonging in a university community. R. M. Lee and Davis (2000) sought to understand the relationship among cultural orientation, multicultural experience, and a sense of belonging on a college campus for international students. The results of their study confirmed the value of securing a bicultural orientation in the college adjustment process. Regarding belonging, the results indicated that past multicultural experience had little impact on campus belonging. In addition, Glass and Westmont (2014) examined the effects of belonging on academic success and cross-cultural interactions among international students. The outcomes of their study suggest that belongingness increased both cross-cultural interaction and average grades earned.

The concept of university belonging is invariably unique for AIS, and understanding how these students conceptualize belonging and what they believe affects their sense of belonging at the university is imperative to assist with their college adjustment process. The current study was designed to inquire about the experiences of AIS’ belonging on campus and their overall understanding of the construct, including the factors that contribute or deter from it. Therefore, this study contributes to the growing body of work on international students’ experiences and the social aspects of their college experience. In addition, the current study provides an opportunity to understand the construct of belongingness with undergraduate AIS, whereas the vast majority of previous research has examined graduate students. The nuanced understanding gained from qualitative research, which is underutilized in the counseling psychology literature (Ponterotto, 2002), will allow us to understand the unique experiences of individuals and contribute in ways that may not be possible with larger quantitative inquiries.

Method

In this study, we used consensual qualitative research (CQR; Hill, 2012) to capture participants’ nuanced understanding and experiences related to university belonging. One of the characteristics of CQR is its use of a research team and emphasis on group consensus throughout data analysis. CQR also incorporates an independent auditor to provide additional cross-analysis of the coding procedures and enhance the trustworthiness of the findings. Data are analyzed through a systematic inductive process, with themes first being identified broadly across the data and then becoming more specific as the process moves forward. This process allows researchers to hierarchically organize the results and capture the nuances of participants’ experiences.

Participants

Consistent with Hill’s (2012) recommended sample range for CQR (i.e., eight-15), participants were 11 AIS (six female, five male) who came to the United States for their undergraduate education and who were currently enrolled full-time at a large public university in the Midwestern United States. In regard to country of origin, eight participants were from China, two from Malaysia, and one from Vietnam. Participants included five freshmen and sophomores and six juniors and seniors, with an average GPA of 3.39 (SD = 0.50). Of the participants, nine reported pursuing a major in science, technology, engineering, and math fields, one in business, and one in the social sciences. With regard to housing, eight participants reported living in a dormitory on campus and three lived off campus. Three participants reported being employed part-time on campus. All participants identified as heterosexual; four participants reported being in a committed romantic relationship.

Research Team

The research team was composed of four researchers: one non-Latino White counseling psychology graduate student, one non-Latino White and one Asian Korean counseling faculty member, and one non-Latino White educational psychology faculty member. The latter served as the auditor for the current project and did not participate in team meetings in order to provide an independent opinion during the audit process. All team members were experienced in CQR data collection and analysis and had worked on at least one previous CQR project.

Prior to developing the interview protocol, all team members elucidated their personal biases and expectations that might influence the data analysis process. All team members reported believing that the conceptualization and experience of university belonging of AIS would meaningfully differ from those of their domestic student peers. Members suggested that such differences might derive from participants’ awareness of being an ethnic minority on campus and their struggles making strong social connections with domestic students. Informed by literature on acculturation (Berry, 1997), all team members believed participants would likely report difficulties with English as a second language and challenges navigating new cultural customs and practices related to living in a college community in the Midwest. Collectively, these challenges were thought to negatively affect participants’ sense of belonging. Last, three of the researchers thought that AIS would define belonging by their degree of involvement with other students and their engagement in university-sponsored activities and academic pursuits. Researchers revisited the biases, once identified, throughout the research process to ensure the integrity of the data. This involved discussing their biases prior to coding the transcriptions and after each round of auditing was completed.

Interview Protocol

Questions on the interview protocol were developed by the research team and derived from an exploration of the literature on belonging and AIS acculturation, consultation with experts in the field of school belonging as well as international students, and a subsequent discussion among research team members. The research team also reviewed protocols from other qualitative and quantitative studies on university belonging (e.g., Hoffman et al., 2002; Slaten et al., 2014) and adapted questions to suit the AIS population. The final protocol (see Appendix) began with a brief introduction on the study’s purpose and included seven open-ended stem questions (e.g., “What does belonging to the university mean to you?”), with potential follow-up questions developed if additional information from participants was deemed warranted by the interviewer (e.g., “Describe how you do or don’t feel a sense of belonging to other students on campus”). Questions related to participants’ experiences with different aspects of the university, including their interactions with the campus community and how their ethnic background and international status affect their university belonging. Prior to beginning the interviews, participants completed a short demographic form to obtain information on their gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, school year, grade point average, major, living situation, relational status, and employment status.

Procedure

Recruitment

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, participants were recruited with an email that was sent to international students on campus through a university list serv. The recruitment email described that the aim of the study was to gain a better understanding of what it means to belong in a university environment, and solicited participants to be interviewed about their beliefs and experiences related to belonging at a university. Potential participants were instructed to follow a web link and complete demographic questions on their gender, school year, ethnicity or race, international status, and email address. From this larger pool of potential participants, a subset was selected for the current study. To meet criteria for participation, participants had to be (a) an international student from an East Asian or Southeast Asian country of origin, (b) currently enrolled as an undergraduate student at the host institution, and (c) a non–transfer student (i.e., had not transferred from another postsecondary institution). In all, 11 participants who responded to the recruitment email met the study criteria.

