ArticlePDF Available

Comparative effects of belongingness on the academic success and cross-cultural interactions of domestic and international students

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

To advance resilience-based models of acculturation, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the buffering effects of a sense of belongingness on cross-cultural interaction and academic success, where belongingness refers to a sense of connection with one's university, a strong support network, and a balance of academic challenge and support. We analyzed a stratified random sample of international (n = 415) and domestic (n = 816) undergraduates at eight research universities in the United States who responded to the Global Perspective Inventory (GPI). International and domestic students who took courses involving intergroup dialog or multicultural content reported more cross-cultural interaction, but not a greater sense of belongingness. A sense of belongingness increased cross-cultural interaction between international and domestic students, and it substantially enhanced international students’ average grade earned. Cultural events, leadership programs, and community service enhanced a sense of belongingness, buffered the effects of racism, and provided a secure base for the exploration of cross-cultural relationships. Similarities and dissimilarities in how belongingness contributes to international and domestic students’ cross-cultural relationships and academic success are considered. We discuss implications for resilience-based models of acculturation and propose interventions to enhance a sense of belongingness for all students.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
Author's personal copy
International
Journal
of
Intercultural
Relations
38 (2014) 106–
119
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
International
Journal
of
Intercultural
Relations
j
ourna
l
ho
me
pag
e:
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
Comparative
effects
of
belongingness
on
the
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interactions
of
domestic
and
international
students
Chris
R.
Glassa,,
Christina
M.
Westmontb
aDarden
College
of
Education,
Old
Dominion
University,
166-1
Education
Building,
Norfolk,
VA
23529,
United
States
bDarden
College
of
Education,
Old
Dominion
University,
166-12
Education
Building,
Norfolk,
VA
23529,
United
States
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
5
September
2012
Received
in
revised
form
22
January
2013
Accepted
8
April
2013
Keywords:
Acculturation
Resilience
International
students
Belongingness
Social
network
Academic
success
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
To
advance
resilience-based
models
of
acculturation,
we
used
structural
equation
modeling
(SEM)
to
test
the
buffering
effects
of
a
sense
of
belongingness
on
cross-cultural
interaction
and
academic
success,
where
belongingness
refers
to
a
sense
of
connection
with
one’s
uni-
versity,
a
strong
support
network,
and
a
balance
of
academic
challenge
and
support.
We
analyzed
a
stratified
random
sample
of
international
(n
=
415)
and
domestic
(n
=
816)
under-
graduates
at
eight
research
universities
in
the
United
States
who
responded
to
the
Global
Perspective
Inventory
(GPI).
International
and
domestic
students
who
took
courses
involv-
ing
intergroup
dialog
or
multicultural
content
reported
more
cross-cultural
interaction,
but
not
a
greater
sense
of
belongingness.
A
sense
of
belongingness
increased
cross-cultural
interaction
between
international
and
domestic
students,
and
it
substantially
enhanced
international
students’
average
grade
earned.
Cultural
events,
leadership
programs,
and
community
service
enhanced
a
sense
of
belongingness,
buffered
the
effects
of
racism,
and
provided
a
secure
base
for
the
exploration
of
cross-cultural
relationships.
Similarities
and
dissimilarities
in
how
belongingness
contributes
to
international
and
domestic
students’
cross-cultural
relationships
and
academic
success
are
considered.
We
discuss
implications
for
resilience-based
models
of
acculturation
and
propose
interventions
to
enhance
a
sense
of
belongingness
for
all
students.
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1.
Introduction
International
students
generally
express
satisfaction
with
their
academic
experience;
however,
they
tend
to
express
less
satisfaction
with
their
social
experience
(Council
for
International
Education,
2006;
Schweitzer,
Morson,
&
Mather,
2011).
The
lack
of
meaningful
contact
between
international
and
domestic
students
continues
to
be
a
principal
concern
among
international
educators
(Brandenburg
&
de
Wit,
2011).
Domestic
and
international
students
often
live
in
parallel
social
worlds,
shut
off
from
meaningful
interaction
with
one
another
(Gareis,
2012).
Meaningful
cross-cultural
interaction
requires
a
social
context
that
enables
domestic
and
international
students
to
explore
cross-cultural
relationships.
Educational
psychologists
advance
belongingness
as
a
means
to
understand
human
interpersonal
behavior
(Baumeister
&
Leary,
1995),
where
belongingness
refers
to
the
extent
to
which
students
felt
“part
of
the
campus
community,”
“member
of
the
campus
community,”
and
“sense
of
belonging
to
campus
community”
(Locks,
Hurtado,
Bowman,
&
Oseguera,
2008,
p.
260).
A
sense
of
belongingness
has
practical
benefits
for
all
students:
belongingness
is
one
of
the
most
frequently
cited
factors
for
college
Corresponding
author.
Tel.:
+1
757
683
4118;
fax:
+1
757
683
5083.
E-mail
addresses:
crglass@odu.edu
(C.R.
Glass),
ccampbel@odu.edu
(C.M.
Westmont).
0147-1767/$
see
front
matter ©
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.04.004
Author's personal copy
C.R.
Glass,
C.M.
Westmont
/
International
Journal
of
Intercultural
Relations
38 (2014) 106–
119 107
students’
academic
success
(Hausmann,
Schofield,
&
Woods,
2007;
Osterman,
2000),
and
belongingness
creates
a
secure
base
to
explore
cross-cultural
relationships
(Wang
&
Mallinckrodt,
2006).
The
purpose
of
this
study,
therefore,
is
to
test
a
model
of
the
buffering
effects
of
belongingness
on
the
cross-cultural
interaction
and
academic
success
of
international
and
domestic
students
enrolled
in
eight
US
research
universities.
While
much
of
the
previous
work
has
examined
international
students
or
domestic
students
independently,
researchers
are
only
beginning
to
understand
how
a
sense
of
belongingness
may
contribute
similarly
or
differently
to
domestic
and
international
students’
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction.
Most
studies
have
examined
single
factors,
sin-
gle
institutions,
or
solely
international
students
(Zhang
&
Goodson,
2011);
few
studies
have
analyzed
the
interaction
of
multiple
factors
and
the
sources
of
between-group
variation
that
may
exist
between
international
and
domestic
stu-
dents.
2.
Theoretical
framework
and
hypotheses
of
the
study
2.1.
