Front. Educ. Frontiers in Education Front. Educ. 2504-284X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/feduc.2022.779756 Education Original Research Students Starting University: Exploring Factors That Promote Success for First-Year International and Domestic Students Smith Steven M. 1 Carter-Rogers Katelynn 2 * Norris Meghan E. 3 Brophy Tom 4 1Department of Psychology, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada 2Department of Management, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada 3Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada 4Student Affairs and Services, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Edited by: Inaki Larrea, Mondragon University, Spain

Reviewed by: Kam Gill, Coventry University, United Kingdom; Angie L. Miller, Indiana University Bloomington, United States

 *Correspondence: Katelynn Carter-Rogers, Katelynn.carter-rogers@smu.ca

This article was submitted to Educational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Education

 29 03 2022 2022 07 779756 07 10 2021 10 02 2022 Copyright © 2022 Smith, Carter-Rogers, Norris and Brophy. 2022 Smith, Carter-Rogers, Norris and Brophy

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

There are many factors that influence the first-year university student experience, and these factors can vary depending on student characteristics. In this research, using survey data, we explore differences between domestic Canadian and international (non-Canadian) first year university students across four categories that have been identified in past research. These categories broadly influence student success: individual factors, psychological needs, social relationships and connections to campus, and learning preferences and behaviors. Two hundred and seventy-two students (domestic: N = 185, international: N = 86) responded to quantitative individual difference items. International students reported greater drive, higher self-esteem, and placed greater importance on strong social networks, social life, and faith. Further, as compared to domestic first-year students, international students reported higher campus engagement, greater preferences for textbooks and online tutorials, being alone with their thoughts, higher confidence with their major choice, and reported studying more. Importantly, international students were less likely to feel they had a safe place to live in comparison to domestic students (all p < 0.05). These data show that international students come to campus with differential needs, styles, and experiences, which can inform approaches taken by institutions in supporting their students’ success.

 student success individual differences international students domestic students university transition Introduction

Approximately 54% of Canadians have some sort of higher education qualification (Statistics Canada, 2017). The Canadian college and university system is comprised of over 440 institutions (Council of Ministers of Education [CMEC], 2021). These institutions are overwhelmingly public, ranging from very large institutions of over 70,000 to institutions under 1,000. Universities offer full undergraduate degree programs, and most offer some graduate programs. Colleges tend to be more vocational in focus, but many colleges also offer some range of undergraduate degree programs. Approximately half of students borrow money to pay for their education (Statistics Canada, 2020).

In the 2018/2019 academic year, there were over 2.1 million students enrolled in Canadian public universities and colleges. Of those students, 344,430 were international, an increase of 16.2% over the previous academic year, whereas the domestic student population decreased by 0.5% (Statistics Canada, 2020). International students are actively contributing to Canadian postsecondary success and have a profound impact on the Canadian economic system. Over the past decade, the international student population has more than tripled, representing over 55% of the total enrollment growth within Canadian Universities (Statistics Canada, 2020), bringing different cultural perspectives, worldly contribution and attitudes, and knowledge that contributes to the image and development of the university and all students who attend (Vertesi, 1999; Bowry, 2002; Ngobia, 2011). International students also broaden the knowledge and understanding of their home countries, cultures, and global issues that western society may not consider impactful due to proximity (Hayle, 2008; Parsons, 2010). Thus, it is important for university administration and faculty to understand factors related to success of both domestic and international students when it comes to transitioning into university, student success, and the challenges they face during their first year of their post-secondary education.

Theoretical Background

Transitioning into university can be both exciting and difficult (Goff, 2011). Data from more than fifty years of research has identified core elements to the successful transition of students to post-secondary education (Perry, 1970; Kohlberg, 1976; Gilligan, 1977, 1982; Belenky et al., 1986). Highlighting just one model for student success, it has been argued that there are three factors to consider when understanding student success: Inputs (demographic, past experiences, etc.), environment (experiences and supports available during university) and outcomes (how the students’ beliefs, knowledge, values, attitudes have evolved post-graduation) (Astin, 1994, 2007). In exploring reasons why students do not succeed, again exploring just one model, three specific reasons have been suggested to account for why students leave post-secondary education: Academic problems (e.g., academic skills); failure to socially and intellectually integrate into the campus culture; and low levels of commitment to educational goals (Tinto, 1993).

As understanding of student experience increases, additional factors have been identified as relevant for student success. For example, adopting and maintaining a healthy lifestyle proves to be a challenge to students that impacts their academic abilities (Racette et al., 2008; Vella-Zarb and Elgar, 2009; Crombie et al., 2013; Mueller et al., 2018; Sogari et al., 2018). Although many students are in good health at the time of university enrollment, undesirable lifestyle habits such as overeating, lack of exercise, alcohol and drug use, and poor sleep habits, developed through childhood and adolescence, can hinder students during university years (Crombie et al., 2009, 2013; McLean-Meyinsse et al., 2013; McComb and Kirkpatrick, 2016; Schroeter et al., 2019). Likewise, despite providing students with information about dangers associated with the intake of drugs, alcohol, over-eating, and other health-related behaviors, research suggests that post-secondary students engage in habits that may be unhealthy and potentially hazardous (Guthrie et al., 2015).

Highlighting lifestyle factors that can contribute to student success, most students are not meeting the recommended guidelines of physical activity, are eating less than the recommended servings of fruit and vegetables per day (Guthrie et al., 2015) replacing produce with unhealthy options (Mueller et al., 2018), and are struggling with sleep deprivation and stress (Caldwell et al., 2011). Many students experience loneliness, a general sense of unease, fear of missing out (FOMO), and feelings of inadequacy and not belonging on campus (Barker et al., 2016, 2018). Indeed, there are many well-documented challenges when transitioning into university. Despite the importance of international students in our campus communities, most of this literature pertains to domestic (and typically US) students and does not consider how transitioning into post-secondary education as an international student may differ from the domestic student experience.

 Exploring Factors Associated With Post-secondary Transition for International Students

The term “international student,” intended to refer to students who consider their home to be outside of the country in which they are schooling, is intentionally broad. Students from across the world study across the world. International students of course will experience the transition to post-secondary differently, and for many possible reasons. That said, there are some challenges that are shared among international students regardless of home and institution country. When considering the transition to post-secondary education, there are reasons to expect that international students may experience this transition differently than domestic students. For example, international students may be facing difficulties associated with moving to an entirely new country. Early research associated this “culture shock” to homesickness, loneliness, mental health decline, language challenges, adjustment to climate and food, financial concerns, and employability (Klineberg and Hull, 1979; Church, 1982; Berry et al., 1987; Chataway and Berry, 1989; Uehara and Hicks, 1989; Rohrlich, 1991). These experiences are important for the academic experience: in one study, international students who were on academic probation believed that these challenges were due to “culture shock” (Poyrazli and Isaiah, 2018).

In addition to international students experiencing the transition to post-secondary differently from domestic students, research has demonstrated that international students may also cope with, or at least perceive, the transition into post-secondary education differently than domestic students (Hanbazaza et al., 2017; Huang, 2017). Indeed, international students may handle the transition better than once was believed (Grayson, 2008, 2011). Although it was initially believed that international students experience difficulties making friends (Chapdelaine and Alexitch, 2004; Lin, 2006), more recent research demonstrates that international students report making the same number of friends and spending roughly the same amount of time with their friends, as domestic students do (Grayson, 2008). Further, international students reported having a wider range of friends from different cultures, including domestic Canadian students, in comparison to domestic students (Grayson, 2008). International students were also more actively involved in campus-related activities such as clubs and councils, and cultural events than domestic students (Grayson, 2011). Data such as these suggest that international students are engaging with their campus communities in positive ways. Indeed, there are many important predictors of positive campus engagement: research has found that academic relationships with faculty and staff, willingness to seek advice, and making friends while on campus were positive factors related to international student success. Further, it was found that social relationships and the connections on campus are what helped international students bounce back from an academic probation situation (Poyrazli and Isaiah, 2018).

In addition to shared experiences of international students, there are of course also culture-specific factors that can influence transition to an international study experience. As one example, a shared challenge faced by international Chinese students in the United States stemmed from socio-cultural differences pertaining to the collectivistic and individualistic culture differences between North America and China (Heng, 2021). Thus, international students have both shared and unique transitions into post-secondary education.

 The Current Research Question

This research project was designed to better understand factors facilitating both domestic and international student success in post-secondary education. Drawing on past research, we explore four broad classes of variables related to student success, comparing experiences of domestic and international students. These four classes of variables were selected based on student success literature and include (1) individual factors, (2) psychological needs, (3) social relationships and connections to campus, and (4) learning preferences and behaviors By understanding how these categories specifically differ between international and domestic students, we aim to provide new guidance and insights to post-secondary education institutions for supporting students as they transition into university.