Interviews

Individual interviews were conducted in person by a single interviewer. The interviewer was an undergraduate non-Latina White female who did not identify as an international student and who had experience conducting semistructured interviews. To ensure interview quality, the first author supervised the first interview. The length of the interviews ranged between 25 and 44 minutes (M = 34, SD = 6.69). All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by a paid graduate student experienced in transcription. Once completed, the second author checked all the transcripts against the audio recordings to ensure transcription accuracy.

Data Analysis

Adhering to Hill’s (2012) guidelines for CQR, all analysis decisions were made by consensus. Following interview transcription, the research team began the analysis process by reviewing the transcripts and generating possible themes or domains. Team members independently read all interview transcripts and generated a list of potential domains (i.e., broad themes). The team then met together and collaboratively reviewed each member’s list of potential domains, noting overlap and divergences. From this discussion, a domain list was generated. Next, the research team coded the same transcript independently. The team reviewed each member’s coded transcript to determine consistency across coders. The remaining transcripts were divided among team members and recoded based on the new domain list. In an effort to ensure stability, a second research team member checked all coding for accuracy. Once all participant interviews were coded with domains, brief summaries or core ideas were generated for each interview. The data were then sent to the auditor for review. The auditor checked the coding scheme and each transcript for coding errors; the research team then integrated the auditor’s feedback.

After the initial audit was completed, the research team conducted a cross analysis (Hill, 2012). The team used this step in the data analysis to construct common themes across participants, and this resulted in the development of “categories” or subthemes. The goal was that the categories help explain the full content of each domain. Each member of the research team independently generated categories for each domain, and then the team met together to reach consensus on a final list. Similar to the process of coding domains, dyads of team members were formed to code and check all the transcripts. Once completed, the data analysis was sent again to the auditor for a full review. Upon completion of the audit, the research team reached consensus on how to integrate the auditor’s feedback.

Results

Data analysis yielded five domains: (a) Interpersonal Interactions, (b) Experiences of Acculturation, (c) Campus Environment, (d) Emphasis on Academic Achievement, and (e) Intrapersonal Factors. Consistent with CQR methodology (Hill, 2012), all categories were given frequency labels. For this study, a category mentioned in nine or more cases (i.e., approximately 90%) were given a frequency descriptor of “general,” categories mentioned in five to eight cases (i.e., at least 50% but less than 90%) were labeled “typical,” and “variant” descriptors were given to categories mentioned in two to four cases (i.e., at least 20% but less than 50%); there were no variant categories in this study. See Table 1 for a complete listing of domains, categories, and frequencies.

Table 1.

Summary of Domains, Categories, and Frequencies

Domain	Category	Frequency
Interpersonal Interactions
	Valued group involvement	Typical (8)
	Meaningful personal relationships	Typical (7)
	Opportunities for bonding	Typical (6)
Experiences of Acculturation
	Acculturative stress	General (9)
	Discrimination	Typical (7)
	Positive aspects of host culture	Typical (6)
Campus Environment
	Classroom interactions	General (9)
	Campus facilities	Typical (8)
	University resources	Typical (8)
	University pride	Typical (6)
Emphasis on Academic Achievement
	Influence of social engagement	Typical (8)
	Pursuing long-term goals	Typical (8)
Intrapersonal Factors
	Social self-efficacy	Typical (7)
	Personal growth	Typical (7)

Note. N = 11. General = at least nine respondents; typical = five to eight respondents.

Interpersonal Interactions

The Interpersonal Interactions domain refers to the social interactions participants have while on campus, whether in person, via telephone, or electronically. This domain also includes participants’ perceptions regarding the university’s involvement facilitating such interactions between students, particularly through organized events. Interpersonal interactions were the means whereby participants described developing emotionally close relationships with peers and participating in university-related groups. Interactions appraised to be positive were noted to reinforce participants’ identity as university students, thereby enhancing their sense of belonging. Three categories emerged central to Interpersonal Interactions: (a) valued group involvement, (b) meaningful personal relationships, and (c) opportunities for bonding.

Valued group involvement

Group involvement was identified as a meaningful contributor to participants’ experience as a student and overall connection to the campus community. Participants reported involvement in a variety of group types, ranging from university-sponsored clubs and Greek organizations to independently affiliated religious groups composed primarily of students. While describing some of the benefits of being a part of a group, a male participant stated,

When I joined [student club] I felt like we [other students] appreciated each other as [club players]. When I join group projects [in class] and work together we enhance each other’s knowledge and I feel like that is a type of acknowledgment too.

Participants described becoming involved in a campus group as an integral characteristic of being a university student, with many of the participants expressing their desire to increase their group involvement in upcoming semesters with more selectivity. For example, one Chinese participant described a desire to gain a broader exposure to U.S. culture, “I think if I can start it [college] all over again I would rather attend a lot more clubs and organizations instead of parties in order to experience the American college life.”

In addition to formalized groups, three of the participants recognized their membership in their ethnic or national group as a type of meaningful group involvement. They noted that seeing other students with a similar cultural heritage reinforced their sense of belonging by visually reminding them that the campus community includes AIS like them.

Meaningful personal relationships

Participants highlighted the social, emotional, and academic benefits of having a close interpersonal relationship with a friend or family member in which they felt cared for and could depend on for support. Such meaningful relationships were described as a source of emotional intimacy and a place where doubts regarding their decision to study abroad and identity as a student could be discussed and dispelled through encouragement. For instance, a participant noted the importance of relationship quality (vs. quantity) by saying, “Right now I think I don’t need too many friends. I just need to feel that someone really cares about me and who I really can talk to.” Many of the participants reported having close relationships with other AIS from the same country of origin. These participants explained how having friends with a shared cultural background and acculturative experience made it easier to establish emotionally close relationships. Describing this preference, one Chinese participant stated,

As an international student, I think I share more in common with international students, especially Chinese students, but not too much with American students. We have different cultures and we have different values, we think different ways, and we behave differently. I don’t mean that I don’t want to belong with them, I just feel more comfortable with my group.

