University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

International student perceptions of threat in U.S. higher education

(USC Thesis Other)

International student perceptions of threat in U.S. higher education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content International Student Perceptions of Threat in U.S. Higher Education
Christian Grant Larsen
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2024

© Copyright by Christian Grant Larsen 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Christian Larsen certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Ruth Chung
Ayesha Madni
Dennis Hocevar, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
International students contribute significantly to the diversity and financial well-being of U.S.
higher education institutions. These students often experience mistreatment while they are rarely
described as a marginalized group in need of inclusive accommodation. This quantitative study
investigates perceptions of threat and sense of belonging, loneliness, and psychological wellbeing among domestic and international students, with particular attention to the largest
subgroup of nonimmigrants, Asian students. Data was collected on more than 100,000
international and domestic students in the United States from 2019 to 2022 using the American
College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment III. The statistical analyses
used to explore relationships were descriptive statistics, chi-square and crosstabulation, 2x2x2
ANOVA with F-ratios, Cohen’s d for effect sizes, correlation and mediation analysis, and t-tests.
The study found that although Asian international students reported slightly higher levels of
perceived threat than domestic students, overall threat perceptions were low, with 89.6%
reporting minimal to no threat. Among international students that experienced more perceived
threat, the association with belonging and well-being was marginal. Male students felt a stronger
sense of belonging than females, who reported higher psychological well-being. Loneliness
levels were similar between the sexes. Most international students reported a strong sense of
belonging and well-being and demonstrably lower levels of sexual harassment. These findings
suggest that international students, despite facing mistreatment in higher education, may use ingroup belonging, self-efficacy, and other characteristics, as buffers against risks to belonging,
increased loneliness, and reduced psychological well-being.
Keywords: perceived threat, belonging, loneliness, well-being, Asian international
students, higher education.

v
Dedication
To my family, whose patience, love, and support over long years made this possible.

vi
Acknowledgements
To my committee, Dr. Dennis Hocevar, Dr. Ruth Chung, and Dr. Ayesha Madni, whose
expertise, empathy, and dedication have been invaluable.
To the USC Rossier Faculty and Cohort 22, who each gave a piece of themselves to
create a very special community of experts and professionals dedicated to being a force for the
positive change and meaningfulness they want to see in the world.
In recognition of the all the students who contributed to the data discussed in this study,
and transnational people everywhere, whose movements and efforts to make life better transform
communities and bring individuals, cultures, and institutions closer together.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview .................................................................................................................. 1
Background and Problem.................................................................................................... 2
Purpose and Research Questions........................................................................................ 3
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 4
Theoretical Framework....................................................................................................... 8
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 11
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 12
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 14
Asian International Students (1854 to 2024) .................................................................... 15
Asian Student Perceptions of Threat................................................................................. 18
A Place Called School ...................................................................................................... 21
Intergroup Threat and Social Identity ............................................................................... 25
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 31
Summary........................................................................................................................... 40
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................... 44
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 44
Participants and Setting..................................................................................................... 45
Instruments and Procedure................................................................................................ 45
Data Analytic Strategy...................................................................................................... 51

viii
Effect Sizes ....................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 56
Preliminary Analysis......................................................................................................... 56
Analysis of Research Questions........................................................................................ 72
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 76
Key Findings..................................................................................................................... 76
Interpretation..................................................................................................................... 78
Implications....................................................................................................................... 80
Contributions..................................................................................................................... 86
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 88
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 92
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 93
References................................................................................................................................... 101
Appendix A: Protocol ................................................................................................................. 145

ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics........................................................................................................ 58
Table 2 Threat Distribution........................................................................................................... 60
Table 3 Sex by Visa Crosstabulation............................................................................................ 61
Table 4 Sex by Threat Group Crosstabulation.............................................................................. 62
Table 5 Visa by Threat Group Crosstabulation ............................................................................ 63
Table 6 Main Effects for Sex........................................................................................................ 65
Table 7 Statistical Findings for Sex .............................................................................................. 65
Table 8 Sex by Sexual Harassment Crosstabulation..................................................................... 66
Table 9 Visa by Sexual Harassment Crosstabulation ................................................................... 67
Table 10 Adjusted Main Effects for Visa ..................................................................................... 68
Table 11 Statistical Findings for Visa........................................................................................... 69
Table 12 Adjusted Main Effects for Sexual Harassment.............................................................. 70
Table 13 Statistical Findings for Sexual Harassment ................................................................... 71
Table 14 Effect Sizes: Cohen’s d.................................................................................................. 73

x
List of Figures
Figure 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 11

1
Chapter One: Overview
Across the landscape of higher education in the United States today, internationalization
is ubiquitous. Colleges and universities seek internationalization to compete for brand
recognition as knowledge production engines in a crowded global marketplace (Kezar et al.,
2019). International students provide a highly sought after patina of diversity (Buckner & Stein,
2020; Tikly, 2004; Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013), yet experience being marginalized
and objectified (Buckner & Stein, 2020), commodified (Yao & Viggiano, 2019), and regarded as
a combination of threat and cash cow (Yao & Mwangi, 2022). This situation persists as diversity,
equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are being broadly adopted to support marginalized people
and identities, yet generally do not frame international students as an equity-seeking group and
often leave them feeling excluded and othered (Tavares, 2021). University internationalization
efforts and DEI initiatives, although surely well-intended, are “situated at the intersection of
structural power and the politics of race, ethnicity, culture, and language and thus can
subordinate, oppress, and exclude” (Villaverde, 2008, p. 16). This research seeks to better
understand this phenomenon from the perspectives of domestic and international students and
their sense of threat, belonging, loneliness, and well-being. This is important if schools are
sincere in the desire to have a diverse, equitable, and inclusive learning environment for all
students that also cares about the mental and physical health of students. The alternative is
discriminatory and nativist practices that fetishizes marginalized identities and people through a
transactional process of power and control, which is antithetical to the transformational process
education is intended to provide.

