International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 97–105

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Asian international students’ socio-cultural adaptation:

Influence of multicultural personality, assertiveness,
academic self-efficacy, and social support
Ji-yeon Lee a,∗ , Ayse Ciftci b
a
Counseling Psychology, Seton Hall University, 400 S. Orange Avenue, S. Orange, NJ 07079, United States
b
Department of Educational Psychology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study examining the influence of multicultural personality, assertiveness, social
Received 12 July 2012 support, and academic self-efficacy on Asian international students’ (ISs) socio-cultural
Received in revised form 21 May 2013
adjustment in the U.S., 330 Asian ISs completed a web-survey. Structural Equation Mod-
Accepted 21 August 2013
eling (SEM) analysis revealed that both Multicultural Personality and Assertiveness were
associated with Socio-cultural Adaptation, which was mediated by Academic Self-efficacy.
Keywords:
Although Multicultural Personality was associated with Social Support, bootstrapping
Multicultural personality
Assertiveness results indicated that there was no indirect effect from Social Support to Socio-cultural
Social support Adaptation, therefore mediation paths between Multicultural Personality to Social Sup-
Academic self-efficacy port and Social Support to Socio-cultural Adaptation were not supported. Implications are
discussed.
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The number of international students (ISs) enrolled in higher education in the U.S. is increasing each year (Lee & Rice,
2007), and Asian ISs account for 62% of the total number of ISs in the U.S. (Institute of International Education, 2011). Previous
research has shown that there are common difficulties among Asian ISs, such as a lack of social support and issues related
to different academic environments (Ying & Liese, 1994).
Unlike immigrants who plan to live in the U.S. permanently, ISs may consider their stay in the U.S. to be temporary, and
thus they may try to balance maintaining their traditional roles and adjusting to the new culture (Bochner, 1972). Asian ISs,
in particular, come from cultures that have different values from highly individualistic societies like the U.S., and they may
experience more conflict when compromising their traditional roles vs. a new cultural norm (Sam & Eide, 1991). When an
individual’s environment is not matched with their personality, there is cultural distance. Ward and Chang (1997) proposed
the cultural fit hypothesis of the acculturation process, which emphasizes the fit between the host culture’s norm and the
person who is acculturating such as the person’s values, personality traits, and behavior. Empirical study supports the theory
by showing that fit between the individual and the cultural context in terms of values, beliefs, and personality characteristics
is associated with individuals’ well-being (Juang, Nguyen, & Lin, 2006).
Multicultural personality is defined as traits that “effectively negotiates and copes within multiple roles and cultural con-
texts (Leone, Van der Zee, Oudenhoven, Perugini, & Ercolani, 2005, p. 717).” Individual characteristics such as multicultural
personality and assertiveness could help ISs make up the cultural distance between their home country and the host culture

∗ Corresponding author. Current address: Seton Hall University, 400 S. Orange Avenue, S. Orange, NJ 07079, United States. Tel.: +1 903 565 5651.
E-mail address: jiyeon.lee@shu.edu (J.-y. Lee).

0147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.08.009
98 J.-y. Lee, A. Ciftci / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 97–105

by helping them acquire needed social support and confidence in their academic skills in the U.S. without losing their own
cultural identity. In this study, based on the literature, we used multicultural personality and multicultural effectiveness
interchangeably.

1.1. Multicultural personality

The multicultural personality can be described as one having multicultural effectiveness that helps individuals to perform
work and adjust to the new cultural environment, and personality characteristics that would enhance multicultural effec-
tiveness include cultural empathy, open-mindedness, emotional stability, social initiative, and flexibility (Van Oudenhoven
& Van der Zee, 2002). Van Oudenhoven and Van der Zee (2002) reported that the multicultural personality could predict an
IS’s adjustment to new intercultural situations. Ponterotto (2010) stated that individuals having a multicultural personality
consisting of characteristics like racial/ethnic security, emotionally stability, active learning of other cultures, and social
activism along with personal qualities such as a desire to interact with people are better able to adapt to different world-
views. As the acculturation process involves changes in social economic status, education, friendship patterns, and language
use, multicultural effectiveness in dealing with these changes would affect ISs’ socio-cultural adjustment.

1.2. Assertiveness

One cultural distance Asian ISs may experience is the conflict between individualistic values vs. collectivistic values. In
a collectivistic society, people determine what constitutes appropriate behavior by examining what other people consider
to be normative in the situation (Cialdini, Wosinska, Barrett, Butner, & Gornik-Durose, 1999). Because of the importance
of conformity, obedience, and reliability (Ho, Si-qing, Alice Cheng, & Chan, 2001), being assertive is less appreciated than
in individualistic societies. Personality can be considered a culturally acquired way of behaving and thinking (Triandis,
2001) and what behavior considers as assertive also can be different depending on cultural context because being assertive
requires another person in a response. Therefore, assertiveness can be thought of as an important variable affecting the
unique adjustment of an individual who relocates to a new country on a time-limited basis (Berry, 2006), and ISs’ ability to
express their own opinion would be helpful in their academic adjustment in U.S.