Individual Factors

Many individual difference variables are relevant for student success. In this research, we explore the Big 5 as a trait-based understanding of personality, self-esteem, person- and thing- orientations, locus of control, and achievement motivation.

Personality is often thought of in the context of the Big 5 Personality Traits (e.g., Costa and McCrae, 1992): openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and extraversion. In this research, we explore individual difference variables including a very brief measure of the Big 5, self-esteem, person- and thing- orientations, and locus of control.

There is ample evidence that the Big 5 traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) are related to student success. More specifically, conscientiousness (Noftle and Robins, 2007; Caprara et al., 2011; Komarraju et al., 2011; De Feyter et al., 2012; Ivcevic and Brackett, 2014) extraversion (Komarraju et al., 2011; De Feyter et al., 2012), openness (Noftle and Robins, 2007; Poropat, 2009; Komarraju et al., 2011), and agreeableness (Poropat, 2009; Komarraju et al., 2011) have positive relationships with student success and overall achievement. Neuroticism on the other hand has mixed results. One study found that individuals higher in self-efficacy and neuroticism did experience academic success (De Feyter et al., 2012), and another that states that neuroticism only correlates positively with academic success in highly intelligent students (McKenzie, 1989; McKenzie et al., 2000). Where other studies have shown that individuals scoring high in neuroticism experience more anxiety and worry which impacts their overall student success negatively (Hess et al., 2000; Komarraju et al., 2011; Schneider and Preckel, 2017). When considering the cross-cultural differences related to these personality traits, there is evidence to suggest that the measurement of what the traits themselves are, does not differ (Rolland, 2002; McCrae and Terracciano, 2005). For example, extraversion is the same in China, Germany, and Canada. Some research has compared cultures relative to the Big Five personality traits, and have found that individuals from the United States, Canada, and New Zealand tend to score higher on extraversion in comparison to Asian countries (McCrae and Terracciano, 2005). That being said, research studies like this are discussing an average within their specific data, and it should be noted that there are large amounts of variability in all cultures (Costa et al., 2001).

Self-esteem is an overall evaluation of the self, and can be either positive or negative (Rosenberg, 1965). Although self-esteem has been argued to be related to student success, early studies cast doubt on this relationship (e.g., Seligman, 1994). Interestingly, though positive self-esteem is associated with many positive outcomes, and indeed it was found to be the most dominant and powerful predictor of happiness in some research (Furnham and Cheng, 2000), the influence of self-esteem in the context of education is not necessarily intuitive. It was previously believed that the relationship between self-esteem and academic performance was a bi-directional relationship where self-esteem changed direction based on the academic performance with higher self-esteem reported when the individual is satisfied with their academic performance, and lower self-esteem when the individual is not satisfied with their academic performance (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2006). However, some research suggests that this bi-directional relationship may be linked to both low and high self-esteem individuals using self-handicapping strategies for different reasons (Martin and Brawley, 2002). Research has also demonstrated that a multidimensional measure of self-esteem (global self-esteem, academic self-esteem, physical ability self-esteem) may explain inconsistent findings, especially in situations when there is self-threat to specific domains (i.e., academia) (MacKinnon et al., 2015). Given the lack of clarity as to the role that self-esteem plays in academic success, we have included it for exploration. That being said, there is literature that does suggest that western cultures value self-esteem more than collectivist cultures (Brown, 2008), but most of these come from differences pertaining to cultural value indicators, and gender related equality (Bleidorn et al., 2016). This would suggest that self-esteem may be more of a concern for the domestic students.

Person- and Thing-Orientations capture the degree to which individuals selectively orient toward “person-based” (e.g., human-based) and “thing-based” (e.g., inanimate-based) stimuli in their environment, and it is thought that individuals gravitate to those sources that are most preferable (McIntyre and Graziano, 2019). These orientations have been shown to predict choice of major and retention within “thing” oriented disciplines in post-secondary contexts (e.g., STEM-oriented disciplines) (Woodcock et al., 2013; Bunce et al., 2017). Further demonstrating the importance of understanding person- and thing- orientations in the context of education, individuals stronger in thing-orientation have better recall of information when reading text (McIntyre et al., 2021). More specifically, in this study (McIntyre et al., 2021) the researchers used three brief educational texts discussing science and technology, which included two versions that manipulated the orientations (person and thing) to see if individuals who were stronger in either person or thing orientation recalled more information. It was found that the framing was not significant, but that individuals stronger in thing-orientation had better recall of the text. This study demonstrates that individuals who are stronger in Thing-orientation will thrive in an environment that focuses on text related recall. Thus, individuals who are person-oriented may use other forms of learning. Importantly, despite the importance of person- and thing- orientation in the context of education, relatively little is known about cross-cultural differences in these factors, and data have not been conclusive in determining reliable differences between cultures (Woodcock et al., 2013).

Research has demonstrated that STEM-based programs are typically “thing” oriented disciplines (Woodcock et al., 2013). Given that almost one-third of the students enrolled in STEM-type programs in Canada were international students, and 1 in 5 medical students are international students (Frenette et al., 2020), exploring student success in light of person- and thing- orientation may provide new insights into ways to support students based on their dominant orientation.

Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966) is the degree to which an individual feels they have control over events in their lives, and it is an important factor in determining successful goal attainment. If a student has an internal locus of control, this student likely feels that they are achieving academically based on their own work, abilities, prosocial behaviors, and academic focus (Rotter, 1966; Hopkins et al., 2020). In contrast, students with an external locus of control tend to associate their academic outcomes and performance on chance, luck, fate, and other variables outside of their control (Rotter, 1966; Hopkins et al., 2020). A student’s locus of control orientation, whether it be internal or external, reflects their learning attitude. Internal locus of control has been found to be positively correlated with academic achievement (Millar and Irving, 1995; Karaman and Watson, 2017; Chukwuorji et al., 2018) and higher levels of academic achievement in comparison to undergraduates with an external locus of control (Ghonsooly and Elahi, 2010; Sagone and De Caroli, 2014; Hopkins et al., 2020). Understanding whether a student has internal or external locus of control will be an asset in building student resources to match their needs for pursuing academic success (Rotter, 1966; Rinn et al., 2014; Naik, 2015). There is evidence to suggest that there are cross-cultural differences related to locus of control, between western and eastern societies (Parsons and Schneider, 1974), specifically that Asian countries have significantly higher external locus of control scores in comparison to all other countries. In the same study, it was also found that students from India scored significantly lower in external locus of control in comparison to Canadian, Japanese, and French students. There was very little variability within western cultures pertaining to locus of control (Parsons and Schneider, 1974; Krampen and Wieberg, 1981).

Individuals vary in their levels of motivation for achievement. The Achievement Goals Questionnaire (Elliot and Sheldon, 1997) was constructed to understand how the motive to avoid failure (or the fear of failing) influenced goal-specific outcomes, and how the difference between motive to avoid failure and the need for achievement impacted student success outcomes. Research by Elliot and Church (1997), Elliot and Sheldon (1997), Elliot (1999), Elliot and Covington (2001), Elliot and McGregor (2001), Elliot and Thrash (2002), and Harackiewicz et al. (2002) has highlighted the importance of understanding whether students are avoiding failure, or striding for achievement, and how that changes their goal outcomes within academia. There is a dearth of research comparing and contrasting the role of academic achievement motivation between international and domestic students. This literature is large (Schwinger et al., 2021), and there has been a great deal of discussion around students’ motivations to achieve their academic goals, and the outcomes of their success pertaining to how they approach their academics (Ross et al., 2002). Many different factors influence these outcomes (Elliot and McGregor, 2001; Elliot and Church, 2003), from self-esteem (Rhodewalt and Tragakis, 2002; Covington, 2004), personality traits (Ross et al., 2002; Conrad and Patry, 2012), self-efficacy (Arazzini Stewart and De George-Walker, 2014), self-concept, and several emotional-motivational variables (Dweck, 2017) such as fear of failure (Elliot and Church, 2003; Martin and Marsh, 2003; De Castella et al., 2013), avoidance, test anxiety (Martin et al., 2014), and past levels of achievement (Covington, 2004), all leading to self-handicapping (Schwinger et al., 2014). Understanding students’ achievement goals will give an insight into many factors relevant to student success outcomes.

 Psychological Needs

Psychological needs may also vary substantially between domestic and international students. Students who do not have a safe place to live, access to healthy food, and adequate sleep face significant barriers to success. Specifically pertaining to psychological needs, we explore whether international students have their basic needs met differently than domestic students. Highlighting the importance of exploring the satisfaction of basic needs, although international students are able to finance significant fees given their status, many have little additional income or funds available after their arrival, are limited in how much they can work (20 hours per week in Canada) and thus experience financial difficulties (Calder et al., 2016; Haverila et al., 2020).