2
Background and Problem
There are well over a million international students in U.S. colleges and universities
(Open Doors Report, 2021), which is over 5.5% of the total enrollment (Irwin et al., 2023) Asian
students constitute more than 70% of those international students (U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, 2022). They provided a $44 billon dollar revenue stream to schools in
2019 alone (Institute of International Education, 2020; Statista, 2023). Yet within these schools
is a latent mistrust of international students (Allen & Bista, 2021) and discriminatory practices
that have been formalized to protect citizens from terrorism and the perceived threats posed by
international students (Witt, 2008), while allowing schools to benefit from international
cashflows. Some have argued that this represents an enduring system of colonial politics
(Buckner & Stein, 2020; Tikly, 2004; Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013) and part of the
norm to dominate international people based on a need to establish cultural sovereignty and be
the arbiter of citizenship, civility, and knowing (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013). Patton
(2016) argues that this makes American schools bastions of racism and represents a primary
force of persistent inequalities in the United States. This may help explain why American
students are prejudiced and feel a sense of threat from international students (Charles-Toussaint
& Crowson, 2010), who in turn experience oppression (Stein & Andreotti, 2017), racism (FriesBritt et al., 2014), othering (Luke, 2010), xenophobia (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008), nativism, and
other forms of discrimination (Fries-Britt et al., 2014; George Mwangi et al., 2016; Hanassab,
2006).
What remains underexamined are the perspectives of students, especially international
students, regarding the real and perceived threats experienced on campuses and how distressing
problems or challenges relate to student belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being. A

3
better understanding of this terrain has implications for understanding how to improve student
experiences, enhance internationalization, and safeguard school interests.
Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is primarily to better understand and describe the experiences
of international students on U.S. college and university campuses and contrast them with those of
domestic students. International students come from highly diverse groups, so this research
focuses upon Asian students, who are similarly diverse, but represent the clear majority of
international students from many of the fastest growing, most socioeconomically important, and
politically significant counties in the world today.
This study is mainly concerned with the differences and consequences of perceived
threats, which many students experience, with an emphasis on belonging, loneliness, and
psychological well-being (well-being). Attention will also be given to the effect of one’s
biological sex (male/female) on these variables since it is assumed central within the normative
constructs of university life. Institutional factors are similarly important as campus cultures,
policies, and communities help frame the experience of students, but this research is limited in its
ability to look at schools directly. Instead, should this data discover generalizable gaps and
consequential effects among the identified groups, it will provide valuable information that
schools can act upon to improve student socioemotional, academic, and health outcomes.
This research adds to the contemporary narratives surrounding American cultural
pluralism, but works to have generalizable data demonstrate to leaders how international and
domestic students experience college and university life amid widespread investments in
internationalization and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Three research
questions guided this study:

4
1. Does student status (international versus domestic) have a direct effect on perceived
threat, sexual harassment, belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being?
2. Does biological sex (male or female) have a direct effect on perceived threat, sexual
harassment, belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being?
3. Are the effects of biological sex and student status on belonging, loneliness, and
psychological well-being mediated by perceived threat or sexual harassment.
Significance of the Study
Broadly speaking, race relations and immigration policy have long been topics of debate
and derision in the United States and continue with ferocity today. Yet fragile social and political
progress has been made. Humanity enjoys better health and education than ever in its history, yet
great pits of despair and inequity persist, including in the United States. On the march towards a
greater democracy, the United States overcame extreme social and economic inequities while
falling short constantly: Both aspects can be simultaneously true. Yet objectivity is difficult as
most Americans are anchored to the complexities of past struggles while facing the real and
perceived threats of change and uncertainty in the present.
By providing this vulnerability with technological tethers, Americans have become
increasingly susceptible to disinformation that have pushed some towards an increasing rejection
of liberal democratic ideals such as egalitarianism, the rule of law, freedom of expression, and
tolerance, in favor of illiberalism on both the right and left (Main, 2021). It may be that adopting
false or conspiratorial beliefs provides meaningful purpose and feelings of importance and
legitimacy (Prooijen, 2022). Furthermore, willful ignorance permits selfishness while
maintaining a positive self-image (Vu et al., 2019). Mirroring the steady political polarization of
America (Pew Research Center, 2014), pernicious culture wars have made U.S. higher education

5
a battleground for moral postering that places indignance over empathy, and sanctimony over
inquiry (Broćić & Miles, 2021).
Political elites have seized the moment to weaponize explicitly racial and inflammatory
speech to embolden prejudice (Newman et al., 2020; Warren-Gordon & Rhineberger, 2021).
This has stoked fear and anxiety in classrooms and inflamed racial and ethnic tensions among
many international students (Costello, 2016). The unsurprising consequences are things like
increased discriminatory behavior toward people of Asian descent (Dhanani & Franz, 2020) and
U.S. Muslims feeling similarly disaffected (Pew Research Center, 2017). One premise of this
research is that fear, or a threatening environment, is antithetical to higher learning in a way
similar to how persistent fear and anxiety can affect young children’s learning, behavior, and
health (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2010). Irrespective of age or what
is learned, all students should be permitted to feel a sense of belonging and inclusion in school
and have it be a place where their well-being is considered important. There are contemporary
indicators that international students are particularly at risk and being targeted. It is therefore
important to understand the perceptions of students themselves and to report the findings to
foster change.
International people represent the bridge between where almost all Americans came from
and a future vision of what America might be. To the extent international people shape
international communities and perceptions, they also represent attitudes for how America will be
viewed around the world and how American values might shape international norms.
Recently, along with internationalization efforts, higher education has been trying to
engender a greater commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) on college campuses
across the United States. While framed as an epistemology for understanding positionality and