1.3. Academic self-efficacy

ISs are actually more “student” than “foreigner,” and academic problems are one of the biggest concerns for ISs (Furnham
& Bochner, 1982; Ward & Kennedy, 1993). Academic self-efficacy refers to a student’s beliefs about his or her ability to
successfully complete academic tasks (Zimmerman, 1995); self-efficacy helps individuals deal with challenges in reaching
their goals (Bandura, 1986). Empirical research supports the theory by showing that both domestic (Lent, Brown, & Larkin,
1984) and international students (Poyrazli, Arbona, Nora, McPherson, & Pisecco, 2002) with higher levels of academic self-
efficacy achieved higher grades and persisted in their academic major longer than those with lower perceived academic
self-efficacy.
In the U.S. classroom setting, assertiveness may be more valued than in the Asian ISs’ home country. Parr, Bradley, and
Bingi (1992) reported that one of the cultural differences that affect many ISs is assertiveness. The U.S. education system
places greater emphasis on discussion than do Asian systems, and often students are asked to express their own opinions,
rather than sitting quietly. Usually, Asian ISs are considered to be less engaged in active and collaborative learning (Zhao,
Kuh, & Carini, 2005) which may impede their academic adjustment to the U.S.
In order to bridge the cultural distance between their home country’s education system and the host country’s educa-
tional setting, both assertiveness and multicultural effectiveness would be needed. Because cultural context shapes optimal
functioning, assertiveness, which is considered positive functioning in U.S., might not be valued to the same degree in other
cultures (Constantine & Sue, 2006; Maddi, 2006). Multicultural personality characteristics such as open-mindedness, emo-
tional stability, social initiative, and flexibility would help ISs to explore different strategies that work in the U.S. classroom.
Also, ISs are more likely to be in a position where they need to seek help or consultation as a way of learning new cul-
tural academic norms, a position which requires both assertiveness and multicultural effectiveness such as social initiative.
Therefore, ISs who have more assertiveness and more multicultural effectiveness would have higher academic self-efficacy.
Considering the importance of academic performance to ISs, Asian ISs’ academic self-efficacy would lead to better adaptation
to the U.S.

1.4. Social support

Social support is a critical factor in the adjustment of ISs in the U.S. (Rajapaksa & Dundes, 2002; Yeh & Inose, 2003;
Ying & Liese, 1991), and relationships with both co-national and American students might be important. The acquisition
of culturally appropriate skills and behaviors happens through contact with host students. Host friends can assist in social
skills learning and encourage increased participation within the host culture. ISs tend to gain social support from their ethnic
community (Yang & Clum, 1995), and these social networks are beneficial to ISs’ adjustment because they provide a sense of
security and facilitate the transition to the new environment (Kang, 1972; Ying & Liese, 1991). Social support is also thought
 J.-y. Lee, A. Ciftci / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 97–105 99

Fig. 1. The bootstrapping results do not show the Support variable as the mediator.
The Structural Model. MPQ = Multicultural Personality, Assert = Assertiveness, ASE = Academic Self-efficacy, SCES = Socio-cultural Adaptation. *p < .05. **
p < .01.

to act as a buffer against the psychological effect of stress. In addition, being accepted by the ethnic community in the U.S.
can provide a sense of belonging to their home country, and they can share information about living in the U.S. (e.g., how to
find their ethnic food, etc.).
In collectivistic cultures, compliance to the group norm is seen as a desirable quality. These cultural values may influence
the way of relating and getting support from others because we adjust the manner of relating with people depending on the
appropriateness of the culture (McCrae, 2001). When the context is changed, the same behavior, which helped people to gain
social approval and social support does not apply in the same way (Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004). Therefore, multicultural
personality (e.g., having cultural empathy, open-mindedness, emotional stability, social initiative, and flexibility) would help
ISs make connections and receive social support in the U.S. Having such support would contribute to their socio-cultural
adjustment in the U.S.