Despite potential cultural barriers, many of the participants also reported unique advantages from forming close relationships with domestic students versus international students. These advantages include the ability to practice speaking English with a native speaker, greater cultural exposure, and having the ability to consult friends representative of the majority ethnic group (i.e., non-Latino Whites) on campus.

The most cited meaningful relationships participants reported were those related to their family of origin. Despite the long distance, participants identified their families as a source of encouragement in their academic efforts, as well as a source of validation for their decision to study abroad. While speaking about her family, a Chinese participant indicated, “They help me out with a lot of obstacles. Every time I don’t feel good and after I call my family and talk with them I feel better to be a student. They kind of help me emotionally.” Moreover, family members reportedly helped quell participants’ doubts about their academic abilities and encouraged them to befriend fellow students as well as to participate in university-related events.

Opportunities for bonding

Participants described the necessity for students to have opportunities on and within close proximity to campus for peer interaction and social bonding. The availability of such opportunities was considered fundamental to the college experience by the majority of participants and was identified as a means through which students develop interpersonally by facilitating their involvement in groups and the formation of meaningful personal relationships. Speaking about AIS’ needs for development through social bonding, a Vietnamese participant explained, “We need to know how to contribute to society as a whole and not just focus on ourselves. We can do this by communicating and interacting with others so we can develop our leadership and teamwork.” Moreover, social events served as a way to strengthen participants’ identity as a university student. A Chinese participant described the benefits of attending university-sponsored events at the beginning of the academic year, stating “it is just a great way to meet people and meet the university in general . . . it really helps you understand [the university] and understand what being here is all about.”

Experiences of Acculturation

Although there are a variety of multifaceted definitions of acculturation (e.g., Zhang & Dixon, 2003), in this study acculturation refers to the process in which individuals from one culture gradually adopt the norms and values of a dominant host culture (LaFromboise, Hardin, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Zhang & Moradi, 2013). For many participants, the experience of acculturating coincided with the development of their identity as a university student. Consequently, negative experiences associated with acculturation, such as difficulty adapting to Western teaching methods or being avoided by peers because of their international status, were interpreted as evidence that they did not belong at the university. As a general domain, three categories emerged as central to influencing university belonging associated with acculturation: (a) acculturative stress, (b) discrimination, and (c) positive aspects of host culture.

Acculturative stress

Participants reported experiencing acculturative stress (Berry, 2006), the most robust category within the domain, associated with their international student status. Acculturative stress was identified when participants described experiencing social, academic, or emotional hardships connected to their international status and in relation to the host cultural norms. Participants reported challenges adapting to new food, the geographic environment, weather, and cultural values or norms. When discussing going to school abroad, a Chinese participant explained, “It is weird! The food is different, the weather is different, and classes are different.” This participant went on to conclude, “I think being an international student is definitely more difficult [than being a domestic student], because you are not used to the culture or even just the weather.” Adapting to new cultural customs extended into the classroom as well. For example, a Chinese participant described her difficulty adapting to new classroom etiquette:

The college I went to at home, the classes were a lot smaller and the way of teaching at home is very different. You go to class and you listen and take it in. Here I feel you have to participate a lot more. There are lots of group discussions and presentations; you have to be able to speak out and not just go to class and sit there and listen.

The most cited acculturative stressor was participants’ difficulty communicating in a new language. For many, the language barrier was a source of embarrassment, often serving as a means of alienation and deterrent to befriending domestic students for fear of speaking English incorrectly. A Vietnamese student stated, “I feel different from other people, especially White people because they will use language I cannot understand . . . it’s just hard to communicate to others.” A Chinese participant cited the “language obstacle” as “the most difficult thing” about being an international student, stating that he becomes frustrated while working in a group, particularly when he has “a good idea but cannot express it and let other people know it.”

Another source of stress discussed was navigating new interpersonal norms, particularly those pertaining to conflict, directness, and the expression of negative emotion in Western culture. Speaking about the process of navigating between his home and current cultural norms regarding directness, a Chinese participant stated,

In my country . . . we don’t really like to show . . . very true emotions. For example, if I don’t like you, I don’t straight out say it. I think here it is [a norm to be] more assertive and people put problems on the table . . . at first I felt that it is hard [to be assertive], but later you understand it is just culture and you feel better just being frank.

Discrimination

In association with adapting to a new host culture, participants reported experiencing various forms of discrimination related to their ethnic identity and international status. Such experiences were distressful to participants, creating feelings of rejection and negatively raising awareness of their minority status on campus. Three of the participants reported being victims of overt discrimination. These participants stated that while on campus they were targets of racial slurs and recounted stories of domestic students avoiding or refusing to work with them on class projects. Regarding such acts of discrimination, a Chinese participant noted, “Some people here do not like us international students. They won’t work with you and they say something bad to you; that is not good.”

In addition, five participants cited institutional forms of discrimination, such as higher tuition fees and the challenges associated with receiving postgraduate employment in the United States. Speaking about a recent tuition increase for international students, a Malaysian student stated, “They [the university] won’t gather the information or hear from the international students. They just increased the money and they tell you, oh we increased the money, it’s like we are the ‘money call’ and I don’t like it.”