6
power, it can also be a set of boxes to check for bolstering social justice that are largely
performative for organizations (Hattery et al., 2022). Even in such latter cases, the priority is a
conscious and explicit bias towards domestic people and groups, which although understandable,
is also marginalizing. When looking at management literature, litigation, self-interest, and
coercion are drivers of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that often exacerbate bias and
inequality as managerial leanings cause a focus on wrong things that reduce equity and inclusion
in both research and practice (Hellerstedt et al., 2024). Taken together, it stands to reason that
even when intentions are good, the management of universities similarly exacerbate bias and
inequality while also favoring domestic students. This represents a multifaced risk to wellintending colleges and universities as well as to students, which should be explored and better
understood to enhance school services, bolster equity, reduce liability, and improve student
campus experiences.
Given the climate of internationalization and DEI, it is logically important to recognize
differences in how domestic and international students are treated on college and university
campuses and how they each experience those differences. For example, domestic students are
often categorized along lines of racial difference by schools, state regulators, and government
departments, while international students are generally described as either non-resident alien or
immigrant-origin student (Batalova & Feldblum, 2020). Regardless of why, in one small motion
the cultural and linguistic richness of international students, along with their race and ethnicity, is
effectively erased.
The U.S. government, and universities who sponsor international students by extension,
do not classify international students as minorities or marginalized minority students as those
rarefied terms and associated benefits are reserved for domestic students. In very special cases,

7
international students may acquire defector or refugee status, perhaps due to escaping genocide
or ethnic cleansing, but they are not operationally, and perhaps cognitively, considered
marginalized or part of a minority group due to their foreign (nonimmigrant) status. A minority
student, such as one who is BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, person of color) may, for example, be
African American or Native Hawaiian, but not if the student is African or a member of an
indigenous group in Europe. While such labelling typically has to do with government mandates,
there are also highly complex social and racial challenges associated with being an international
person in the United States. For instance, Black internationals experience racialization (Godfried
et al., 2016), colorism (Hochschild & Weaver, 2007) and difficulties navigating the American
boundaries of Blackness (Osuji, 2019; Williams, 2008). So, while there is little doubt that DEI
organizations and schools more broadly will say they don’t discriminate and that all are
welcome, in practice not all students are welcome. There is also a significant implicit difference
between being invited and accepted within a marginalized minority group versus merely being
allowed to circulate among members.
Although not a central focus of this research, it is important to consider what racial
categories and labels on U.S. campuses are meant to do if not establish divisions to distribute
power and perks under banners of diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is no secret that
international students have demonstrably fewer rights and greater restrictions when compared
with domestic students. Meanwhile, despite the discrimination American marginalized minority
groups have endured, they also enjoy greater power in the dominance hierarchy and participate
in foreigner oppression as learned nativist self-interest urges them to maximize their own relative
advantage at the disadvantage of others (Sassenberg et al., 2007; Savelkoul et al., 2011; Sherif,
1966). Campus internationalization and diversity/equity/inclusion (DEI) initiatives therefore

8
need to recognize that good intentions that cause injustice or unfairness can also create harm and
conflict (Bell & Martin, 2012; Bolino & Turnley, 2008; Brookover & Lezotte, 1981). This, in
turn, negatively impacts social identity and group memberships (Tajfel, 1982; 2010), which
fosters a sense of rejection and a decline in in-group interactions, individual performance, and
self-esteem (Leary, 2010; Leary & Baumeister, 2000). Student accomplishment, motivation, and
well-being are closely linked to sustained self-regulation and a sense of self-efficacy rooted in a
student’s sense of belonging (Schunk, 2012). Belonging and threat effect academic success both
within an academic community (Pittman & Richmond, 2007) as well as in a classroom (Good et
al., 2012). The ethical, legal, and social implications associated with the unfair and unjust
treatment of international students in American colleges and universities can eventually produce
negative socioeconomic effects for U.S. schools and communities, but also influence how the
United States is perceived abroad. The reason for this is because the international student
experiences of threat, anxiety, erasure, othering, marginalization, and exclusion, carry real time
and long-term consequences as those feelings become known and shared by loved ones and
community members. Understanding and interceding on behalf of all students while advocating
for health is morally and professionally right for school leaders and faculty, but it also provides
soft power benefits to institutions and the country that might not otherwise be enjoyed (Nye,
2002).
Theoretical Framework
This research problem is viewed primarily from the lens of the complementary theories
of intergroup threat and social identity theory. Social identity theory describes how, in order to
belong, individuals seek to categorize themselves and others as part of an in-group or an outgroup and to adopt the identity and norms of the in-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Intergroup

9
conflict theory explains how negative stereotypes produce realistic and symbolic threats that lead
to conflicts between such groups (Böhm et al., 2020; Stephan & Renfro, 2002; Stephan &
Stephan, 1985). Few studies examine ingroup/outgroup dynamics between international
students—Asian students in particular—and the native, domestic populations on college and
university campuses in America. The research broadly suggests that the relatively low-power
position and vulnerability of international students will lead them to perceive higher levels of
threat, while the domestic higher-power groups will conversely react strongly to feelings of
threat originating from their prejudices and stereotypes (Johnson et al., 2005; Riek et al., 2006).
This theoretical framework will provide explanatory power to help understand the perceptions of
threat, distress, loneliness, and feelings of belonging and well-being international students
experience on college and university campuses and how they compare to their domestic
counterparts.
It is assumed that unconscious mental structures cause biased behavior (Amodio &
Mendoza, 2010) and that social cues associated with labels such as international student,
foreigner, historically marginalized student, or student of color, may also drive behavior
(Houwer, 2019). Since it has been well documented that in-group implicit biases operate along
lines of race (Axt, 2017; Gibson et al., 2017; Wilkins & Kaiser, 2014), as well as with a
preference for domestic over foreign students (Attiyeh & Attiyeh, 1997), it follows that labels or
prejudices that target international students that result from school policies, local culture, or
widespread animus, may push both domestic and international students towards selective group
affinities, produce group antagonisms, and reinforce structural xenophobia (Samari et al., 2021).
This theoretical framework proposes that intergroup threat magnifies domestic in-group
favoritism (nativism) and helps anchor belonging for U.S. domestic students while solidifying