2. Hypotheses

Ward and Kennedy referred to socio-cultural adjustment as the ability to “fit in” within a social learning paradigm. Because
culturally acquired values determine the appropriateness of certain kinds of activities and the perceptions of consequences
for acting in certain ways, we hypothesized that multicultural effectiveness and assertiveness would be associated with
Asian ISs’ socio-cultural adjustment in the U.S., which will be mediated by academic self-efficacy and social support (see
Fig. 1). More specifically,

1. Multicultural personality will be positively associated with socio-cultural adaptation which will be mediated by social
support and academic self-efficacy.
a. Multicultural personality characteristics will be positively associated with social support.
b. Social support will be positively associated with socio-cultural adaptation.
c. Multicultural personality will be positively associated with socio-cultural adaptation.
2. Assertiveness will be positively associated with academic self-efficacy which will be associated with socio-cultural adap-
tation.
a. Assertiveness will be positively associated with academic self-efficacy.
b. Academic self-efficacy will be positively associated with socio-cultural adaptation.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

The sample (N = 330) included 38.5% women and 61.2% men, aged 18–43 (M = 23.74; SD = 5.0). Of these, 20.9% were first
year undergraduates, with 11.2% sophomores, 8.5% juniors, 7.9% seniors, and 51.4% graduate students. The IS home countries
100 J.-y. Lee, A. Ciftci / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 97–105

were: 33.5% China, 23.9% India, 21.2% Korea, 6.1% Malaysia, 3.3% Taiwan, and 12% another 7 countries (i.e., Indonesia, Hong
Kong, Japan, Pakistan, Singapore, Vietnam, Bangladesh) in Asia. The top three countries represented in this sample are
consistent with the statistics of the Institute of International Education (2011), indicating that Chinese, Indian, and South
Korean ISs comprise 46% of the total international enrollments in U.S. higher education. Reported English proficiency was:
0.6% very poor, 8.2% poor, 40% average, 31.2% good, 20% very good. In reply to whether they were staying permanently in
the U.S., IS responses were: 10.6% yes, 25.5% no, and 51.8% undecided. On a scale of 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied),
IS satisfaction with life now in the U.S. was 3.63 (SD = .91), and satisfaction with life before coming to the U.S. was 3.72
(SD = 1.00).

4. Measures

Demographic information. The demographic information consists of age, gender, year in the university, major, country of
origin, the duration of their stay in the U.S., English proficiency, romantic relationship status, satisfaction level in the U.S.
and in their home country, and satisfaction and frequency of social relationships with American friends, other international
friends, and co-national friends (students who come from the same country of origin).
Multicultural effectiveness. The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002)
was used to measure multicultural effectiveness, and it has 5 subscales: cultural empathy, open-mindedness, emotional
stability, social initiative, and flexibility. Cultural empathy (18 items) refers to “sensitivity,” an ability to empathize with the
feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of members from different cultural groups (e.g., “Finds it hard to emphasize with others”).
Open-mindedness (18 items) refers to an open and unprejudiced attitude toward out-group members and toward different
cultural norms and values (e.g.,“Finds other religions interesting”). Emotional stability (20 items) refers to a tendency to
remain calm in stressful situations vs. a tendency to show strong emotional reactions under stressful circumstances (e.g.,
“Suffers from conflicts with others”). Flexibility (18 items) refers to an ability to learn from mistakes and adjust behavior
whenever it is required (e.g.,“Works mostly according to a strict scheme”). Social initiative (17 items) is defined as a tendency
to approach social situations in an active way and to take initiative (e.g.,“I’m easy-going among groups”). Criterion validity of
the MPQ scale was tested by comparing the MPQ subscales and the subscales of the Big 5, measured by the NEO-Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa, McCrae, Bateman, & Crant, 1993) and the Need for change scale from the Sensation Seeking Scale
(Van de Berg & Feij, 1988). The results indicate a strong relationship between Open-mindedness in MPQ with Openness to
Experience in NEO-PI (r = .57), Social initiative in MPQ with Extroversion in NEO-PI (r = .85), and Flexibility in MPQ and Need
for Change (r = .76) and a strong negative correlation between Emotional Stability in MPQ and Conscientiousness in NEO-PI
(r = −.77). Principle component analysis resulted in four factor solutions which explained 30.6% of variance with flexibility,
emotional stability, and social initiative as a separate factor while open-mindedness and cultural empathy classified as one
factor (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000). Cronbach’s alpha was reported as .78, .78, .83, .72, .87 (Van Oudenhoven &
Van der Zee, 2002) for cultural empathy, open-mindedness, emotional stability, social initiative, and flexibility respectively.
In this study, Cronbach alpha was .82, .87, .71, .73, .74 for cultural empathy, open-mindedness, emotional stability, social
initiative, and flexibility respectively.
Assertiveness. The 30 item Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS; Rathus, 1973) measures assertiveness, using a 6-point
Likert-type scale ranging from −3 (very uncharacteristic of me) to −3 (very characteristic of me). The two month test–retest
correlation coefficient was reported as .78 and the split-half reliability was reported as .77. Validity of the schedule was tested
by comparing it with a 17 item rating schedule constructed according to the semantic differential technique, which assesses
assertiveness. The RAS scores correlated significantly with factors in the 17 item schedule: boldness (r = .61), outspokenness
(r = .61), assertiveness (r = .34), and confidence (r = .33). Cronbach alpha was .87 for in this study.
Social support. The 24 item Social Support Scale (Cutrona & Russell, 1987) measures the degree of social support that the
respondents’ social relationships provide. Items are rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly
agree), exemplified by “There are people I know will help me if I really need it”. There are six subscales, attachment, social
integration, reassurance of worth, reliable alliance, guidance, and opportunity for nurturance, and each subscale has four
items. The internal consistency of the overall scale score was reported to be over .70, and there was a test–retest reliability
coefficient ranging from .37 to .66 (Cutrona, Russell, & Rose, 1986). Convergent validity was confirmed as strong by showing
strong relations between social integration, reassurance of worth, and guidance provisions with the UCLA Loneliness Scale
(Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980); deficits in these provisions explained 66% of the variance in loneliness scores. Also, scores
on the Social Provisions scale were strongly correlated with measures of social network and satisfaction with different types
of social relationships among the elderly (Russell et al., 1980).
In this study, Cronbach alpha was .88, .94, .87, .90, .92, and .89 for attachment, social integration, reassurance of worth,
reliable alliance, guidance, and opportunity for nurturance respectively.
Academic self-efficacy. The College Academic Self-efficacy Scale (CASES; Owen & Froman, 1988) is a 33 item scale measuring
how confident the student is in performing certain academic tasks, using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very
little) to 5 (quite a lot). A higher score indicates less confidence while a lower score indicates more confidence. Concurrent
validity for the CASES instrument was established by comparing each item with enjoyment and frequency of doing the task,
which were significantly related. The test–retest reliability for the CASES was reported as .85 (Owen & Froman, 1988). In
this study, Cronbach alpha was .95.
 J.-y. Lee, A. Ciftci / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 97–105 101