 Social Relationships and Connection to Campus

As noted by many student success theorists (e.g., Tinto, 1993, 2010; Astin, 1994, 2007), a student’s sense of belonging is extremely important to their adjustment to university. This can be measured in several ways. For example, one can assess social belonging and their connection to the university, campus engagement, and the importance of their social relationships and social life. International students gain a community through their social interactions on campus with both domestic and other international students (Rienties and Nolan, 2014). In addition, international students are necessarily isolated from their friends and family in their home countries once they leave for post-secondary education. Similarly, and perhaps most important for international students, the support available from their families who may be far away may greatly impact their success. Finally, their level of faith may be important factors in their ability and motivation to succeed (Jeynes, 2003; Regenerus, 2003; Burges et al., 2009; Chukwuorji et al., 2018), and again, could reasonably differ across domestic and international student groups.

 Learning Preferences and Behaviors

Students who have low commitment to educational goals (e.g., Tinto, 1993, 2010) may have difficulty adapting to the academic culture, and thus may struggle. Although the concept of “learning styles” is not supported by research (e.g., Newton, 2015) it is certainly the case that students can identify preferences for types of learning experiences (Deale, 2019) and the match between their experience and learning preferences can influence their commitment to their education. If those learning preferences do not match the approaches used on campus, this may negatively affect student experience and success. It is not clear, however, if student learning preferences meaningfully link to success outcomes (Fan et al., 2015). Finally, considerations such as current study habits, confidence in and commitment to the selected major, and believing in one’s ability to achieve their goals (i.e., self-efficacy) are important to understand (Tinto, 1993, 2010). There is evidence to suggest that students from individualistic societies learn better by “doing,” where collectivistic students are learning more through “watching” (Marsh et al., 2006; Holtbrügge and Mohr, 2010; Sugahara and Boland, 2010), which may have a great impact on how they approach their studies overall.

 Overview of Research

This study sought to explore how constructs related to (1) individual factors, (2) psychological needs, (3) social relationships and connections to campus, and (4) learning preferences vary across a diverse group of first-year students. As discussed above, there are many relevant factors that can impact student success in the first year. However, first-year students are not a monolithic group. What characterizes a first-year student in terms of their personality, habits, and demographics may differ dramatically by whether they are domestic or international students. The purpose of our research was to begin to explore some of those differences and provide insight into what implications may come from those differences. Though we do hypothesize that international students will experience these factors differently than domestic students, we understand that this study is predominantly exploratory in nature, and we hope to learn more about how international students differ from domestic students when transitioning into university.

 Materials and Methods Participants and Procedure

Our survey instrument was sent via email to 1493 incoming undergraduate students at a mid-size, primarily undergraduate public university on the east coast of Canada. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the survey. The university has approximately 6,700 total students with a diverse student body, 32% of whom come from over 100 countries across the globe. Most international students come from five countries or regions: China, South Asia, the Caribbean, Africa, and the Middle East. Overall, sex is equally (50:50) split, with 90% of students doing undergraduate studies in Social Sciences and Humanities, Business, or Science programs. The vast majority (86%) of students are full-time and most (67%) of students come to the university directly from high school (versus transfer from other universities/college).

Four hundred and eleven (27.5% response rate) began the survey and 272 provided sufficient responses to be usable. Students (120 Male, 146 female) ranged in age from 16 to 48 (M = 19.00); 248 were new undergraduate students. One hundred eighty-five respondents were domestic students and eighty-six were international1, with the majority (144; 53%) indicating they were Caucasian (see Table 1 for all demographic variables).

Demographics.

Characteristics Domestic
 International
 Total sample
n % n % N % χ2 p
Gender 4.419 0.220
Male 82 44.3 38 44.2 120 44.1
Female 100 54.1 45 52.3 146 53.7
Other 2 1.1 – – 2 0.7
Prefer not to say 1 0.5 3 3.5 4 1.5
Age M: 19.02 M: 18.97
SES 1.554 0.460
Low 34 18.4 11 12.8 45 17.6
Middle 136 73.5 66 76.7 203 74.6
High 15 8.1 9 10.5 24 8.8
Faculty 5.289 0.382
Arts 56 30.3 20 23.3 77 28.3
Commerce 89 48.1 43 50 132 48.5
Science 28 15.1 20 23.3 48 17.6
Engineering 10 5.4 2 2.3 12 4.4
Environment studies 2 1 1 1.2 3 1.1
First Generation 2.261 0.133
Yes 50 27 16 18.6 67 24.6
No 135 73 70 81.4 205 75.4
Living arrangements 20.459 <0.001***
Home with Family 82 44.3 17 19.8 99 36.4
Residence 73 39.5 42 48.8 116 42.6
1 + roommates 23 12.4 25 29.1 48 17.6
Living alone 7 3.8 2 2.3 9 3.3
Relationship Status 14.738 0.002**
Yes 69 37.3 16 18.6 85 31.3
No 95 51.4 58 67.4 153 56.3
It’s complicated 20 10.8 8 9.3 29 10.7
Prefer not to say 1 0.5 4 4.7 5 1.8
Children 0.324 0.569
Yes 4 2.2 1 1.2 5 1.8
No 181 97.8 85 98.8 267 98.2
Diet 3.331 0.343
Poor 22 11.9 11 12.8 36 13.2
Average 96 51.9 53 61.6 150 55.1
Good 55 29.7 17 19.8 72 26.5
Excellent 9 4.9 5 5.8 14 5.1
Physical Activity 15.644 0.001**
No activity 22 11.9 10 11.6 32 11.8
Occasionally 63 34.1 46 53.5 109 40.1
2–3 times a week 57 30.8 25 29.1 83 30.5
4 + times a week 43 23.2 5 5.8 48 17.6
Employment 19.125 <0.001***
Employed 83 44.9 15 17.4 98 36
Unemployed 102 55.1 71 82.6 174 64

N = 271.

Chi-square tests: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01.

 Survey Instrument

Due to space constraints, because this was an exploratory research project seeking to gain understanding differences between domestic and international students entering university across many constructs, the survey consisted of several pre-established scales, selected items from pre-established scales, and items constructed for the purpose of this study. In order to limit the size of the questionnaire that students completed, we used short (empirically validated) versions of scales, or a subset of items from those scales (see Appendix). In addition to asking students general demographic information, we asked questions broken into four categories: (1) individual factors, (2) psychological needs, (3) social relationships and connections to campus, and (4) learning preferences and behaviors. The survey took on average 16 min to complete.

Demographics

Students were asked to report personal characteristics (age, gender, degree program registered in, employment, relationship status, number of children, fitness level, diet, exercise and activities, socio-economic status, current living arrangements) and whether they were first generation students (i.e., had no parent or stepparent who graduated from college or university) (see Table 1).

 Individual Factors

Personality was measured using the 50-item IPIP representation of the Big-Five Markers (subscales: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness) as presented by Goldberg (1992). For all items, participants are asked to respond to statements starting with “I…”, allowing them to respond to the statement in relation to themselves. Extraversion was measured with a 10-item scale (α = 0.892) with statements like “… feel comfortable around people” or “…am quiet around strangers.” Agreeableness was measured with a 10-item scale (α = 0.789) with statements like “…take time out for others” or “…insult people.” Conscientiousness was measured with a 10-item scale (α = 0.747) with statements like “…am always prepared” or “…make a mess of things.” Neuroticism was measured with a 10-item scale (α = 0.841) with statements like “…am relaxed most of the time” or “…get upset easily.” Openness was measured with a 10-item scale (α = 0.776) with statements like “…have a vivid imagination” or “…do not have a good imagination”. Response options were along a 5-point Likert scale from “very inaccurate” to “very accurate.”

We used a subset of questions within The Achievement Goals Questionnaire (AGQ) (Elliot and Sheldon, 1997). Fourteen items were selected based on relevance to academia. Respondents are asked to indicate on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “not at all” to “very true of me” how much each item is true for them. Sample items include “avoid procrastination” and “impress others with my achievements.” These questions were assessed individually, as each question could provide insight into student goals.

We used only two items to measure person- and thing-orientations (Graziano et al., 2011) which assessed agreement to the questions: “I like to talk with others when I’m trying to understand new things” (person orientation) and “I like to take things apart to see how they work” (thing orientation) on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Self-esteem was measured by a single item “I see myself as someone who has high self-esteem” with a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” This single item measurement is justified within the self-esteem literature (Robins et al., 2001a,b, 2002; De Cremer et al., 2005).

