International Student Mobility Aspirations: The Role of Romantic Relationships and Academic Motivation

Abstract

The academic literature on the determinants of international student mobility so far has largely ignored the influence of romantic relationships and study motivation in the development of aspirations to participate in temporary learning experiences in another country. However, young adults might take considerations about investments in individual development (via academic training and thus study motivation) and romantic relationships into account in their decision-making process. Consequently, we apply a life-course perspective analyzing the relationships between having a romantic partner, study motivation, and aspirations to participate in an international exchange program among first-year university students, based on a survey conducted among 603 freshmen in Brussels. As female students are more likely to participate in student exchanges compared with male students, we pay special attention to gender differences. Our results show that a romantic relationship is negatively correlated with aspirations to participate in an international student exchange among female students. In contrast, intrinsic academic motivation is significantly associated with such aspirations among female and male students. Overall, our findings indicate the need for the consideration of different life-course domains in academic studies on international student mobility.

Keywords

student mobility romantic relationship partner student academic motivation

Introduction

Over the past decade, scholarly work on the determinants of international student mobility (ISM) significantly expanded in different fields (see, for example, Hagen-Zanker, 2008; Netz, 2015; Souto-Otero et al., 2013; Van Mol & Timmerman, 2014; Vossensteyn et al., 2010). At the micro-level, ISM is found to be mainly driven by a mixture of developmental, leisure, travel, personal, and experiential goals (King & Ruiz-Gelices, 2003; Lesjak et al., 2015; Vossensteyn et al., 2010). However, most studies overlook life-course factors and rely on retrospective information regarding students’ (eventual) mobility decisions. In this article, in contrast, we argue that higher education students are at the crossroads of several life-course transitions which should be taken into account in studies on ISM decision-making processes. With the term “international student mobility,” in this article, we refer to higher education students’ temporary learning experiences abroad, resulting “in progress toward an academic degree at a student’s home institution, excluding degree-seeking studies at a foreign institution” (Ogden et al., 2020, p. xxvi). In the European literature on international student exchanges, this is often called “credit mobility” (see, for example, Breznik & Skrbinjek, 2020; Souto-Otero et al., 2013; Teichler, 2012; Vossensteyn et al., 2010). In this article, we particularly focus on students’ aspirations to participate in the European Erasmus+ exchange program for higher education students, providing insight into the factors that may influence higher education students’ ISM decision-making process at an early stage.

The contribution of our article to the academic literature is threefold. First, we focus on to what extent romantic relationships of higher education students play a role in eventual ISM-aspirations. After all, life-course studies have stressed the relevance of the people around the individual in the development of migration and mobility decisions (often referred to as the “linked lives” principle; Elder et al., 2003; Fischer & Malmberg, 2001; Haug, 2008). Existing studies on the role of the family on ISM-decisions also suggest that families can play a sometimes subtle yet important role (Cairns, 2014; Souto-Otero et al., 2013). Furthermore, studies that looked at immobility decisions and control for relationship status suggest that having a romantic partner may influence decisions not to participate in international exchange opportunities (e.g., Netz, 2015; Van Mol, 2014). The existing empirical literature, however, has not yet paid full attention to the importance of romantic relationships for ISM-aspirations. This is unfortunate, as especially in early adulthood, when decisions to participate in international exchange programs are made, romantic partnerships are an important part of the individuals’ life and development (Collins et al., 2009; Zarrett & Eccles, 2006). Consequently, in this article, we specifically focus on the relationship between students’ involvement in romantic relationships and aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program.

Second, aspirations to participate in international exchange programs might also correlate with study motivations. After all, from a human capital perspective, participation in such exchanges can be considered to be an additional investment to develop specific knowledge, skills, and competences (Becker, 1975). As such, motivations in terms of the determination to acquire such knowledge, skills, and competences likely play a crucial role in the decision-making process. Relying on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; R. M. Ryan & Deci, 2000), which distinguishes between internal and external orientations of motivation, we therefore investigate whether different types of self-determined study motivation during a student’s study career are associated with aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program.

Third, we explicitly analyze the role of having a romantic relationship as well as study motivations on aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program from a gender perspective. With the term gender, we refer to individuals’ biological sex and its associated cultural and social role expectations. As such, we do not refer to gender identity, that is, whether an individual identifies as masculine, feminine, or both, or to a simple binary biological variable that neglects the cultural and social expectations associated with sex differences. It is well known that women are overrepresented in international exchange programs, irrespective of their field of study (Böttcher et al., 2016; Li et al., 2013; Redden, 2008; Salisbury et al., 2010). Today, this unequal gender balance remains unexplained and is identified as one of the major gaps in research on the determinants of ISM decisions (King & Raghuram, 2013; Salisbury et al., 2010). By focusing on ISM aspirations of female and male students, we aim to provide potential explanations for the existence of this gender gap, particularly addressing the potential differential role that romantic relations and study motivation may have for male and female students in developing aspirations to study temporarily abroad.

In sum, our study thus sheds light on how social (and in particular romantic) relations as well as study motivations relate to aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program, with specific attention to gendered processes. Our analyses rely on unique survey data collected among all first-year bachelor students from the wider social sciences and humanities at a higher education institution in Brussels, Belgium [Vrije Universiteit Brusse].