Table 1
Zero-order Pearson correlation among variables (N = 330).

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Multicultural Personality
1. Cultural Empathy 3.57 .46 –
2. Open Mindedness 3.51 .51 .73**
3. Social Initiative 3.15 .47 .32** .48**
4. Assertiveness 3.01 .51 .08 .17** .42**
5. Academic Self-efficacy 2.40 .69 −.14* −.14* −.26** −.20**

Support
6. Attachment 3.24 .80 .45** .34** .15** .01 −.12*
7. Social integration 3.17 .74 .46** .44** .28** .03 −.17** .76**
8. Reassurance of worth 3.31 .78 .38** .38** .28** .07 −.13* .70** .67**
9. Reliable alliance 3.10 .69 .43** .37** .12* −.04 −.06 .74** .74** .66**
10. Guidance 3.26 .83 .39** .32** .17** .02 −.08 .72** .72** .67** .82**
11. Opportunity to Nurture 3.20 .74 .48** .41** .22** −.04 −.15** .66** .70** .62** .65** .63**
12. Socio-cultural Adjustment 3.63 .64 .43** .53** .52** .22** −.25** .32** .44** .35** .31** .31** .36** –
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

Adaptation. The Socio Cultural Adjustment Scale (SCAS; Ward & Kennedy, 1999) examines intercultural competence
in social situations. Examples of items include “using the transportation system,” “going shopping,” “making yourself
understood,” “accepting/understanding the local political system,” and “understanding the local value system.” The authors
recommend modifying the measure to fit sample characteristics; we used a 28-item version with items that are relevant
to ISs (e.g., “getting used to local food and finding food you enjoy”). The respondents were asked to indicate the amount
of difficulty experienced in the U.S. using a five-point scale ranging from 1 (no difficulty) to 5 (extreme difficulty). Psycho-
metric information is from 16 cross-sectional and longitudinal samples, comprised primarily of college students linked to
Singapore or New Zealand (Ward & Kennedy, 1999). Construct validity was indicated by correlations (rs = .23–.62; M = .38)
with a depression scale and a factor analysis finding two related (r = .45) dimensions reflecting behavior and cognition. Across
studies, alpha coefficients were .75–.91. The internal consistency for this study was .98 for the total score.

5. Procedure

ISs were recruited for this web-based survey from a Midwest university. Email recruitment messages, with a link to the
survey’s URL, were sent randomly to 4000 individual students via the registrar’s office. A total of 359 students responded (9%
response rate). However, there is no way of knowing how many of 4000 email addresses was valid and how many students
actually received and opened the email (e.g., received as junk email). Although the response rate is low, the demographics
of the current sample reflect the demographics of the international students population in the institutions where the data
were collected.