Locus of control was measured via two items which assessed agreement to the questions: “I feel like I am in control of my destiny” (internal locus of control) and “I feel like powerful others have a lot of control over how my life will turn out” (external locus of control) with a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

 Psychological Needs

Psychological needs were measured by four items. Sleep was measured via two-items. The first item related to sleep, “I get as much as I need,” was measured on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The second item asked students to self-report how many hours they sleep within 24 h. Healthy food intake was measured by a single-item “I am confident I will have access to healthy food in the foreseeable future” measured on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Safe living environment was also measured by a single item “I have a safe place to live for the foreseeable future” measured on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

 Social Relationships and Connection to Campus

Social relationships were measured via five separate items adapted from surveys that have been used on campus for several years, and which are derived from National Surveys such as the Canadian University Survey Consortium (CUSC) and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The items assessed agreement to the questions: “It’s important to me that I have a strong social network on campus,” “Building relationships with others is an important outcome for me in university,” “I can easily connect with my family and friends if I want to (either in-person or with technology),” “My social life is the most important part of being in school,” and “Faith is important to me” on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Connection to campus was measured via two separate items which assessed agreement to the questions: “I feel connected to the university” and “I intend to be engaged in campus activities this year” on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

 Learning Preferences and Behaviors

Learning preferences were measured by nine items, where students were asked to respond to the question “I learn best when…” with options such as “when I am alone with my thoughts” or “when I am in a study group”. Response options were along a 1-7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Students also self-reported hours spent on studying outside of class time per week. Self-efficacy was measured via a single-item “when I make plans, I am certain I can make them work” (Sherer et al., 1982), with a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Students were also asked if they knew what major they wanted to take; their response option was also along a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

 Results Overview

We have provided overall scores on all the different individual factors measured2. Due to the unequal group size between international and domestic students (see Table 1), we conducted non-parametric Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney U Test to determine the differences between these two groups on the variables previously mentioned using assigned mean ranking.3 A Bonferroni correction was tested on the variables due to the multiple tests that were run, and Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney U Test analysis being known for type-1 errors (Zimmerman, 2004). This correction was set at p = 0.002 (0.10/47 tests). That being said, due to the exploratory nature of the study, there will still be discussion related to the variables that are showing p-values below 0.05 (Table 2). We also explored the role of the student home country in the program, socio-economic status, gender, first-generation status, sleep habits, studying habits, family structure, relationship status, diet, physical activity, and employment as well (see Table 1).

Mean rank comparisons between domestic and international students on all variables.

Item Domestic
 International
 U P
Rank Average Rank Total Rank Average Rank Total
Individual Factor Variables
Big Five Personality
Extraversion 134.95 24966.50 138.25 11889.50 0.104 0.747
Agreeableness 139.30 25771.00 128.90 11085.00 1.040 0.308
Conscientiousness 136.06 25172.00 135.86 11684.00 0.000 0.984
Neuroticism 133.18 24638.00 142.07 12218.00 0.757 0.384
Openness 140.82 26052.00 125.63 10804.00 2.214 0.137
Self-Esteem 130.85 24207.00 147.08 12649.00 2.622 0.105
Orientation
Person 129.88 24027.00 149.17 12829.00 3.969 0.046t
Thing 128.65 23800.50 151.81 13055.50 5.282 0.022t
Locus of Control
Internal 138.00 25529.50 131.70 11326.50 0.399 0.528
External 135.35 25039.00 137.41 11817.00 0.042 0.838
AGQ Items
Avoid Procrastination 127.20 23531.50 154.94 13324.50 7.657 0.006t
Impress others with my accomplishments 138.05 25539.50 131.59 11316.50 0.412 0.521
Make my parents proud of me 137.50 25438.00 132.77 11418.00 0.225 0.635
Avoid wasting time 126.24 23354.50 156.99 13501.50 9.389 0.002*
Avoid stressful situations 137.09 25362.00 133.65 11494.00 0.117 0.732
Fulfill all my responsibilities 139.14 25741.50 129.24 11114.50 0.999 0.318
Be on time for appointments 145.82 26976.00 114.88 9880.00 10.619 0.001*
Do things the best I can 142.25 26317.00 122.55 10539.00 3.992 0.046t
Learn new things 136.35 25225.00 135.24 11631.00 0.012 0.911
Motivate myself toward my goals 132.83 24573.00 142.83 12283.00 0.995 0.318
Avoid being overwhelmed by all I have to do 133.24 24649.50 141.94 12206.50 0.741 0.389
Be creative 135.70 25104.50 136.65 11751.50 0.009 0.925
Not get behind in my work 138.19 25565.00 131.29 11291.00 0.476 0.490
Make clear goals for my future 133.05 24615.00 142.34 142.34 0.854 0.355
Psychological Needs Measures
Safe place to live 145.61 26938.00 115.33 9918.00 9.860 0.002*
Healthy food access 142.91 26439.00 121.13 10417.00 5.047 0.025t
Needed Sleep 131.44 24317.00 145.80 12539.00 2.031 0.154
Time spent sleeping 142.57 26375.50 121.87 10480.50 4.311 0.038t
Social Relations and Connections to Campus
Strong social network 126.69 23437.50 156.03 13418.50 8.749 0.003t
Building relationships 131.37 24304.00 145.95 12552.00 2.197 0.138
Easy Family connection 141.80 26232.50 123.53 10623.50 3.664 0.056
Social life most important 126.64 23428.00 156.14 13428.00 8.640 0.003t
Faith 113.23 20947.50 184.98 15908.50 50.441 <0.001*
Connected to the Uni. 134.96 24967.50 138.24 11888.50 0.107 0.743
Campus engagement 129.36 23932.00 150.28 12924.00 4.442 0.035t
Learning Preferences and Behaviors
Learning Styles
Study group 134.30 24846.00 139.65 12010.00 0.282 0.596
Alone with thoughts 129.16 23894.00 150.72 12962.00 4.708 0.030t
Asking Questions 133.49 24696.50 141.39 12159.50 0.643 0.423
Online-tutorials 129.31 23921.50 150.40 12934.50 4.491 0.034t
Textbook 120.97 22380.00 168.33 14476.00 22.369 <0.001*
Hands on 136.69 25288.00 134.51 11568.00 0.052 0.820
Demonstrations 140.42 25977.50 126.49 10878.50 2.129 0.145
Visual aids 137.37 25413.00 133.06 11443.00 0.201 0.654
Audio 132.86 24580.00 142.74 12276.00 0.971 0.325
Time spent studying 127.72 23501.00 152.14 13084.00 5.752 0.016t
Self-Efficacy 136.07 25172.50 135.85 11683.50 0.000 0.983
Major 128.30 23735.50 152.56 13120.50 5.906 0.015t

Bonferroni correction significance p = 0.002*, tbelow 0.05.

 Individual Factor Variables Big Five

No significant differences were found for any of the Big Five measures for domestic versus international students.

 Self-Esteem

No significant differences were found related to self-esteem.

 Person-Thing Orientation

International students (mean rank = 149.17) reported being more person oriented compared to domestic students (mean rank = 129.88, U = 9088, p = 0.046). International students (mean rank = 151.81) also reported being more thing oriented compared to domestic students (mean rank = 128.65, U = 9314.5, p = 0.022).

 Locus of Control

There were no significant differences regarding both internal and external locus of control.

 Achievement Goals Questionnaire Items

International students (mean rank = 154.94) reported avoiding procrastination more compared to domestic students (mean rank = 127.20, U = 9583.5, p = 0.006). International students (mean rank = 156.99) reported that they avoid wasting time more than domestic students (mean rank = 126.24, U = 9760.5, p = 0.002). Domestic students (mean rank = 145.82) reported being on time for appointments more than international students reported (mean rank = 114.88, U = 6139, p = 0.001). Domestic students (mean rank = 142.25) also reported that they do things the best that they can more than international students reported (mean rank = 122.55, U = 6798, p = 0.046). There were no significant differences on the other ten items pertaining to achievement goals.

 Psychological Needs Measures Safe Living Environment

In terms of believing they had a safe place to live for the near future, international students (mean rank = 115.33) reported less belief in this than domestic students (mean rank = 145.61, U = 6177, p = 0.002).

 Food Security

In terms of believing they had access to healthy food, international students (mean rank = 121.13) reported less belief in this in comparison to domestic students (mean rank = 142.91, U = 6676, p = 0.025). This finding also supports our hypothesis and is reflected in the use of the food bank food bank on the campus where the survey was conducted. At that food bank over 60% of users are international students compared to being approximately 30% of students on campus (Daniels, 2021).