Background

Aspirations as Key Concept for Understanding ISM

In this article, our first conceptual starting point comes from the literature on international migration, which focuses both on temporary and permanent forms of migration, and wherein participants in international exchange programs are conceptualized as a specific group of migrants, because of the migration-related dynamics they undergo (see, for example, Van Mol, 2014, pp. 34–35; Van Mol & Michielsen, 2015).¹ In line with such theoretical conceptualizations, studies on international migration dynamics have great potential for informing studies on the decision-making processes, experiences, and outcomes of international exchange students. In migration studies, decision-making processes are often conceptualized as step-wise processes (Van Mol et al., 2018). Carling (2002) developed the two-step aspirations/ability model, in which migration is seen as the result of people’s aspirations to migrate and then the ability to do so. Migration can be desirable, and preferred over staying (“aspiration”) but having migration aspirations may or may not result in actual mobility due to structural constraints or variation in individual capabilities, referred to as “ability.” So far, these concepts and notions, as developed by Carling (2002), have not been regularly applied to ISM (for an exception on degree-seeking mobility, see Lombard, 2019). However, it is a valuable frame for our study population of first-year BA students who just started higher education and did not yet participate in an international exchange program.

Life-Course Perspective: Linked Lives

In this article, we use the life-course perspective as our second conceptual starting point to understand study-abroad aspirations of higher education students. The life-course approach provides a framework for understanding the complexity of contexts and development of individual lives (Elder et al., 2003). According to this framework, individual decisions are embedded in time and place as well as social relations (Elder et al., 2003; Macmillan & Copher, 2005). For our study, we focus on the notion of “linked lives,” explained as the “interdependency and socio-historical influences that are expressed through the network of shared relationships” (Elder et al., 2003, p. 13; Mayer, 2001). Briefly, it acknowledges the interdependency of individuals in their aspirations, decisions, and actions. After all, wider family and social contexts are likely to influence geographical mobility while individual agency in life-course decisions is acknowledged (Fischer & Malmberg, 2001; Hagen-Zanker, 2008; Haug, 2008; L. Ryan & Sales, 2013; Souto-Otero et al., 2013; Williams et al., 2018).

The life-course concept of “linked lives” has been applied in migration research (Wingens et al., 2011) and as such is closely related to the concepts of “social embeddedness” or “location-specific social capital” (Fischer & Malmberg, 2001; Haug, 2008). In migration studies, having more social capital or being more socially embedded in one location is typically believed to impede having migration aspirations as moving would imply the disturbance of these local social ties (Cairns & Smyth, 2009; Vidal & Kley, 2010). A recent study by Williams et al. (2018) also showed that individuals who attach great importance to being with family have lower intentions to migrate. A similar finding was reported in an earlier study on post-graduation mobility (Frieze et al., 2006).

Romantic partners are a specific and influential case of “linked lives” and can thus be expected to play an important role in the migration decision-making process. In his study on German degree mobile students, Carlson (2013) also refers to this as the “partnership project.” The literature on both international and internal mobility has empirically shown the influence of partners on moving aspirations, intentions, and behavior (e.g., De Jong, 2000; Kley, 2011; Mulder & Wagner, 1993), for short- and long-term mobility experiences. For higher education students who are in the phase of making choices in different life domains, like education, work, and family life, we may expect that having a romantic partner may also shape their life-aspirations, including aspirations to participate in an international exchange program during their studies. Although higher education students are in a life phase where they are still relatively free from constraints, a number of studies on barriers to participation in the Erasmus+ program have indicated that family and personal relationships are one of the most important barriers to participation in the Erasmus+ program (Beerkens et al., 2016; Souto-Otero et al., 2013; Vossensteyn et al., 2010). More specifically, having a partner seems to deter students from participation in educational experiences abroad (Brandenburg, 2014; Bröckl, 2012; Carlson, 2013; Netz, 2015; Van Mol, 2014; Van Mol & Timmerman, 2014). However, most studies on ISM-decisions that include romantic relationships have merely treated this as a control variable without aiming to understand the role these relationships already play in forming aspirations and the potentially gendered effects they may have. Based on the existing literature reviewed above, we hypothesize that among higher education students, romantic relationships are negatively associated with aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program (Hypothesis 1). In addition, we also expect the relative importance of romantic relationships to differ between female and male students. We elaborate on this in the section on gendered dynamics.

Self-Determined Motivations

A third conceptual starting point for this article comes from psychology, more precisely, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; R. M. Ryan & Deci, 2000), which is helpful for conceptually understanding how study motivations might relate to aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program. In self-determination theory, two broad motivational categories are differentiated, namely, intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Deci & Ryan, 1985; R. M. Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic motivation refers to “doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable and is linked to the inherent human curiosity, and eagerness to learn” (R. M. Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 55). Extrinsic motivation could be explained as “doing something because it leads to a separable outcome,” for example, through external pressure or control (R. M. Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 55). Various levels of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are associated with educational characteristics, for example, educational achievement, school attendance, school drop-out, classroom conduct, and satisfaction at school (e.g., Ratelle et al., 2007; Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992; Vansteenkiste et al., 2006; Vecchione et al., 2014). In the context of higher education, it can be expected that students’ study motivations also correlate with their aspirations to study temporarily abroad. After all, participation in study-abroad programs can be considered as an additional investment of students in the development of their competences, knowledge, and skills. Students who show high study motivations can hence be expected to be more likely to make such additional investments. Given the previous literature which shows that particularly intrinsic motivation is relevant in predicting educational outcomes, we hypothesize that particularly intrinsic study motivations correlate with aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program (Hypothesis 2).