Positive aspects of host culture

Coinciding with acculturative stress, participants described experiencing positive personal changes from living in the host culture. Examples of these changes included the opportunity for a “new beginning” as a university student in a new country and the experience of learning a new culture. Identifying these aspects was cited as helping participants appreciate their experience studying abroad and “owning” their identity as international students within the campus community. For example, a Chinese participant explained, “I try really hard to mix with as many people as possible, just because I know I might not have that experience at home.” Speaking about her increased cultural exposure, a Malaysian participant stated,

It is interesting that you can learn from other people’s culture and I think that is what makes life more meaningful. When it comes to friendships, if you stick around people, the same society, the same race, sometimes you get bored because you see the same thing everyday. When you learn, like, this is how Americans think, and about being assertive. It is just a lot of different things that I couldn’t really express before.

Other participants reported increased feelings of autonomy and excitement in association with attending an American university that adheres to Western cultural practices. For example, a participant explained how attending an American university helps her feel more valued as a female, stating, “In Asian culture, the position of females are much lower than males, that’s very obvious. But not in the States . . . the difference in America is much less.”

Campus Environment

Campus Environment encompasses factors that participants attributed to the university as a cultural or physical entity, including the classroom experience, campus facilities and resources, and campus culture. Collectively, these factors influenced participants’ comfort levels on campus and represented what participants often described as “the university.” Participants highlighted ways the campus environment can promote and inhibit students’ sense of belonging. Four categories emerged within the domain of Campus Environment: (a) classroom interactions, (b) campus facilities, (c) university resources, and (d) university pride.

Classroom interactions

Participants tended to describe the classroom as a place where they embody their role as students and interact with others within the structure of the classroom setting. Participants noted that interactions with individuals of authority (e.g., faculty, teaching assistants) were particularly meaningful in promoting or inhibiting inclusion within the classroom. For instance, a Chinese participant described the significance of professors reaching out to get to know him and learning his name. He explained, “I definitely have professors that know me by my first and last name, and will email me before exams to make sure I am prepared. You know, they know me better as an individual.”

Four of the participants mentioned that although they feel academically supported by their peers in the classroom, they do not often feel a sense of social or emotional closeness with them. Although some participants attributed this social distance to large class sizes, others viewed it as representative of the college classroom environment. Comparing his college classroom environment to his experience in high school, a Chinese participant noted:

My classmates . . . don’t communicate a lot after the class. So, I should say they are nice in class, but I don’t feel really close to them . . . we are only classmates for a certain class so there is not really a connection. No connection.

Campus facilities

Participants described how campus facilities, including campus geography, contributed to their sense of physical comfort on campus and satisfaction with their university space. Specifically, participants noted the importance of building aesthetics and campus amenities; many of the participants cited the quality of the campus facilities as one of the primary reasons they decided to attend the university. Participants indicated that the facilities are a means whereby they can feel comfortable pursuing student-related activities like studying, socializing, and exercising. Exercising is particularly relevant given the most frequently mentioned facilities were the recreational sports building and dining courts.

A subset of participants expressed some dissatisfaction with the campus location, expressing a desire to be closer to a larger city. These participants indicated that they did not view themselves as “small-town” people and thus had trouble feeling comfortable on campus. One Chinese participant described his initial hesitancy living in a small community, stating,

Well to be honest when I was first here, because I’ve lived in a lot of big cities all my life, I didn’t like it that much. It’s really different than anywhere I’ve been. But, now it’s my senior year, and it’s really grown on me. I like that it is a small community.

University resources

The theme of university resources pertained to the programs, personnel, and professional opportunities afforded to the students by the university. In recognizing university resources, participants reported having a sense of privilege in their university’s ability to afford students services that they would not otherwise enjoy, particularly in contrast to the resources they perceive as being available to students in their home country. Among the most frequently mentioned services were access to a variety of extracurricular activities, vocational opportunities, and the ability to take courses taught by prestigious faculty in a wide range of disciplines. For example, while talking about her opportunity to engage in research as an undergraduate, a Malaysian participant stated,

When I talk to my friends that study at the local university in Malaysia, they don’t really get to participate in a lot of projects. And when I started looking at jobs in Malaysia, when I had interviews, they were impressed at what I am doing at [the university], like the projects I am taking part in. So I feel like there’s a lot of opportunity here.

A Chinese participant shared,

There are so many more opportunities for people here rather than like at home. You don’t have as good professors, you aren’t able to learn as much from people, and being here, it’s been easy to adapt because it’s kind of like an upgrade.

In addition, three participants expressed having an increased sense of university belonging through the use of university resources. For example, one participant described feeling a greater sense of connection to the university through the appreciation and individualized care she received from her academic advisor. Other examples included attending a university career fair and receiving a mentored-student research grant.

University pride

University pride related to the institutional practices, values, and norms prevalent in the university that promote a positive identification as a member of the university community. As one of the most cited contributors to university pride, participants spoke of the effect that wearing university clothing and attending university sporting events has on the culture of the university and subsequently students’ sense of school pride and belonging. One Chinese participant explained,

We love to wear university stuff, our bookstore is full of stuff. . . . I guess when you’re really proud about your university you just write about, like on Facebook you would write about it a lot, really keep track of all the ball games like football and basketball, and wear a lot of [university] stuff. Stuff like that.