Resilience-based
models
of
acculturation
A
growing
body
of
acculturation
research
has
used
resilience-based
models
to
explore
the
lives
of
international
students
for
whom
academic
success
and
positive
cross-cultural
interaction
have
been
documented
(Moores
&
Popadiuk,
2011;
Pan,
Wong,
&
Chan,
2007;
Pan,
Wong,
Chan,
&
Joubert,
2008).
Research
from
the
last
two
decades
documents
the
multiple
risks
international
students
face
while
attending
American
universities,
linking
stress,
lack
of
social
support,
and
language
proficiency
to
academic
difficulties
and
poor
psychosocial
adjustment
(Smith
&
Khawaja,
2011;
Zhang
&
Goodson,
2011).
Multiple
studies
highlight
the
deleterious
effects
of
loneliness
on
international
students
(Russell,
Rosenthal,
&
Thomson,
2010;
Sawir,
Marginson,
Deumert,
Nyland,
&
Ramia,
2007)
and
the
buffering
effects
of
peer
support
on
depression
and
stress
(Crockett
et
al.,
2007;
Smith
&
Khawaja,
2011).
Rather
than
focusing
on
risk
factors
alone,
resilience-based
models
place
particular
emphasis
on
identifying
protective
factors
that
support
international
students’
resilience
(Pan,
2011).
Our
study
extends
resilience-based
models
by
examining
the
direct
and
indirect
effects
of
risk,
protective,
and
pro-
motive
factors
in
predicting
the
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction
of
international
and
domestic
students.
Educational
psychologists
have
utilized
the
constructs
of
risk,
protective,
and
promotive
factors
to
examine
their
interac-
tive
effects
on
the
academic
and
social
trajectories
of
adolescents
(e.g.,
Gutman,
Sameroff,
&
Cole,
2003).
Risk
factors
(e.g.,
discrimination,
financial
stresses,
language
difficulties,
and
immigration
problems)
are
defined
by
their
positive
relation-
ship
to
a
negative
outcome
such
as
low
academic
performance,
marginalization,
or
negative
affect.
Protective
factors
(e.g.,
meaning-in-life
and
belongingness)
buffer
the
effects
of
risk
factors
on
individuals
despite
the
presence
of
risk
factors
(Luthar,
Cicchetti,
&
Becker,
2000).
Promotive
factors
exert
direct
effects
on
positive
outcomes,
such
as
high
academic
performance,
cross-cultural
interaction,
and
positive
affect;
additionally,
they
also
fortify
protective
factors
that
buffer
the
effects
of
risk
factors.
Promotive
factors
are
experience-dependent;
therefore,
they
vary
by
the
affordances
of
the
social
context
in
which
the
person
is
situated.
In
testing
a
resilience-based
model
of
acculturation,
we
attempt
to
determine
if
risk,
protective,
and
promotive
factors
impact
students’
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction
in
the
same
way
for
domestic
stu-
dents
and
international
students
attending
US
research
universities.
The
following
subsections
review
empirical
research
on
each
factor’s
relationship
with
the
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction
of
both
international
and
domestic
students.
2.2.
Risk
factors
The
negative
relationship
between
racial
prejudice
and
college
students’
academic
success
and
sense
of
belonging
is
well-documented
(Hurtado
&
Carter,
1997;
Locks
et
al.,
2008).
International
students
who
experience
verbal
insults,
neg-
ative
stereotypes,
or
detect
discrimination
tend
to
feel
more
depressed
(Jung,
Hecht,
&
Wadsworth,
2007)
and
lonely
(Sawir
et
al.,
2007).
Non-European
international
students
experience
amplified
acculturative
stress;
depressive
symptoms
have
been
linked
with
a
crisis
of
identity
prompted
by
explicit
acts
of
discrimination
(Jung
et
al.,
2007)
and
more
gen-
eralized
stress
of
lacking
culture-specific
knowledge
necessary
to
make
sense
of
social
situations
(Markus
&
Kitayama,
2003).
Interview
research
provides
evidence
of
neo-racism
(i.e.,
culture
or
country
of
origin,
rather
than
color,
is
used
as
a
pretense
for
discrimination)
toward
non-European
students
(Lee
&
Rice,
2007),
particularly
students
from
Eastern
Asia,
Middle
Eastern,
and
African
countries
(Gareis,
2012;
Hanassab,
2006).
Recognizing
and
making
meaning
of
racism
is
a
significant
developmental
task
for
minority
college
students
(Torres
&
Baxter
Magolda,
2004;
Torres
&
Hernandez,
2007).
Noncognitive
variables,
including
the
capacity
to
identify
and
respond
to
racism,
have
demonstrated
validity
in
predicting
the
grades
and
retention
of
minority
students,
and
the
retention
of
non-minority
students
in
higher
edu-
cation
(Sedlacek,
2004).
Several
studies
cite
the
role
of
a
strong
social
support
network
in
moderating
the
effects
of
racism
(Chen,
Mallinckrodt,
&
Mobley,
2002;
Noh
&
Kaspar,
2003;
Poyrazli,
Kavanaugh,
Baker,
&
Al-Timimi,
2004).
There-
fore,
as
discriminatory
experiences
are
expected
to
exert
a
direct
negative
effect
on
belongingness
for
all
students,
belongingness
is
expected
to
buffer
the
effects
of
discriminatory
experiences
on
cross-cultural
interaction
and
academic
success.
Author's personal copy
108 C.R.
Glass,
C.M.
Westmont
/
International
Journal
of
Intercultural
Relations
38 (2014) 106–
119
2.3.
Protective
factors
Recent
resilience-based
analyses
examine
risk
factors,
such
as
racism,
in
the
context
of
protective
factors,
such
as
meaning-
in-life
(Pan,
2011;
Pan
et
al.,
2007)
or
belongingness
(Schmitt,
Spears,
&
Branscombe,
2003).
Resilience-based
models
consider
how
students’
interpretation
of
risk
factors
may
mediate
the
effect
on
cross-cultural
interaction
and
academic
success.
2.3.1.
Sense
of
belongingness
One
of
the
most
frequently
cited
factors
for
college
students’
persistence
and
academic
success
is
their
sense
of
belong-
ingness
(Hausmann
et
al.,
2007;
Osterman,
2000).