5.1. Data analytic plan

We tested the mediation model with the structural equation model (SEM) using several recommended goodness-of-fit
measures (e.g., 2 , CFI, NFI, RMSEA) to evaluate how well the hypothesized model fit the observed data. The 2 , which
assesses the magnitude of the discrepancy between the fitted model and the sample covariance matrix, is a better fit if non-
significant, though 2 is usually significant with large samples. The CFI indicates the relative fit between the hypothesized
model and a baseline model that supposes no relationships among the variables; the CFI range is 0–1.0, and values closer to
1.0 indicate a better fit. The NFI is derived by comparing the hypothesized model with the independence model, and .90 or
above indicates a well-fitting model. The standardized RMSEA needs to be .05 or less in a well-fitting model (Table 1).

6. Results

In preliminary analyses, we deleted 29 incomplete responses and participants whose response time to complete the entire
survey was <5 min to ensure the quality of the web-based data (Kraut et al., 2004). Mahalanobis D2 measures the distance
of a case from the multidimensional mean of a distribution, and six outliers, having a Mahalanobis D2 with a probability less
than or equal to 0.001, were deleted. The sample (N = 330) data were univariate and multivariate normal, thereby meeting
SEM assumptions. Pearson correlations (Table 1) revealed significant positive and negative associations (rs = −.25 to .53)
for multicultural personality, assertiveness, social support, academic self-efficacy, and socio-cultural adaptation. Due to low
correlations (below .85), multicollinearity is likely not a problem (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). We used multivariate analyses
of variance (MANOVAs) to examine if any demographic item made differences on the other study variables, and there were
no significant differences for gender F(5, 324) = 1.60, p > .05, or country of origin, F(5, 308) = 1.95, p > .05. Education level
(undergraduate vs. graduate) F(5, 324) = 4.74, p < .05, 2 = .07, was found to be a unique variable that made differences on
102 J.-y. Lee, A. Ciftci / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 97–105

Table 2
Goodness-of-fit indices for measurement model (N = 330).

Model 2 df 2 df CFI NFI RMSEA

Hypothesized Measurement Model 141 440.44 .93 .90 .08

Deleted flexibility and emotional stability 109 341.35 32 99.09** .95 .92 .08
Added covariance between social initiative and opportunity 108 327.78 1 13.57** .95 .93 .08
Added covariance between attachment and guidance 107 321.59 1 6.19* .95 .93 .08
Added covariance between cultural empathy and social initiative subscale (Final Model) 106 292.54 1 29.05** .96 .93 .07

variables, but we did not control for the variable in analyzing the hypotheses because effect sizes were small (i.e., below .10;
Cohen, 1992).
The proposed mediation model followed the two-step procedure. In the first step, confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted to develop a measurement model with an acceptable fit (see Table 2). Once the acceptable fit was devel-
oped, the structural model was tested. The confirmatory model consisted of 5 latent variables and 19 observed variables.
For MPQ and Social Support, we used subscales as the observed indicators of the latent variables because CFAs for MPQ
and Social Support confirmed the multidimensionality (2 (347) = 740.11, p < .001, CFI = .89, NFI = .90, RMSEA = .09 for MPQ;
2 (88) = 440.55, p < .001, CFI = .90, NFI = .90, RMSEA = .08. for social support). For measures that have been developed and used
as unidimensions (i.e., assertiveness, academic self-efficacy, and socio-cultural adjustment), we conducted EFA to confirm
the unidimensionality of these scales then created item parcels using the item-to-construct balance method (Bandalos &
Finney, 2001; Little, Cunninghan, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). An initial test of the measurement model resulted in relative
good fit indices an adequate fit, 2 (141) = 440.44, p < .001, CFI = .93, NFI = .90, RMSEA = .08. As suggested by Schumacker and
Lomax (2004), observed variables were examined for whether their path coefficient from the latent variables was below
.5 and if latent variables were well measured by their observed variables. The flexibility and emotional stability subscales
were deleted from the MPQ because their path coefficients were below .5 (.23 for flexibility, .34 for stability). The mod-
ified measurement model without flexibility and emotional stability produced an adequate fit: 2 (109) = 341.35, p < .001,
CFI = .95, NFI = .92, RMSEA = .08. The chi square difference test confirmed that the modified model was improved significantly
from the original model: 2 = 32, df = 99.09, p < .001. Nonetheless, the modification indices indicated that model fit could
be enhanced by adding a covariance between the attachment and guidance subscales and another covariance between
social initiative and opportunity subscales in the Social Support scale. The added covariance between social initiative and
opportunity improved the model fit significantly: 2 (108, N = 330) = 327.78, p < .001, CFI = .95, NFI = .93, RMSEA = .08. Another
added covariance between attachment and guidance improved the model fit significantly: 2 (107, N = 330) = 321.59, p < .001,
CFI = .95, NFI = .93, RMSEA = .08. These measurement error covariances show that there are correlations among error vari-
ances in some subscales in Social Support. Lastly, a covariance was added between cultural empathy and social initiative
subscale in the MPQ, and the 2 difference, 29.05, with 1 degree of freedom was statistically significant at ˛ = .05. The fit was
significantly improved: 2 (106, N = 330) = 292.54, p < .001, CFI = .96, NFI = .93, RMSEA = .07. Because the revised model was a
better fit to the data, it was used as the baseline model for testing the structural models in further analysis. The hypothesized
structural model (see Fig. 1) was tested to see the mediating relationships among variables in the hypothesized model, and
the structural model provided a good fit to the data: 2 (109) = 300.92, p < .001, CFI = .96, NFI = .93, RMSEA = .07.