In addition, many of the participants indicated that the culture of the university encourages social networking, both between students and between students and alumni. Facilitated by this culture of networking, participants expressed a sense of social connection to their peers and alumni through their affiliation with the university. A Malaysian participant described one such instance while applying for a postbaccalaureate job:

The recruiter sent me an email . . . [saying] “our software engineer in Malaysia is actually from [the university].” So yeah I think it’s, it’s like a sense of being connected. That is like how you define university pride, is that it’s not to say that [the university] is the best, but we are all from there, like we are together, we are connected.

Emphasis on Academic Achievement

This domain refers to participants’ commitment to accomplish academic goals and the role their academic success has on their student identity and overall university experience. Many of the participants stated their primary objective for studying abroad at a university in the United States was to receive a quality education in order to gain access to professional opportunities following graduation. Achieving academic goals (e.g., receiving high grades, competitive internships) was described as a gauge for whether the participant was fulfilling this overarching objective for attending a U.S. university. Thus, failure to achieve academic goals served as evidence that a participant may not feel a sense of belonging at the university. This failure to belong applies academically and socially, as participants expressed a belief that the university community (i.e., faculty, staff, students) does not want students who are failing their coursework at the university. Two categories emerged as pertinent to participants’ emphasis on academic achievement: (a) influence on social engagement and (b) pursuing long-term goals.

Influence of social engagement

Participants were divided about whether an emphasis on academic achievement promoted or inhibited their belonging on campus. For some participants, academic engagement was central to their identity as a university student. These participants reported feeling most connected to the university “when doing homework and when taking classes.” For other participants, academic engagement was described as burdensome and an impediment to social engagement. They reported feeling dissatisfied with their academic performance and struggling to maintain a balance between their academic and social lives. For example, one Chinese participant reported, “I am too focused on my studies I think; I spend too much time studying and I don’t really enjoy the school life sometimes.” Similarly, another explained “there is just so much that you can do, but it is also easy to get caught up in classes and homework so I really try to have a good balance between the two.” For a few of the participants, failure to meet their academic performance goals was a source of embarrassment and a means of disconnection from peers and even society at large. For example, when citing her poor academic performance as the reason she was not “valued” by the university, one participant explained, “I’m not a perfect student. My GPA is not very high as international students, because a lot of Asian students get very high GPA. And I am not a citizen, so I cannot contribute to the society here.”

Pursuing long-term goals

Elucidating their academic focus, participants indicated that their emphasis on academic achievement is in pursuit of a long-term goal. For instance, three of the participants expressed a desire to attend graduate school in the United States following the completion of their undergraduate education. Thus, to meet the high academic requirements necessary for acceptance into graduate school for international students, these participants reported devoting much of their time to academics. A Chinese participant explained,

I need to study very hard, and a lot of the students always think I study too hard. But, I have to because I want to get to graduate school so I can have opportunity to work here. [Domestic students] can get work, I mean, opportunity [comes by] very easily here so they cannot understand why I’m working so hard.

In addition to graduate school, participants also attributed their focus on academic achievement to the potential for higher quality employment opportunities after graduation. Moreover, many of the participants stated that their primary goal of attending a U.S. university was to receive a high-quality education. These participants cited the high price of tuition and the personal sacrifices of living abroad (e.g., being away from family) as reminders and motivation for them to pursue their goal of gaining an education.

Intrapersonal Factors

In the final domain, participants spoke about intrapersonal factors that influence their sense of university belonging. This domain reflects participants’ realization that their intrapersonal attributes play an important role in their relationship to the university community and the development of their identity as a university student. As a general domain, two categories emerged: (a) social self-efficacy and (b) personal growth.

Social self-efficacy

Social self-efficacy refers to individuals’ confidence in their ability to initiate and carry on social interactions (Lin & Betz, 2009). Results revealed three participants with characteristics of high social self-efficacy and four participants with characteristics of low social self-efficacy. Those with high social self-efficacy reported that their willingness to initiate conversations helps them make friends, hones their English language proficiency, and exposes them to new experiences. Conversely, those with lower social self-efficacy described themselves as shy, tending to avoid speaking in groups and initiating social interactions. Because of their reserved nature, these participants reported difficulty befriending peers and fully engaging in group projects as desired. One Chinese participant explained, “I’m shy with other people and I’m not a very talkative person. So people at first, because I do not talk too much, sometimes they think I’m cold.” Moreover, these participants indicated their shyness is exacerbated by the fear of embarrassment connected with having to speak English, particularly in a group context.

Personal growth

Another intrapersonal factor that emerged in the data was the recognition of personal growth. Coinciding with their experience as international students, participants discussed ways in which they have grown as a person since beginning their studies. Among these growth areas was becoming more independent, mature, self-confident, and established in their personal values. Participants spoke to their personal growth in connection to the development of their identity as a university student, identifying the growth process as a part of the “college experience.” Thus, personal growth was a means of connecting them to their peers and university, and in all cases was mentioned as a positive aspect of their university experience.

Discussion

The present study examined AIS’ perspectives on the factors contributing to their experience of belonging in a university setting, including factors that can potentially buffer the psychological distress experienced during their college adjustment. This study contributes to the literature uniquely in that it examines AIS’ experiences related to belonging, whereas the vast majority of the AIS literature focuses on acculturation. Furthermore, this study utilized a qualitative approach to more fully understand the individual voices and experiences of AIS. Using CQR (Hill, 2012), the research team analyzed participant interviews and generated overarching domains and categories within each domain. The results of the analysis indicate that belonging cuts across a number of psychosocial contexts including the intrapersonal (e.g., social self-efficacy, personal growth from their college experience, etc.), interpersonal (e.g., domestic friends, other international students, friends from clubs, TAs, professors, family members, etc.), environmental (e.g., campus facilities, university pride, university resources, etc.), and cultural (e.g., food, language, norms, gender roles, etc.). Many of these results align with previous findings examining university belonging in a predominately domestic student sample (e.g., feeling socially connected, supported by campus environment; Slaten et al., 2014), whereas other findings seem unique to the perspectives of the AIS participants in the current study (e.g., acculturation process and academic culture). Furthermore, the findings of the current study are consistent with previous quantitative research on AIS social connectedness and acculturation research (Du & Wei, 2015; K. T. Wang et al., 2015; Wei et al., 2012).