While
the
social
psychology
literature
uses
belongingness
to
refer
to
“a
pervasive
drive
to
form
and
maintain
at
least
a
minimum
quantity
of
lasting,
positive,
and
significant
interpersonal
relation-
ships”
(Baumeister
&
Leary,
1995,
p.
497),
our
study
draws
on
educational
research
that
uses
the
term
to
specifically
consider
students’
sense
of
connection
with
their
college,
degree
of
social
support,
and
experience
of
both
academic
challenge
and
support
(Hausmann
et
al.,
2007;
Hurtado
&
Carter,
1997;
Osterman,
2000).
Over
the
course
of
college,
students’
social
and
academic
interactions
(e.g.,
classroom
discussion,
participation
in
cultural
activities,
leadership
programs)
contribute
to
this
sense
of
belonging.
Baumeister
and
Sommer
(1997)
argue
that
men
and
women
may
pursue
belongingness
in
different
social
spheres
(i.e.,
men
in
groups,
women
in
dyadic
relationships);
therefore,
our
conceptualization
is
limited
specifically
to
belongingness
within
a
particular
social
context:
the
college
environment.
Experimental
research
has
indicated
that
even
minimal
cues
of
social
connectedness,
or
“mere
belonging”
(Walton,
Cohen,
Cwir,
&
Spencer,
2012,
p.
513),
such
as
sharing
preferences
for
music
or
the
university
sports
team,
affect
people’s
achievement
motivation.
Survey
research
consistently
indicates
that
seniors
report
feeling
more
connected
with
their
university
than
their
first-year
counterparts
(Bowman,
2011).
It
is
less
clear
whether
international
students
share
this
sentiment,
given
international
students’
descriptions
of
struggle
and
distress,
as
they
negotiate
and
renegotiate
their
place
within
their
college
community
(Koehne,
2006;
Lee
&
Rice,
2007).
Belongingness
is
especially
salient
in
international
students’
academic
success,
in
part,
because
they
are
expected
to
handle
the
same
rigorous
academic
demands
as
domestic
students
without
forms
of
social
support.
A
lack
of
meaningful
relationships
is
linked
with
increasing
students’
sense
of
isolation
from
the
campus
community
(Koehne,
2006;
Williams
&
Johnson,
2011).
In
contrast,
social
ties
with
same-country,
international,
and
host
students
increase
international
students’
connection
with
the
campus
community
(Kashima
&
Loh,
2006);
a
strong
identification
with
the
campus
community,
then,
provides
a
secure
base
for
international
students
to
explore
the
cultural
environment
(Wang
&
Mallinckrodt,
2006),
form
relationships
with
domestic
students
(Hendrickson,
Rosen,
&
Aune,
2011),
and
buffer
the
effects
of
stress
(Furnham
&
Alibhai,
1985).
For
this
study,
seniors
are
expected
to
report
a
greater
sense
of
belongingness,
and
belongingness
is
expected
to
exert
a
direct
positive
effect
on
cross-cultural
interaction
and
academic
success.
2.3.2.
Meaning-in-life
Resilience-based
models
have
explored
the
buffering
effects
of
meaning-in-life,
where
meaning-in-life
reflects
a
sense
of
purpose,
direction,
and
integration
of
personal
values
(Pan,
2011).
Recent
multi-institutional
studies
suggest
that
interactive
processes
between
risk
and
protective
factors
may
mitigate
or
exacerbate
the
effects
of
acculturative
hassles
(e.g.,
language
deficiency,
cultural
differences).
Pan,
Wong,
Joubert,
and
Chan
(2008),
for
example,
found
evidence
that
protective
factors
such
as
meaning-in-life,
mediate
life
stressors
associated
with
cross-cultural
adaptation.
A
sense
of
purpose
in
life
is
one
of
the
most
consistent
predictors
of
positive
affect
and
student
satisfaction
(Pan
et
al.,
2007);
it
also
predicts
lower
stress
and
higher
resilience
in
the
face
of
negative
experiences.
Cross-sectional
studies
of
Chinese
students
studying
in
Hong
Kong
and
Australia
provide
initial
evidence
of
the
buffering
effects
of
personal
meaning
making
as
a
protective
factor
that
mitigates
adverse
campus
conditions
(Pan
et
al.,
2007)
and
mediates
the
relationship
between
acculturative
stress
and
psychosocial
well-being
(Pan
et
al.,
2008).
Meaning-in-life,
then,
is
crucial
factor
given
the
need
for
international
students
to
construct
bicultural
or
multicultural
identities,
where
identity
development
involves
multiple
characteristics
that
become
more
or
less
salient
depending
upon
the
specific
social
context
or
situation.
2.4.
Promotive
factors
Although
existing
resilience
based
frameworks
examine
risk
factors
in
the
context
of
protective
factors,
our
study
con-
siders
two
additional
factors
to
resilience-based
models
of
international
students’
acculturative
processes:
engagement
in
inclusive
curricula
and
participation
in
co-curricular
activities.
To
distinguish
these
factors
from
risk
and
protective
factors,
we
refer
to
these
factors
as
promotive
factors.
2.4.1.
Engagement
in
inclusive
curricula
Inclusive
curriculum,
such
as
courses
that
involve
multicultural
content
or
discussion
among
students
with
different
backgrounds
and
beliefs,
are
significant
predictors
of
cross-cultural
interaction
for
all
students
(Gurin,
Dey,
Hurtado,
&
Gurin,
2002;
Saenz,
Ngai,
&
Hurtado,
2007).
Courses
that
involve
dialog
about
issues
of
race
and
gender
provide
oppor-
tunities
for
students
to
make
sense
of
complex
sociocultural
identities.
Intergroup
dialog,
in
particular,
promotes
student
interaction
that
enables
students
to
understand
how
socially
constructed
group
distinctions
are
played
out
in
everyday
social
interactions
(˜
niga,
Nagda,
Chesler,
&
Cytron-Walker,
2007).
Courses
that
involve
intergroup
dialog
contribute
to
reversing
attitudes
and
behaviors
from
being
socialized
in
a
larger
societal
context
of
racial
or
ethnic
inequality.
A
strong
Author's personal copy
C.R.
Glass,
C.M.
Westmont
/
International
Journal
of
Intercultural
Relations
38 (2014) 106–
119 109
empirical
base
supports
a
wide
range
of
positive
outcomes,
including
critical
thinking
and
increased
perspective
taking,
for
courses
involving
intergroup
dialog
(Gurin
et
al.,
2002;
Saenz
et
al.,
2007).