6.1. Bootstrapping

Bootstrapping was used to examine the significance of the mediated effect in multiple mediator models as it can estimate
not only the total indirect effect, but also the significance of each specific indirect effect (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Because
the proposed model has multiple mediators, bootstrapping was chosen as an adequate way of examining the multiple
mediation relationships simultaneously and demonstrating the contrasts necessary to compare the relative contribution
of each mediator in multiple mediator models. Bootstrap offers an empirical means for determining statistical significance
because the bootstrapping results provide asymmetric confidence limits. If the 95% CI for the estimate of asymmetric indirect
effect does not include zero, it can be concluded that the indirect effect is statistically significant at the .05 level. To conduct
the bootstrap, we created 10,000 bootstrap data samples by randomly sampling with replacements from the original data
set. We calculated the indirect effect among variables by multiplying the 10,000 pairs of path coefficients (a) from MPQ to
social support and ASE, (b) from Assertiveness to ASE, (c) from social support to SCAS, (d) from ASE to SCAS, and (e) from
MPQ to SCAS. Table 3 shows the estimates for the direct and indirect effects.
The bootstrapping results indicated that the mediation effects from MPQ to SCAS through Social Support were not signif-
icant because 0 was within the two confidence interval values. Although all fit indices for the structural model indicated an
appropriate data fit for the mediation model, the result of bootstrapping mediation effect did not support the conclusion that
social support mediates the relationship between MPQ and SCAS. However, the bootstrap results indicated that mediation
effect from MPQ to SCAS through ASE was significant. Approximately 2% of variance in SCAS could be accounted for by the
mediation effect of ASE. The results indicated that the significant mediation effect of ASE on the relationship between MPQ
and SCAS can be generalized to other populations. Lastly, the results supported that the significant mediation effect of ASE
on the relationship between Assertiveness and SCAS, and 3% of variance of SCAS can be accounted for by the mediation effect
of ASE.
 J.-y. Lee, A. Ciftci / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 97–105 103

Table 3
Bootstrap analysis of the direct and indirect effects (N = 330).

Independent variable Mediator Dependent variable Standardized indirect effect SE of mean 95% CI (lower, upper)

MPQ Social Support .52 .051 (.417, .609)

MPQ ASE −.18 .081 (−325, −.011)
Assertiveness ASE −.19 .057 (−.299, −.076)
Social Support SCAS .13 .092 (−055, .303)
ASE SCAS −.13 .046 (−225, −.049)
MPQ SCAS .53 .071 (.358, .643)
MPQ Social Support SCAS (.52) × (.13) = .07 .048 (.081, .161)
MPQ ASE SCAS (−.18) × (−.13) = .02 .013 (.040, .080)
Assertiveness ASE SCAS (−.19) × (−.13) = −.03 .011 (.016, .031)