 Sleep

There were no significant differences in self-reported hours of sleep needed, however, there was a significant difference relative to how many actual hours international students (mean rank = 121.87; mean hours: 6.85) slept throughout the day in comparison to domestic students (mean rank = 142.57; mean hours: 7.16). Domestic students reported sleeping more (U = 6739.5, p = 0.038). Although international students are getting less sleep, they do not appear to perceive this as a concern.

 Social Relations and Connection to Campus Strong Social Network

International students (mean rank = 156.03) reported that it was more important to have a strong social network in comparison to domestic students (mean rank = 126.69, U = 9677.5, p = 0.003).

 Building Relationships

There were no significant differences in terms of perceived important outcomes of building relationships with others.

 Connecting With Family and Friends

There were no significant differences in terms of perceived ability to connect with family and friends.

 Social Life Importance

International students (mean rank = 156.14) were more likely to feel that their social life was the most important part of school in comparison to the domestic students (mean rank = 126.64, U = 9687, p = 0.003).

 Faith

Perhaps the strongest difference was on the question regarding the importance of faith in a student’s life. International students reported more importance of faith (mean rank = 184.98) than domestic students (mean rank = 113.23, U = 12167.50, p < 0.001).

 Campus Engagement

International students (mean rank = 150.28) reported higher intentions for campus engagement than domestic students (mean rank = 129.36, U = 9183, p = 0.035).

 University Connection

There were no significant differences in terms of university connection.

 Learning Preferences and Behaviors Learning Preferences

International students reported a preference for using the textbook (mean rank = 168.33) as compared to domestic students (mean rank = 120.97, U = 10735, p < 0.001). International students also reported a preference for being alone with their thoughts (mean rank = 150.72) and using online tutorials (mean rank = 150.40) as compared to domestic students (mean rank = 129.16, U = 9221, p = 0.03; and mean rank = 129.31, U = 9193.5, p = 0.034).

 Study Hours

International students reported studying for more hours per week (mean rank = 152.14; Mean hours: 14.56) than domestic students (mean rank = 127.72; Mean hours: 11.16, U = 9343, p = 0.016).

 Self-Efficacy

There were no significant differences in terms of self-efficacy.

 Major

International students (mean rank = 152.56) were more confident in their knowledge of what major they want to pursue in comparison to domestic students (mean rank = 128.30, U = 9379.5, p = 0.015).

 Discussion Summary of Findings

This research was an exploratory project to begin to understand differences between domestic and international students across four categories: (1) individual factors, (2) psychological needs, (3) social relationships and connections to campus, and (4) learning preferences and behaviors.

Interestingly, there were few differences between international and domestic students on most variables pertaining to individual factors that we explored. Using only two items, international students scored higher on both person- and thing- orientations than did domestic students. While the literature in this field is novel when it comes to international students and person- and thing- orientations (Woodcock et al., 2013), these findings would suggest institutions should be focusing on both types of learning styles when implementing course content. Future research should explore these differences more carefully and explore them within the context of a student program of study. Further, future research should also explore whether these orientations motivate both access and receptivity to different forms of academic support.

Psychological needs (see Appendix) were the variables that were most informative in terms of critical support needed for international students. Domestic students were more likely to report having a safe place to live for the near future, and more likely to report believing they had access to healthy food. The literature supports these findings, in that international students do struggle on average more than expected after their arrival as they are limited in how much money they can legally earn (Calder et al., 2016; Haverila et al., 2020). This is an indicator that basic needs may not be met for international students and should be a priority to be explored in greater detail within specific campus communities.

Our data suggested the clear importance of social relationships for international students, as compared to domestic students consistent with the literature (Rienties and Nolan, 2014). International students, as compared to domestic students, reported greater importance for a strong social network, greater importance for a social life, and higher intentions for campus engagement. It could be that the need for and importance of social networks are more salient for international students where domestic students are likely to be in closer proximity to their friends and families.

An important difference between domestic and international students in this category was their difference in rating of the importance of faith. International students placed much more importance on faith than did domestic students. This is supported by the literature (Jeynes, 2003; Regenerus, 2003; Burges et al., 2009; Chukwuorji et al., 2018) in that western cultures do not place as much importance on faith and religious practices. It is important that campus communities ensure comfortable access to faith-based resources for students, especially for international students who may not have clear access to these resources in the local community.

Based on this study, there appear to be differences in study behaviors for international and domestic students. International students prefer using the textbook, being alone with their thoughts, and using online tutorials to a greater degree than domestic students. This mirrors the literature pertaining to international students learning more through “watching” in comparison to “doing” (Marsh et al., 2006; Holtbrügge and Mohr, 2010; Sugahara and Boland, 2010). It should be noted that international students in this study did report that they were both Person and Thing oriented; thus they also may enjoy learning through “doing”, but it highlights their preference for “watching” which may be predictive of their ultimate engagement with their studies. International students also report studying more than domestic students and have more confidence in knowing what major they want to pursue.

Many variables assessed showed no significant differences between international and domestic student in this sample. This was not entirely unexpected. It does suggest that institutions can use these results to understand when different strategies might be more effective with diverse groups of students. There are also many variables we did not assess. An example could be to explore self-handicapping, and how these factors lead to students succeeding (Schwinger et al., 2021).

 Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the valuable contributions and insights provided by these data, some limitations and directions for future research remain. For example, all these data were self-reported. Although this is reasonable for personality and demographic data, there are opportunities for collecting objective measures regarding topics such health, grades, financial situation, etc., which could be worth exploring in the future.

A second limitation is that these data come from a single Canadian institution. It is likely that the mix of students at other institutions, as well as type and location of institutions could influence student responses. Thus, future work should look at other institutions in other locales to determine if similar results would be found or if different patterns might emerge.

It is also worth noting that for the purposes of this analysis, the international students were all grouped together instead of broken out by country (they could come from vastly different cultures). Because the international students at the study institution were varied and resulted in small group sizes when broken down, sub-analyses could not be done to look at the impact of country or region or original on the results. However, it stands to reason that this could have an impact. Exploring larger samples of specific populations in future research could identify valuable distinctions between groups.

Also, due to the number of variables that were assessed within the analysis, there is a probability that a family-wise type-1 error may have occurred. A Bonferroni correction was conducted and was explained that significance was at p = 0.002, but with the nature of the study, we felt it necessary to discuss any variables that approached significance under p-values of 0.05.

As previously discussed, this paper took a broad and exploratory approach to measuring a variety of characteristics of students and their experiences. However, as noted in our introduction, methods, and results sections, in order to reduce as much as possible, the length of the questionnaire, we often used single-item measures of constructs (e.g., self-esteem) or only smaller subscales of existing measures. This is clearly a limitation in that it is possible that complete scales may have resulted in different outcomes. However, given the fact that few differences were found (e.g., especially on personality), this suggests that this broader approach may be an effective way to identify key characteristics or measures that should be explored further in future research.

Finally, as the survey was administered to incoming students, it would be interesting to see the survey re-administered to the same students at a later point. They may have different perceptions post the first semester, and it would be insightful to explore whether their full experience of their first semester changed their responses in the future.

 Conclusion

What the research presented here has demonstrated is that students come to university with their own set of individual characteristics, preferences, experiences, and needs. Institutions who want to support the success of their students need to understand what those differences are. Although domestic versus international is one way of thinking about, and assessing, student uniqueness, it has within it a variety of differences that can be assessed. It is quite plausible that there is more variability within domestic or international student populations than between them but understanding differences across groups is vital as well. This research takes one step to assess differences across domains such as student personality, needs, and preferences.

 Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

 Ethics Statement

This research involved human participants and was reviewed and approved by the Saint Mary’s University Research Ethics Board. Participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

 Author Contributions

SS: development of theory, verified the analytical methods, investigated the findings of the results, contributed to the manuscript development, and completed revisions. KC-R: contributed to design and relevant items in study, performed the data analysis, contributed to the manuscript development, completed revisions, including analysis, and writing. MN: development of theory, methodology, and contributed to the manuscript development. TB: consultation of expertise, contributed to the theory, and editing to the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

 Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 Funding

This research was supported by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant numbers 892-2021-0061 and 892-2019-0027) and Mitacs Canada (grant numbers IT15085 and IT26522).

 Appendix

Items measurements.