A
study
of
317
four-year
colleges
and
universities,
using
the
National
Survey
of
Student
Engagement
(NSSE),
indicated
international
students
participated
more
frequently
in
diversity-related
activities
(e.g.,
class
discussion
or
writing
assignments
involving
diverse
perspectives
on
race,
religion,
gender,
etc.)
than
their
domestic
student
counterparts;
despite
which,
international
students
were
less
satisfied
with
their
overall
college
experience
(Zhao,
Kuh,
&
Carini,
2005).
International
students
who
enroll
in
courses
that
involve
intergroup
dialog
report
more
positive
perceptions
of
the
campus
climate
for
diversity
(Glass,
2012);
international
students
who
enroll
in
courses
that
include
content
addressing
issues
of
race,
ethnicity,
gender,
class,
religion,
or
sexual
orientation
report
more
personal
and
social
development
(Glass,
2012;
Zhao
et
al.,
2005).
Despite
the
benefits
of
inclusive
curricula
for
domestic
and
international
students,
both
domestic
and
international
students
peers
are
more
likely
to
engage
in
out-of-class
academic
work
with
students
from
similar
cultural
backgrounds
(Volet
&
Ang,
2012).
Therefore,
some
researchers
argue
that
curricular
experiences
should
be
purposeful
structured
to
facilitate
cross-cultural
at
multiple
points
in
students’
college
experience
(Glass,
2012;
Volet
&
Ang,
2012),
and
that
those
encounters
should
progressively
engage
issues
of
multiculturalism
and
internationalism
(Glass
&
Braskamp,
2012;
Leask,
2009).
For
this
study,
engagement
in
inclusive
curricula
is
expected
to
exert
a
direct
positive
effect
on
belongingness
and
cross-cultural
interaction.
2.4.2.
Participation
in
co-curricular
activities
Longitudinal
studies
(Saenz
et
al.,
2007)
and
cross-sectional
studies
(Trice,
2004)
comparing
the
domestic
students
of
varied
ethnic
backgrounds
indicate
diversity-related
co-curricular
activities
are
a
significant
predictor
of
social
interac-
tion
between
domestic
and
international
students.
Participation
in
co-curricular
activities
facilitates
international
students’
social
networking
and
provides
opportunities
to
practice
language
in
a
low-risk
context
(Gómez,
2002).
International
stu-
dents
who
participate
in
collaborative,
team-oriented
campus
leadership
programs
report
more
positive
perceptions
of
the
climate
for
diversity,
and
greater
levels
of
personal
and
social
development
(Glass,
2012).
Furthermore,
international
stu-
dents
who
participate
in
campus-wide
cultural
events,
and
socialize
with
other
international
students,
also
socialize
more
frequently
with
domestic
students
(Trice,
2004)
and
are
more
likely
to
persist
through
graduation
(Severiens
&
Wolff,
2008).
Casual
discussions
outside
of
class,
participation
in
religious-spiritual
communities,
and
involvement
in
social-community
organizations
have
been
documented
to
increase
students’
sense
of
campus
belongingness
(Hurtado
&
Carter,
1997;
Moores
&
Popadiuk,
2011).
Despite
the
known
benefits
of
co-curricular
activities,
one
striking
difference
between
domestic
and
international
students
is
the
relative
amount
of
time
each
group
spends
socializing
and
relaxing
among
friends
(Zhao
et
al.,
2005).
International
students
feel
pressure
to
excel
academically
from
family
members
back
home
or
from
the
need
to
meet
the
academic
requirements
of
their
sponsoring
agency;
therefore,
studying
for
long
periods
of
time
seems
to
be
the
most
effective
use
of
their
time
(Abel,
2002).
The
lack
of
leisure
and
relaxation,
however,
often
hinders
the
formation
of
supportive
social
networks
and
inadvertently
exacerbates
an
international
student’s
sense
of
loneliness,
depression,
or
stress.
For
this
study,
participation
in
co-curricular
activities
is
expected
to
exert
a
direct
positive
effect
on
belongingness.
2.5.
Structural
model
and
hypotheses
While
the
hypothesized
model
for
this
study
is
constructed
from
current
international
student
research
(Zhang
&
Goodson,
2011),
the
conceptual
model
expands
upon
the
existing
resilience-based
and
meaning-oriented
models
of
acculturation
(Pan,
2011).
Based
on
prior
research
(Zhang
&
Goodson,
2011),
the
conceptual
model
used
in
this
study
assumes
that
sense
of
belongingness,
co-curricular
activities,
and
academic
engagement
in
inclusive
curricula
are
related
to
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction.
Five
hypotheses
were
proposed
for
this
study:
discriminatory
experiences
will
exert
a
direct
negative
effect
on
belongingness;
belongingness
will
exert
a
direct
positive
effect
on
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction.
engagement
in
inclusive
curricula
will
exert
a
direct
positive
effect
on
belongingness
and
cross-cultural
interaction;
participation
in
co-curricular
activities
will
exert
a
direct
positive
effect
on
belongingness;
and
senior-level
students
will
report
a
greater
degree
of
belongingness
than
their
first-year
counterparts.
3.
Method
3.1.
Participants
Data
were
collected
from
international
and
domestic
undergraduates
at
eight
research
universities
that
administered
the
Global
Perspective
Inventory
(GPI)
from
2010–2012.
The
total
sample
consisted
of
18,628
undergraduates
from
the
selected
institutions
(1398
international
students;
17,230
domestic
students;
see
Table
1
for
campus
information).
International
students,
for
the
purposes
of
this
study,
are
defined
as
persons
who
have
“crossed
a
national
or
territorial
border
for
the
purposes
of
education
and
are
now
enrolled
outside
their
country
of
origin”
(UNESCO,
2012).
Author's personal copy
110 C.R.
Glass,
C.M.
Westmont
/
International
Journal
of
Intercultural
Relations
38 (2014) 106–
119
Table
1
Institutional
characteristics.
Inst.