One of the most salient findings from this study is the emphasis that participants placed on academic achievement in their sense of belonging on campus. Participants stated that academic success was a critical factor in cultivating their own sense of belonging to the university. Several participants suggested that when looking for connections with peers, whether from their same country of origin or domestic, they were primarily interested in finding peers who were similarly devoted to academic achievement. Although international students may have trouble adjusting to a different cultural context for a variety of reasons, academic problems continue to be one of the largest worries for AIS (Y. Wang et al., 2007; Ward & Kennedy, 1994). To succeed academically, AIS often need to learn how to function in a different academic environment from their home culture, a process that may be overlooked by university personnel (Rice et al., 2012; Y. Wang et al., 2007).

The results from the current study suggest that relationships with both students of similar national origin and U.S. students are important for AIS in feeling a sense of belonging on campus, although the relationships with these two types of students might function differently. Friendships with students of similar nationality seem to increase AIS’ belonging by providing social support and a sense of security (R. M. Lee, 2005; Ying & Liese, 1990). When AIS had the opportunity to connect with domestic students, they reported having a better understanding of U.S. cultural interpersonal interactions, which they suggested increased belonging in their campus experience. These results are aligned with previous research suggesting that AIS experience two types of social connectedness: one with their own ethnic culture (ethnic social connectedness) and the other with mainstream culture (mainstream social connectedness; Yoon & Lee, 2010). The results of several studies examining mainstream and ethnic SC have suggested that both forms of social connectedness are needed for students and are adaptive for students in different ways (Wei et al., 2012). Furthermore, other research has shown that a strong mainstream social connectedness association predicted psychological well-being, whereas a strong host culture association predicted sociocultural adaptation (Ward & Rena-Deuba, 1999). In essence, AIS reported that their sense of belonging to their campus was increased when they had strong alliances with both peers from the mainstream host culture and peers from their own ethnic culture.

As an extension of the participant comments regarding relationships with mainstream host culture peers and peers from their own ethnic culture, students discussed the powerful contribution of the acculturation process on establishing relationships and a salient factor in their ability to experience belonging at the university. Participants discussed the dynamic of acculturative stress (Fritz et al., 2008; Zhang & Dixon, 2003) and supported previous findings on two distinct types of stress: stressors related to discrimination and stressors related to migrating to another country (Suarez-Morales, Dillon, & Szapocznik, 2007). Suarez-Morales et al. (2007) examined acculturative stress and noted participant struggles related to language, the environment, and cultural expectations. Similarly, participants in the present study suggested that these acculturative stressors meaningfully affected their ability to feel connected or belong on campus.

In addition to the need for social connection, going through the acculturation process, and adjusting to academic culture, participants reported that being able to utilize the campus environment (e.g., facilities, resources, understanding the university culture) contributed to their sense of belonging. Recently, researchers have examined the importance of university programmatic resources for students and their impact on retention (Nadelson et al., 2013); similar to the present findings, the researchers indicated that when students perceived resources as being available to them, they were more likely to continue their enrollment. In addition, qualitative researchers have found that university students in general identified perceived support and the accessibility of resources as being crucial to their connection to the university (Slaten et al., 2014).

Finally, a majority of AIS referenced factors within themselves, or intrapersonal factors, that affected their ability to connect to others on campus. Some participants mentioned that their own social self-efficacy helped them to engage with others on campus, whereas others wished they had a stronger sense of social self-efficacy to connect on campus. This is consistent with previous work indicating that social self-efficacy for AIS is a contributor to acculturative stress (Lin & Betz, 2009). Furthermore, AIS reported that having the opportunity to experience personal growth while being a student at a university was an important factor in feeling comfortable and connected on campus.

In sum, fully understanding the construct of university belonging and the experiences of AIS is complex. The results of the current study suggest that belonging at the university is a function not only of perceived relationships in which individuals experience persistent care and consistent interaction (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), but also of many other factors that help explain the entirety of the university belonging experience. As mentioned previously, these factors include campus environment or resources, acculturative experiences, academic achievement, and intrapersonal factors. Based on participant responses in interviews, it is clear that these additional factors influence AIS’ perceptions of a sense of belonging on campus beyond the satisfaction of their interpersonal relationships. Thus, it appears that for these students, the influential factors (e.g., campus resources, acculturative experiences, academic achievement, and intrapersonal factors) and interpersonal relationships of care and consistency contribute to their perceptions of university belonging.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations that may be addressed in future research. First, because this qualitative study examined a subgroup of AIS, the findings are limited to international students with Chinese, Malaysian, and Vietnamese cultural heritages. There may also be within-group variance which was not fully captured given the differing countries of origin. Hill (2012) recommend sampling a relatively homogenous group, which, in this study, was AIS; however, different experiences between and within ethnic groups was not examined in this study. Second, participants in this study were selected by the researchers, and the sample was limited to AIS in the U.S. Midwest at a university with a large international student population. Consequently, as is true of qualitative work in general, our results reflect the lived experiences of a uniquely homogenous group of AIS living in this specific setting. Last, all participant interviews were conducted in English versus the participants’ primary language. This choice was a practical decision given that the interviewers were not all proficient in the participants’ primary language. Communicating in English, as a second language for all of the participants, may have limited the expressions and responses possible during interview sessions.