Gendered Dynamics

Although a gender gap in international exchange participation is observed in Australia, Europe, and the United States, few studies have paid attention to the potentially gendered nature of the decision-making process to participate in an international exchange. Salisbury et al. (2010) stressed the importance of gender-specific analyses, arguing that social and cultural capital might differently affect the ISM decision-making process of male and female students. This has also been suggested in the broader international migration literature, where it has been indicated that social embeddedness may be particularly relevant for immobility decisions of women. The mechanisms that are suggested to be responsible for this relate to the potentially different attitudes and norms toward the responsibilities of female roles within family and relationships; women are often seen as the kin-keeper in the family (e.g., Fischer & Malmberg, 2001; Hadler, 2006; Kley, 2011). The few available studies that focus on the gender gap in ISM report that female students are more likely to value the opinions of parents, friends, and relatives regarding study abroad (Presley et al., 2010; Shirley, 2006). Furthermore, a study among Australian higher education students who combined study and a family indicated that female students in particular experienced more conflicts between their role as a student and their family roles as a parent and partner (Stone & O’Shea, 2013). Overall, this leads us to expect that the inhibiting effect of a romantic relationship on aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program will be stronger for female students than it is for male students (Hypothesis 3).

Finally, we may also expect a gendered effect on the link between academic motivations and aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program. It has consistently been shown that educational motivations develop in a gendered fashion from the start of the school career under the influence of various mechanisms and actors during childhood (e.g., parents, teachers), (Meece et al., 2006). For example, in an Italian study on predictors of students’ performance, Vecchione et al. (2014) found that the predictive value of intrinsic motivation is stronger for female students, while male students seem more strongly influenced by external regulation (as a subcategory of extrinsic motivation). Consequently, we hypothesize the correlation of intrinsic motivation with aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program to be stronger among female students compared with male students (Hypothesis 4).

In sum, in this article, we focus on how aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program are influenced by romantic relationships and study motivations, whereby we expect gender to act as a moderator.

Data and Method

Data

We use a unique cross-sectional student survey dataset from 2016 that was collected (paper–pencil) among first-year bachelor students in Social Sciences and Humanities at a higher education institution in Brussels (Belgium). By focusing on students from a single institution, comparability among the sampling units is guaranteed as the same institutional rules on participation in the Erasmus+ program apply. The response rate of the survey was 57% (N = 1,080). Given the different life stage that older students might be in and which might affect their mobility aspirations, we restricted the sample to respondents younger than the age of 26, without children. We additionally limit our analyses to those students who are studying full-time (for whom studies is their main activity). Applying these restrictions provides us with a total analytical sample of 603 respondents.

Variables

Dependent variable

Our dependent variable is aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program, which was measured by the question “Do you have the intention to go on an Erasmus mobility during your studies?”² The possible answer categories were “yes, definitely”; “yes, probably”; “no, probably not”; “no, definitely not”; “do not know”; and “I do not know the Erasmus mobility program.” We recoded the answers into a variable with three categories: (0 = “no probably not” and “no, definitely not”; 1 = “yes, definitely” and “yes, probably”; 2 = “do not know” and “I do not know the Erasmus mobility programme”).

Independent variables

As we focus on the relationship between ISM aspirations and romantic relationships, a first dichotomous variable measures whether the respondent had a romantic relationship at the time of the survey (0 = no, 1 = yes). This is a self-reported relationship status, with only a reference to “boyfriend/girlfriend.” The relationships have a median duration of 18.5 months. Second, we use two continuous measures of students’ academic motivations, based on a principal components analysis (PCA) on nine statements. For each item, respondents could rate their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The PCA identified two main components: Component 1 refers to intrinsic academic motivations (Cronbach’s α = .700) and Component 2 to extrinsic academic motivations (Cronbach’s α = .751). In our analyses, we use sum scales of the two components as independent variables, with higher values indicating higher academic motivations. Third, gender—referring to individuals’ biological sex and its associated cultural and social roles—is included as a dichotomous variable (0 = female, 1 = male).³