10
the outgroup status of international students, inviting greater levels of harassment, bias, and
discrimination that can challenge belonging and psychological well-being (Böhm et al., 2020).
Furthermore, faculty and staff are similarly positioned to influence the perception of threat,
belonging, loneliness, and well-being of international students as they represent a campus’
commitment to diversity, inclusion, and care for international students. As Kezar et al. (2019)
explains, university educators and support staff are central to student success and are important
in shaping theories about student motivation and how it is cultivated in individuals in a social
environment. Figure 1 suggests a conceptual framework for understanding the relationships
among domestic and international students within a campus social and academic environment,
and the associated threats, distress, belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being
experienced.
To produce a generalizable result, a quantitative methodology using a closed-ended
survey paired with descriptive and correlational statistics will be used. By using a large sample,
descriptive statistics (means and frequencies) will clarify what the average participant perceives
among domestic and international student groups. Asian international students will be targeted as
they represent more than 70% of all international students (U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, 2022). Focusing on a specific population is also assumed to reduce the
heterogeneity of responses and increase patternicity, lower measurement invariance caused by
survey interpretation, limit confounding variables caused by diversity, and so improve
generalizability (Matthay et al., 2021). Students will be asked to respond to questions regarding
demographics and their perceptions of threat, belonging, isolation, and well-being, which may
then be correlated.

11
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework lends some key concepts of social identity creation through
ingroup/outgroup interactions, negative stereotypes, and bias, that can manifest in different ways
to modify group behaviors and produce negative outcomes. There are elements of individual
psychology and personal identity that can have a positive or negative reciprocal effect on social
identity, which is not the primary focus of the study, but that student belonging, loneliness, and
well-being, are interwoven with social identity so that threats, anxiety, marginalization, and
challenge, can have far-reaching negative consequences (Pedler et al., 2022; Zumbrunn et al.,
2014). In the conceptual framework in Figure 1, single-headed arrows are broadly considered
causative. Environmental factors such as policies and practices or latent negative anxiety,
prejudice, or stereotyping and other factors may also prove important, but are not currently being
considered in lieu of the lack of well-established scales for such variables on campuses.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

12
The specific questions and scales for each variable are provided in Chapter Four, but very
broadly represent: Biological sex at birth (M/F), visa status (Y/N), experience of threat (18 items:
Y/N), sense belonging (4 items: Likert 1–6), sense of loneliness/isolation (UCLA 3-Item
Loneliness Scale: 3 items Likert 1–3), Diener Psychological Well-being Scale (PWBS) (8 items:
Likert 1–7).
Definition of Terms
Belonging: A personal sense of connectedness to the institution mainly through academic
and social engagement (Thomas, 2012).
Domestic student: A student enrolled in a U.S. college or university who is also a U.S.
citizen, naturalized citizen, permanent resident, and conceivable students with special status such
as refugees, asylum seekers, and Dreamers (DACA status).
In-group: A social group that a person favors and identifies as belonging to, generally
with shared characteristics, interests, or experiences that create a sense of solidarity and
community.
International student: A “non-immigrant” student enrolled at an institution of higher
education in the United States who is not a domestic student. These may include holders of F
(student) visas, J (exchange visitor) visas, and M (vocational training) visas.
Loneliness: Subjective feelings of social isolation and/or exclusion that develop from a
lack companionship, feelings of being left out, and the experience of feeling alone and
disconnected.
Out-group: In contrast with in-group, a social group that an individual does not identify
with and distinct from in-group belonging. Out-groups are often associated with negative
feelings, exclusion, prejudice, and hostility.

13
Psychological well-being: The complex construct of one’s individual perspective on
positive and negative feelings and life satisfaction, but also the measurement and understanding
of subjective happiness and well-being of an individual.
Threat: The real or perceived problem, challenge, or antagonism from real world
circumstances, which often manifest as hostilities from people, which contrasts with acceptance,
belonging, social support, meaning and self-esteem often provided by in-group membership
(Stephan et al., 2009).

14
Chapter Two: Literature Review
More than a million international students are enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities,
representing over 5.5% of the total student population (Open Doors Report, 2021; NCES, 2022)
with Asian students making up over 70% (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2022).
Despite their contributions, international students are often mistrusted (Allen & Bista, 2021) and
perceived as a threat (Charles-Toussaint & Crowson, 2010; Witt, 2008; Yao & George Mwangi,
2022). While they enhance the diversity of institutions (Buckner & Stein, 2020; Tikly, 2004;
Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013), they also face marginalization, objectification (Buckner
& Stein, 2020), commodification (Yao & Viggiano, 2019), oppression (Stein & Andreotti, 2017),
racism, othering (Fries-Britt et al., 2014; Luke, 2010), xenophobia (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008),
nativism, and discrimination (Fries-Britt et al., 2014; George Mwangi et al., 2016; Hanassab,
2006).
However, few studies attempt to quantify these experiences among international students,
or Asian international students in particular, and whether they perceive a sense of threat or how
that perception relates to feelings of belonging, loneliness, or psychological well-being. It is also
uncertain whether such experiences are unique to international students or shared with domestic
students, and how the role of biological threat may relate.
The purpose of this literature review is to provide analysis and synthesis of the existing
research related to international student threat, belonging, loneliness, and psychological wellbeing, with particular attention to the United States and its historical context. Overall, it is
organized thematically based upon the key ideas and research variables. Specific theories and
methodologies used that also aligned with the data will also be discussed to help identify
strengths and gaps in the literature. Additionally, the literature review provides the rationale for

