Measurement of Cultural Intelligence and Its Impact on Psychological Adaptation of International Students in India

Abstract

In recent years, India has emerged as a host to several students from various countries. It tenders cheap and affordable education to the globe. Post liberalization, economic boost to the Indian economy was attained due to educational tourism also. The major facade here is the adaptation of the international students to the Indian environment. One of the major aspects which positively contributes towards cultural adaptation among these sojourners is cultural intelligence. Researchers argued that the concept of cultural intelligence is significant for international students who are short term visitors in a foreign country. It is important for them to develop cultural intelligence competency, that is, metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural cultural intelligence as these capabilities lead to their cultural adaptation. In this context, the present study has been conducted with an aim to understand the relationship between the different facets of cultural intelligence and psychological adaptation of international students. The present study has also analysed the level of cultural intelligence and psychological adaptation among international students to understand the components of these dimensions which are less developed among international students. Data has been analysed using various statistical techniques, that is, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), mean and structural equation modeling (SEM). Results of the study have depicted a lower level of cultural intelligence among international students in India. Authors have concluded that behavioural cultural intelligence has shown a direct and positive relationship on the psychological adaptability of international students. These results, therefore, have practical implications for educational institutes and policymakers as it will help in drafting a policy framework for Indian higher educational institutes (HEIs).

Keywords

Cultural Intelligence Higher Educational Institutes International Students Psychological Adaptation

Introduction

In the twenty-first century, mass-scale cross-border mobility among students has been witnessed at the global level (Perez-Encinas & Rodriguez-Pomed, 2019). This prevailing scenario of cross-cultural movement is similar in every nation as students are crossing borders in search of getting better and economical education. Researchers have considered this inter-nation transition among students as a potential source of finance (Khanal & Gaulee, 2019). Apart from monetary benefits, international students also contribute to the societal and cultural development of a nation (Shafaei & Razak, 2016; Terry, 2011). It also leads to diversity and internationalization of higher education. In this context, the educational policymakers of almost every country are making concerted efforts to frame foreign student-centric policies including India (Khanal & Gaulee, 2019). Such students form an important minority group of sojourners. They stay in a foreign nation for shorter time span with the objective of seeking higher education (Chang, 2016; Thomson et al., 2006). Their stay in an international country brings various positive outcomes for them as it enhances their cultural learnings and self-awareness (Newsome & Cooper, 2016). Although these students while living in a foreign nation experience cultural shock because of various challenges such as financial problems and difficulty in social integration etc. (Horne et al., 2018). New cultural confrontation leads to adaptation and adjustment problems among them (Wu et al., 2015). They usually face challenges of homesickness, boredom, anxiety, frustration, and academic and financial difficulties (Khanal & Gaulee, 2019; Mao & Liu, 2016; Wu et al., 2015). It has been observed that these problems are the reason behind the poor engagement, low academic performance and boredom among them (Frederick et al., 2004). These, in turn, lead to dropouts and absenteeism among them. Therefore, there is a need to develop genuine understanding regarding their adaptation issues. One of the key domains which positively contributes towards the smooth stay of international students in a foreign culture is cultural intelligence (Karroubi et al., 2014). It helps them to adjust in a culturally different environment. Researchers have well documented that a culturally intelligent person is more efficient to handle stress and problems arising due to intercultural contact. Researchers have also pointed that in a multicultural country like India, it is important for international students to develop cultural intelligence capability as it helps them to adjust in the Indian culture (Kaur & Pany, 2018).

In this context, the present study has been conducted to analyse the impact of cultural intelligence on the psychological adaptation of international students studying in select higher educational institutes (HEIs) in northern India. The present study has examined and discussed the influence of metacognitive, motivational, cognitive and behavioural cultural intelligence on the psychological adaptation of international students studying in India.

Literature Review

Cultural Intelligence

The concept of cultural intelligence gained worldwide importance after the term was introduced by Earley & Ang in the year 2003. It is defined as the individuals’ capability to successfully adapt to new cultural settings which are totally different from their own culture (Earley & Ang, 2003; Ott & Michailova, 2016). This multidimensional cultural intelligence construct includes four sub-dimensions namely metacognitive cultural intelligence, cognitive cultural intelligence, motivational cultural intelligence and behavioural cultural intelligence (Ang et al., 2007).