Individual Factors
Personality (All personality measures were measured on a 5-Likert Scale, 1 being Strongly disagree to 5 being Strongly agree). Extraversion (1) Am the life of the party. (+) (2) Feel comfortable around people. (+) (3) Start conversations. (+) (4) Talk to a lot of different people at parties. (+) (5) Don’t mind being the center of attention. (+) (6) Keep in the background. (–) (7) Don’t talk a lot. (–) (8) Have little to say. (–) (9) Don’t like to draw attention to myself. (–) (10) Am quiet around strangers. (–)
Agreeableness (1) Am interested in people. (+) (2) Sympathize with others’ feelings. (+) (3) Have a soft heart. (+) (4) Take time out for others. (+) (5) Feel others’ emotions. (+) (6) Make people feel at ease. (+) (7) Am not really interested in others. (–) (8) Insult people. (–) (9) Am not interested in other people’s problems. (–) (10) Feel little concern for others. (–)
Conscientiousness (1) Am always prepared. (+) (2) Pay attention to details. (+) (3) Get chores done right away. (+) (4) Like order. (+) (5) Follow a schedule. (+) (6) Am exacting in my work. (+) (7) Leave my belongings around. (–) (8) Make a mess of things. (–) (9) Often forget to put things back in their proper place. (–) (10) Shirk my duties. (–)
Neuroticism (Emotional Stability) (1) Am relaxed most of the time. (+) (2) Seldom feel blue. (+) (3) Get stressed out easily. (–) (4) Worry about things. (–) (5) Am easily disturbed. (–) (6) Get upset easily. (–) (7) Change my mood a lot. (–) (8) Have frequent mood swings. (–) (9) Get irritated easily. (–) (10) Often feel blue. (–)
Openness (1) Have a rich vocabulary. (+) (2) Have a vivid imagination. (+) (3) Have excellent ideas. (+) (4) Am quick to understand things. (+) (5) Use difficult words. (+) (6) Spend time reflecting on things. (+) (7) Am full of ideas. (+) (8) Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (–) (9) Am not interested in abstract ideas. (–) (10) Do not have a good imagination. (–)
Achievement Goal Questionnaire (Subset) “During the past couple of weeks, please think about how much these statements are true to you” (Measured on a 7-Likert Type Scale 1 being Not at all to 7 being Very true of me) (1) Avoid procrastination (2) Impress others with my accomplishments (3) Make my parents proud of me (4) Avoid wasting time (5) Avoid stressful situations (6) Fulfill all my responsibilities
(7) Be on time for appointments (8) Do things the best I can (9) Learn new things (10) Motivate myself toward my goals (11) Avoid being overwhelmed by all I have to do (12) Be creative (13) Not get behind in my work (14) Make clear goals for my future
Goal Orientation Person Orientation I like to talk with others when I’m trying to understand new things
(Measured on a 7-Likert Type Scale 1 being Strongly Disagree to 7 being Strongly Agree) Thing Orientation I like to take things apart to see how they work
Locus of Control Internal I feel like I am in control of my destiny
(Measured on a 7-Likert Type Scale 1 being Strongly Disagree to 7 being Strongly Agree) External I feel like powerful others have a lot of control over how my life will turn out
Psychological Needs
(Measured on a 7-Likert Type Scale 1 being Strongly Disagree to 7 being Strongly Agree) Sleep (1) I get as much sleep as I need.* (2) On average, how many hours do you sleep in each 24-h period? (Number)
Healthy Food I am confident I will have access to healthy food in the foreseeable future*
Safe Living I have a safe place to live for the foreseeable future*
Social Relationships and Connection to Campus
(Measured on a 7-Likert Type Scale 1 being Strongly Disagree to 7 being Strongly Agree) Social Relationships (1) It’s important to me that I have a strong social network on campus (2) Building relationships with others is an important outcome for me in university (3) I can easily connect with my family and friends if I want to (either in-person or with technology) (4) My social life is the most important part of being in school (5) Faith is important to me
Connection to Campus (1) I feel connected to the university (2) I intend to be engaged in campus activities this year
Learning Preferences and Behaviors
(Measured on a 7-Likert Type Scale 1 being Strongly Disagree to 7 being Strongly Agree) Learning Preferences (1) I am in a study group (2) I am alone with my thoughts (3) When asking questions (4) There are online tutorials (5) Reading the textbook (6) There are hands on experiences (7) There are demonstrations (8) There are visual aids (9) There is audio (e.g., podcasts)
(Measured on a 7-Likert Type Scale 1 being Strongly Disagree to 7 being Strongly Agree) Behaviors (1) Each week, how many hours do you typically spend (outside of class) studying or doing schoolwork? (Number) (2) When I make plans, I am certain I can make them work* (3) I know what major I want to take.*
References Arazzini Stewart M. De George-Walker L. (2014). Self-handicapping, perfectionism, locus of control and self-efficacy: a path model. Pers. Individ. Differ. 66 160–164. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.038 Astin A. W. (1994). Higher Education and the Concept of Community. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Astin A. W. (2007). Mindworks: Becoming More Conscious in an Unconscious World. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Barker E. T. Howard A. L. Galambos N. L. Wrosch C. (2016). Tracking affect and academic success across university: happy students benefit from bouts of negative mood. Dev. Psychol. 52:2022. 10.1037/dev0000231 27732036 Barker E. T. Howard A. L. Villemaire-Krajden R. Galambos N. L. (2018). The rise and fall of depressive symptoms and academic stress in two samples of university students. J. Youth Adolescence 47 1252–1266. 10.1007/s10964-018-0822-9 29470761 Belenky M. F. Clinchy B. M. Goldberger N. R. Tarule J. M. (1986). Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind, Vol. 15. New York, NY: Basic books. Berry J. W. Kim U. Minde T. Mok D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. Int. Migration Rev. 21 491–511. Bleidorn W. Arslan R. C. Denissen J. J. A. Rentfrow P. J. Gebauer J. E. Potter J. (2016). Age and gender differences in self-esteem—A cross-cultural window. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 111 396–410. 10.1037/pspp0000078.supp Bowry C. J. (2002). An Initial Exploration of the Impact of Foreign Students on the Education of Domestic Students at Queen’s University. Master’s thesis. Belfast: Queen’s University. Brown R. A. (2008). American and Japanese beliefs about self-esteem. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 11 293–299. 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.00270.x Bunce L. Baird A. Jones S. E. (2017). The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Stud. Higher Educ. 42 1958–1978. 10.1080/03075079.2015.1127908 Burges S. Wilson D. Greaves E. (2009). An Investigation of Educational Outcomes by Ethnicity and Religion: A Report for the National Equality Panel. Available online at: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/cmpo/migrated/documents/ethnicityreligion.pdf (accessed October 1, 2021). Calder M. J. Richter S. Mao Y. Kovacs Burns K. Mogale R. S. Danko M. (2016). International students attending Canadian universities: their experiences with housing, finances, and other issues. Canadian J. Higher Educ. 46 92–110. 10.47678/cjhe.v46i2.184585 Caldwell K. Emery L. Harrison M. Greeson J. (2011). Changes in mindfulness, well-being, and sleep quality in college students through taijiquan courses: a cohort control study. J. Alternat. Complement. Med. 17 931–938. 10.1089/acm.2010.0645 21999153 Caprara G. V. Vecchione M. Alessandri G. Gerbino M. Barbaranelli C. (2011). The contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to academic achievement: a longitudinal study. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 81 78–96. 10.1348/2044-8279.002004 21199485 Chapdelaine R. F. Alexitch L. R. (2004). Social skills difficulty: model of culture shock for international graduate students. J. College Student Dev. 45 167–184. 10.1353/csd.2004.0021 34409987 Chataway C. J. Berry J. W. (1989). Acculturation experiences, appraisal, coping, and adaptation: a comparison of Hong Kong Chinese, French, and English students in Canada. Canadian J. Behav. Sci./Revue Canadienne Sci. Comportement 21:295. 10.1037/h0079820 Chukwuorji J. C. Ituma E. A. Ugwu L. E. (2018). Locus of control and academic engagement: mediating role of religious commitment. Curr. Psychol. 37 792–802. 10.1007/s12144-016-9546-8 Church A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychol. Bull. 91:540. 10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.540 Conrad N. Patry M. (2012). Conscientiousness and academic performance: a mediational analysis. Int. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn. 6 1–14. 10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060108 Costa P. T. Jr. Terracciano A. McCrae R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81 322–331. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322 11519935 Costa P. T. McCrae R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: the NEO personality inventory. Psychol. Assess. 4:5. 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5 Council of Ministers of Education [CMEC] (2021). Over 50 Years of Pan-Canadian Leadership Education. Available online at: https://www.cmec.ca/299/education-in-canada-an-overview/index.html (accessed December 20, 2021). Covington M. V. (2004). “Self-worth theory goes to college or do our motivation theories motivate?,” in Big Theories Revisited, eds McInerney D. M. Van Etten S. (Charlotte: Information Age Publishing), 91–114. Crombie A. Brindley J. Harris D. Marks-Maran D. Thompson T. M. (2013). Factors that enhance rates of completion: what makes students stay? Nurse Educ. Today 33 1282–1287. 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.03.020 23623745 Crombie A. Ilich J. Z. Dutton G. R. Panton L. B. Abood D. A. (2009). The freshman weight gain phenomenon revisited. Nutr. Rev. 67 83–94. 