Investigating Attitudes Toward International Students: Program and Policy Implications for Social Integration and International Education

Social Issues and Policy Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp. 79--102

Investigating Attitudes Toward InternationalStudents: Program and Policy Implications for SocialIntegration and International Education

Colleen Ward,∗ Anne-Marie Masgoret, and Michelle GezentsveyCentre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, Victoria University of Wellington

International education is a thriving industry, but relatively little is known about itsconsequences for the social integration of international scholars in educational in-stitutions or the wider community. This article reviews research on attitudes towardinternational students as a key component of intercultural relations and a signifi-cant marker of social cohesion. An organizational framework for the investigationof these attitudes is proposed with threat mediating the influences of personal andsituational factors on attitudinal outcomes. Broader contextual factors are alsoseen to exert influence on the process of attitude development and maintenance. Amodel derived from this framework is then tested with student, teacher, and com-munity samples. A “tipping point” in attitudes toward international students as afunction of the proportion of international enrolments in educational institutionsis also explored. Finally, the applicability of the findings for promoting socialcohesion in educational institutions and the wider community is discussed.

There are now over 2.7 million international students enrolled in tertiaryinstitutions worldwide (OECD, 2007), and that number has been projected to riseto 7.2 million by 2025 (Bohm, Davis, Meares, & Pearce, 2002). The United States,United Kingdom, and Australia attract 45% of the world’s international students,but France and Germany are frequent destinations, and Canada, New Zealand,and Japan are significant emerging markets (Hobsons & Lasanowski, 2007). InSwitzerland and Australia as many as one in six tertiary students is from overseas(OECD, 2007). In short, international education is a thriving industry.

∗Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Colleen Ward, Centre for AppliedCross-Cultural Research, PO Box 600, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand[e-mail: [email protected]].

This research was funded by Education New Zealand (A6-2005) and the Asia New ZealandFoundation.

79

C© 2009 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

80 Ward, Masgoret, and Gezentsvey

Although historically the goals of international education have been largelypolitical, the move from “aid to trade” over the last three decades has proven that itis also a major revenue generator. Export education in the United States and Aus-tralia earns $11 billion to $12 billion per annum (Marginson, 2007; Murray, 2006),and in both cases, it is among these countries’ top five revenue-generating exports.Nevertheless, it is widely recognized that educational, social, and cultural goalsmust be achieved along with political and economic objectives. Accordingly, NewZealand’s international education strategy identifies four priority goals, the firstamong these being to equip New Zealand students to thrive in an interconnectedworld and the second to enrich international students through their educationaland cultural experiences, including their integration into educational institutionsand receiving communities (New Zealand Government, 2007). In the wider inter-national arena globalization, a steady rise in worldwide immigration, now at over191 million (United Nations, 2006), increasing transnationalism, and growingcultural diversity within societies all highlight the need for increased interculturalunderstanding and the preparation of students to be global citizens in our changingworld.

Unfortunately, the outcomes of international education often fall short of thesesocial and cultural aspirations. There has been an increasing global awareness ofthe low levels of social interaction between domestic and international studentsand a general acknowledgement that the integration of international scholars isa major challenge for both educational institutions (Alreshoud & Koeske, 1997;Bochner, Hutnik, & Furnham, 1985; McKinlay, Pattison, & Gross, 1996; Trice &Elliott, 1993) and the wider community (Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007; Ward, 2006).

Ultimately, social cohesion is dependent not only upon the motivation, skills,and opportunities of international students, but also the willingness of the re-ceiving community to facilitate integration. Psychological research, however, hasfocused far more on the former than the latter. Studies have consistently shownthat international students expect and desire frequent contact with host nationalsin both academic and social settings and that lack of intercultural interaction isseen as problematic (Choi, 1997; Trice, 2004; Ward & Masgoret, 2004). Researchis equally clear that intercultural contact is perceived as more important and valu-able by international students than by their domestic peers (Beaver & Tuck, 1998;Smart, Volet, & Ang, 2000; Volet & Ang, 1998).

Institutional attempts to increase intercultural interactions and facilitate so-cial integration have been shown to produce positive outcomes for internationalstudents. Peer-pairing programs that match international students with local peerstrained as cultural informants and information-givers have been found to enhanceboth academic performance and intercultural interactions for international students(Quintrell & Westwood, 1994; Westwood & Barker, 1990). Training packages forcultural competencies have also been effectively used to increase cross-ethnicfriendships, improve social skills, and reduce social avoidance in international

Attitudes Toward International Students 81

students (Mak, Barker, Logan, & Millman, 1999; Mak & Buckingham, 2007).Despite these advances, however, the obstacles that international students facein achieving social integration have not been systematically addressed. Racism,prejudice, and discrimination have all been implicated in student–host relations(Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Krahe, Abraham, Felber, & Helbig, 2005; Sodowsky& Plake, 1992), but we actually know relatively little about the responses of do-mestic students, staff in the receiving institutions, and the wider community. Thisarticle reviews the limited research on the topic, proposes a framework for theinvestigation of attitudes toward international students, tests a predictive model,and discusses the implications of the findings for international education policyand practices.

A Theoretical Framework for Predicting Attitudes TowardInternational Students

Students and Immigrants

There has been a paucity of empirical research on attitudes toward interna-tional students, but social psychological theories of intergroup relations offer ap-propriate frameworks for the investigation of their antecedents and consequences.Field studies of immigrants and immigration serve as models since the core issuesknown to impact on attitudes toward immigrants in the national arena, particu-larly threat and competition for limited resources, are also highly relevant in thecontext of international education. In addition, the traditional distinctions betweensojourners, who relocate temporarily for specific purposes such as education oremployment, and long-term immigrants (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001) arenow blurred in the case of international students.

The worldwide competition to attract skilled immigrants has meant that therecruitment of overseas students is often part of a broader strategy to secure highlyskilled immigrants, and many international students now remain in the coun-tries where they were educated. For example, recent policy changes have beenintroduced in New Zealand to encourage the transition from study to work andresidence by creating more job opportunities for students and allowing greateraccess to work permits upon completion of educational qualifications. At present,approximately one in four international students in New Zealand acquire perma-nent residence within 7 years of obtaining the initial student permit (Merwood,2006). Australia has likewise adopted a two-step immigration process facilitatingtransition from temporary to permanent residence and enhancing labor marketoutcomes by drawing heavily on international students with high levels of Englishproficiency, recognized credentials, and Australian work experience (Hawthorne,2008). Currently, over half of Australia’s main skilled migrants consists of formerinternational students (Hawthorne, 2009).