Cognitive cultural intelligence is related to knowledge that a person possesses about different cultures, norms and different cultural beliefs and practices (Ott & Michailova, 2016). Cognitive cultural intelligence helps an individual to understand about the relatedness between the home and host cultures (Brislín et al., 2006). Metacognitive cultural intelligence is related to the person’s use of cultural knowledge in different cultural settings (Ott & Michailova, 2016). Motivational cultural intelligence is linked to individual’s own internal intention and desire to learn about new culture, and thus helps to adjust in a new and unfamiliar culture. A person having motivational cultural intelligence uses his energy and efforts towards learning about new cultural norms (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Lastly, behavioural cultural intelligence works while one interacts with people who come from different cultural and different ethnic backgrounds. This component of cultural intelligence is mirrored in the spoken and non-spoken communication skills of a person and through his actions (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Ang et al., 2007). Authors opined that a person having behavioural cultural intelligence acts very wisely while interacting in different cultural settings (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Ang et al., 2007; Ng & Earley, 2006; Thomas, 2006).

Psychological Adaptation

Psychological adaptation is defined in terms of individual’s well-being and personal satisfaction while they are staying in culturally different environment (Ward & Kennedy, 1993). Researchers have considered psychological adaptation among individual as an important outcome of the adaptation process. Psychological adaptation is directly linked to stress among individuals. Researchers have stated that individuals while living in culturally varied environments experience various challenges and to overcome these challenges, they use various coping strategies which in turn leads to psychological adaptation among them (Meza & Gazzoli, 2011).

It is established from the previous literature studies that researchers in the area of cross-cultural management are making their significant contribution to the field of cultural intelligence and cultural adaptability. Although various researchers have also mentioned the need to enhance the understanding in the areas of cultural intelligence and cultural adaptability as some of the dimensions are unexplored (Arora & Rohmetra, 2010; Shafaei & Razak, 2016). Researchers argued that despite having various positive outcomes of cultural intelligence, there is a scarcity of research in this area (Brancu et al., 2016; Jyoti & Kour, 2015). Gap in studies related to cultural intelligence in academic context has also been observed (Lee et al., 2018). Also, there is a gap in the studies which have examined the cultural intelligence and its influence on the psychological adaptation of international students. In this context, the present study has been conducted with aim of understanding the relationship between the different components of cultural intelligence and psychological adaptation of international students.

Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Formulation

Previous researchers found a direct association between the different components of cultural intelligence and adaptation among individuals. Nunes et al. (2017) found that the level of cultural adaptation among individual is directly influenced by cross-cultural intelligence. In context of international students, researchers mentioned that the different facets of cultural intelligence have shown a significant positive relationship with cultural adaptability among them (Mao & Liu, 2016). Researchers have the opinion that cultural intelligence has a direct influence on the process of adaptation (Putranto et al., 2015). Thus, based on the aforementioned literature following hypotheses have been formed:

H₁: Metacognitive cultural intelligence has a direct and positive relationship with the psychological adaptation of international students.

H₂: Cognitive cultural intelligence has a direct and pos-itive relationship with the psychological adaptation of international students.

H₃: Motivational cultural intelligence has a direct and positive relationship with the psychological adaptation of international students.

H₄: Behavioural cultural intelligence has a direct and positive relationship with the psychological adaptation of international students.

Figure 1 depicts the conceptual framework for the study.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

Figure 2.

Source: The authors.