15
the theoretical framework of this study, which aims to reveal what relationships may exist
between variables that have not previously been well articulated. This will provide an
informative context to better understand and answer the research questions, allowing the results
make a novel contribution to the scholarly literature and provide meaningful insights that help
students and campus communities.
Asian International Students (1854 to 2024)
While Asian international students have surely been present at U.S. universities since
early in its history, the first Asian graduate from a U.S. institution was in 1854 (China Institute in
America, 1954), more than 200 years after the first American college was founded (Harvard
University, n.d.). The Department of Education was not formed until 1979 (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010). The delay in creating the Department of Education apparently stems from U.S.
federalism and post-war welfare policies that shifted responsibilities from states and individuals
to the federal government (Armingeon & Bonoli, 2006; Friedman, 1962; Stebenne, 2017).
Prior to the Civil War (1861 to 1865), the United States had an open immigration policy
and states created their own laws. The Supreme Court declared immigration a federal
responsibility in 1875 (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012). The first significant
federal restriction targeted Asian migrants with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, who were
seen an economic threat and racially inferior (Gyory, 1998; Soennichsen, 2011). Other
xenophobic laws, like the Alien Contract Labor Laws of 1885 and 1887, allowed the government
to profit through head taxes and barred “idiots, lunatics, convicts, and persons likely to become a
public charge” (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012, p. 3).
Concerns about the impact of Asian immigration on wages persisted. By 1920
immigrants and their children in general made up over half of U.S. manufacturing workers

16
(Hirschman & Mogford, 2009). The Immigration Act of 1924 established ethnic quotas and
severely restricted immigration, creating a racially discriminatory system (Yang, 2020). By
1952, laws still favored Northern Europeans and limited Asian nations to just 100 visas per year
(U.S. Department of State, n.d.).
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prompted the Hart-Celler Act (Immigration and Nationality
Act of 1965), which eliminated national-origin quotas and introduced family reunification visas,
capping them at 120,000 for the Western Hemisphere and 170,000 for the Eastern (Migration
Policy Institute, 2015). This shift marked a new U.S. immigration strategy, focusing on diversity
and selective admission for development (Orchowski, 2015). Immigration from Asia and Latin
America increased rapidly, reshaping U.S. demographics and fueling debates on cultural and
labor impacts (Migration Policy Institute, 2015). While discrimination persisted, it established
purportedly race-neutral policies and provided unlimited visas for immediate family members of
U.S. citizens, forming the basis of modern immigration law (Chin & Villazor, 2015).
Changing a country’s demographics has obvious consequences. After 1965, the United
States faced a complex interplay between perceived threats, national identity, and tolerance for
diversity, affecting both domestic and foreign policy (Davies et al., 2008). Despite the
geographic protection provided by the seas (Mearsheimer, 2001), Americans were caught off
guard and immediately became more wary of foreigners following the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001 (Schüller, 2016). International students were of special interest. Asian
migrants were then targeted during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, for which the United
States was similarly unprepared, causing racial identity and political ideology to influence how
blame was assigned (McLaren et al., 2024; Wallace et al., 2024).

17
America’s historical ambivalence toward immigrants, especially from Asia, is welldocumented. From the 1880s through the Immigration Act of 1924, public opinion showed
suspicion and distrust of immigrants (Simon, 1993). Even though, since 1850, 12% of the U.S.
population has been of immigrant origin (Migration Policy Institute, n.d.). Xenophobia has been
normalized as pragmatic. After September 2001, policies such as the USA PATRIOT Act led to
the reinforcement of student information systems (SEVIS) and monitoring (SEVP), with
intentional constraints for international students (FactCheck.org, 2013; National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks, 2004; Witt, 2008). Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic caused the suspension
of visa services and restricted travel, leaving international people disproportionately affected
(U.S. Department of State, 2020). The CARES Act allocated relief funds but excluded most
lawful immigrants without social security numbers, including those that pay taxes (S. 3548,
116th Cong., 1st Sess., §101, 2019).
International students, especially Asian students, have been longstanding objects of
suspicion, fear, and marginalization while living in the United States requires enduring high
costs, surveillance, and prejudice (Allen & Bista, 2021; Charles-Toussaint & Crowson, 2010;
College Board, 2022). In 2001, hate crimes spiked due to racial, ethnic, and religious bias (U.S.
Department of Justice, 2001; 2015) and 75% of U.S. Muslims reported facing discrimination
(Pew Research Center, 2017). The media is known to play a key role in shaping racial attitudes
(Ward & Bridgewater, 2023), yet it is somehow permitted for political leaders to continue to
publicly denigrate Asians (Newman et al., 2020). Yao and George Mwangi (2022) aptly describe
this dichotomy of “yellow peril and cash cows” (p. 1027) as Asian-American citizens are
permitted unlimited visas for immediate foreign family members (Immigration and Nationality
Act of 1965), who would also have to tolerate much labeling and discriminatory behavior.