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00143.x 19178649 Daniels A. (2021). Personal communication. 7th, September. De Castella K. Byrne D. Covington M. (2013). Unmotivated or motivated to fail? A cross-cultural study of achievement motivation, fear of failure, and student disengagement. J. Educ. Psychol. 105 861–880. 10.1037/a0032464 De Cremer D. van Knippenberg B. van Knippenberg D. Mullenders D. Stinglhamber F. (2005). Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 3–12. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.3 15641886 De Feyter T. Caers R. Vigna C. Berings D. (2012). Unraveling the impact of the Big Five personality traits on academic performance: the moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy and academic motivation. Learn. Individ. Differ. 22 439–448. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.013 Deale C. S. (2019). Learning preferences instead of learning styles: a case study of hospitality management students’ perceptions of how they learn best and implications for teaching and learning. Int. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn. 13:11. 10.20429/ijsotl.2019.130211 Dweck C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and representations: foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development. Psychol. Rev. 124 689–719. 10.1037/rev0000082 28933872 Elliot A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educ. Psychol. 34 169–189. 10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3 Elliot A. J. Church M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72:218. 10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218 Elliot A. J. Church M. A. (2003). A motivational analysis of defensive pessimism and self-handicapping. J. Pers. 71 369–396. 10.1111/1467-6494.7103005 12762420 Elliot A. J. Covington M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 13 73–92. 10.1023/A:1009009018235 Elliot A. J. McGregor H. A. (2001). A 2× 2 achievement goal framework. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80:501. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501 11300582 Elliot A. J. Sheldon K. M. (1997). Avoidance achievement motivation: a personal goals analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73:171. 10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.171 9216083 Elliot A. J. Thrash T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82:804. 10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804 12003479 Fan K. K. Xiao P. W. Su C. (2015). The effects of learning styles and meaningful learning on the learning achievement of gamification health education curriculum. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 11 1211–1229. 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1413a Frenette M. Choi Y. Doreleyers A. (2020). International Student Enrolment in Postsecondary Education Programs Prior to COVID-19. Available online at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-626-x/11-626-x2020003-eng.htm (accessed December, 2021). Furnham A. Cheng H. (2000). Perceived parental behaviour, self-esteem and happiness. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiol.: Int. J. Res. Soc. Genet. Epidemiol. Ment. Health Serv. 35 463–470. 10.1007/s001270050265 11127721 Ghonsooly B. Elahi M. (2010). Validating locus of control questionnaire and examining its relation to General English (GE) achievement. J. Teach. Language Skills 2 117–143. 10.22099/jtls.2012.403 Gilligan C. (1977). In a different voice: women’s conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educ. Rev. 47 481–517. 10.17763/haer.47.4.g6167429416hg5l0 Gilligan C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goff L. (2011). Evaluating the outcomes of a peer-mentoring program for students transitioning to postsecondary education. Canadian J. Scholarship Teach. Learn. 2:2. 10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2011.2.2 Goldberg L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychol. Assess. 4:26. 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 Grayson J. P. (2008). The experiences and outcomes of domestic and international students at four Canadian universities. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 27 215–230. 10.1080/07294360802183788 Grayson J. P. (2011). Cultural capital and academic achievement of first generation domestic and international students in Canadian universities. Br. Educ. Res. J. 37 605–630. 10.1080/01411926.2010.487932 Graziano W. G. Habashi M. M. Woodcock A. (2011). Exploring and measuring differences in person–thing orientations. Pers. Individ. Differ. 51 28–33. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.004 Guthrie J. Mancino L. Lin C. T. J. (2015). Nudging consumers toward better food choices: policy approaches to changing food consumption behaviors. Psychol. Market. 32 501–511. 10.1002/mar.20795 Hanbazaza M. Ball G. D. Farmer A. P. Maximova K. Farahbakhsh J. Willows N. D. (2017). A comparison of characteristics and food insecurity coping strategies between international and domestic postsecondary students using a food bank located on a university campus. Canadian J. Dietetic Pract. Res. 78 208–211. 10.3148/cjdpr-2017-012 28537087 Harackiewicz J. M. Barron K. E. Pintrich P. R. Elliot A. J. Thrash T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: necessary and illuminating. J. Educ. Psychol. 94 638–645. 10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.638 Haverila M. J. Haverila K. McLaughlin C. (2020). Variables affecting the retention intentions of students in higher education institutions: a comparison between international and domestic students. J. Int. Students 10 358–382. 10.32674/jis.v10i2.1849 Hayle E. M. (2008). Educational Benefits of Internationalizing Higher Education: The Students’ Perspectives. Master’s thesis. Belfast: Queen’s University. Heng T. T. (2021). Socioculturally attuned understanding of and engagement with Chinese international undergraduates. J. Diversity High. Educ. 10.1037/dhe0000240 Hess B. Sherman M. F. Goodman M. (2000). Eveningness predicts academic procrastination: the mediating role of neuroticism. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 15:61. Holtbrügge D. Mohr A. T. (2010). Cultural determinants of learning style preferences. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 9 622–637. 10.5465/AMLE.2010.56659880 Hopkins C. Ferrell O. C. Ferrell L. Hopkins K. Merkle A. C. (2020). Self-Efficacy, locus of control and engagement as determinants of grades in a principles of marketing class. Market. Educ. Rev. 30 236–251. 10.1080/10528008.2020.1837634 Huang Y. S. (2017). Academic Challenges and Strategies: An SRL Comparison of Canadian-Domestic and Chinese-International Students’ Transition to University. Doctoral dissertation. Victoria: University of Victoria. Ivcevic Z. Brackett M. (2014). Predicting school success: comparing conscientiousness, grit, and emotion regulation ability. J. Res. Pers. 52 29–36. 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.06.005 Jeynes W. (2003). Religion, Education, and Academic Success. Greenwich: Information Age Press. Karaman M. A. Watson J. C. (2017). Examining associations among achievement motivation, locus of control, academic stress, and life satisfaction: a comparison of US and international undergraduate students. Pers. Individ. Differ. 111 106–110. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.006 Klineberg O. Hull W. F. (1979). At a Foreign University: An International Study of Adaptation and Coping. New York, NY: Praeger. Kohlberg L. (1976). “Moral stages and moralization: the cognitive-developmental approach,” in Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research and Social Issues, ed. Lickona T. (Holt, NY: Rinehart and Winston). 10.1007/BF02132782 24272030 Komarraju M. Karau S. J. Schmeck R. R. Avdic A. (2011). The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Pers. Individ. Differ. 51 472–477. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019 Krampen G. Wieberg H. J. W. (1981). Three aspects of locus of control in German, American, and Japanese university students. J. Soc. Psychol. 113, 133–134. 10.1080/00224545.1981.9924357 Lin C. (2006). Culture shock and social support: an investigation of a Chinese student organization on a US campus. J. Intercultural Commun. Res. 35 117–137. 10.1080/17475750600909279 MacKinnon S. P. Smith S. M. Carter-Rogers K. (2015). Multidimensional self-esteem and test derogation after negative feedback. Canadian J. Behav. Sci./Revue Canadienne Sci. Comportement 47:123. 10.1037/a0038364 Marsh H. W. Hau K.-T. Artelt C. Baumert J. Peschar J. L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. Int. J. Test. 6 311–360. 10.1207/s15327574ijt0604_1 Martin A. J. Marsh H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: friend or foe? Australian Psychol. 38 31–38. 10.1080/00050060310001706997 Martin A. J. Yu K. Papworth B. Ginns P. Collie R. J. (2014). Motivation and engagement in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and China: testing a multi-dimensional framework. J. Psychoeducational Assessment 33 1–12. 10.1177/0734282914546287 Martin K. A. Brawley L. R. (2002). Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: the contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Self Identity 1 337–351. 10.1080/15298860290106814 McComb S. A. Kirkpatrick J. M. (2016). Impact of pedagogical approaches on cognitive complexity and motivation to learn: comparing nursing and engineering undergraduate students. Nurs. Outlook 64 37–48. 10.1016/j.outlook.2015.10.006 26586592 McCrae R. R. Terracciano A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: data from 50 cultures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88:547. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547 15740445 McIntyre M. M. Graziano W. G. (2019). A snapshot of person and thing orientations: how individual differences in interest manifest in everyday life. Pers. Individ. Differ. 136 160–165. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.005 McIntyre M. M. Gundlach J. L. Graziano W. G. (2021). Liking guides learning: the role of interest in memory for STEM topics. Learn. Individ. Differ. 