Methodology

The present study is evaluative in nature. In the study, survey research method is used to obtain the information regarding the demographic characteristics of the respondents as well as their perspective on cultural intelligence and adaptability. The study has examined 290 international students enrolled in various HEIs located in northern India. Data has been collected using a structured questionnaire which was divided into two parts. The first part of the questionnaire sought information regarding the demographic characteristics of the respondents, that is, age, gender and residency period in India. The second part included items related to the cultural intelligence and psychological adaptation. Cultural intelligence among students has been examined using the Cultural Intelligence Scale (Ang et al., 2007). This 20-item scale is designed to measure the four sub-dimensions of cultural intelligence, that is, metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural cultural intelligence. The inventory includes four items for measuring metacognitive cultural intelligence, six items for measuring cognitive cultural intelligence, five items for motivational and five items for measuring behavioural cultural intelligence. Researchers have mentioned that this scale has shown high validity with different samples at different point of time (Ang et al., 2007; Keung & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2013; Moon, 2010). For measuring psychological adaptation, the researchers have used the 10-item Brief Psychological Adaptation Scale (Demes & Geeraert, 2014). Final responses have been collected on the basis of stratified sampling using five-point Likert scale.

The population size for the present research work is 17,049 international students pursuing higher education in northern India (AISHE, 2019). According to the All India Survey of Higher Education 2019, these 17,049 international students are spread across different states and union territories of north India. Delhi has 2,141 international students, Haryana has 2,872, Punjab has 4,533 students, Jammu and Kashmir has 11, Uttarakhand has 1,429, Uttar Pradesh has 4,514 and Himachal Pradesh has 1,038 international students respectively. For achieving the purpose of the study, final responses have been collected from these different strata. The calculated sample size is 376 international students and proportionately from each stratum response have been taken. The final questionnaire was distributed among 400 international students out of which 290 valid responses were collected thus response rate is 72.5 per cent.

Procedure

In the present study, a two-step approach has been used to test the hypothesized association between the independent and dependent variables. In the first step, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has been used to establish the unidimensionality, reliability and validity of the research instruments. In the second step, structural equation modeling (SEM) has been deployed to assess the hypothesized relationship between the dependent and independent variables. Different fit indices values namely comparative fit index (CFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), normed-fit index (NFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) have been used to assess the goodness of fit. During the analysis process, all the variables of the study have been checked for missing values, multicollinearity and for outliers.

Analysis

In the present study, respondents from 24 different countries have participated. These countries are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cameroon, China, DR Congo, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Malawi, Mauritius, Nepal, Nigeria, Palestine, Rwanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Tibet, Togo, Uganda, Yemen and Zambia. The detailed demographic profile of the respondents is depicted in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Analysis

Demographics
Gender	Frequency	Percentage
Male	191	65.87
Female	99	34.13
Age (in years)	Frequency	Percentage
18–21	161	55.51
21–25	112	38.62
25 and above	17	5.87
Residency Period in India (in years)	Frequency	Percentage
0–2	99	34.13
2–4	112	38.62
4 and above	79	27.25

Source: The authors.

Results of EFA

It has been deployed to check the unidimensionality of the scales. In EFA, principal component analysis with varimax rotation has been used. Originally Cultural Intelligence Scale consisted of 20 items; no item was deleted after the EFA process. Further, 10 items of psychological adaptability scale were reduced to five after the EFA. Thereafter, factor loading of the items has been checked. The factor loading for each item is more than 0.5 which is considered good. Four factors of cultural intelligence have been categorized as metacognitive cultural intelligence (MCCQ), motivational cultural intelligence (MOTCQ), cognitive cultural intelligence (COGCQ) and behavioural cultural intelligence (BEHCQ). Researchers have also examined the values of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sample adequacy, Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The KMO value for MCCQ, COGCQ, MOTCQ, BEHCQ is more than 0.6 and for psychological adaptability scale is. 700. The value of KMO measure of sample adequacy is above 0.6 which is considered appropriate. Table 2 shows the values for Bartlett’s test of sphericity for each factor. These values indicate the sample adequacy for all the factors as the p-value for each factor is .000 (Tanksale et al., 2014). Table 2 depicts the results of EFA in detail.

Table 2.

Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor	Factor Loading	Variance Explained (%)	KMO	Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Metacognitive CQ (MCCQ)		40.319	0.629	Approx. Chi-Square	65.567
MCCQ1	0.685			df	6
MCCQ2	0.587			Sig.	0.000
MCCQ3	0.588
MCCQ4	0.673
Cognitive CQ(COGCQ)		44.497	0.796	Approx. Chi-Square	339.095
COGCQ5	0.552			df	15
COGCQ6	0.681			Sig.	0.000
COGCQ7	0.684
COGCQ8	0.709
COGCQ9	0.741
COGCQ10	0.619
Motivational CQ(MOTCQ)		39.573	0.724	Approx. Chi-Square	137.979
MOTCQ11	0.563			df	10
MOTCQ12	0.704			Sig.	0.000
MOTCQ13	0.725
MOTCQ14	0.634
Behavioral CQ(BEHCQ)		42.495	0.726	Approx. Chi-Square	178.823
BEHCQ16	0.721			df	10
BEHCQ17	0.667			Sig.	0.000
BEHCQ18	0.646
BEHCQ19	0.624
BEHCQ20	0.627
PCA		37.08	0.700	Approx. Chi-Square	112.094
PCA21	0.650			df	10
PCA22	0.663			Sig.	0.000
PCA25	0.646
PCA28	0.652
PCA29	0.719

Source: The authors.

Notes: MCCQ—meta cognitive cultural intelligence; COGCQ—cognitive cultural intelligence; MOTCQ—motivational cultural intelligence; BEHCQ—behavioral cultural intelligence; PCA—psychological adaptation.

Results of CFA

In the present study, CFA has been used to strengthen the results through establishing the unidimensionality, reliability and validity of the scales. The results of the CFA model for cultural intelligence has generated a good fit indices as the value of GFI is 0.92, for CFI it is 0.93, for adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) it is 0.906 and RMSEA is 0.04. Further for psychological adaptability scale value of GFI is 0.99, value of CFI is 0.95, AGFI is 0.98 and value of RMSEA is 0.00. Further, all items have shown significant p-value (p = .000). It has been observed that all values are within acceptable ranges as suggested by the previous studies (Hair et al., 2010).

Further reliability and validity of the scales have also been confirmed. Scales have been checked for reliability through examining the value of Cronbach’s alfa and composite reliability scores. Table 3 depicts the results for validity and reliability of the scale.

Table 3.

Results for Validity and Reliability of the Scale

S. No.	Constructs	Cronbach’s	CR	AVE
1	MCCQ	0.75	0.76	0.06
2	COGCQ	0.72	0.75	0.53
3	MOTCQ	0.78	0.82	0.50
4	BEHCQ	0.84	0.86	0.58
5	PCA	0.82	0.85	0.53

Source: The authors.

Notes: MCCQ—meta cognitive cultural intelligence; COGCQ— cognitive cultural intelligence; MOTCQ—motivational cultural intelligence; BEHCQ—behavioral cultural intelligence; PCA—psychological adaptability; CR—composite reliability; AVE—average variance extracted.

Table 3 clearly shows the high reliability of the scales as the values of Cronbach’s alfa and composite reliability for all the factor are above the range of 0.70. Convergent validity of scales has been checked using AVE score. Values of AVE for all the dimensions were more than 0.5, thus establishing the convergent validity of the constructs (Hair et al., 2010). In the present study, all the dimensions have shown reliability and convergent validity as they fulfil the criterion cited by Hair et al. (2010).

Further study has used mean scores values for calculating the level of cultural intelligence and psychological adaptation among international students. Table 4 depicts the results for mean score values.

It is evident from the Table 4 that international students have shown lower level of metacognitive cultural intelligence MCCQ (M = 2.04), lower behavioural cultural intelligence BCQ (M = 2.53), lower cognitive cultural intelligence level COGCQ (M = 2.79) and lower behavioural cultural intelligence level BEHCQ (M = 2.53). It has also been analysed that international students possess moderate level of psychological adaptation in Indian culture as mean value of PCA is 3.18.

Table 4.

Results of Descriptive Statistics

Dimensions	Mean	Standard Deviation
MCCQ	2.04	1.76
COGCQ	2.79	4.27
MOTCQ	2.27	2.19
BEHCQ	2.53	2.74
PCA	3.18	3.41

Source: The authors.

Notes: MCCQ—meta cognitive cultural intelligence; COGCQ— cognitive cultural intelligence; MOTCQ—motivational cultural intelligence; BEHCQ—behavioral cultural intelligence; PCA—psychological adaptability.