Control variables

Several variables that—based on the background section—are expected to correlate with aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program are included as control variables. First, age is measured by a continuous variable indicating single years. Second, the ISM literature clearly indicates that socioeconomic background plays an important role in ISM decisions, with students from a lower socioeconomic background being less likely to participate (for a recent overview, see Netz et al., 2020). Therefore, we include two indicators for socioeconomic status of the student: a measurement of study financing and educational attainment of the mother. Parental educational attainment, and especially that of the mother, is considered as a good measurement for socioeconomic status of young adults, and is additionally found to be related to academic achievement (Entwislea & Astone, 1994; Hoff et al., 2002). Study financing is measured by a dichotomous variable indicating how the student finances his or her studies (1 = full parental financial support), 0 = (partial) financing in a different way (e.g., part-time student job, grants). In all, 62.6% of the respondents indicate that their studies are fully paid by their parents. Educational background of the mother is measured with three categories, 1 = low (up to lower secondary education degree), 2 = medium (up to higher secondary education degree), 3 = high (tertiary education degree); 62.2% of all mothers has a tertiary degree. We compared our sample with a representative study of 18- to 30-year-olds in Belgium, the JOP survey (2013),⁴ and found that in our sample, there are slightly fewer young adults with higher educated parents. In the JOP survey, 76% of respondents who are having a university degree themselves have a parent with a higher education degree. With regard to migrant background, the percentages of our sample and the JOP survey are matching (42% of young adults has a migrant background).

Third, we included a measure for the importance expressed by the respondents about weekly contact with the parents to control for family centrality (Frieze et al., 2006), ranging from 1 (not important at all) to 5 (very important). We combined the variables for both parents (if applicable) into a single variable, indicating the average score.

Fourth, as previous experiences living abroad also show to increase the likelihood of participating in international exchange programs during a higher education degree (e.g., King & Ruiz-Gelices, 2003; Saarikallio-Torp & Wiers-Jenssen, 2010; Van Mol & Timmerman, 2014), we included two variables measuring the “international biography” of respondents. First, a dichotomous variable indicating whether the respondent had lived abroad for 3 months in his or her life or not (0 = no, 1 = yes). Second, a dichotomous variable indicating whether the respondent has family living abroad (0 = no, 1 = yes), as respondents with family abroad might be more internationally oriented. Although Table 1 indicates that only a minority of our respondents already lived abroad themselves, about two third has family members living abroad, which is probably related to the fact that almost half of our respondents have a migration background, reflecting the population diversity in terms of origin in Brussels: Nearly 62% of the population in Brussels is of foreign origin (Petrovic, 2012). Consequently, we also control for ethnic origin (0 = respondent and both parents are born in Belgium, 1 = respondent or at least one parent is born abroad), as previous research is inconclusive on whether ethnicity matters or not (see, for example, Netz et al., 2020).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of the Sample (N = 603).

Variable	M	SD	Range	n
Intrinsic academic motivation	4.11	.55	1–5	602
Extrinsic academic motivation	3.26	.87	1–5	603
Age (centered on age 18)	.86	1.28	0–7	603
Importance weekly contact with parents	4.46	.73	1–5	562
		%	Range	n
Study-abroad aspirations			0–1	597
No		22.1
Yes		65.0
Do not know		12.9
Romantic relationship			0–1	599
No		67.1
Yes		32.9
Gender			0–1	603
Male		67.0
Female		33.0
Study finance through parents			0–1	572
Partially/not financed by parents		37.4
Fully financed by parents		62.6
Educational level mother			1–3	564
Low		14.7
Medium		23.0
High		62.2
Lived abroad			0–1	603
No		83.9
Yes		16.1
Family living abroad			0–1	603
No		38.3
Yes		61.7
Migration background			0–1	603
No		57.9
Yes		42.1

An overview of descriptive statistics is provided in Table 1.

Analytic Strategy

Given that our dependent variable has three categories, we use multinomial logistic regression models. We use “not having aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ programme” as reference. We start with models based on the pooled data and continue with separate analyses by gender.

Results

Descriptive Analysis

A majority of the respondents, 65%, expressed an aspiration to participate in the Erasmus mobility program (Table 1). When examining the relationship between romantic partnerships and these aspirations, we see a clear pattern: Those who are involved in a relationship have lower aspirations compared with those without a partner (59.5% and 67.8%, respectively). However, this relationship is not statistically significant (χ² = 5.427, p = .066). In line with our expectations, higher intrinsic academic motivation correlates with having aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program, F(2, 594) = 12.894, p < .001. For extrinsic academic motivation, we do not find a significant relationship, F(2, 594) = 0.315, p = .730. Furthermore, we also find a significant association (χ² = 26.806, p < .001) between gender and ISM aspirations; 71.9% of the female students indicated they aspire to participate in the Erasmus+ program, whereas the percentage for male students is 50.8%.

Multivariate Analysis

Next, we present multinomial logistic regressions on ISM aspirations (Table 2). In Model I, the relationship between being involved in a romantic relationship and aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program is investigated, controlling for confounding variables. In line with Hypothesis 1, students involved in a romantic relationship have a significant lower propensity to consider participation (odds ratio [OR] = .606, p < .05*). No statistically significant relationship between being in a romantic relationship and ISM aspirations is found among respondents who did not yet know whether or not to participate in the Erasmus+ program (OR = 0.724, p > .05).

Table 2.

Multinomial Logistic Regressions on the Propensity to Participate in the Erasmus+ Program During the Higher Education Degree (Reference Category = No, Odds Ratios).