While the boundaries between international students and long-term immi-grants are blurring in reality as a consequence of the worldwide competition forlabor market skills, the perceptions of the two groups are likely to vary in anumber of key areas, and these differences may exert significant influences on at-titudinal outcomes. For example, from the perspective of domestic students, threatand competition arising from international students may be seen as more contextbound and limited in scope to the educational arena, whereas immigrants maybe perceived to exert more wide-ranging and long-term influences on the societallevel. Indeed, a New Zealand community survey has shown that both the socialand economic impacts of tourism are regarded significantly more positively thanthe impacts of international education, which, in turn, are viewed more positivelythan the impacts of immigration, suggesting an underlying temporal dimension tothese evaluations (Ward & Masgoret, 2005). We anticipate that the core factorsaffecting attitudes toward international students will resemble those that under-pin attitudes toward immigrants but that the intensity, magnitude, and relativeinfluence of those factors may vary across the two groups.

The Theoretical Components of the Organizational Framework

What shapes attitudes toward international students? Classic social psycho-logical theories of intergroup relations emphasize the role of threat and competitionin predicting intergroup attitudes (Levine & Campbell, 1972; Sears, 1988; Tajfel& Turner, 1979), and empirical research has consistently borne out their negativeconsequences for attitudes toward immigrants in international and multiculturalresearch (Jackson, Brown, Brown, & Marks, 2001; Quillian, 1995). Threat andcompetition are at the core of our organizational framework, drawing on the-ories that emphasize their importance in the prediction of out-group attitudes.Integrated Threat Theory (ITT; Stephan, Ybarra, Martınez, Schwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa, 1998) and the Unified Instrumental Model of Group Conflict (UIMGC;Esses, Jackson, Dovidio, & Hodson, 2005) along with its predecessor the Instru-mental Model of Group Conflict (IMGC; Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998),merit particular attention.

However, there are broader individual-level factors that should be consideredin the formation of attitudes toward international students. These include dispo-sitional differences, such as a social dominance orientation (SDO), the extentto which one’s in-group is viewed as dominant or superior to out-groups (Esseset al., 1998, 2005; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 2001), and a multiculturalideology (MCI) (Berry, 2006; Berry, Kalin, & Taylor, 1977) that reflects generalbeliefs about equality, diversity, and intercultural relations and underpins morespecific attitudes toward international students. Situational factors should alsobe considered, particularly contact opportunities and experiences (Allport, 1954;Brown & Hewstone, 2005) and limited access to valuable resources (Esses et al.,


1998). Incorporating these factors and drawing on ITT, IMGC, and the ContactHypothesis, Figure 1 presents an organizational framework for the prediction ofattitudes toward international students.

Although the framework concentrates on individual-level variables and psy-chological processes, it is important to note that these may be affected by broadercontextual factors. These include characteristics of the groups in contact, the ed-ucational institutions in which they are enrolled, the community in which theyreside, and even national-level economic and political circumstances. The sys-tematic investigation of these conditions requires comparative international andcross-cultural research. While this has yet to be undertaken, it is important tobear in mind the potential influence of contextual factors when appraising thegeneralizability of findings about attitudes toward international students.

Threat and Competition

At the individual level, the core element of threat may be defined in a numberof ways. ITT posits that there are four fundamental threats that lead to unfavorableout-group attitudes: realistic threat, symbolic threat, negative stereotypes, andintergroup anxiety (Stephan et al., 1998). Realistic threats refer to tangible threatsarising as a result of scarce resources, particularly social and economic assets.Symbolic threats concern differences in norms, beliefs, and values that constitutea threat to the in-group’s worldview. Stereotypes may also represent threats asthey serve as a basis for expectations about out-groups and can lead to prejudice(Stephan & Stephan, 1996). Finally, people may feel threatened and anxiousabout intercultural interactions, fearing rejection, embarrassment, ridicule, andexploitation by out-group members (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Although there hasbeen some debate in the wider literature about the distinction between intergroupthreat (realistic and symbolic) and interpersonal threats (intergroup anxiety andnegative stereotyping) and the relationship between and placement of stereotypesand intergroup anxiety in models of prejudice (Bizman & Yinon, 2001; Curseu,Stoop, & Schalk, 2007; Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006), there is an impressivebody of empirical evidence confirming that the four threats predict attitudes towardimmigrants (Stephan et al., 1998; Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999).

A small number of studies have examined these threats in connection withinternational students. Spencer-Rodgers (2001) investigated the stereotypic be-liefs about international students held by American host nationals. The studyrevealed that domestic students perceived their international peers as a fairlyhomogenous group, attributing positive traits to them, such as intelligent andhardworking, but also viewing them as serious, unsociable, and naıve. Overall, theconsensual stereotypes were moderately positive, but negative stereotyping wasassociated with less social contact and less favorable attitudes toward internationalstudents.


CO

NT

EX

TU

AL

FA

CT

OR

S IN

DIV

IDU

AL

-LE

VE

L F

AC

TO

RS

PR

OC

ESS

Per

sona

lFa

ctor

s

Situ

atio

nal

Fact

ors

Mul

ticu

ltur

al

Ideo

logy

: Bel

iefs

an

d V

alue

s

Con

tact

: Qua

lity

and

Q

uant

ity

Perc

eive

d R

esou

rce

Str

ess

Att

itud

es to

war

d In

tern

atio

nal

Stu

dent

s

Perc

eive

dC

ompe

titi

on a

nd

Thr

eat

Pol

itic

al a

nd E

cono

mic

Fact

ors

e.g.

, im

mig

rati

on p

olic

ies,

ec

onom

ic d

epen

denc

e on

in

tern

atio

nal e

duca

tion

Com

mun

ity

Fact

ors

e

.g.,

dive

rsit

y in

co

mm

unit

y

Inst

itut

iona

l Fac

tors

e

.g.,

popu

lati

on

com

posi

tion

, pol

icie

s,

prog

ram

s

Gro

up F

acto

rs

e.g.

, nat

iona

l and

eth

nic

grou

ps in

con

tact

, hi

stor

ical

rel

atio

ns

Fig

.1.

An

orga

niza

tiona

lfra

mew

ork

for

the

pred

ictio

nof

attit

udes

tow

ard

inte

rnat

iona

lstu

dent

s.


Strong evidence for the role of intergroup anxiety in shaping attitudes to-ward international students stems from experimental research by Stephan, Renfro,Esses, Stephan, and Martin (2005). The investigators used an experimental manip-ulation to create low- and high-anxiety conditions in American students who wereasked to provide reactions to a large group of incoming students from East Timor.The findings indicated that the low-anxiety students gave more positive evaluationsand expressed a greater willingness to interact with the international students.

The most comprehensive investigation of attitudes toward international stu-dents to date was undertaken by Spencer-Rodgers and McGovern (2002), whoexamined perceptions of realistic and symbolic threat, negative stereotypes, andintercultural anxiety (general affective responses) in domestic students. Althoughthe global attitudes toward international students were “somewhat” favorable (witha thermometer rating of 68/100), each of these four threats was related to neg-ative outcomes. A simultaneous regression analysis indicated that stereotypesand intergroup anxiety were unique and significant predictors of attitudes to-ward international students, and these effects were moderated by social contact.Spencer-Rodgers and McGovern (2002) concluded their discussion with the sug-gestion that additional variables, such as personality traits and past experiences, beincluded in future investigations to increase our ability to predict attitudes towardinternational students.