Results of SEM

In the present study, SEM has been used to statistically test the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Values of different fit indices have been used to assess the fitness of model. It has been observed that the model has exhibited strong psychometric properties. The model has shown the data adequacy as the values of different fit indices fall within the acceptable range (CMIN/DF = 1.474; GFI = 0.92; AGFI = 0.90; CFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.04). In the present study, motivational cultural intelligence, metacognitive cultural intelligence, cognitive cultural intelligence and behavioural cultural intelligence have been taken as independent variables and psychological adaptation as a dependent variable. The standardized path coefficient shows the direction and magnitude of the relationship between the variables. The findings of SEM have shown that only behavioural cultural intelligence depicts a positive and direct relationship with psychological adaptation of international students with path coefficient value of 0.49 (p < .05). Hence, it has been concluded that hypothesis H₄ is accepted.

Discussion and Conclusion

The results of the study have revealed the existence of a direct and positive relationship between behavioural cultural intelligence and psychological adaptation. These results clearly reinforce the importance of behavioural cultural intelligence in a foreign environment as it helps the international students in their successful psychological adaptation. These results are in line with the previous research findings which also showed a direct and positive relationship between the cultural intelligence and adaptation among individuals (Mao & Liu, 2016; Nunes et al., 2017). Although no significant relationship has been found between the metacognitive, motivational, cognitive cultural intelligence and psychological adaptation. In the present research, the level of cultural intelligence among international students has also been examined. Results have depicted low level for each sub-dimension of cultural intelligence, that is, for metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and for behavioural cultural intelligence. The results of the study led to the conclusion that international students have insufficient cultural knowledge. The low level of behavioural cultural intelligence has been also observed among candidates which indicates that they lack in appropriate verbal and non-verbal cultural behavior. Further, previous research (Earley & Ang, 2003) emphasized that motivational cultural intelligence plays a key role in the adaptation process, although findings of the study showed a very low motivational cultural intelligence among international students.

Implications and Future Research Directions

Results of the research work have practical implications for the HEIs in India and for the Indian educational policymakers. In recent years, Indian HEIs have witnessed a gradual increase in the number of foreign student enrollment and understanding about their psychological adaptability in Indian culture will surely help to frame better policies. Results will also help the institutes to comprehend the dimensions of cultural intelligence which are very essential to be developed among international students. The findings of the study have espoused a need for designing curriculum focusing on improving the metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural cultural intelligence among international students.

The study has some limitations also as it is restricted to only two variables namely cultural intelligence and psychological adaptation. Further, the present study is cross-sectional in nature and evaluates the constructs based on self-evaluative measure, therefore responses can lead to biased results. The results of the study can be better verified in a longitudinal study. The study has only focused on international students; in future, samples from other sojourns can be taken as a sample for an enhanced understanding of the concept of cultural intelligence and adaptability.

Footnotes

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: This research work is funded by the Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi article.

References

AISHE (2019). All India survey on higher education. http://aishe.nic.in/aishe/reports

Ang

, & Van Dyne

(Eds.). (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence. In Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications. Sharpe.

Ang

, Van Dyne

, Koh

, Ng

K. J.

, Tay

, & Chandrasekar

N. A.

(2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–337.

Arora

, & Rohmetra

(2010). Cultural intelligence: Leveraging differences to bridge the gap in the international hospitality industry. International Review of Business Research Papers, 6(5), 216–234.

Brancu

, Munteanu

, & Goblet

(2016). Understanding cultural intelligence factors among business students in Romania. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 221, 336–341.

Brislín

, Worthley

, & McNab

(2006). Cultural intelligence: Understanding behaviors that serve people’s goals. Group and Organization Management, 31(1), 40–45.

Chang

W. H.

(2016). Predictors of international students’ socio-cultural adjustment (Doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Deci

E. L.

, & Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.

Demes

, & Geeraert

(2014). Measures matter: Scales for adaptation, cultural distance, and acculturation orientation revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1), 91–109.

10.

Earley

P. C.

, & Ang

(2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press.

11.