7. Discussion

The results mostly supported the hypotheses. The results indicated that Asian ISs’ multicultural competency was asso-
ciated with socio-cultural adaptation which was mediated by academic self-efficacy. Assertiveness was associated with
socio-cultural adaptation which was mediated by academic self-efficacy. Although multicultural personality was associated
with both social support and socio-cultural adaptation, the mediation of social support between multicultural personality
and socio-cultural adaptation was not supported. In other words, the more multicultural competency ISs have, the more
social support and more competency in academic settings in the U.S they have. The more assertiveness ISs have, the more
academic confidence they have. Both multicultural personality and academic self-efficacy helped ISs to better adjust to the
U.S.
ISs are expected to learn new roles while maintaining their traditional roles (Bochner, 1972), and it may increase conflict
when ISs are asked to assume new roles spontaneously while maintaining back-home identity (Pedersen, 1991). Having
personal qualities that are adaptive in multiple cultural settings (i.e., multicultural personality) would enhance ISs’ socio-
cultural adjustment. For example, when Asian ISs are open to different cultures and are less prejudiced toward people
from different cultures (i.e., openness), they are more willing to explore different cultural life. Understanding people from
different cultural backgrounds (i.e., cultural empathy) and trying to initiate contact with people in the host culture (i.e.,
social initiative) can expand social networks and increase social support, which facilitates their adjustment.
Social support did not mediate the relationship between the MPQ and SCAS, although the MPQ was associated with social
support. Difficulty in getting along with American students was one of the concerns Asian students had (Chapdelaine &
Alexitch, 2004; Mori, 2000) because of different social norms. Often American students’ individualistic attitude in friendship
is interpreted as superficial regard for relationships to Asian ISs (Bulthuis, 1986; Cross, 1995). Being open minded about
different ways of relating with others, initiating interactions, and having understanding toward people from different cultural
background seems to facilitate ISs connections with others, thus allowing them to receive support as needed. However, social
support was not mediating the relationship between MPQ and SCAS in this study. Different from other studies examining
social support as a predictor of ISs’ adjustment to U.S., this study examined social support with academic self-efficacy
together. Considering the fact that international students are staying in the U.S. to pursue their academic careers, the effect
of social support on their adjustment process could become less significant. Also, the measurement of social support in
this study accounted for social support that international students receive from people in their lives in general, instead of
separating it into the social support from people in the host culture vs. social support from their ethnic community/people in
their home country. In future studies, how social support from the two different communities would be associated differently
with cultural adjustment can be explored.
As predicted, both assertiveness and multicultural effectiveness was also associated with IS’s stronger beliefs about his or
her ability to successfully complete academic tasks in the U.S. Assertiveness may help ISs to speak up during class and ask for
assistance to professors or colleagues when needed. Sharing individual opinions and needs are a desired and necessary quality
in the U.S. education system, while requesting something is often considered as disregard toward other people, especially
to the authority figure in collectivistic cultures. Multicultural personality would help ISs to feel comfortable when asking for
help or questioning, which helps Asian ISs feel confidence necessary to master academic subjects and helps them employ
cognitive learning strategies that are particularly effective in the U.S. Asian ISs tend to focus more on academic success than
other international student groups or domestic students (Mordkowitz & Ginsburg, 1986), and having confidence in their
academic ability increased ISs’ perceived competence in their ability to behave in culturally appropriate ways in the U.S. The
result of the study indicates that having a multicultural personality increases ISs’ acceptance of differences and behaving in
culturally adaptive way in the host culture.

8. Limitations

Several limitations should be considered when evaluating the results of this research. First, the self-reported online survey
can have a limitation in ensuring the truthfulness of respondents’ answers. Second, although the sample was collected from
two universities, the research was conducted only in the Midwest. The results may not generalize to ISs who reside in different
104 J.-y. Lee, A. Ciftci / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 97–105

areas in the U.S. Also the low response rate should be considered a limitation in generalizing this study’s finding. Third,
flexibility and emotional stability were not adequately measured the MPQ in this sample. Further research in measurement
issues of the MPQ scale would be needed. Lastly, the instrument assessing social support in this study measured the overall
social support ISs receive from others, instead of specifying support from the host culture, which could influence the result
of the study.

9. Implications

The findings of this study should be cautiously applied in practice. College counselors might enhance international stu-
dents’ socio-cultural adjustment by encouraging them to have a more open attitude toward different cultures and empathy
toward people from different cultural backgrounds, and by addressing how those attitudes can help with making friends
and having confidence in an academic setting. Also, the multicultural personality questionnaire can be used as a self-survey
tool for students who are considering study abroad to facilitate their decision making process or identify skills they need
to acquire. Lastly, considering the fact that academic achievement is important to Asian ISs, and academic achievement is
affected by self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), developing an assertiveness training group or helping ISs to have more control
over their academic performance could be helpful.

Acknowledgment

The study was conducted while the first author was a doctoral student at Purdue University under the second author’s
supervision.