Personal Variables: SDO and MCI

Along similar lines, Stephan and colleagues acknowledged that ITT is not acomprehensive theory of prejudice and suggested in recent research that threatsmediate the impact of distal variables, including contact, status differentials, andperceptions of intergroup conflict, on attitudes toward immigrants and other minor-ity groups (Corenblum & Stephan, 2001; Stephan, Diaz-Loving, & Duran, 2000;Stephan et al., 2002). Distal influences on attitudes may arise from both personalcharacteristics and situational factors. Instrumental Models of Group Conflictposit that SDO, the belief that group hierarchies are desirable and competition isinevitable, is an important individual difference variable in the prediction of attitu-dinal outcomes (Esses et al., 1998, 2005). Experimental research has consistentlydemonstrated that SDO affects attitudes toward immigrants and that the relation-ship is mediated by perceived threat and competition (Esses, Dovidio, Danso,Jackson, & Semenya, 2005; Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, & Armstrong, 2001). In(U)IMGC studies, threat perceptions have generally been operationalized as zero-sum beliefs, resource-specific cognitions that the more obtained by the out-group,the less available for the in-group, whether in reference to tangible resources suchas employment or in reference to symbolic value domains (Esses et al., 2003). Asnoted by Esses et al. (2005, p. 235), “group dominance is not only a matter ofhaving wealth and power, but of having moral hegemony.”


In the context of plural societies, the absence of SDO and negative ethnicstereotyping and the presence of positive attitudes toward diversity and socialinclusion are key components of MCI. Berry (2006, p. 728) defined MCI as the“general and fundamental view that cultural diversity is good for a society andfor its individual members and that diversity should be shared and accommodatedin an equitable way.” In a test of the multicultural hypothesis, that is, culturaland economic security leads to intergroup sharing, mutual respect and a reductionof prejudicial attitudes, Berry confirmed that MCI and a sense of economic andcultural security led to greater acceptance of immigrants (also see Berry, Kalin,& Taylor, 1977). More recently, Verkuyten (2005) found that endorsement ofmulticulturalism was linked to more positive out-group evaluations of both Dutchand Turks in the Netherlands. To our knowledge neither SDO nor MCI has beeninvestigated as antecedents of attitudes toward international students; however,we believe that these constructs will play a significant role in predicting attitudestoward both international students and international education.

Situational Variables: The Significance of Contact

As indicators of MCI, SDO, and attitudes toward diversity represent signifi-cant dispositional variables; however, research has shown that situational factorsalso affect attitudes toward immigrants. One of the most important of the situa-tional influences is close contact with out-group members. Pettigrew and Tropp’s(2006) meta-analysis, based on over 500 studies of the contact hypothesis in thefriendship, work, and neighborhood arenas, found that contact per se had benefi-cial effects in reducing prejudice, but that the effects were stronger when optimalconditions (e.g., equal status, voluntary, pleasant, intimate, cooperative contact)were apparent (see Allport, 1954), when group salience was more pronounced,and in lab and recreational settings.

The relationship between contact and intergroup attitudes has been examinedto some extent with international students (e.g., Eller & Abrams, 2003; Klineberg& Hull, 1979; Stroebe, Lenkert, & Jonas, 1988; Ward & Searle, 1991), but far lessis known about the responses of their domestic peers. As Tropp and Pettigrew’s(2005) meta-analysis showed that the strength of the relationship between contactand prejudice reduction varies between minority and majority status groups, itis critical to examine this phenomenon from complementary perspectives. Qual-itative studies of peer pairing (Quintrell & Westwood, 1994) and cooperativelearning (Volet & Ang, 1998) have suggested that contact between domestic andinternational students leads to positive outcomes for both groups.

More convincing is the quasi-experimental research by Nesdale and Todd(2000) that examined the intercultural effects of a residential program in anAustralian university. The program produced beneficial outcomes for both in-ternational and domestic students, but the effects were stronger for the Australian


hosts, particularly for subsequent intercultural contact and greater intercultural ac-ceptance. Positive outcomes arising from intercultural contact were also reportedby Eller and Abrams (2004, 2006). Their survey research with British domesticstudents demonstrated that the quality of contact with French nationals in a uni-versity setting was related to more positive attitudes toward the French and thatcontact as friends predicted more positive out-group evaluations.

Integrative Approaches

Studies that have combined the contact hypothesis with ITT have generallyshown that threat mediates the relationship between contact and out-group attitudes(Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Stephan et al., 2000). Realistic and symbolic threatshave been found to mediate the influence of contact on attitudes toward minoritygroups (Corenblum & Stephan, 2001), and intergroup anxiety has been shownto mediate its influence on host nationals’ attitudes toward immigrants (Voci &Hewstone, 2003). Research by Greenland and Brown (1999) suggests that this mayalso be the case for attitudes toward international students. The investigators askedboth British and Japanese students resident in their home countries about contactwith the other national group in and out of university settings. Path analysis re-vealed that intergroup anxiety partially mediated the influence of the quality of con-tact on intergroup attitudes and fully mediated its influence on in-group favoritism.

Stephan et al. suggested that ITT research “would benefit from a considera-tion of both additional antecedents and consequences of threat” (Stephan et al.,2002, p. 1252). This suggestion was taken up by Ward and Masgoret (2006) inthe formulation of an integrative model of attitudes toward immigrants. Their re-search tested and supported a model that commenced with two sets of exogenousvariables: MCI and intercultural contact. They proposed and found that greatercontact led to lower intergroup anxiety, which, in turn, predicted decrements inperceived realistic and symbolic threat and consequently more positive attitudestoward immigrants. At the same time, the influence of MCI on attitudes towardimmigrants was proposed and found to be mediated by threat, that is, greater ac-ceptance of MCI led to a lowered sense of threat and consequently to more positiveattitudes toward immigrants. In their 2008 research, this model was extended topredict attitudes toward immigration policy (Ward & Masgoret, 2008).

Overall, Ward and Masgoret’s (2006, 2008) findings are consistent with theorganizational framework for the prediction of attitudes toward international stu-dents presented in Figure 1. More specifically, both personal factors, such as MCI,and situational factors, such as the quality and quantity of intercultural contact,were shown to lead to decrements in perceived threat and competition. Dimin-ished perceptions of threat and competition were found to be proximal predictorsof positive attitudes toward immigrants, and these attitudes, in turn, led to supportfor immigration policies pertaining to the number and sources of immigrants.


Attitudes Toward International Students: Empirical Research

In this section, we draw upon our organizational framework to examine atti-tudes toward international students. The framework incorporates societal and in-stitutional contextual factors as well as individual-level factors of both a personaland situational nature. In line with intergroup theory and research, particularlystudies of attitudes toward immigrants, competition, and threat represent a keycomponent of the framework and a proximal influence on attitudinal outcomes.The application of this framework not only offers a comprehensive perspective onunderstanding, explaining, and predicting attitudes toward international students,it also demonstrates the link between predicting attitudes toward internationalstudents and long-term immigrants.