18
Surveys showed 40% of Americans would engage in discriminatory behavior toward
Asians (Dhanani & Franz, 2020). Anti-Asian hate crimes increased by 164% in early 2021
(Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, 2021). Reports of over 11,000 hate incidents were
recorded by Stop AAPI Hate from March 2020 (Stop AAPI Hate, 2023). Considering the
majority population that Asian students represent, and that many hate crimes go unreported
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018), international students likely endure threats and crimes
silently, reinforced by public figures and institutional policies that see them as both opportunity
and threat.
Asian Student Perceptions of Threat
Economist Thomas Piketty observed that “almost everywhere there is a monumental gap
between official statements regarding equality of opportunities and the reality of the educational
inequalities that the disadvantaged classes face” (2022, p. 176). This sentiment foreshadowed the
2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows
of Harvard College (2023), which determined that race-based admissions programs violate Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The case underscored systemic racial discrimination against Asians, further fueling
resentment and divisions among racial groups (Moses et al., 2018).
Research demonstrates that Asian students must outperform peers to receive equal
consideration due in part to stereotypes regarding their social competence (Chai & Weseley,
2017). Asian American activism against race-based admissions emphasizes neoliberal racial
subjectivity, meaning merit and competition are central to fair educational access, so it is wrong
to intentionally disadvantage Asian students (Park et al., 2022). However, this debate exacerbates

19
perceptions of Asian competence and threat, affecting both underrepresented minorities and the
advantaged majority, while exposing Asians to racism and xenophobia (Lee, 2021).
The legal and social complexities notwithstanding, the Supreme Court’s decision brought
into focus equal protection concerns regarding alienage, raising questions about the differing
treatment of citizens and non-citizens. Despite efforts to protect the rights of non-citizens,
distinctions persist, such as international students’ ineligibility for federal financial aid (NCES,
2023). Schools will strive to provide accommodations for students with disabilities under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, yet simple online education is restricted to international
students (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, n.d.). The discrepancies within federal
law highlight the challenges facing designated school officials in supporting international
students due to federal mandates.
In Hirabayashi v. United States (1942), the Supreme Court claimed that “distinctions
between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people
whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality” (Stone, H. F. & Supreme Court of
The United States, p. 100). Yet, U.S. laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 are legitimized by nationalism and reflect xenophobia and nativism
by curtailing rights based on perceived threats to national security (Frowd, 2023). However,
modern technological advances, including biometric facial recognition and surveillance
capabilities, render the argument for over-regulating international students baseless (Customs
and Border Protection, 2022; s, 2022). In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court (2018) described the
surveillance and monitoring capability as nearly perfect (585 U.S. at 436).
Authorized and unauthorized migrants are not nearly the national security threat that
certain pockets of America believe them to be (Coe & Neumann, 2011; Neumann, 2021). In the

20
United States in 2021, there were 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants with Asians accounting
for 14% (Capps et al., 2020, 2021). In terms of threat, during the 43-year period surrounding
September 11, 2001 (1975–2017), the annual chance of being murdered by a foreign-born
terrorist who entered on a student visa was one in 72,838,750 per year (Nowrasteh, 2020).
Meanwhile, in 2022 the chance of being a homicide victim in the United States was nearly eight
in 100,000 (Ahmad & Cisewski, 2023). International students not only become valuable
contributors to global leadership and U.S. foreign policy (Nye, 2002), but their presence on
campuses also influences domestic attitudes toward diversity, both positively and negatively
(Denson & Bowman, 2013). This underscores the importance of carefully considering the
potential consequences of illiberalism, nativism, and xenophobic policies and practices in
shaping the broader societal response to diversity.
The United States, founded on democratic principles of equality and liberty, promises
protection for all individuals, not just citizens. Legal framework should reflect these ideals. The
value of law within democratic societies is in its communicative capacity, allowing citizens to
identify and communicate shared moral commitments and to express recognition of each other’s
equal status (Schwartzberg, 2023). One of those commitments is to freedom, which is
fundamentally curtailed when a person is deprived of the basic capability to achieve their
potential (Sen, 1985; 1999). While Congress may have plenary power over immigration, a
rational basis review should ensure that policies do not violate constitutional protections or
democratic values. The current situation for international students, most notably Asian
international students in higher education, evokes parallels with Brown v. Board of Education
(1954), which specifically addressed racial segregation and equal educational opportunities, yet

21
for Asian students and others, it is hard to see the current situation as much more than a rational
basis for separate but equal (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896).
A Place Called School
Even if U.S. schools act as arbiters of citizenship, civility, and knowledge (Tuck &
Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013) as strongholds of racism and enduring inequality (Patton, 2016),
students surely perceive the U.S. educational experience as a means to some better future. From
a consequentialist perspective, this invites the reader to consider how ends may justify means.
For students and presumably parents, the means surely seem justified since in addition to
environmental tolls, the significant costs involved also increase feelings of hostility, guilt,
sadness, and fatigue (Deckard et al., 2022), which can worsen stress, anxiety, and mental health
symptoms (Lindgren et al., 2023).
Among the staff of colleges and universities, the question of ends and means is less clear.
One might assume the faculty to be humanist professionals and scholars of education, meaning
the educated student is the end, and the school is simply the means. Yet when viewed from the
business architecture of schools, such humanism has been on the decline as shifting priorities
have altered the educational landscape by de-emphasizing quality teaching and studentcenteredness (Abelson, 1997). Education has thus deviated from its humanistic roots due to
neoliberal influences, which potentially creates all kinds of culture changes within universities
(Giannakakis, 2019). Presumably such a neoliberal shift will enhance performance and increase
profits. As a result, policies aligned with academic capitalism have become a pervasive trend,
reshaping campuses for decades and leading to a workforce that is increasingly insecure,
exploited, and undervalued (Kezar et al., 2019)