Within the context of these limitations, the current findings can inform the next step in research on university belonging with AIS. Future studies should explore the nuanced differences between specific Asian cultures in relation to university belonging, as AIS are not a monolithic group. Given that participants identified a number of factors that promoted and inhibited their university belonging (e.g., Emphasis on Academic Achievement), researchers may choose to statistically test the validity of these relational assertions and clarify the contributions of such variables. Moreover, researchers should further explore the concept of university belonging for AIS using quantitative designs, particularly exploring how university belonging relates to factors such as persistence, acculturation, academic outcomes, and well-being. Results from these studies could provide further evidence of the importance of belonging within higher education as well as offer support for programs aimed at inclusion and socioemotional support for both AIS and international students at large.

Implications

The results of the present study also have implications for university personnel assisting AIS who may be struggling to feel connected on campus. Based on the current study and previous research findings with similar outcomes, it is clear that AIS need support in building connections with other students who identify with their ethnic culture as well as with students who identify with the mainstream culture (Wei et al., 2012; Yoon & Portman, 2004). Therefore, it is imperative that universities provide opportunities for students to connect with others from their own ethnic community, such as through on-campus Asian cultural centers, to help facilitate relationship building. Furthermore, providing structured social events where AIS have the opportunity to interact with U.S. students is crucial. The current study and previous research both indicate that AIS believe relationships with U.S. students are important and contribute to their subjective well-being (K. T. Wang et al., 2015).

Counseling psychologists on university campuses can provide psychoeducation for both students and staff about the acculturative process that many international students go through using outreach presentations (Mori, 2000). In addition, normalizing and educating AIS about the acculturative process during individual counseling sessions is important. Participants also discussed social self-efficacy as something that contributed to their ability, or inability, to feel connected. Again, counselors have an opportunity to provide psychoeducation related to social skills and to facilitate the building of social self-efficacy with AIS clients (Jacob & Greggo, 2011). One possible psychoeducational group intervention could include direct instruction on culturally relevant social skills in the U.S. and then providing students with opportunities to put these into practice to facilitate enacted mastery experiences.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Ji-Yeon Lee’s work was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2015.

Author Biographies

Christopher D. Slaten is an assistant professor of counseling psychology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO. His areas of research largely center on academic belonging for marginalized populations, as well as school-based mental health.

Zachary M. Elison is a doctoral candidate in counseling psychology at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN where he also earned his master’s degree. His research interests include identifying factors that impact belongingness in academic communities and understanding the effects of weight-based discrimination.

Ji-Yeon Lee is an assistant professor of counseling psychology at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in South Korea. Her primary scholarship area examines the interplay between cultural factors and attachment relationships (e.g., long distance relationships). She also has worked on several cross-cultural research projects focusing on international students’ adjustment, and prevention research (e.g., cancer prevention, suicide prevention).

Mike Yough is a clinical assistant professor at Purdue University. His research interests include teacher beliefs, their development during teacher preparation, the associated behaviors, and their impact on student motivation.

Dominick Scalise is an assistant professor of psychology and director of the counseling psychology master’s program at Avila University. His areas of interest and expertise are in cultural competency, spirituality, career development, and counseling process and outcome studies. In addition to training counselors, he maintains a small private practice as a licensed psychologist.

References

Baskin

T. W.

Quintana

Slaten

C. D.

(2014). Family belongingness, gang friendships, and psychological distress in adolescent achievement. Journal of Counseling and Development, 92, 398-405.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Berry

J. W.

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

Berry

J. W.

(2006). Acculturative stress. In Wong

Wong

(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 283-294). New York, NY: Springer.

Constantine

G. M.

Okazaki

Utsey

S. O.

(2004). Self-concealment, social self-efficacy, acculturative stress, and depression in African, Asian, and Latin American international college students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74, 230-241. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.74.3.230

Wei

(2015). Acculturation, enculturation, social connectedness, and subjective well-being among Chinese international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 43, 299-325. doi:10.1177/0011000014565712

Fritz

Chin

DeMarinis

(2008). Stressors, anxiety, acculturation and adjustment among international and North American students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 244-259. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.01.001

Glass

C. R.

Westmont

C. M.

(2014). Comparative effects of belongingness on the academic success and cross-cultural interactions of domestic and international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 106-119. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.04.004

Goodenow

(1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 79-90. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(199301)

10.

Haslam

S. A.

Jetten

Postmes

Haslam

(2009). Social identity, health and wellbeing: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58, 1-23.

11.

Hill

C. E.

(2012). Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

12.

Hoffman

M. B.

Richmond

J. R.

Marrow

J. A.

Salomone

(2002). Investigating “sense of belonging” in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 4, 227-256. doi:10.2190/DRYC-CXQ9-JQ8V-HT4V

13.

Hurtado

Carter

D. F.

(1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70, 324-345. doi:10.2307/2673270

14.

Hwang

W. C.

Ting

J. Y.

(2008). Disaggregating the effects of acculturation and acculturative stress on the mental health of Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 147-154. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.14.2.147.

15.

Institute of International Education. (2014). Open doors 2014 fast facts. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/Fast-Facts

16.

Iwamoto

D. K.

Liu

W. M.

(2010). The impact of racial identity, ethnic identity, Asian values, and race-related stress on Asian Americans and Asian International college students’ psychological well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 79-91. doi:10.1037/a0017393

17.