We commence by describing the broader New Zealand context, includingcharacteristics of the wider society, trends in international education, and thecomposition of the international student population. In the sections that fol-low, we examine attitudes toward international students and the institutional-and individual-level factors that affect these attitudes. We initially provide a de-scriptive overview of trends, including the level of perceived threat, the amountof intercultural contact, and the prevalent attitudes toward international students.Next, we test a model proposed to predict attitudes toward international students.Then, we extend the research to investigate the influence of selected variableson attitudes toward international education. Finally, we consider resource stress(Esses et al., 1998) in greater detail and investigate a “tipping point” in attitudestoward international students as a function of their proportional enrolment in edu-cational institutions. The empirical research is based on four research samples: (a)543 secondary and tertiary domestic students enrolled in 12 educational institu-tions in New Zealand, (b) 223 New Zealand teachers from 25 secondary, tertiary,and language-training institutions across the country; (c) 526 adults drawn froma random national sample of New Zealand households; and (d) 340 domesticstudents from a medium-sized New Zealand university.

The New Zealand Context

This section provides the contextual background for our New Zealand-basedresearch, including reference to political, economic, institutional, and societalfactors that impact on attitudes toward international students.

New Zealand is a small country with a population of only 4.2 million. Theinternational education industry ranks among the nation’s top five export earnersand generates an annual revenue of approximately two billion dollars. Not surpris-ingly, then, the government plays an active role in promoting and sustaining theindustry; New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and Education New Zealand look af-ter the country’s trade interests in export education, and the Ministry of Education


is responsible for policies pertaining to the education and well-being of interna-tional students. At the institutional level, all schools, polytechnics, universities,and private training establishments that enroll international students are bound bythe Code of Practice for Pastoral Care of international students. All of these educa-tional initiatives occur within the broader national context, which is characterizedby high levels of cultural and linguistic diversity and an overseas-born populationof 23% (Statistics New Zealand, 2007).

Ministry of Education 2006 statistics indicate that there were 52,297 inter-national students enrolled in schools and universities (Ministry of Education,2009). This represents approximately 1.3% of the school population and 8.7%of the tertiary sector; however, these figures do not include enrolments in pri-vate language schools, which push the numbers of international students in thecountry to well over 100,000 (Ho, Holmes, & Cooper, 2004). The vast majorityof international students in New Zealand (89% in schools and 77.5% in tertiaryinstitutions) originate from the Asian region (Ministry of Education, 2009). Chinais the major source country (24%) followed by South Korea (16%) and India (8%;Harkness et al., 2009). International students are more prevalent in New Zealand’surban centers, with Auckland, the largest city, retaining the largest proportion ofinternational students in the country.

Attitudes Toward and Relationships with International Students:A Descriptive Overview

Given the paucity of information available on host nationals’ perceptions ofand interactions with international students, we begin our presentation of findingsby providing a descriptive overview.

Research with domestic students indicates that voluntary contact with interna-tional students occurs on average “rarely,” and 41% of our secondary and tertiarystudent sample had no international friends. Nevertheless, the contact that didoccur was perceived positively (pleasant, equal status, and cooperative), and therewas a general willingness to engage in more frequent intercultural interactions. Inaddition, the mean level of intergroup anxiety was low.

The findings from the New Zealand research converge with Spencer-Rodgers’(2001) American study in that international students were stereotyped as intelli-gent and hardworking, but otherwise there was no widespread consensus abouttheir characteristics. The mean “thermometer” rating of international students inNew Zealand, however, appeared more favorable with 87.3 (out of 100) com-pared to the U.S. evaluation of 68.1. In most instances, perception of threat wasrelatively low, particularly tangible threat to existing resources, such as health,education, crime prevention, and safety. The most negative responses were relatedto symbolic threat, perceived threat to worldview, values, and way of life. Thesense of threat was strongest in relation to language and culture, with 42% and


49% of students, respectively, agreeing that international students speak their ownlanguage when they should be speaking English and that they stick to their owncustoms when they should be behaving like New Zealanders. Finally, attitudestoward international students, assessed by items such as “I don’t like internationalstudents” and “International students make good classmates,” were slightly posi-tive, and just over half (51%) of the domestic students thought that the number ofinternational students in New Zealand was about right.

The community survey converged to some extent with the student research.New Zealanders perceived “intelligent” and “hardworking” to be the most char-acteristic traits of international students, and perceptions of threat were generallylow, with the exception of some issues pertaining to language and culture. The ma-jority of those sampled in the community survey (72%) reported knowing at leastone international student, having a moderate amount of contact with internationalstudents, and viewing the contact in a positive to very positive light. Sixty-sixpercent of the respondents thought that the number of international students inNew Zealand is about right, and overall community attitudes were moderatelypositive. However, the mean favorability rating of international students was 69.5,lower than the evaluation received from domestic students. Furthermore, evalua-tions varied as a function of national origin with students from North America andEurope viewed more positively than those from Asia, Africa, and the Pacific, andstudents from the Middle East perceived less favorably than all other groups.

Although our research with teachers focused primarily on teaching motiva-tion, experience, and competence, it did include measures of attitudes towardinternational students and educational policy. On the whole attitudes were posi-tive, and the majority of the teachers (56%) believed the number of internationalstudents in New Zealand was about right. Intergroup anxiety was very low, andcultural differences and diversity in the classroom were not seen as major barriersto teaching effectiveness. Looking at the pattern of results overall, then, it appearsthat perceived threat is relatively low, and attitudes toward international studentsare at least slightly positive. Peer and community contact with international stu-dents is not extensive; however, there is an overall willingness to increase itsfrequency.

Testing a Model of Attitudes Toward International Students

Based on our immigrant research, we tested a predictive model of attitudestoward international students (see Figure 2). This model is consistent with the con-ceptual framework proposed in Figure 1 and examines all of the individual-levelpredictors of attitudes toward international students with the exception of resourcestress. The model commences with two exogenous variables, MCI (including at-titudes toward cultural diversity or cultural inclusiveness and stereotyping), andintercultural contact. Intercultural anxiety is positioned as a mediational variable


Multicultural Ideology

Intergroup Anxiety Threat

Attitudes to International

Students

Intercultural Contact

−

+

−

+

−

+

Note. ····� Proposed path (ns.) → Significant paths. The original model tested a path from MCI tothreat; however, in the final model MCI was linked directly to attitudes toward international students.

Fig. 2. A predictive model of attitudes toward international students.

leading to realistic and symbolic dimensions of threat, and, in turn, to attitudestoward international students. In these cases, the outcome variable is constructedon the basis of attitudinal statements, a thermometer rating, and views about thenumbers of international students in New Zealand.