22
Neoliberalism treats education as a product that can be bought and sold by students as
consumers who become graduates to support the demands of the labor market. The emphasis is
on innovation over traditional academic values that results in increased central planning and
administrative control (Morris & Targ, 2022). Commodification means needing measurable
outcomes like test scores and job placement rates, competition, and privatization.
Commercialization of academia then means campuses will work to profit from everything from
athletics to education to research (Bok, 2002). Schools become entrepreneurial aspects of a
knowledge-based economy and focus on knowledge less as a public good than as a commodity
to be capitalized upon (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004).
Humanism views education as a fundamental human right and public good, valuing it as
an end and as a means of personal and intellectual growth, not just a pathway to profit. It fosters
critical thinking, creativity, and ethical reflection, not just vocational training. Humanism
promotes inclusive education that should be accessible to all, regardless of socioeconomic status
or national origin. To the extent it can do these things as a human-centered activity, it is humane
and liberating; everything else is not education (Dewey, 1916/2009). Schools are instruments of
either conformity or freedom and leaders that dictate decisions do not organize, they manipulate.
They do not liberate, but oppress (Freire, 1970/2000).
The COVID-19 pandemic is a good case study in evaluating the merits of neoliberalism
and humanism in schools. The disease had a disproportionately negative heath impact on certain
racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States for a variety of reasons (Tai et al., 2022).
School learning also disproportionately impacted similar demographics as well as low-income
students and English language learners (Asim et al., 2023). Some reasons for this included home
environments not being conducive to learning (Renick & Reich, 2023), limited in-person support

23
(Zein et al., 2024), and the educational system’s pre-existing inequities like inadequate funding
and resources (Dooley et al., 2020). Despite the technological advances of the last 20 years,
schools tend to be traditionally structured with a set curricula and authoritarian leadership, which
resist innovation and adaptation to prioritize stability over change (Syla, 2014).
Meanwhile, the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic forced schools to create digital
learning accommodations online to protect students and employees while preventing the spread
of COVID-19. Interestingly, due to immigration policy restrictions for international students
created after September 11, 2001, it was impossible for schools to also be compliant with the
guidelines that prevent international students from participating in online study. In response, in
March 2020, the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) provided schools with
instruction for allowing online study exemptions for existing international students (U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2022). In blunt terms, the pandemic forced the
government and schools to provide an equal opportunity for international students to access a
digital education. It was an emergency federal measure that unintentionally also provided more
than 3 years of data on the lack of threat international students pose when permitted to study
online.
Even so, on April 10, 2023, U.S. President Biden signed the bill H.J.Res. 7, ending the
national emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic (The White House, 2023), and with it the
temporary exemptions allowing international students to study online. This was bittersweet for
all the schools that were forced into the uncertainty of expanding digital education only to have
to return to a new-normal with millions of students who spent years learning partially or wholly
online.

24
Many schools already pivoted to capitalize on new consumer demand and have worked to
expand their digital learning makeovers and hybrid learning opportunities (Gallagher & Palmer,
2020). This makes sense since 41% of students globally indicate a preference for fully online
courses and 80% prefer some of their course meetings to take place online (Widenhorn et al.,
2023). This is occurring as higher education enrollment continues to decline and young people
are increasingly losing faith in both the feasibility of paying for college and the value of college
in general (Tough, 2021).
International student enrollment in the United States has reached unprecedented levels,
with these students comprising 5.5% of the total higher education population and contributing
$44 billion to educational institutions in 2019 alone (U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, 2022; Institute of International Education, 2020). This surge is likely due to the
perceived high quality of education, protective power, democratic ideals, and lifestyle that the
United States offers (Shaw, 2000). However, despite these benefits, international students
frequently encounter discrimination, much of which stems from unconscious mental structures
collectively referred to as implicit bias (Amodio & Mendoza, 2010) and is often influenced by
social cues (Houwer, 2019). When these biases are associated with differences, they result in
perceptions of inferiority, a process known as othering (Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012). In higher
education, implicit bias and othering manifest in various forms, including racism (Axt, 2017;
Wilkins, 2014; Gibson et al., 2017), admission preferences (Burmeister et al., 2013; Capers et al.,
2016), classism (Harris et al., 2017), and a preference for domestic over foreign students (Attiyeh
& Attiyeh, 1997).
There also appears to be a relationship between the ubiquity of internationalization on
college and university campuses and the trend towards increasing neoliberal practices in higher

25
education. This coincides with schools competing for brand recognition during enrollment
decline, especially among international students that are not eligible for financial aid and pay the
highest individual education costs in the United States. Having international students at a time
when diversity, equity, and inclusion is such a central focus similarly makes schools seem
attractive (Tikly, 2004; Buckner & Stein, 2020; Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013).
Yet as schools receive these benefits, the students are objectified and commodified along
with a long series of negative experiences (Buckner & Stein, 2020; Yao & Viggiano, 2019).
However, this is mostly understood qualitatively. If international students are regarded as a
combination of threat and cash cow (Charles-Toussaint & Crowson, 2010; Yao & George
Mwangi, 2022), feel excluded and othered (Tavares, 2021), then there must be a reason for them
to move towards the experience of oppression (Stein & Andreotti, 2017), racism (Fries-Britt, et
al., 2014), othering (Luke, 2010), xenophobia (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008), nativism, and
discrimination (Fries-Britt et al., 2014; George Mwangi et al., 2016; Hanassab, 2006). As long as
international enrollment numbers increase, neoliberal institutions will have little incentive to
shift their policies and practices. The profit justifies the means. Yet it seems strange that
international students and parents would subject themselves to such prodigious costs and
negative experiences even with the promise of a degree and a prosperous career. If true, that
would be noteworthy, but it may also be true that the situation is just not fully understood in a
generalizable sense.
Intergroup Threat and Social Identity
Asian college students have been an area of extensive study. In the area of international
students, research has focused on culture shock (Furnham, 2004; Ward et al., 2001), mental
health (Clark Oropeza et al., 1991), and acculturative stress and performance (Bai, 2016; Berry,