Frederick

J. A.

, Blumenfeld

P. C.

, & Paris

(2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept: State of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–119.

12.

Hair

J. F.

, Anderson

R. E.

, Tatham

R. L.

, Black

W. C.

, Babin

B. J.

, & Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

13.

Horne

S. V.

, Lin

, Anson

, & Jacobson

(2018). Engagement, satisfaction, and belonging of international undergraduates at U.S. research universities. Journal of International Students, 8(1), 351–374.

14.

Jyoti

, & Kour

(2015). Assessing the cultural intelligence and task performance: Mediating role of cultural adjustment. Cross-cultural Management: An International Journal, 22(2), 236–258.

15.

Karroubi

, Hadinejad

, & Mahmoudzadeh

(2014). A study on relationship between cultural intelligence and cross-cultural adjustment in tour management. Management Science Letters, 4(6), 1233–1244.

16.

Kaur

, & Pany

(2018). Cultural intelligence and cross-cultural adjustment of foreign students in Punjab: A relationship study. Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 8(2), 232–242.

17.

Keung

E. K.

, & Rockinson

- Szapkiw

(2013). The relationship between transformational leadership and cultural intelligence: A study of international school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(6), 836–854.

18.

Khanal

, & Gaulee

(2019). Challenges of international students from pre-departure to post-study. Journal of International Students, 9(2), 560–581.

19.

Lee

, Crawford

, Weber

M. R.

, & Dennison

(2018). Antecedents of cultural intelligence among American hospitality students: Moderating effect of ethnocentrism. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 30(3), 167–183.

20.

Mao

, & Liu

(2016). Social support: A moderator between cultural intelligence and cross-cultural adaptation of international students in Chinese universities. International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 12(2), 32–36.

21.

Meza

V. E.

, & Gazzoli

(2011). International students’ acculturation and adaptation: The cases of an indigenous group studying in Switzerland. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 23(2), 14–22.

22.

Moon

(2010). Emotional intelligence correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(8), 876–898.

23.

Newsome

L. K.

, & Cooper

(2016). International students’ cultural and social experiences in a British university: ‘Such a hard life (it) is here’. Journal of International Students, 6(1), 195–215.

24.

K. Y.

, & Earley

C. P.

(2006). Culture and intelligence: Old constructs, new frontiers. Group and Organization Management, 31(1), 4–19.

25.

Nunes

I. M.

, Felix

, & Prates

L. A.

(2017). Cultural intelligence, cross-cultural adaptation and expatriate performance: A study with expatriates living in Brazil. Revista de Administração (São Paulo), 52(3), 219–232.

26.

Ott

D. L.

, & Michailova

(2016). Cultural intelligence: A review and new research avenues. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1–21.

27.

Perez-Encinas

, & Rodriguez-Pomeda

(2019). Geographies and cultures of international student experiences in higher education. Journal of International Students, 9(2), 412–431.

28.

Putranto

N. A. R.

, Gustomo

, & Ghazali

(2015). Analysis of cross cultural management course pedagogy methods in developing students’ cultural intelligence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 169, 354–362.

29.

Shafaei

, & Razak

N. A.

(2016). Internationalisation of higher education: Conceptualising the antecedents and outcomes of cross-cultural adaptation. Policy Futures in Education, 14(6), 701–720.

30.

Tanksale

, Neelam

, & Venkatachalam

(2014). Consumer decision making styles of young adult consumers in India. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 211–218.

31.

Terry

(2011). International initiatives that facilitate global mobility in higher education. Michigan State Law Review, 2012(1), 305–356.

32.

Thomas

D. C.

(2006). Domain and development of cultural intelligence: The importance of mindfulness. Group and Organization Management, 31(1), 78–99.

33.

Thomson

, Rosenthal

, & Russell

(2006). Cultural stress among international students at an Australian university. In Australian International Education Conference, 10, 1–8.----

34.

Ward

, & Kennedy

(1993). Psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions: A comparison of secondary students overseas and at home. International Journal of Psychology, 28(2), 129–147.

35.

H. P.

, Garza

, & Guzman

(2015). International student’s challenge and adjustment to college. Education Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/202753