There are two obvious differences in this model compared to Stephan et al.’s(1998) original conceptualization of threat. Specifically, stereotypes and inter-group anxiety have been repositioned so that stereotypes are used as an indicatorof MCI and as a predictor of threat, while intergroup anxiety is tested as a mediatorof contact and as exerting influence on attitudes through realistic and symbolicthreat. There are a number of reasons for this refinement. First, our model reflectsthe distinction of interpersonal (intergroup anxiety and stereotypes) and inter-group (realistic and symbolic) threat (Bizman & Yinon, 2001; Tausch, Hewstone,Kenworth, Cairns, & Christ, 2007). Second, although there is considerable debateabout the placement of stereotypes in structural models of prejudice, consistentwith Riek et al.’s (2006) proposal based on a meta-analytic review of threat andout-group attitudes and Stephan et al.’s (2002) empirical research with blacks andwhites, we view stereotypes as an antecedent of realistic and symbolic threats. Inaddition, as Arends-Toth and van de Vijver (2007, p. 252) have argued that supportfor multiculturalism is apparent when “groups value and actively support mutualcultural differences,” positive stereotypes may be viewed as a component of MCI.Third, the mediational role that intercultural anxiety plays in the link betweencontact and out-group attitudes as demonstrated by Voci and Hewstone (2003)is incorporated into this model; however, we also introduce an additional media-tional path previously documented by Ward and Masgoret (2006) from anxiety tointergroup threat, and in turn, to the attitudinal outcome.

The model was tested with 543 secondary and tertiary domestic studentsenrolled in 12 educational institutions in New Zealand with the data providing


a good fit. The findings indicate that Contact (quality and frequency) leads toa reduction in intercultural anxiety, which, in turn, results in lower levels ofperceived Threat and finally more positive attitudes toward international students.At the same time, MCI exerts a direct positive influence on attitudes towardinternational students.

To our knowledge this is the first structural equation model to fit data onattitudes toward international students. To test its generalizability, we extendedresearch to the community and randomly sampled 526 adults in a householdtelephone survey. Although there were slight differences in the indicators of thelatent variables in the two studies (e.g., the community data included stereotypesand attitudes to diversity as indicators of MCI while the student data relied uponstereotypes and cultural inclusiveness), the community data also demonstrated anacceptable fit to the model.

Attitudes Toward International Education

To date there are no studies available on the prediction of attitudes towardinternational education; however, we believe that the argument that has been ad-vanced for the distinction of attitudes toward immigrants and immigration (Esses,Hodson, & Dovidio, 2003) likewise applies to research on attitudes toward interna-tional students and international education. In our third study, we investigated theinfluence of SDO and zero-sum beliefs on these outcomes in a sample of 340 NewZealand university students. A structural equation model showed that perceivedthreat and competition, based on the assessment of zero-sum beliefs, mediatedthe influence of SDO on attitudes to international students. Attitudes toward in-ternational students, in turn, predicted attitudes toward international education.Perceived threat and competition also exerted a direct negative influence on atti-tudes toward international education. It is important to note that the measurementof attitudes toward international education was constructed on the basis of state-ments adapted from the New Zealand Ministry of Education’s strategic planningand policy documents on export education (e.g., international education providespositive exposure to other cultures and perspectives) and reflects the broad socialand cultural objectives that international education has the potential to achieve.

Resource Stress and Tipping Points

Research on the impact of resource stress on attitudes toward out-groupshas emphasized the influence of perceived stress (Esses et al., 2005). In contrast,we examined resource stress via objective indicators, that is, the proportion ofinternational student enrolments in classes and or in educational institutions.

In the first instance, students from three large first year classes at a medium-size university were surveyed about their attitudes toward and interactions with


0

1

2

3

4

5

Threat Attitudes

Low

Medium

High

Note. Higher scores indicate greater perceived threat and more positive attitudes toward internationalstudents. F threat (2, 306) = 14.55, p < .001. F attitudes (2, 304) = 28.56, p < .001.

Fig. 3. Mean scores for perceived threat and attitudes toward international students in conditions oflow, medium, and high proportion of international students.

international students. The international enrolment proportions in these classesvaried from a low of 3% (psychology) to a high of 14% (accounting) with anintermediate level of 7% (biology). Data were collected when the proportion ofinternational enrolments within the entire institution was 12.8%.1 Comparisonsacross the three groups indicated that there were significant differences in bothzero-sum beliefs and attitudes toward international students (Figure 3). Morespecifically, domestic students in the first year course with the intermediate levelof international enrolments reported less perceived competition and more positiveattitudes toward international students than those in lower and higher proportionclasses.

The results should be viewed with caution as our field research precludedsampling across perfectly equidistant proportions (i.e., 3%, 8.5%, and 14%) andrequired us to draw upon different disciplines to gain access to a sufficientlylarge number of domestic students who would voluntarily engage in the research.Nevertheless, the findings suggested that there may be a curvilinear relationshipbetween the salience of international students and attitudes toward them. To in-vestigate this further, we examined perceptions of threat and the attitudes towardinternational students in 12 secondary and tertiary institutions in New Zealandwhere enrolments varied from 2 to 23%. A significant curvilinear relationship wasidentified between the proportion of international enrolments and attitudes towardinternational students with a tipping point at 11.4%. Specifically, attitudes toward

1 It is difficult, however, to compare this figure directly to the proportion of international studentsin first year classes because: (a) foundation courses (international students only) are included in thecalculation and (b) there is generally a higher proportion of international enrolments at the postgraduatelevel.


international students became more positive with increasing enrolments between2% and the tipping point, after which increasing enrolments were associated withmore negative attitudes. A similar pattern was found for perceptions of threatwhere the tipping point was estimated at 13.4%.

Qualitative research has suggested that educators are facing increasing chal-lenges as the proportion of international students increases (Holmes, 2005). Basedon this observation and our theoretical model, we might expect a similar relation-ship between the increased salience of international students within the classroomand instructors’ attitudes toward them. To test this hypothesis, we extended ouranalysis to include the teaching staff in these secondary and tertiary institutions. Asignificant curvilinear relationship was also observed for teachers with a tippingpoint of 11.4%. The results suggest that the effects of the proportion of inter-national enrolments generalize across both staff and students within educationalinstitutions.

Generalizing the Findings

The model proposed in Figure 1 incorporates the influence of contextualfactors in the individual-level process of forming and maintaining attitudes towardinternational students. These factors include, but need not be limited to, group,institutional, community, political, and economic variables. In the end, the extentto which our findings can be generalized can only be conclusively determinedby international comparative research. However, based on a substantial bodyof research conducted across countries on attitudes toward immigrants, we areconfident that the core psychological processes will be robust across contexts.

On the other hand, we anticipate that the level of perceived threat, the af-fective content of stereotypes, and the quality of attitudes toward internationalstudents will be far more variable as they are likely to be directly influenced bycontextual factors. Furthermore, the extent to which the 11.4% tipping point canbe generalized remains in question. A significant limitation of our research is thatthe sample was confined to 12 institutions. Research that systematically examinestipping points across a larger number of institutions with varying proportions ofinternational enrolments is recommended for the future.