#
Carnegie
classificationa
US
region
Total
undergrad.
enrollment
%
Int’l
undergrad.
enrollment
International
student
subgroup
n
=
415
Domestic
student
subgroup
n
=
816
1
RU/VH
South
Atlantic
7277
7
51
75
2
RU/H
South
Atlantic
44,972
5
74
155
3
DRU
East
North
Central
8409
2
67
88
4
RU/VH
West
South
Central 40,345
2
60
106
5
RU/VH
South
Atlantic 19,776
2
27
69
6
RU/VH
East
South
Central
23,168
2
43
235
7
RU/H
West
South
Central
29,544
3
13
34
8
RU/VH
New
England
6446
18
79
49
aRU/VH:
Research
Universities
(very
high
research
activity);
RU/H:
Research
Universities
(high
research
activity);
and
DRU:
Doctoral/Research
Univer-
sities.
3.2.
Measures
The
GPI
contains
three
sections:
demographic
information
(7-items);
curricular/co-curricular
involvement
(10-items);
and
six
developmental
subscales,
one
of
which
is
the
social
interaction
subscale
(6-items).
The
developmental
scales
are
grounded
in
the
constructive-developmental
tradition
of
psychology
which
holds
that
humans
actively
construct
meaning
to
interpret
their
experiences
and
systems
of
meaning
evolve
over
time
(Kegan,
1994).
Constructive-developmentalists
frame
learning
as
an
integrative,
ongoing
process
that
involves
the
inherent
interconnectedness
of
the
cognitive,
intrapersonal,
and
interpersonal
dimensions
of
development
(King
&
Baxter
Magolda,
2005).
Consequently,
the
GPI
conceptualizes
global
perspective-taking
as
the
capacity
for
a
person
to
think
with
complexity,
taking
into
account
multiple
perspectives;
to
form
a
unique
sense
of
self
that
is
value-based
and
authentic;
and
to
relate
to
others
with
respect
and
openness,
especially
with
those
who
are
not
like
the
student
(Braskamp,
2010).
Table
4
contains
all
item
wordings
of
the
latent
factors
in
the
model
with
their
loadings
and
scale
reliabilities.
3.2.1.
Main
dependent
variables
The
primary
outcome
measures
in
the
model
were
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction.
3.2.1.1.
Academic
success.
Academic
success
was
assessed
using
response
to
the
item,
“What
is
your
average
grade
earned
in
college?”
(A
or
A+
=
4.0;
A
=
3.5;
B+
=
3.0;
B
=
2.5;
C
=
2.0;
D
=
1.5).
3.2.1.2.
Cross-cultural
interaction.
Cross-cultural
interaction
was
assessed
using
the
6-item
social
interaction
sub-scale
of
the
GPI
(˛
=
.78;
1
=
strongly
disagree
to
5
=
strongly
agree).
3.2.2.
Endogenous
variables
There
was
one
endogenous
variable:
sense
of
belongingness.
3.2.2.1.
Sense
of
belongingness.
Sense
of
belongingness
was
assessed
using
a
4-item
campus
community
sub-scale
of
the
GPI
(˛
=
.82)
based
on
Hurtado
and
Carter
(1997)
measuring
the
extent
to
which
students
felt
“part
of
the
campus
community,”
“member
of
the
campus
community,”
and
had
a
“sense
of
belonging
to
campus
community”
(p.
342)
(1
=
never;
5
=
very
often).
3.2.3.
Exogenous
variables
There
were
five
exogenous
variables:
discriminatory
experiences,
college
year,
perception
of
campus
diversity,
partici-
pation
in
co-curricular
activities,
and
engagement
in
inclusive
curricula.
3.2.3.1.
Discriminatory
experiences.
Discriminatory
experiences
were
assessed
using
response
to
the
item,
“I
have
felt
insulted
or
threatened
based
on
my
cultural/ethnic
background
at
my
college/university”
(1
=
never
to
5
=
very
often).
3.2.3.2.
College
year.
College
year
was
assessed
using
response
to
the
item,
“My
status
at
the
college/university
in
which
I
am
enrolled”
(1
=
freshman;
2
=
sophomore;
3
=
junior;
and
4
=
senior).
3.2.3.3.
Campus
honors
diversity.
Students’
perceptions
of
whether
their
college
or
university
honors
diversity
was
assessed
using
response
to
the
item,
“I
feel
that
my
college/university
community
honors
diversity
and
internationalism”
(1
=
strongly
disagree
to
5
=
strongly
agree).
3.2.3.4.
Co-curricular
activities.
Participation
in
co-curricular
activities
was
assessed
using
a
four-item
sub-scale
(˛
=
.76)
of
self-reported
frequency
of
participation
in
community
service
activities;
leadership
programs;
religious/spiritual
activities;
and
extra-curricular
activities
sponsored
by
groups
reflecting
the
students’
own
cultural
heritage
(1
=
never
to
5
=
very
often).
Author's personal copy
C.R.
Glass,
C.M.
Westmont
/
International
Journal
of
Intercultural
Relations
38 (2014) 106–
119 111
Table
2
Demographics.
GPI
international
student
respondents
GPI
domestic
student
respondents
n
=
415
%
n
=
816
%
Sex
Female
231
56
423
52
Male
184
44
393
48
Race/ethnicity
African/Black
28
7
62
8
Asian/Pacific
Islander 215
52
34
4
European/White
77
19
521
64
Hispanic/Latino
44
10
136
17
Multiracial/other
51
12
63
7
College
status
First-year
123
30
216
26
Sophomore
71
17
118
19
Junior
82
20
155
15
Senior
139
33
327
40
3.2.3.5.
Inclusive
curricula.
Engagement
in
inclusive
curricula
was
assessed
using
a
two-item
sub-scale
(˛
=
.79)
of
self-
reported
number
of
academic
terms
the
student
participated
in
courses
that
included
opportunities
for
intensive
dialog
among
students
with
different
background
and
beliefs
or
courses
that
addressed
multicultural
issues
such
as
race,
ethnicity,
gender,
class,
religion,
or
sexual
orientation
(1
=
one
term;
2
=
two
terms;
etc.)
3.3.
Procedures
135
US
colleges
and
universities
have
administered
the
GPI
to
assess
intercultural
learning
on
their
campuses.
These
institutions
administer
the
GPI
through
an
online
questionnaire
as
part
of
institutional
efforts
to
assess
intercultural
learn-
ing
on
their
campus.
Institutions
use
unique
numeric
identifiers
to
avoid
receiving
duplicate
responses;
students
do
not
receive
incentives
for
responding
to
the
questionnaire.
We
selected
a
subsample
of
eight
research
universities
as
study
sites
since
research
universities
host
the
vast
majority
of
international
students
attending
foreign
higher
education
institutions
(Institute
of
International
Education
(IIE),
2011).