	Model I		Model II		Model III		Model IV
	Romantic relationships		Academic motivations		Gender		Full model
	Yes	Do not know	Yes	Do not know	Yes	Do not know	Yes	Do not know
Romantic relationships (ref: no)	0.606*	0.724					0.536*	0.690
Academic motivations
Extrinsic motivation			1.174	1.128			1.203	1.132
Intrinsic motivation			3.054***	2.038*			2.693***	1.990*
Gender (ref: female)					0.344***	0.788	0.361***	0.824
Control variables
Age	0.876	0.802	0.857	0.789	0.888	0.800	0.890	0.798
Study fully financed by parents (ref: no complete parental financing)	0.842	1.080	0.877	1.116	0.844	1.070	0.884	1.104
Educational level mother (ref: low)
Medium	1.251	1.028	1.366	1.097	1.214	1.012	1.366	1.103
High	2.567**	1.136	3.273**	1.355	2.622**	1.152	3.164**	1.303
Importance weekly contact with parents	0.945	1.129	0.876	1.063	0.865	1.110	0.806	1.059
Lived abroad (ref: no)	1.206	0.886	0.962	0.755	1.182	0.858	1.169	0.851
Family living abroad (ref: no)	1.791*	2.127*	1.537	1.930	1.746*	2.118*	1.574	1.969
Migration background (ref: no)	1.418	0.863	1.542	0.927	1.517	0.907	1.330	0.844
n	499		499		499		499
R² (Nagelkerke)	.078		.137		.121		.187
χ² likelihood ratio test (df, p)	33.228 (18, .016)		59.688 (20, < .001)		52.290 (18, < .001)		83.399 (24, < .001)
–2 log likelihood	580.346		786.969		569.988		776.992

Note. Standard errors in parentheses.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Model II focuses on the relationship between academic motivation and aspirations to become mobile. The OR of 3.064 (p < .001) indicates—in line with Hypothesis 2—that a higher intrinsic motivation score is significantly associated with students’ aspiration to participate in the Erasmus+ program, and this does not hold for extrinsic motivations (OR = 1.174, p > .05). This relationship is also found among those who do not yet know whether to go abroad or not: This group of students has higher intrinsic motivation levels compared with those who do not want to go abroad at all (OR = 2.038, p < .05*).

Model III then investigates the relationship between gender and ISM aspirations, and shows that male students have significantly lower odds for ISM aspirations (OR = 0.344, p<.05), confirming Hypothesis 3. Again, such relationship is not detected for students who did not yet know whether to participate in the Erasmus+ program or not (OR = 0.788, p > .05). The full model (Model IV) confirms each of the reported previous results: Female students (OR = 0.361, p < .05) and those with intrinsic study motivation (OR = 2.693, p < .001) are more likely to participate in the Erasmus+ program, whereas those in a romantic relationship (OR = 0.536, p < .05) are less likely to have such aspirations.

As a final analytical step, we tested whether the main effects we found hold by gender (Table 3). Model I replicates the full model as shown in Table 2 (Model IV), to facilitate comparison with the gender-specific Models II and III. The models clearly show that intrinsic motivation is positively correlated with aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ exchange program for both male (OR = 3.579, p < .05) and female (OR = 1.850, p<.05*) respondents. Interestingly, the odds for intrinsic motivation are much higher among the male students in our sample. As such, Hypothesis 4, which stated that the relationship between intrinsic motivations and study-abroad aspirations would be stronger among female students compared with male students, is rejected. Interestingly, when conducting separate analyses for male and female students regarding the association between being involved in a romantic relationship and aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program, we find that the significant relationship in the full model can primarily be attributed to the female respondents. It is only for women that being in a romantic relationship results in lower aspirations (OR = 0.358, p < .01). Although not reaching significance, being in a romantic relationship for women also results in lower odds of not knowing whether or not to aspire to participate in the Erasmus+ exchange program (OR = 0.420, p > .05). This suggests that being in a romantic relationship for women excludes the option of participation. For the models in which we compare those who “do not know” with those having no aspirations for participation separately by gender, we do not find significant results for any of our independent variables.

Table 3.

Multinomial Logistic Regressions on the Propensity to Participate in the Erasmus+ Program During the Higher Education Degree (Reference Category = No, Odds Ratios).

	Model I		Model II		Model III
	Total sample		Women		Men
	Yes	Do not know	Yes	Do not know	Yes	Do not know
Romantic relationships (ref: no)	0.536*	0.690	0.358**	0.420	0.985	1.083
Academic motivations
Extrinsic motivation	1.203	1.132	1.248	1.431	1.177	0.883
Intrinsic motivation	2.693***	1.990*	1.850*	1.328	3.579**	2.581
Gender (ref: female)	0.361***	0.824	—	—	—	—
Control variables
Age	0.890	0.798	0.816	0.482*	0.932	1.086
Study fully financed by parents (ref: no complete parental financing)	0.884	1.104	1.445	1.795	0.516	0.843
Educational level mother (ref: low)
Medium	1.366	1.103	1.078	1.545	2.247	0.555
High	3.164**	1.303	2.719*	1.773	4.457*	0.802
Lived abroad (ref: no)	1.169	0.851	2.331	0.985	0.494	0.619
Family living abroad (ref: no)	1.574	1.969	1.736	2.162	1.365	1.749
Importance weekly contact with parents	0.806	1.059	0.766	0.642	0.702	1.912
Migration background (ref: no)	1.330	0.844	1.240	0.780	1.703	0.820
n	499		336		163
R² (Nagelkerke)	.187		.175		.248
χ² likelihood ratio test (df, p)	83.399 (24, <.001)		49.772 (22, .001)		39.262 (22, .013)
–2 log likelihood	776.992		460.685		286.816