Achieving Social Integration: Program and Policy Recommendations

In this section, we narrow the gap between psychological theory and prac-tice and communicate policy-relevant applications of our research for educationalinstitutions and the wider community (Dovidio & Esses, 2007). Findings empha-size the need to cultivate MCI, increase contact, diminish intercultural anxiety,and reduce threat. Recruitment and strategic development plans for internation-alization, classroom practices, intercultural training, and programs designed to


enhance intercultural interactions are important considerations for schools anduniversities. Within the wider community, contact is the key to more positiverelations between international students and their hosts. Recommendations aremade for international education policies and practices that can facilitate socialintegration in educational institutions and the wider community.

Recruitment Policies and Practices in the International Arena

A unique contribution of our work toward the long-term goal of social in-tegration lies in its implications for recruitment policies and practices in theinternational education sector. Because international education provides substan-tial economic benefits to academic institutions, increasing international enrol-ments is often a core component of their strategic planning. Research findingstell us, however, that economic goals must be balanced with social considera-tions. When it comes to international students, how much is too much? In ourresearch, an increase in proportional enrolments over 11% was associated withmore negative responses to international students. While we do not claim thatthis is the definitive tipping point, the research has uncovered an important pro-cess and identified a noteworthy trend. Tipping points are likely to be contextdependent, but planners should be sensitive to the issue and recognize that largenumbers of international students may precipitate backlash. Greater proportionsare also likely to require more focused interventions to ensure positive interculturalrelations.

The target markets for international recruitment are also important. Researchfindings have shown that community members are more receptive to internationalstudents from certain regions than others. In short, members of receiving com-munities respond more positively to those who are perceived to be culturally andlinguistically similar. This is not to suggest that academic institutions should limitthemselves to specific target regions; however, investment in preparing host in-stitutions to receive students from diverse source countries may be a worthwhileendeavor, especially if particular ethnic or national groups are known to be thesubject of negative stereotyping in the wider community.

The ethnic and cultural diversity in schools and universities arising frominternational student mobility varies substantially across geographical regions.Presently, China and India are the world’s largest sources of international students.More than three quarters of the international student populations in Australia, NewZealand, Japan, and Korea originate from Asia. This proportion is considerablylower in Europe, however, where the Erasmus program, developed to foster mutualunderstanding between young Europeans, operates in over 30 countries and acrossmore than 3,000 institutions (European Commission, 2008; OECD, 2007). Inaddition, the patterns of student mobility in Europe demonstrate proximity trends,i.e., there are large numbers of Belgian students in France and of Austrian students


in Germany. Consequently, the challenges of social integration may be greater indestinations such as Australia and New Zealand where there are relatively largernumbers of international students from “culturally distant” countries of origin,compared to destinations such as Japan, Korea, France, or Germany.

Classroom Environment and Educational Practices

Research findings on international students are consistent with the broadercontact literature that has emphasized the positive consequences of equal sta-tus, cooperative, and pleasant contact. This can be effectively accomplishedthrough cooperative learning techniques. The educational approaches that havebeen used to improve academic and social outcomes in racially mixed classroomsoffer appropriate models (Lucker, Rosenfiled, Sikes, & Aronson, 1976; Ward &Rzoska, 1994). Their positive effects are known to extend beyond academic set-tings to social situations (Warring, Johnson, Maruyama, & Johnson, 1985), andthe techniques can provide valuable resources for multicultural and internationalclassrooms.

Training and Extracurricular Activities

Training for cultural competencies is known to enhance intercultural skills,increase intercultural interactions, enhance self-confidence, and diminish neg-ative stereotyping (Mendenhall, Stahl, Ehnert, Oddou, Osland, & Kuehlmann,2004). Research has also shown that effective intercultural communication skillsare linked to lower levels of intercultural anxiety (Ulrey & Amason, 2001). Asdecrements in negative stereotyping and reduction in intergroup anxiety in do-mestic students lead to more positive attitudes toward their international peers,intercultural training packages can contribute to increased social cohesion on uni-versity campuses. Packages such as EXCELL (Excellence in Cultural ExperientialLearning and Leadership) by Mak, Westwood, Barker, and Ishiyama (1998) maybe integrated into curricula or offered as extracurricular activities.

Programs initiated and supported by educational institutions to encourageintercultural contact outside the classroom have been found to precipitate positiveconsequences for both international and domestic students. Peer-pairing is perhapsthe best known of these, but residential programs have also proven effective.The positive effects of structured academic and social activities within residencehalls have been shown to generalize to the wider university setting (Nesdale &Todd, 2000). These programs provide an excellent means of enhancing socialintegration, but in both cases the programs require sustained institutional supportand systematic evaluation.


Relations with the Wider Community

Contact also provides the key to improving student–host relations and enhanc-ing social integration in the community context. Outreach activities, such as inter-national days, student-sponsored workshops, and food festivals, have been cited asmeans of fostering awareness in the local community (Hochhauser, 1990; Paige,1990). However, these activities are unlikely to have significant consequences asthe contact is brief and relatively superficial. In contrast, programs that have beenspecifically designed to encourage international friendship and understanding aremore likely to have long-term effects. Operation Friendship International, activein Europe, North America, and Australasia, connects international students tothe local community. The New Zealand version allows international students to be“adopted” by host families who meet with them for various social activities in andout of the home. Home stays, particularly for secondary school students, are alsoan option, and research has shown that local families express overall satisfactionwith hosting home stays for international students, particularly in terms of culturalenrichment and social contact (Kendall-Smith & Rich, 2003).

The National Context

At the national level, policies and interventions that broadly promote MCI arealso likely have positive consequences for international students. There is parallelevidence that national policies exert influence on social cohesion and inclusivenessfor immigrant students. A 13-nation study revealed that immigrant youth whoreside in countries that provide stronger policy support for multiculturalism aremore likely to integrate and adapt better socially (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder,2006). Just as cultural inclusiveness in the classroom has been linked to morepositive attitudes toward international students, multicultural policies and practiceswill promote better social integration in the community.

Conclusion

The article has examined attitudes toward international students, a topic thathas been largely neglected in research on social integration and international ed-ucation. Nevertheless, if we are to understand the experiences of internationalstudents and the social consequences of a booming export education industry,these attitudes merit investigation. Research to date suggests that the responses ofdomestic students, academic staff and community members to international stu-dents are at least moderately positive; however, their attitudes may be improved bypromoting MCI, increasing intercultural contact, diminishing intergroup anxietyand reducing perceived threat. Ways in which educational policies and practices


may support the realization of these goals have been recommended. In the end,achieving social integration is not only critical for international students, educa-tional institutions, and the wider community, it is also necessary for the long-termviability of the export education industry. More importantly, social integrationholds the key to reaping the greatest social and cultural benefits of internationaleducation and preparing our young people to think and act globally.