We
dummy-coded
a
variable
for
subgroup
analyses
based
on
students’
response
to
the
question,
“Are
you
an
international
student
or
foreign
national?”
(1
=
international
student,
0
=
domestic
student).
To
ensure
international
students
had
traveled
to
the
United
States
for
the
purpose
of
foreign
study,
we
removed
a
small
number
of
international
students
from
the
sample
who
had
lived
in
the
United
States
for
several
years
prior
to
attending
college
based
on
the
item
“How
long
have
you
lived
in
the
United
States?
(years)”
If
an
international
student
had
lived
in
the
United
States
for
seven
or
more
years,
for
example,
we
removed
the
student
from
the
sample.
We
removed
a
small
number
of
incomplete
surveys
from
the
sample
then
randomly
selected
a
sub-sample
of
domestic
and
international
students
for
analysis.
Since
the
population
of
students
to
whom
the
study
was
intended
to
generalize
included
international
students
attending
large
public
research
universities,
we
took
a
stratified
random
sample
of
international
student
respondents
reflecting
the
most
recent
Open
Doors
data
on
country
of
origin,
gender,
and
enrolling
institution
type
(IIE,
2011);
we
took
a
stratified
random
sample
of
domestic
student
respondents
reflecting
the
Race/Ethnicity
and
Gender
variables
of
2010–2011
data
from
the
eight
research
universities
from
the
Integrated
Postsecondary
Education
Data
System
(see
Table
2
for
demographic
information).
3.4.
Design
We
conducted
structural
equation
modeling
(SEM)
analyses
using
Full
Information
Maximum
Likelihood
(FIML)
estima-
tion
in
SPSS®AmosTM Version
19
to
test
the
mediating
effects
of
sense
of
belonging
in
relation
to
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction
(Arbuckle,
2010).
We
took
two
separate
samples
to
perform
preliminary
analyses
on
one
(N
=
1223)
and
confirmatory
analyses
on
the
other
(N
=
1231)
(Arbuckle,
2010;
Bollen,
1989).
We
selected
a
stratified
random
sample
to
perform
exploratory
analyses
and
to
make
modifications
to
the
structural
model
(n
=
412
international;
n
=
811
domestic).
We
constructed
a
structural
model
to
test
the
specific
relationships
among
the
constructs
identified
in
previous
research
on
international
students.
The
model
was
tested
separately
for
the
domestic
and
international
student
samples.
We
performed
a
series
of
path
analyses
to
test
the
mediating
effects
of
belongingness
in
relation
to
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction.
Initially,
all
paths
were
constrained
to
be
identical.
Next,
we
released
paths
one
by
one,
analyzing
the
change
in
!2to
determine
whether
it
produced
a
statistically
significant
improvement
in
the
model
(Loehlin,
1998).
We
removed
the
path
from
academic
engagement
in
inclusive
curricula
to
belongingness.
Finally,
we
created
an
additional
stratified
ran-
dom
sample
(n
=
415
international;
n
=
816
domestic)
to
perform
confirmatory
analyses,
using
the
same
procedure
outlined
above,
to
ensure
exploratory
analyses
did
not
reflect
chance
variation.
The
following
section
reports
the
results
of
these
confirmatory
analyses.
Author's personal copy
112 C.R.
Glass,
C.M.
Westmont
/
International
Journal
of
Intercultural
Relations
38 (2014) 106–
119
Fig.
1.
Final
structural
equation
model
for
sense
of
belongingness
group
comparison.
4.
Results
4.1.
Mean
differences
between
international
students
and
domestic
students
Between-subjects
t-tests
showed
that
international
students
were
more
likely
than
domestic
students
to
have
felt
threatened
or
insulted
based
on
their
cultural
or
ethnic
background
(p
<
.000)
and
were
more
likely
to
have
engaged
in
cross-cultural
interaction
(all
but
one
p
<
.000).
However,
there
were
no
significant
differences
between
international
stu-
dents’
and
domestic
students’
sense
of
belongingness,
perceptions
of
whether
their
campus
honors
diversity,
participation
in
co-curricular
activities
(with
the
exception
of
activities
sponsored
by
the
students’
own
cultural
heritage),
engagement
in
inclusive
curricula,
or
self-reported
academic
success.
Tables
3
and
4
lists
means
and
standard
deviations
for
all
variables
in
the
model
for
separate
samples
of
domestic
students
and
international
students
along
with
tests
of
significant
group
differences.
4.2.
Structural
equation
model
Fig.
1
shows
the
final
model,
summarizing
the
standardized
direct
effects
for
both
international
and
domestic
student
structural
models.
The
relationships
are
identical
for
both
groups
and,
unless
otherwise
specified,
all
p’s
<
.000.
As
expected
with
a
large
sample,
the
Chi-square
statistic
was
relatively
large:
!2(283)
=
479.556,
p
<
.000.
All
indicators
of
the
fit
for
the
model
indicate
a
good
fit:
Bentler–Bonett’s
normed
fit
(NFI)
=
.932,
comparative
fit
index
(CFI)
=
.967,
root
mean
squared
error
of
approximation
(RMSEA)
=
.026,
and
the
ratio
of
Chi-square
to
degrees
of
freedom
(!2/df)
=
1.695
(Hu
&
Bentler,
1999).
The
fit
of
the
structural
model
was
also
more
than
satisfactory:
NFI
=
.923,
CFI
=
.961,
RMSEA
=
.027.
Although
the
Chi-square
statistic
was
large
(!2(316)
=
538.746,
p
<
.000),
the
ratio
of
Chi-square
to
degrees
of
freedom
was
low
(!2/df)
=
1.705.
The
overall
path
model
shows
that
discriminatory
experiences
negatively
effected
belongingness
for
international
and
domestic
students.
Seniors,
both
international
and
domestic,
were
less
likely
to
report
a
sense
of
belongingness
than
their
first-year
counterparts.
Belongingness
effected
cross-cultural
interaction
and
academic
success
for
international
and
domes-
tic
students,
in
fact,
belongingness
exerted
a
particularly
strong
positive
effect
on
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction
for
international
students.
Inclusive
curricula
effected
cross-cultural
interaction
for
both
international
and
domestic
students,
and
co-curricular
activities
effected
belongingness
for
both
international
and
domestic
students.