85:101960. 10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101960 McKenzie J. (1989). Neuroticism and academic achievement: the Furneaux factor. Pers. Individ. Differ. 10 509–515. 10.1016/0191-8869(89)90032-9 McKenzie J. Taghavi-Khonsary M. Tindell G. (2000). Neuroticism and academic achievement: the Furneaux Factor as a measure of academic rigour. Pers. Individ. Differ. 29 3–11. 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00170-1 McLean-Meyinsse P. E. Harris E. G. Taylor S. S. Gager J. V. (2013). Examining college students’ daily consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables. J. Food Distribut. Res. 44 10–16. 10.22004/ag.econ.158772 Millar R. Irving P. (1995). Academic locus of control in British undergraduate students. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 65 331–340. 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1995.tb01153.x Mueller M. P. Blondin S. A. Korn A. R. Bakun P. J. Tucker K. L. Economos C. D. (2018). Behavioral correlates of empirically-derived dietary patterns among university students. Nutrients 10:716. 10.3390/nu10060716 29865279 Naik A. R. (2015). A study on locus of control among college students of Gulbarga City. I. J. Ind. Psychol. 2 48–54. Newton P. M. (2015). The learning styles myth is thriving in higher education. Front. Psychol. 6:1908. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01908 26696947 Ngobia J. W. (2011). Internationalization and the Undergraduate Student Experience: How Domestic Students Experience Interaction with International Students. Doctoral Dissertation. Toronto: University of Toronto. Noftle E. E. Robins R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93:116. 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116 17605593 Parsons O. A. Schneider J. M. (1974). Locus of control in university students from Eastern and Western societies. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42 456–461. 10.1037/h0036677 Parsons R. (2010). The effects of an internationalized university experience on domestic students in the United States and Australia. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 14 313–334. Perry W. G. J. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Poropat A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychol. Bull. 135:322. 10.1037/a0014996 19254083 Poyrazli S. Isaiah J. (2018). International students’ journeys from academic probation to academic success. Int. Perspect. Psychol.: Res. Pract. Consult. 7:62. 10.1037/ipp0000083 Racette S. B. Deusinger S. S. Strube M. J. Highstein G. R. Deusinger R. H. (2008). Changes in weight and health behaviors from freshman through senior year of college. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 40 39–42. 10.1016/j.jneb.2007.01.001 18174103 Regenerus M. D. (2003). Religion and adolescent outcomes: a review of research. Rev. Religious Res. 44 394–413. 10.2307/3512217 Rhodewalt F. Tragakis M. (2002). “Self-handicapping and the social self: the costs and rewards of interpersonal self-construction,” in The Social Self: Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Intergroup Perspectives, eds Forgas J. Williams K. (Philadelphia: Psychology Press) 121–143. Rienties B. Nolan E. M. (2014). Understanding friendship and learning networks of international and host students using longitudinal Social Network Analysis. Int. J. Int. Relat. 41 165–180. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.12.003 Rinn A. Boazman J. Jackson A. Borria B. (2014). Locus of control, academic self-concept, and academic dishonesty among high ability students. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn. 14 88–114. 10.14434/josotl.v14i4.12770 Robins R. W. Hendin H. M. Trzesniewski K. H. (2001a). Measuring global self-esteem: construct validation of a single-item measure and the rosenberg self-esteem scale. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27 151–161. Robins R. W. Tracy J. L. Trzesniewski K. H. Potter J. Gosling S. D. (2001b). Personality correlates of self-esteem. J. Res. Pers. 35 463–482. 10.1006/jrpe.2001.2324 Robins R. W. Trzesniewski K. H. Tracy J. L. Gosling S. D. Potter J. (2002). Global self-esteem across the life-span. Psychol. Aging 17 423–434. 10.1037/0882-7974.17.3.423 Rohrlich B. F. (1991). Host country and re-entry adjustment of student sojourners. Int. J. Intercultural Relat. 15 163–182. 10.1016/0147-1767(91)90027-E Rolland J. P. (2002). “The cross-cultural generalizability of the five-factor model of personality,” in The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures. International and Cultural Psychology Series, eds McCrae R. R. Allik J. (Boston, MA: Springer). Rosenberg M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (SES), Vol. 148. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ross S. R. Canada K. E. Rausch M. K. (2002). Self-handicapping and the Five Factor Model of personality: mediation between neuroticism and conscientiousness. Pers. Individ. Differ. 32 1173–1184. 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00079-4 Rotter J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol. Monogr.: General Appl. 80:1. 10.1037/h0092976 Sagone E. De Caroli M. E. (2014). Locus of control and academic self-efficacy in university students: the effects of Self-concepts. Proc.-Soc. Behav. Sci. 114 222–228. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.689 Schneider M. Preckel F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: a systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychol. Bull. 143:565. 10.1037/bul0000098 28333495 Schroeter C. Corder T. Brookes B. Reller V. (2019). An incentive-based health program using MyPlate: a pilot study analyzing college students’ dietary intake behavior. J. Am. College Health 69 252–259. 10.1080/07448481.2019.1661845 31566483 Schwinger M. Trautner M. Pütz N. Fabianek S. Lemmer G. Lauermann F. (2021). Why do students use strategies that hurt their chances of academic success? A meta-analysis of antecedents of academic self-handicapping. J. Educ. Psychol. 10.1037/edu0000706 Schwinger M. Wirthwein L. Lemmer G. Steinmayr R. (2014). Academic self-handicapping and achievement: a meta-analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 106 744–761. 10.1037/a0035832 Seligman L. (1994). Developmental Career Counseling and Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Sherer M. Maddux J. E. Mercandante B. Prentice-Dunn S. Jacobs B. Rogers R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: construction and validation. Psychol. Rep. 51 663–671. 10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663 Sogari G. Velez-Argumedo C. Gómez M. I. Mora C. (2018). College students and eating habits: a study using an ecological model for healthy behavior. Nutrients 10:1823. 10.3390/nu10121823 30477101 Statistics Canada (2017). Education in Canada, Results of the 2015 Census. The Daily. Available online at:https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171129/dq171129a-eng.htm (accessed November 30, 2021). Statistics Canada (2020). International Students Accounted for the Growth in Postsecondary Enrolments in 2018/2019. The Daily. Available online at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/201125/dq201125e-eng.htm (accessed November 30, 2021). Sugahara S. Boland G. (2010). The role of cultural factors in the learning style preferences of accounting students: a comparative study between Japan and Australia. Account. Educ. Int. J. 19, 235–255. 10.1080/09639280903208518 Tinto V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd Edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tinto V. (2010). “From theory to action: exploring the institutional conditions for student retention,” in Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, ed. Smart J. (Dordrecht: Springer), 51–89. 10.1007/978-90-481-8598-6_2 Trautwein U. Lüdtke O. Köller O. Baumert J. (2006). Self-esteem, academic self-concept, and achievement: how the learning environment moderates the dynamics of self-concept. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90 334–349. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.334 16536654 Uehara A. Hicks J. (1989). “Institutional responses to socio-cultural adjustment: problems of foreign students in Japan,” in Foreign Students and Internationalization of Higher Education, ed. Ebuchi K. (Hiroshima: Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University), 129–143. Vella-Zarb R. A. Elgar F. J. (2009). The ‘freshman 5′: a meta-analysis of weight gain in the freshman year of college. J. Am. College Health 58 161–166. 10.1080/07448480903221392 19892653 Vertesi C. (1999). “Students as agents of change,” in A New World of Knowledge: Canadian Universities and Globalization, eds Bond S. L. Lemasson J. (Ottawa: IDRC) 129–158. Woodcock A. Graziano W. G. Branch S. E. Habashi M. M. Ngambeki I. Evangelou D. (2013). Person and thing orientations: psychological correlates and predictive utility. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 4 116–123. Zimmerman D. W. (2004). Inflation of Type I error rates by unequal variances associated with parametric, nonparametric, and rank-transformation tests. Psicológica 25 103–133.

19.5% of the international students were from East Asia. 17.2% were from Africa. 16.1% were from South East Asia. 14.9% were from the Caribbean. 12.6% were from the Middle East. 9.2% were from Europe. 5.7% were from the United States of America. 2.3% were from South America. 1.1% were from Mexico. 1.1% were from Australia.

All variables were assessed for Multicollinearity. All VIF are < 5, and all tolerances are > 0.200, meaning there were no issues with multicollinearity with the variables.

A MANOVA was also completed as generally speaking MANOVA is robust to violations of assumptions. The analysis yielded similar results. Due to the unequal sample size within the two groups, a non-parametric analysis was most appropriate to control for unequal variance. Mean Rank has been given within the analyses instead of actual means as is appropriate to the non-parametric analysis.