Jacob

E.J.

Greggo

J.W.

(2011). Using counselor training and collaborative programming strategies in working with international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 73-88.

18.

Kim

B. S. K.

Ahn

A. J.

Lam

N. A.

(2009). Theories and research on acculturation and enculturation experiences among Asian American families. In Trinh

N. H.

Rho

Y. C.

F. G.

Sanders

K. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of mental health and acculturation in Asian American families (pp. 25-43). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.

19.

Koehne

(2006). (Be)coming, (be)longing: Ways in which international students talk about themselves. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27, 241-257. doi:10.1080/01596300600676219

20.

LaFromboise

Hardin

Coleman

Gerton

(1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395-412. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.395

21.

Lee

Rice

(2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53, 381-409.

22.

Lee

R. M.

(2005). Resilience against discrimination: Ethnic identity and other-group orientation as protective factors for Korean Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 36-44. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.36

23.

Lee

R. M.

Davis

(2000). Cultural orientation, past multicultural experience, and a sense of belonging on campus for Asian American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 110-115.

24.

Lin

Betz

N. E.

(2009). Factors related to the social self-efficacy of Chinese international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 451-471. doi:10.1177/0011000009332474

25.

Malinckrodt

Leong

(1992). International graduate students, stress, and social support. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 71-78.

26.

Maslow

A. H.

(1970). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.

27.

Mori

S. C.

(2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 137-144. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb02571.x

28.

Nadelson

L. S.

Semmelroth

Martinez

Featherstone

Fuhrlman

C. A.

Sell

(2013). Why did they come here? The influences and expectations of first-year students’ college experience. Higher Education Studies, 3, 50-62. doi:10.5539/hes.v3n1p50

29.

Park

Y. S.

Kim

B. S. K.

(2008). Asian and European American cultural values and communication styles among Asian American and European American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 47-56. doi:10.1037/1099-9809

30.

Pittman

L. D.

Richmond

(2008). University belonging and friendship quality during the transition to college: Links to self-perceptions and psychological symptoms. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 343-361. doi:10.3200/JEXE.76.4.343-362

31.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2002). Qualitative research methods the fifth force in psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 394-406. doi:10.1177/0011000002303002

32.

Rice

K.G.

Cho

Zhang

Morero

Y.I.

Anderson

(2012). Self-critical perfectionism, acculturative stress, and depression among international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 575-600.

33.

Shea

Yeh

C. J.

(2008). Asian American students’ cultural values, stigma, and relational self-construal: Correlates of attitudes toward professional help seeking. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 30, 157-172. doi:10.17744/mehc.30.2.g662g5l2r1352198

34.

Slaten

C. D.

Yough

M. S.

Shemwell

Scalise

D. A.

Elison

Z. M.

Hughes

(2014). “Eat. Sleep. Breathe. Study”: Understanding what it means to belong at a university from the student perspective. Excellence in Higher Education, 5, 1-5.

35.

Smart

J. F.

Smart

D. W.

(1995). Acculturative stress: The experience of the Hispanic youth immigrant. The Counseling Psychologist, 23, 25-42. doi:10.1177/0011000095231003

36.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Suarez-Morales

Dillon

Szapocznik

(2007). Validation of the Acculturative Stress Inventory for Children. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 216-224.

38.

Swagler

M. A.

Ellis

M. V.

(2003). Crossing the distance: Adjustment of Taiwanese graduate students in the United States. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 420-437. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.50.4.420

39.

Tao

Dong

Pratt

M. W.

Hunsberger

Pancer

S. M.

(2000). Social support: Relations to coping and adjustment during the transition to university in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 123-144. doi:10.1177/0743558400151007

40.

Wang

K. T.

Wei

Chen

H. H.

(2015). Social factors in cross-national adjustment: Subjective well-being trajectories among Chinese international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 43, 272-298. doi:10.1177/0011000014566470

41.

Wang

Lin

Pang

Shen

F. C.

(2007). International students from Asia. In Leong

F. L.

Inman

A. G.

Ebreo

Yang

Kinoshita

(Eds.), Handbook of Asian American psychology (2nd ed., pp. 245-261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Ward

Kennedy

(1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 329-343. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(94)90036-1

43.

Ward

Rena-Deuba

(1999). Acculturation and adaption revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 422-442. doi:10.1177/0022022199030004003

44.

Wei

Wang

K. T.

Heppner

P. P.

(2012). Ethnic and mainstream social connectedness, perceived racial discrimination, and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 486-493. doi:10.1037/a0028000

45.

Yeh

C. J.

Inose

(2003). International students’ reported English fluency, social support satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 16, 15-28. doi:10.1080/0951507031000114058

46.

Ying

Liese

L. H.

(1990). Initial adaptation of Taiwan foreign students to the United States: The impact of prearrival variables. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 825-845. doi:10.1007/BF00938066

47.

Yoon

Lee

R. M.

(2010). Importance of social connectedness as a moderator in Korean immigrants’ subjective well-being. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1, 93-105. doi:10.1037/a0019964

48.

Yoon

Portman

T. A.

(2004). Critical issues of literature on counseling international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 33-44. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2004.tb00359.x

49.

Zhang

Dixon

D. N.

(2003). Acculturation and attitudes of Asian international students toward seeking psychological help. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31, 205-222. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2003.tb00544.x

50.

Zhang

Moradi

(2013). Asian American acculturation and enculturation: Construct clarification and measurement consolidation. The Counseling Psychologist, 41, 750-790. doi:10.1177/0011000012456882