Discriminatory
experiences
exerted
a
negative
direct
effect
on
belongingness
for
both
the
international
student
(ˇ
=
.08,
p
=
.086)
and
domestic
student
(ˇ
=
0.18,
p
<
.000)
groups.
The
effect
of
discriminatory
experiences
on
belongingness
for
international
students
was
meaningful,
but
not
significant.
Students’
perception
of
whether
their
campus
honors
diversity
exerted
a
positive
direct
effect
on
belongingness
for
both
the
international
student
(ˇ
=
.69,
p
<
.000)
and
domestic
student
Author's personal copy
C.R.
Glass,
C.M.
Westmont
/
International
Journal
of
Intercultural
Relations
38 (2014) 106–
119 113
Table
3
Means
and
standard
deviations
for
each
factor
by
international
students
and
domestic
students
and
t-tests.
Variables
and
factors
Int’l
students
Domestic
students
Group
comparison
Mean
SD
n
Mean
SD
n
t
df
p
Discriminatory
experiencesa
I
have
felt
insulted
or
threatened
based
on
my
cultural/ethnic
background
at
my
college/university
2.44
1.202
415
2.09
1.030
816
4.562
1229 ***
Campus
community
honors
diversitya
I
feel
that
my
college/university
honors
diversity
and
internationalism
3.94
.898
415
4.01
.854
816
1.337
1229
.181
Sense
of
belongingnessa
I
have
a
strong
sense
of
affiliation
with
my
college/university
3.75
.988
415
3.74
1.018
816
.106
1229
.916
I
have
been
encouraged
to
develop
my
strengths
and
talents
at
my
college/university.
4.04
.834
415
4.05
.846
816
.207
1229
.836
I
feel
I
am
a
part
of
a
close
and
supportive
community
of
colleagues
and
friends
3.90
.835
415
3.91
.945
816
.237
1229
.813
I
am
both
challenged
and
supported
at
my
college/university
4.08
.805
415
4.02
.820
816
1.218
1229
.223
Participation
in
co-curricular
activitiesb
Participated
in
community
service
activities
1.63
1.411
415
1.73
1.569
816
1.052
915
.293
Participated
in
leadership
programs
that
stress
collaboration
and
team
work
1.47
1.436
415
1.49
1.528
816
.203
880
.839
Participated
in
religious
or
spiritual
activities
1.12
1.366
415
1.27
1.497
816
1.738
903
.082
Participated
in
events
or
activities
sponsored
by
groups
reflecting
your
own
cultural
heritage
1.65
1.443
415
1.23
1.521
816
4.689
1229 ***
Engagement
in
inclusive
curriculac
Courses
that
include
opportunities
for
intensive
dialog
among
students
with
different
backgrounds
and
beliefs
1.41
1.414
415
1.38
1.420
816
.320
1229
.749
Multicultural
courses
addressing
issues
of
race,
ethnicity,
gender,
class,
religion,
or
sexual
orientation
1.51
1.356
415
1.61
1.389
816
1.299
1229
.194
Academic
successd
What
is
your
average
grade
earned
in
college?
2.99
.602
415
3.12
.622
816
1.357
1229
.177
Cross-cultural
interactionsa
People
from
other
cultures
tell
me
that
I
am
successful
at
navigating
their
cultures.
3.75
.821
415
3.46
.768
816
6.138
1229 ***
I
am
able
to
take
on
various
roles
as
appropriate
in
different
cultural
and
ethnic
settings.
3.95
.675
415
3.79
.726
816
3.748
887 ***
I
intentionally
involve
people
from
many
cultural
backgrounds
in
my
life.
3.73
.929
415
3.39
.927
816
6.130
1229 ***
I
enjoy
when
my
friends
from
other
cultures
teach
me
about
our
cultural
differences
4.37
.682
415
4.21
.728
816
3.644
1229 ***
I
am
open
to
people
who
strive
to
live
lives
very
different
from
my
own
life
style.
4.03
.725
415
3.96
.755
816
1.733
1229
.083
I
see
myself
as
a
global
citizen
4.15
.804
415
3.71
.931
816
8.643
948 ***
p
<
.05
and
**p
<
.01.
aFive-point
scale:
strongly
disagree
=
1
to
strongly
agree
=
5.
bFive-point
scale:
from
never
=
1
to
very
often
=
5.
cFive-point
scale:
From
one
term
=
1
to
five
or
more
terms
=
5.
d4.0
=
A
or
A+;
A
=
3.5;
B+
=3.0;
B
=
2.5;
C
=
2.0;
D
=
1.5.
*** p
<
.001
Author's personal copy
114 C.R.
Glass,
C.M.
Westmont
/
International
Journal
of
Intercultural
Relations
38 (2014) 106–
119
Table
4
Factor
loadings
and
reliabilities
for
independent
variables
(N
=
1231).
Factor
scales
and
item
wording
(Alpha)
factor
loading
Sense
of
belongingnessa(.822)
I
have
a
strong
sense
of
affiliation
with
my
college/university
.820
I
have
been
encouraged
to
develop
my
strengths
and
talents
at
my
college/university
.760
I
feel
I
am
a
part
of
a
close
and
supportive
community
of
colleagues
and
friends
.763
I
am
both
challenged
and
supported
at
my
college/university. .761
Participation
in
co-curricular
activitiesb(.760)
Participated
in
community
service
activities
.650
Participated
in
leadership
programs
that
stress
collaboration
and
team
work
.686
Participated
in
events
or
activities
sponsored
by
groups
reflecting
your
own
cultural
heritage
.737
Participation
in
religious
or
spiritual
activities
.734
Engagement
in
inclusive
curriculuac(.792)
Courses
that
include
opportunities
for
intensive
dialog
among
students
with
different
backgrounds
and
beliefs
Multicultural
courses
addressing
issues
of
race,
ethnicity,
gender,
class,
religion,
or
sexual
orientation
Cross-cultural
interactionsa(.780)
People
from
other
cultures
tell
me
that
I
am
successful
at
navigating
their
cultures .749
I
am
able
to
take
on
various
roles
as
appropriate
in
different
cultural
and
ethnic
settings
.750
I
intentionally
involve
people
from
many
cultural
backgrounds
in
my
life
.749
I
enjoy
when
my
friends
from
other
cultures
teach
me
about
our
cultural
differences
.737
I
am
open
to
people
who
strive
to
live
lives
very
different
from
my
own
life
style
.756
I
see
myself
as
a
global
citizen .738
aFive-point
scale:
strongly
disagree
=
1
to
strongly
agree
=
5.
bFive-point
scale:
from
never
=
1
to
very
often
=
5.
cFive-point
scale:
from
one
term
=
1
to
five
or
more
terms
=
5.