References

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Alreshoud, A., & Koeske, G. F. (1997). Arab students’ attitudes toward and amount of social contact

with Americans: A causal process analysis of cross-sectional data. Journal of Social Psychology,137, 235–245.

Arends-Toth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutchand Turkish-Dutch. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 249–266.

Beaver, B., & Tuck, B. (1998). The adjustment of overseas students in a tertiary institution in NewZealand. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 33, 167–179.

Berry, J. W. (2006). Mutual attitudes among immigrants and ethnocultural groups in plural societies.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 719–734.

Berry, J. W., Kalin, R., & Taylor, D. (1977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Ottawa:Ministry of Supply and Services.

Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (Eds.) (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transi-tion: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Bizman, A., & Yinon, Y. (2001). Intergroup and interpersonal threats as determinants of prejudice:The moderating role of in-group identification. Basic and Applied Psychology, 23, 191–196.

Bochner, S., Hutnik, N., & Furnham, A. (1985). The friendship patterns of overseas and host studentsin an Oxford student residence. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 689–694.

Bohm, A., Davis, D., Meares, D., & Pearce, D. (2002). Global student mobility 2025: Forecasts ofthe global demand for international higher education. Retrieved September 22, 2008, fromwww.aiec.idp.com/PDF/Bohm_2025Media_pdf.

Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Choi, M. (1997). Korean students in Australian universities: Intercultural issues. Higher EducationResearch and Development, 16, 263–282.

Corenblum, B., & Stephan, W. G. (2001). White fears and Native apprehensions: An integrated threattheory approach to intergroup attitudes. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 33(4), 251–268.

Curseu, P. L., Stoop, R., & Schalk, R. (2007). Prejudice towards immigrant workers among Dutchemployees: Integrated threat theory revisited. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37,125–140.

Dovidio, J. F., & Esses, V. M. (2007). Psychological research and public policy: Bridging the gap.Social Issues and Policy Review, 1, 5–14.

Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2003). ‘Gringos’ in Mexico: Cross-sectional and longitudinal effects of lan-guage school-promoted contact on intergroup bias. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations,6, 55–75.

Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2004). Come together: Longitudinal comparisons of Pettigrew’s reformulatedintergroup contact model and the Common In-group Identity Model in Anglo-French andMexican-American contexts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 229–256.

Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2006). The people’s entente cordial? The role of implicit attitudes in therelationship between English-French contact, levels of categorization and explicit intergroupattitudes. Current Research in Social Psychology, 11, 92–110.


Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Danso, H. A., Jackson, L. M., & Semenya, A. (2005). Historical and modernperspectives on group competition. In C. Crandall & M. Schaller (Eds.), Social psychologyof prejudice: Historical and contemporary issues (pp. 94–114). Lawrence, KS: LewinianPress.

Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001). The immigration dilemma: Arole of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice and national identity. Journal of SocialIssues, 57, 389–412.

Esses, V. M., Hodson, G., & Dovidio, J. F. (2003). Public attitudes toward immigrants and immigration:Determinants and policy implications. In C. C. Beach, A. G. Green, & J. G. Reitz (Eds.),Canadian immigration policy for the 21st century (pp. 507–536). Kingston, Canada: JohnDeutsch Institute, Queen’s University.

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes towardimmigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues,54, 699–724.

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Hodson G. (2005). Instrumental relations among groups:Group competition, conflict and prejudice. In J. F. Dovidio, P. S. Glick, & L. A. Rudman(Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 227–243). Malden, MA:Blackwell.

European Commission. (2008). Education and training: Erasmus. Retrieved 25 September, 2008, fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-program/doc80_en.htm.

Greenland, K., & Brown, R. (1999). Contact and intergroup anxiety between British and Japanesenationals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 503–521.

Harkness, C., Hodgson, R., Merwood, P., Quazi, A., Stock, P., Tausi, M., & Zhao, J. (2009). Migrationtrends and outlook 2007/8. Wellington, NZ: Department of Labor.

Hawthorne, L. (2008). The impact of economic selection policy on labor market outcomes for degreequalified migrants in Canada and Australia. IRPP Choices, 14, 1–50.

Hawthorne, L. (2009). Demography, migration and demand for international students. In C. Findlay& W. Findlay (Eds.), The Asia-Pacific education market. Singapore: National University ofSingapore Press.

Ho, E., Holmes, P., & Cooper, J. (2004). Review and evaluation of international literature on managingcultural diversity in the classroom. Wellington, NZ: Education New Zealand.

Hobsons, V., & Lasanowski, V. (2007). International student mobility: Patterns and trends. WorldEducation News and Reviews, 20(10). Retrieved September 28, 2008, from http://www.wes.org/ewenr/07oct/index.asp.

Hochhauser, G. (1990). Developing the campus-community link in international education. NewDirections for Community Colleges, 70, 99–107.

Holmes, P. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of and interactions with international students: A qualitativeanalysis. In C. Ward (Ed.), Interactions with international students (pp. 86–120). Wellington,NZ: Centre for Applied Cross-cultural Research and Education New Zealand.

Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety,perceived out-group variability and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710.

Jackson, J. S., Brown, K. T., Brown, T. N., & Marks, B. (2001). Contemporary immigration policyorientations among dominant group members in Western Europe. Journal of Social Issues, 57,431–456.

Kendall-Smith, M., & Rich, P. (2003). Satisfactions and dissatisfactions of home-stay hosts withsojourn students. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 38, 165–175.

Klineberg, O., & Hull, W. F. (1979). At a foreign university: An international study of adaptation andcoping. New York: Praeger.

Krahe, B., Abraham, C., Felber, J., & Helbig, M. K. (2005). Perceived discrimination of internationalvisitors to universities in Germany. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 263–281.

LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes andgroup behavior. New York: Wiley.

Lucker, G. W., Rosenfield, D., Sikes, J., & Aronson, E. (1976). Performance in the interdependentclassroom: A field study. American Educational Research Journal, 13, 115–123.


Mak, A. S., Barker, M. C., Logan, G., & Millman, L. (1999). Benefits of cultural diversity forinternational and local students: Contributions from an experiential social learning program(the ExcelL program). In D. David & A. Olsen (Eds.), International education: The professionaledge (pp. 63–76). Sydney: IDP Education, Australia.

Mak, A. S., & Buckingham, K. (2007). Beyond communication courses: Are there benefits in addingskills-based ExcelL sociocultural training? International Journal of Intercultural Relations,31, 277–291.

Mak, A. S., Westwood, M. J., Barker, M. C., & Ishiyama, F. I. (1998). Developing socioculturalcompetencies for success among international students: The EXCELL program. Journal ofInternational Education, 9, 33–38.

Marginson, S. (2007). The global positioning of Australian higher education: Where to from here?University of Melbourne’s Dean’s Lecture Series. Retrieved September 15, 2008, fromhttp://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_pages/Marginson/Marginson.html.