References

Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides, & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments
and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H.Freeman.
Berry, J. W. (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bochner, S. (1972). Overseas students in Australia: Problems in culture learning. Honolulu, HI: East-West Center.
Bulthuis, J. D. (1986). The foreign student today: A profile. New Directions for Student Services, 36, 19–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ss.37119863604
Chapdelaine, R. F., & Alexitch, L. R. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of culture shock for international graduate students. Journal of College Student
Development, 45, 167–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2004.0021
Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska, W., Barrett, D. W., Butner, J., & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999). Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differen-
tial influence of social proof and commitment on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1242–1253.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167299258006
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Constantine, M. G., & Sue, D. W. (2006). Factors contributing to optimal human functioning in people of color in the United States. The Counseling Psychologist,
34, 228–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000005281318
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). NEO five-factor inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.
Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress in cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 673–697.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002202219502600610
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1987). The provision of social relationships and adaptation to stress. In W. H. Jones, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal
relationships (pp. 37–67). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cutrona, C., Russell, D., & Rose, J. (1986). Social support and adaptation to stress by the elderly. Psychology and Aging, 1, 47–54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.1.1.47
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty in a foreign culture: An empirical analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact: Studies
in cross-cultural interaction (pp. 161–198). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Ho, D. F., Si-qing, P., Alice Cheng, L., & Chan, S. F. (2001). Indigenization and beyond: Methodological relationalism in the study of personality across cultural
traditions. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 925–953, doi:10.111/1467-6494.696170.
Institute of International Education (2011). Open door® 2011 “Fast Facts”: International students in the U.S. Retrieved from:
http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors
Juang, L. P., Nguyen, H. H., & Lin, Y. (2006). The ethnic identity, other group attitudes, and psychosocial functioning of Asian American emerging adults from
two contexts. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 542–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558406291691
Kang, T. S. (1972). Name and group identification. The Journal of Social Psychology, 86(1), 159–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.197F2.99186120
Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological research online: Report of board of scientific affairs’ advisory group
on the conduct of research on the internet. American Psychologist, 59, 105–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-006X.59.2.105
Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53, 381–409.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-4508-3
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 31, 356–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.31.3.356
Leone, L., Van der Zee, K., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Perugini, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (2005). The cross-cultural generalizability and validity of the Multicultural
Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1449–1462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.010
Little, T. D., Cunninghan, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 151–173.
Maddi, S. R. (2006). Hardiness: The courage to grow from stresses. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 160–168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760600619609
McCrae, R. R. (2001). Trait psychology and culture: Exploring intercultural comparisons. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 819–846, doi:10.111/1467-
6494.696166.
Mordkowitz, J., & Ginsburg, L. (1986). Asian–Americans fight the myth of the super student. Educational Record, 68, 94–97.
 J.-y. Lee, A. Ciftci / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 97–105 105

Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 137–144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb02571.x
Owen, S. V., & Froman, R. D. (1988). Development of a college academic self-efficacy scale. In Annual meeting of the national council on measurement in
education. (Retrieved from ERIC, ED298158).
Parr, G., Bradley, L., & Bingi, R. (1992). Concerns and feelings of international students. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 20–25.
Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 19, 10–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000091191002
Ponterotto, J. G. (2010). Handbook of multicultural counseling (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Poyrazli, S., Arbona, C., Nora, A., McPherson, R., & Pisecco, S. (2002). Relation between assertiveness, academic self-efficacy, and psychosocial adjustment
among international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 632–642.
Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 4, 398–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(73)80120-0
Rajapaksa, S., & Dundes, L. (2002). It’s a long way home: International student adjustment to living in the United States. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory and Practice, 4(1), 15–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/5HCY-U2Q9-KVGL-8M3K
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Psychology
and Social Psychology, 39, 472–480.
Sam, D. L., & Eide, R. (1991). Survey of mental health of foreign students. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 32(1), 22–30, doi:10.111/j.1467-
9450.1991.tb00849.x.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods,
7, 422–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Indivisualism–collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 907–924, doi:10.111/1467-6494.696169.
Van de Berg, P. T., & Feij, J. A. (1988). Modification of a Dutch sensation-seeking questionannire for use in personnel selection and vocational counseling.
Nederlands Tijdschrift voorde Psychologie, 43, 328–334.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The multicultural personality questionnaire: a multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness.
European Journal of Personality, 14, 291–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1099-0984(200007/08)14:4
Van Oudenhoven, J. P. V., & Van der Zee, K. (2002). Predicting multicultural effectiveness of international students: The multicultural personality question-
naire. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 679–694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(02)00041-X
Ward, C., & Chang, W. C. (1997). “Cultural fit”: A new perspective on personality and sojourner adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
21, 525–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(97)00023-0
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where’s the “culture” in cross-cultural transition? Comparative studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 24, 221–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022193242006
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 659–677.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00014-0
Yang, B., & Clum, G. A. (1995). Measures of life stress and social support specific to an Asian student population. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 17, 51–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02229203
Yeh, C. J., & Inose, M. (2003). International students’ reported English fluency, social support satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of
acculturative stress. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 16, 15–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951507031000114058
Ying, Y., & Liese, L. H. (1991). Emotional well-being of Taiwan students in the U.S.: An examination of pre-to post-arrival differential. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 15, 345–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(91)90007-4
Ying, Y., & Liese, L. H. (1994). Initial adjustment of Taiwanese students to the United States: The impact of postarrival variables. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 25, 466–477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022194254003
Zhao, C.-M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student and American student engagement in effective educational practices.
Journal of Higher Education, 76, 209–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0018
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202–231). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.