(ˇ
=
.54,
p
<
.000)
groups.
College
year
had
a
significant
negative
effect
on
belongingness
for
both
the
international
student
(ˇ
=
0.11,
p
=
.021)
and
domestic
student
(ˇ
=
0.12,
p
<
.000)
groups.
Engagement
in
inclusive
curricula
exerted
an
equally
positive
direct
effect
on
cross-cultural
interaction
for
both
the
international
student
(ˇ
=
0.32,
p
<
.000)
and
domestic
student
(ˇ
=
0.34,
p
<
.000)
groups
respectively;
however,
academic
engagement
in
inclusive
curricula
exerted
no
significant
direct
effect
on
academic
success.
Table
5
summarizes
parameter
estimates
for
both
direct
and
indirect
effects
for
international
students
and
domestic
students.
The
indirect
effects
from
participation
in
co-curricular
activities
to
belongingness
(ˇ
=
0.29,
p
<
.000),
from
belongingness
to
academic
success
(ˇ
=
0.34,
p
=
.003),
and
from
belongingness
to
social
interaction
(ˇ
=
0.38,
p
<
.000)
were
all
significant
Table
5
Direct
and
indirect
effects
of
belongingness
on
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction.
International
students
(n
=
415)
Domestic
students
(n
=
816)
b
ˇ
R2b
ˇ
R2
Direct
effects
Sense
of
belongingness
.552
.379
Co-curricular
activities
.237*** .290
.212*** .301
College
year
.052*.107
.062*** .120
Discriminatory
experiences
.039.079
.109*** .176
Campus
honors
diversity
.456*** .694
.401*** .538
Cross-cultural
interactions
.277
.213
Sense
of
belongingness
.258*** .377
.180** .275
Inclusive
curricula
.117*** .322
.127*** .336
Average
grade
earned
.118
.049
Sense
of
belongingness
.352** .343
.214*.220
Indirect
effects
Cross-cultural
interactions
Co-curricular
activities
.061
.109
.038
.083
College
year
.013
.040
.011
.033
Discriminatory
experiences
.010
.030
.020
.049
Campus
honors
diversity
.117
.262
.072
.148
Average
grade
earned
Co-curricular
activities
.083
.099
.045
.066
College
year
.018
.037
.013
.026
Discriminatory
experiences
.014
.027
.023
.039
Campus
honors
diversity
.160
.238
.086
.119
p
<
.05.
** p
<
.01.
*** p
<
.001.
p
<
.10.
Author's personal copy
C.R.
Glass,
C.M.
Westmont
/
International
Journal
of
Intercultural
Relations
38 (2014) 106–
119 115
for
the
international
student
subgroup.
The
indirect
effects
from
participation
in
co-curricular
activities
to
belongingness
(ˇ
=
0.30,
p
<
.000),
from
belongingness
to
academic
success
(ˇ
=
0.22,
p
=
.049),
and
from
belongingness
to
cross-cultural
interaction
(ˇ
=
0.28,
p
<
.000)
were
all
significant
for
the
domestic
student
subgroup.
There
was
a
positive
correlation
between
inclusive
curricula
and
co-curricular
activities
for
both
international
student
(ˇ
=
0.49,
p
<
.000)
and
domestic
student
(ˇ
=
0.64,
p
<
.000)
groups.
There
was
a
positive
correlation
between
college
year
and
engagement
in
inclusive
curricula
for
both
international
student
(ˇ
=
0.64,
p
<
.000)
and
domestic
student
(ˇ
=
0.70,
p
<
.000)
groups.
There
was
a
positive
correlation
between
college
year
and
participation
in
co-curricular
activities
for
both
international
student
(ˇ
=
0.36,
p
<
.000)
and
domestic
student
(ˇ
=
0.49,
p
<
.000)
groups.
There
was
a
negative
correlation
between
discriminatory
experiences
and
participation
in
co-curricular
activities
for
the
international
student
(ˇ
=
0.12,
p
=
.012)
and
domestic
student
(ˇ
=
0.13,
p
<
.000)
groups.
There
was
a
negative
correlation
between
perceptions
of
campus
diversity
and
discriminatory
experiences
for
the
international
student
(ˇ
=
0.30,
p
<
.000)
and
domestic
student
(ˇ
=
0.29,
p
<
.000)
groups.
For
international
students,
the
structural
equation
model
explained
28%
of
the
total
variance
of
social
interaction,
12%
of
the
total
variance
of
average
grade
earned,
and
55%
of
the
total
variance
of
belongingness.
For
domestic
students,
the
structural
equation
model
explained
21%
of
the
total
variance
of
social
interaction,
5%
of
the
total
variance
of
average
grade
earned,
and
38%
of
the
total
variance
of
belongingness.
5.
Discussion
This
study
used
a
resilience-based
model
of
acculturation
to
examine
the
buffering
effects
of
belongingness
on
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction,
analyzing
the
sources
of
between-group
variation
between
international
and
domestic
student
subgroups.
We
examined
how
a
sense
of
belongingness
may
contribute
similarly
or
differently
to
domestic
and
international
students’
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction.
The
findings
provide
some
of
the
strongest
evidence
to
date
of
the
significant
relationship
between
belongingness
and
the
cross-cultural
interaction
between
international
and
domestic
students.
5.1.
Summary
of
results
The
results
supported
the
first
and
second
hypothesis:
discriminatory
experiences
exerted
a
negative
direct
effect
on
belongingness,
and
belongingness
exerted
a
direct
positive
effect
on
academic
success
and
cross-cultural
interaction.
The
results
did
not
provide
support
for
the
third
hypothesis.
Contrary
to
our
expectations,
engagement
in
inclusive
curricula
had
no
relationship
to
sense
of
belongingness
for
either
domestic
or
international
students;
inclusive
curricula
did,
however,
exert
a
positive
direct
effect
on
cross-cultural
interaction
for
both
groups.
The
results
did
support
the
fourth
hypothesis:
participation
in
co-curricular
activities