McKinlay, N. J., Pattison, H. M., & Gross, H. (1996). An exploratory investigation of the effectsof a cultural orientation program on the psychological well-being of international universitystudents. Higher Education, 31, 379–395.

Mendenhall, M., Stahl, G. K., Ehnert, I., Oddou, G., Osland, J. S., & Kuehlmann, T. M. (2004).Evaluation studies of cross-cultural training programs. In D. Landis, J. Bennett, & M. Bennett(Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 129–144). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Merwood, P. (2006). International students: Studying and staying on in New Zealand. Wellington, NZ:The Department of Labor.

Ministry of Education. (2009). Statistics on international enrolments in schools and ter-tiary institutions. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/educationSectors/InternationalEducation/ResearchAndStatistics/Statistics.aspx.

Murray, S. (2006). Helping you educate the world. The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Interna-tional Education Connection. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from http://www.buyusa.gov/pittsburgh/edunews.pdf.

Nesdale, D., & Todd, P. (2000). Effect of contact on intercultural acceptance: A field study. Interna-tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 341–360.

New Zealand Government. (2007). The international education agenda—A strategy for 2007–2012. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/educationSectors/InternationalEducation/PolicyAndStrategy/InternationalEducationAgenda20072012.aspx.

OECD. (2007). Education at a Glance 2007: OECD Indicators. Retrieved September 25, 2008, fromhttp://www.sourceoecd.org/upload/9607051e.pdf.

Paige, M. (1990). International students: Cross-cultural psychological perspectives. In R. Brislin (Ed.),Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 181–185). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.

Poyrazli, S., & Grahame, K. M. (2007). Barriers to adjustment: Needs of international students withina semi-urban community campus. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34, 28–46.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (2001). Social dominance orientation: Apersonality variable predicting social and political attitudes. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams(Eds.), Intergroup relations: Essential readings (pp. 30–59). New York: Psychology Press.

Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition andanti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586–611.

Quintrell, N., & Westwood, M. (1994). The influence of a peer-pairing program on internationalstudents’ first year experience and use of student services. Higher Research and EducationDevelopment, 13, 49–57.

Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. (2006). Intergroup threat and out-group attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353.

Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profilesin controversy (pp. 53–84). New York: Plenum.

Smart, D., Volet, S., & Ang, G. (2000). Fostering social cohesion in universities: Bridging the culturaldivide. Canberra: Australian Educational International Department of Education, Training andYouth Affairs.


Sodowsky, G. R., & Plake, B. S. (1992). A study of acculturation differences among internationalpeople and suggestions for sensitivity to within-group differences. Journal of Counseling andDevelopment, 71, 53–59.

Spencer-Rodgers, J. (2001). Consensual and individual stereotypic beliefs about international studentsamong American host nationals. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 639–657.

Spencer-Rodgers, J., & McGovern, T. (2002). Attitudes toward the culturally different: The role ofintercultural communication barrier, affective responses, consensual stereotypes and perceivedthreat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 609–631.

Statistics New Zealand. (2007). 2006 Census of population and dwellings. Wellington, NZ: StatisticsNew Zealand.

Stephan, W. G., Boniecki, K. A., Ybarra, O., Bettencourt, A., Ervin, K. S., Jackson, L. A., McNatt,P. S., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threats in the racial attitudes of blacks and whites.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242–1254.

Stephan, W. G., Diaz-Loving, R., & Duran, A. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercul-tural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 31,240–249.

Stephan, W. G., Renfro, C. L., Esses, V. M., Stephan, C. W., & Martin, T. (2005). The effects of feelingthreatened on attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,29, 1–19.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175.Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Intergroup relations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants: An integrated threat

theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2221–2237.Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Martınez, C., Schwarzwald, J., & Tur-Kaspa, M. (1998). Prejudice towards

immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-culturalPsychology, 29, 559–576.

Stroebe, W., Lenkert, A., & Jonas, K. (1988). Familiarity may breed contempt: The impact of studentexchange on national stereotypes and attitudes. In W. Stroebe, D. Bar-Tal, & M. Hewstone(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 167–187). New York: Springer.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin &S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA:Brooks/Cole.

Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., Cairns, E., & Christ, O. (2007). Cross-community contact,perceived status differences and intergroup attitudes in Northern Ireland: The mediating rolesof individual-level versus group-level threats and the moderating role of social identification.Political Psychology, 28, 53–68.

Trice, A. (2004). Mixing it up: International graduate students’ social interactions with Americanstudents. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 671–687.

Trice, A., & Elliott, J. (1993). Japanese students in America: College friendships patterns. Journal ofInstructional Psychology, 20, 262–264.

Tropp, L., & Pettigrew, T. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice amongminority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–957.

Ulrey, K. L., & Amason, P. (2001). Intercultural communication between patients and health careproviders: An exploration of intercultural communication effectiveness, cultural sensitivity,stress and anxiety. Health Communication, 13, 449–463.

United Nations. (2006). International migration 2006. New York: UN Department of Social andEconomic Affairs, Population Division.

Verkuyten, M. (2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and majoritygroup: Testing the Multiculturalism Hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,88, 121–138.

Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy:The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of salience. Group Processes andIntergroup Relations, 6, 37–54.

Volet, S., & Ang, G. (1998). Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: An opportunity forintercultural learning. Higher Research and Education Development, 17, 5–23.


Ward, C. (2006). International students: Interpersonal, institutional and community impacts.Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.

Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. London: Routledge.Ward, C., & Masgoret, A. M. (2004). The experiences of international students in New Zealand: Report

on the results of the national survey. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.Ward, C., & Masgoret, A.-M. (2005). New Zealanders’ perceptions of and interactions with inter-

national students. In C. Ward (Ed.), Interactions with international students (pp. 121–151).Wellington, NZ: Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research and Education New Zealand.

Ward, C., & Masgoret, A.-M. (2006). An integrated model of attitudes toward immigrants. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 671–682.

Ward, C., & Masgoret, A.-M. (2008). Attitudes toward immigrants, immigration and multiculturalismin New Zealand. International Migration Review, 42, 222–243.

Ward, C., & Rzoska, K. (1994). Cross-cultural perspectives on cooperation and competition: Edu-cational applications in plural societies. In E. E. Thomas (Ed.), International perspectives onculture and schooling (pp. 455–482). London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Ward, C., & Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on psychologicaland sociocultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,15, 209–225.

Warring, D., Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., & Johnson, R. (1985). Impact of different types of cooper-ative learning on cross-ethnic and cross-sex relationships. Journal of Educational Psychology,77, 53–59.

Westwood, M. J., & Barker, M. (1990). Academic achievement and social adaptation among interna-tional students: A comparison groups study of the peer-pairing program. International Journalof Intercultural Relations, 14, 251–263.

Documents

Investigating Attitudes Toward International Students: Program and Policy Implications for Social Integration and International Education