Note. Standard errors in parentheses.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Conclusion and Discussion

In this study, we focused on whether and how romantic relationships, academic motivations, and gender—referring to students’ biological sex and its associated cultural and social role expectations—are related to aspirations to participate in the international exchange program Erasmus+, among a sample of freshmen at a higher education institution in Brussels, Belgium. Based on our analyses, the following three major conclusions can be drawn.

First, our findings clearly indicate that being in a romantic relationship is negatively correlated with aspirations to participate in an international exchange program for female students. This finding is in line with the international migration literature (e.g., De Jong, 2000; Kley, 2011; Mulder & Wagner, 1993). Nevertheless, for international migration, the retaining effect of a partnership is often explained as making the decision process more complex because the partner (and often children) also form part of a single household. The romantic relationships higher education students are engaged in, however, are often not (yet) formalized by marriage or registered partnership, no children are involved (by selection in our sample), and these students are usually not sharing the same household with their partner. As such, our results clearly illustrate the importance of considering romantic relationships in ISM decision-making processes, even when partners do not share the same household. They also indicate that women may be much more inclined to plan their individual aspirations in line with that of the partner while men are more driven by their own aspirations irrespective of having a partner or not.

Second, our results showed that higher intrinsic study motivations are significantly and positively associated with aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program. The important role of intrinsic academic motivation on such aspirations might be explained from the angle of personal development motivations which are often mentioned as the main personal motivations for participating in international exchange programs (e.g., Van Mol & Timmerman, 2014). We found intrinsic motivation important for both male and female students, but it had particularly high relevance for male students. It seems that it is a selection of male students with very high intrinsic motivation (and with highly educated mothers) who are particularly likely to aspire to participate in international exchange programs. For them, this may be an investment in themselves as well as a way to invest in future job opportunities.

Third, in line with the documented gender gap in the likelihood of participation in international exchange programs, female students in our sample expressed higher aspirations for participation compared with male students. At the same time, being in a romantic relationship seems to lead to lower aspirations only among female students. These gender-specific effects are puzzling and suggest that there is a dichotomy between women who aspire to participate in ISM and related individual development in contrast to others who are in a romantic relationship already at a relatively young age which they prioritize over individual aspirations. As such, our results potentially indicate the influence of gender socialization on ISM decision-making processes. Our findings suggest that in a period when family and partner commitments are typically assumed to be still low priorities and students are very early in the study-abroad decision making process, female students are still more influenced by potential conflict between educational goals and relationship expectations.

Our findings may also provide relevant information for practitioners. In line with other studies (see, for example, Beerkens et al., 2016; Souto-Otero et al., 2013; Van Mol, 2014; Van Mol & Timmerman, 2014), we show that personal relationships are one of the most important barriers for participation in—specifically—the Erasmus+ program. The study of Beerkens et al. (2016) revealed that respondents who indicate “home ties”—which included work and family/relationship commitments—were also more likely to indicate an Erasmus+ stay to be too long. Today, the minimum period for participation in the Erasmus+ program is 3 months. Based on our findings, one may consider the possibilities for organizing shorter study stays abroad within the framework of the program, as well as for other international exchange programs across the world. This allows for a more inclusive participation in these programs.

Finally, some limitations of this study should be mentioned. First of all, this study focuses on aspirations to participate in the Erasmus+ program. This implies that we do not know whether the findings also hold true for real participation. For example, the fact that we find romantic relationships as an impeding effect for aspirations to participate among female students, while female students still participate in greater numbers in study-abroad programs than male students, challenges us to further elaborate this relationship by studying the full decision-making process. In addition, students in our sample were surveyed in the first weeks of their university career when participation in an international exchange program may still be rather abstract for most of them, as participation in the Erasmus+ program is only possible in the third year of the bachelor programme and at the master’s level. The high percentage of respondents indicating aspirations to participate in the program among our sample (65%) shows an initially positive and open attitude toward participation. However, over time, students may be tempered in the realization of their aspirations by the barriers encountered during the mobility decision process (again, referring back to the notion of “ability”).

Second, our measure of a romantic relationship did not provide us with more detailed information on relationship characteristics such as the characteristics of the partner (e.g. gender), the duration of relationship, or whether partners where living apart, cohabiting, or were married. Our study only gives an indication of the association between having a partner and study-abroad aspirations. Future studies could expand on studying relationship characteristics in more detail, including partner negotiation dynamics as well as the role of heterogeneous gender attitudes and identifications. This latter focus would also allow the field to go beyond the common binary male/female approach, and pay full attention to diversity in relationships and genders. Finally, it would be important to expand the analyses to consider dynamics over time (on the potentially changing role and effects of a romantic relationship) which is not possible with our cross-sectional data. Linked to this, it would be interesting to develop more research into how relationships change, adapt, or are formed as a result of migration.

Third, by also covering general academic motivation, we aimed to include a measure of importance of self-development/investment, which can be important for the decision making on ISM as well as on partner relationships. Our findings suggest that this aspect is very important for women and even more so for men. Having said that, the measure only gives a first insight into how students balance different dimensions of their lives and the importance given to academic development. It is clearly worthwhile for future studies to expand on this further and to understand how academic motivations remain of importance or not over time.

In conclusion, the results of our study indicate the need for a more comprehensive linked lives approach, including romantic relationships as well as more gender-sensitive analyses in research on decision-making processes regarding participation in an international exchange program. Decision-making processes do not take place in a social vacuum: Our results strongly suggest higher education students take the social context into account when making such decisions, in which male and female students’ decision-making process might unfold differently.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Tom De Winter

Christof Van Mol

Notes

Author Biographies

Tom De Winter is a doctoral researcher at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and University of Groningen. His main research interests focus on intra-European mobility and migration.

Christof Van Mol is assistant professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociology at Tilburg University, the Netherlands. Prior to joining Tilburg in 2017, he worked as a senior researcher at the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Institute (NIDI, the Netherlands) and the University of Antwerp (Belgium). His main thematic interests are international migration processes, patterns and outcomes, with a specific focus on international student mobility and migration.

Helga A. G. de Valk is director of the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI) in the Hague and professor of Migration and the life course at the University of Groningen. Her research interests focus on migration and integration issues, the transition to adulthood of immigrant youth, union and family formation, the second generation and European mobility. She currently leads an ERC Consolidator Grant.

References

Becker

G. S.

(1975). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Beerkens

Souto-Otero

de Wit

Huisman

(2016). Similar students and different countries? An analysis of the barriers and drivers for Erasmus participation in seven countries. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(2), 184–204.

Böttcher

Araújo

N. A. M.

Nagler

Mendes

J. F. F.

Helbing

Herrmann

H. J.

(2016). Gender gap in the ERASMUS mobility program. PLOS ONE, 11(2), e0149514. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149514

Brandenburg

(2014). The Impact Study Effects of mobility on the skills and employability of students and the internationalisation of higher education institutions. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2766/75468

Breznik

Skrbinjek

(2020). Erasmus student mobility flows. European Journal of Education, 55(1), 105–117.

Bröckl

C. C.

(2012, August). The importance of generosity of national student financial support systems for European student mobility. http://essay.utwente.nl/62004/

Cairns

(2014). “I wouldn’t stay here”: Economic crisis and youth mobility in Ireland. International Migration, 52(3), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2012.00776.x

Cairns

Smyth

(2009). I don’t know about living abroad”: Exploring student mobility and immobility in Northern Ireland. International Migration, 47(4), 135–161.

Carling

(2002). Migration in the age of involuntary immobility: Theoretical reflections and Cape Verdean experiences. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(1), 5–42.

10.

Carlson

(2013). Becoming a mobile student: A processual perspective on German degree student mobility. Population, Space and Place, 19(2), 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1749

11.

Collins

Welsh

Furman

(2009). Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163459

12.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). The General Causality Orientations Scale (GCOS). Journal of Research in Personality, 134, 109–134.

13.

De Jong

G. F

. (2000). Expectations, gender, and norms in migration decision-making. Population Studies, 54(3), 307–319.

14.

Elder

G. H.

Johnson

M. K.

Crosnoe

(2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In Mortimer

J. T.

Shanahan

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3–19). Springer.

15.

Entwislea

D. R.

Astone

N. M.

(1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring youth’s race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 65(6), 1521–1540.

16.

Fischer

P. A.

Malmberg

(2001). Settled people don’t move: On life course and (im-) mobility in Sweden. International Journal of Population Geography, 7(5), 357–371.

17.

Frieze

I. H.

Hansen

S. B.

Boneva

(2006). The migrant personality and college students’ plans for geographic mobility. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 170–177.

18.

Hadler

(2006). Intentions to migrate within the European Union: A challenge for simple economic macro-level explanations. European Societies, 8(1), 111–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616690500491324

19.

Hagen-Zanker

(2008). Why do people migrate? A review of the theoretical literature (Maastrcht Graduate School of Governance Working Paper No. 2008/WP002). http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1105657

20.

Haug

(2008). Migration networks and migration decision-making. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(4), 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830801961605

21.

Hoff

Laursen

Tardif

(2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., pp. 231–252). Lawrence Erlbaum.

22.

King

Raghuram

(2013). International student migration: Mapping the field and new research agendas. Population, Space and Place, 19(2), 127–137.

23.

King

Ruiz-Gelices

(2003). International student migration and the European “Year Abroad”: Effects on European identity and subsequent migration behaviour. International Journal of Population Geography, 9(3), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijpg.280

24.

Kley

(2011). Explaining the stages of migration within a life-course framework. European Sociological Review, 27(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcq020

25.

Lesjak

Juvan

Ineson

E. M.

Yap

M. H. T.

Axelsson

E. P.

(2015). Erasmus student motivation: Why and where to go? Higher Education, 70(5), 845–865.

26.

Olson

J. E.

Frieze

I. H.

(2013). Students’ study abroad plans: The influence of motivational and personality factors. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, XXIII, 73–89.

27.

Lombard

(2019). International students in Switzerland: Trajectories, stay rates, and intentions for post-graduate mobility [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Neuchâtel.

28.

Macmillan

Copher

(2005). Families in the life course: Interdependency of roles, role configurations, and pathways. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 858–879.

29.

Mayer

K. U.

(2001). The sociology of the life course and life span psychology: Diverging or converging pathways. Society for the Study of Human Development and University of Michigan.

30.

Meece

J. L.

Glienke

B. B.

Burg

(2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 351–373.

31.

Mulder

C. H.

Wagner

(1993). Migration and marriage in the life course: A method for studying synchronized events. European Journal of Population, 9(1), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01267901

32.

Netz

(2015). What deters students from studying abroad? Evidence from four European countries and its implications for higher education policy. Higher Education Policy, 28(2), 151–174.

33.

Netz

Barker

Entrich

Klasik

(2020). Socio-demographics: A global overview of inequalities in education abroad participation. In Ogden

Streitwieser

Van Mol

(Eds.), Education abroad: Bridging scholarship and practice (pp. 28–42). Routledge.

34.

Ogden

A. C.

Streitwieser

Van Mol

(2020). Education abroad: Bridging scholarship and practice. Routledge.

35.

Petrovic

(2012, November 15). Belgium: A country of permanent immigration. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/belgium-country-permanent-immigration

36.

Presley

Damron-Martinez

Zhang

(2010). A study of business student choice to study abroad: A test of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 21(4), 227–247.

37.

Ratelle

C. F.

Guay

Vallerand

R. J.

(2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 734–746.

38.

Redden

(2008, December). Women abroad and men at home. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/04/women-abroad-and-men-home

39.

Ryan

Sales

(2013). Family migration: The role of children and education in family decision-making strategies of Polish migrants in London. International Migration, 51(2), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2010.00652.x

40.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

41.

Saarikallio-Torp

Wiers-Jenssen

(2010). Nordic students abroad: Student mobility patterns, student support systems and labour market outcomes. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/14913436.pdf

42.

Salisbury

M. H.

Paulsen

M. B.

Pascarella

E. T.

(2010). To see the world or stay at home: Applying an integrated student choice model to explore the gender gap in the intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 51(7), 615–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9171-6

43.

Shirley

S. W.

(2006). The gender gap in post-secondary study abroad: Understanding and marketing to male students. University of North Dakota.

44.

Souto-Otero

Huisman

Beerkens

de Wit

Vujić

VujiC

(2013). Barriers to international student mobility: Evidence from the ERASMUS program. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12466696

45.

Stone

O’Shea

(2013). Time, money, leisure and guilt: The gendered challenges of higher education for mature-age students. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 53(1), 95–116.

46.

Teichler

(2012). International student mobility and the Bologna Process. Research in Comparative and International Education, 7(1), 34–49.

47.

Vallerand

R. J.

Bissonnette

(1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60(3), 599–620. http://10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00922.x

48.

Van Mol

. (2014). Intra-European student mobility in international higher education circuits: Europe on the move. Palgrave Macmillan.

49.

Van Mol

Michielsen

. (2015). The reconstruction of a social network abroad. An analysis of the interaction patterns of Erasmus students. Mobilities, 10(3), 423–444.

50.

Van Mol

Snel

Hemmerechts

Timmerman

. (2018). Migration aspirations and migration cultures: A case study of Ukrainian migration towards the European Union. Population, Space and Place, 24(5), e2131. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2131

51.

Van Mol

Timmerman

. (2014). Should I stay or should I go? An analysis of the determinants of intra-European student mobility. Population, Space and Place, 20(5), 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1833

52.

Vansteenkiste

Lens

Deci

E. L.

(2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19–31.

53.

Vecchione

Alessandri

Marsicano

(2014). Academic motivation predicts educational attainment: Does gender make a difference? Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.01.003

54.

Vidal

Kley

(2010). The geographic proximity of social ties in migration intentions and behaviour (Migremus Arbeitspapiere Nr. 1/2010). University of Bremen.

55.

Vossensteyn

Beerkens

Cremonini

Besançon

Focken

Leurs

McCoshan

Mozuraityte

Huisman

Souto-Otero

de Wit

(2010). Improving the participation in the Erasmus programme. European Parliament.

56.

Williams

A. M.

Jephcote

Janta

(2018). The migration intentions of young adults in Europe: A comparative, multilevel analysis. Population, Space and Place, 24(1), e2123. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2123

57.

Wingens

Windzio

De Valk

Aybek

(Eds.). (2011). A life-course perspective on migration and integration. Springer Science & Business Media.

58.

Zarrett

Eccles

(2006). The passage to adulthood: Challenges of late adolescence. New Directions for Youth Development, 2006(111), 13–28.