26
1980, 1995; Berry et al.,1989; Nilsson et al., 2008; Rice et al., 2012; Sullivan & KashubeckWest, 2015; Wan et al., 1992). Particularly those students from Asian countries often struggle
with belonging, acculturative stress, and social isolation on campuses abroad due to cultural
differences, language barriers, and the contrast between collectivist and individualist societies,
which can jeopardize their academic success and well-being. (Cena et al., 2021; Le & HuyenNguyen, 2024; Yao, 2016). The stress experienced by international students is heightened by
their limited social support and tendency to socialize mainly with co-nationals, which can
intensify isolation and impede their integration and sense of belonging, crucial for emotional
resilience and academic success (Cena et al., 2021).
International students also frequently feel that their interactions with domestic students
lack reciprocity, prompting them to seek connections with other international students, which can
also increase feelings of isolation from the domestic community (Rivas et al., 2019). Document
analysis from 2009–2018 reveal that research in the United States on psychosocial outcomes for
international students, including Asian students, focused mainly upon acculturative stress,
psychological adjustment, social belonging, depression, and anxiety (Brunsting et al., 2018).
Yet a cluster analysis of 979 international students at a university in Australia (86.5%
Asian country of origin) revealed 58.8% of international students felt satisfied, positive, and
connected, while 34.4% felt isolated, dissatisfied, and stressed, with the remainder of 6.7%
feeling the highest levels of psychological distress, depression, and anxiety (Russell et al., 2010).
There was also a shortage of psychological interventions to aid acculturation in those students
(Smith & Khawaja, 2011, 2014). This introduces an important question involving the selfselection bias of students who choose to participate in research studies as well as the selection

27
bias of researchers who conduct interview studies and generally report only negative outcomes
among international students.
Furthermore, using structural equation modeling, Glass and Westmont (2014) found that
a sense of belonging—comprising connection to university, support networks, and balanced
academic challenges—enhanced cross-cultural interactions and academic success for
international students, while cultural events and leadership programs further strengthened this
sense of belonging and mitigated the effects of racism. This is important as perceived intergroup
stereotypes and threats significantly influence emotions and attitudes toward Asians (Zhang,
2015) while intergroup contact can mitigate negative stereotypes and perceived threats toward
Asian, reduce harmful discriminatory behaviors, and improve intergroup attitudes (Zhang, 2016).
In the East Asian context in particular, perceived discrimination leads to more restrictive group
boundaries (Gibson, 2022). Territorial sensitivity and sense of ownership is significant in
understanding perceptions of threat among East Asians via collective ownership threat (Ioku &
Watamura, 2024). It is not unreasonable to consider this may relate to culture memory as
individuals may identify with their group’s historical collective trauma, interpreting past
victimization and perpetration as a present threat or a challenge (Li et al., 2023).
What the research literature repeatedly indicates is what common sense also suggests that
the role of others is important when evaluating one’s experience of threat, belonging, and
loneliness. One’s psychological and subjective well-being is also related to social connectedness
and interpersonal determinants (Eid & Larsen, 2008), but also correlates predictably with
specific personality characteristics (Diener et al., 1985). One of the most well-established
concepts in social psychology is that individuals favor their own groups over those that they
don’t belong (Brewer, 2007), which is the foundation of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner,

28
1979). By favoring one’s own group, esteem is generated by hostility and prejudice towards outgroups (Stephan et al., 2009). One of the most effective frameworks to identify such causes of
prejudice is intergroup threat theory (Makashvili et al., 2018).
Individuals tend to categorize themselves and others as members of an in-group or outgroup, adopting the identity and norms of their in-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Groups may
develop a collective consciousness and identity as they connect by shared characteristics such as
common descent, cultural traits, or physical attributes (Smooha, 1987). Group may also form by
historical collective trauma or victimization (Li et al., 2023). However, rather than by ethnic
identify, threats can also mediate the relationship between ethnicity and group membership along
lines such as ethnonationalism and chauvinism (Jelić et al., 2020; Waldinger et al., 2022). This
can create a strong ethnonational group identity, such as between Korea, Japan, and the United
States (Gwan-ja, 2015; Lie, 2008; Tai, 2007). Ethnic nationalism travels with group members
beyond country borders (Kalicki, 2009), which may help explain the restrictive group boundaries
and territorial sensitivity among East Asians in the United States.
Intergroup conflict theory can explain how international students, Asian international
students, and domestic students can each form groups, produce negative stereotypes about each
other, and manifest realistic and symbolic threats that result in prejudice and conflict between
groups (Böhm et al., 2020; Stephan & Renfro, 2002; Stephan & Stephan, 1985).
Few studies specifically examine the dynamics between international students—
particularly Asian students—and domestic populations on U.S. college and university campuses.
Research indicates that international students, due to their relatively low-power position and
vulnerability, are likely to perceive higher levels of threat, while higher-power domestic groups
may react strongly to perceived threats stemming from their own prejudices and stereotypes

29
(Johnson et al., 2005; Riek et al., 2006). Social identity theory and intergroup conflict theory also
offer insight into the perceptions of threat, distress, loneliness, isolation, and feelings of
belonging and well-being that international students experience, and how these experiences
compare to those of domestic students.
It is assumed that unconscious mental structures drive biased behavior (Amodio &
Mendoza, 2010), and that social cues linked to labels such as international student, foreigner,
historically marginalized student, or student of color can also influence behavior (Houwer,
2019). Given that in-group implicit biases have been shown to operate along racial lines (Axt,
2017; Gibson et al., 2017; Wilkins, 2014), and with a preference for domestic over international
students (Attiyeh & Attiyeh, 1997), it follows that labels or prejudices targeting international
students—stemming from school policies, local culture, or widespread animus—may drive both
domestic and international students toward selective group affiliations, foster group antagonisms,
and reinforce structural xenophobia (Samari et al., 2021).
This research posits that intergroup threat amplifies domestic in-group favoritism
(nativism) and strengthens a sense of belonging for American students while reinforcing the
group formation and out-group status of Asian international students. This may coincide with
increased harassment, bias, and discrimination that may threaten one’s sense of belonging,
loneliness, psychological well-being (Böhm et al., 2020). Stronger antagonisms may also
reinforce group identification and bolster belonging. Meanwhile, faculty and staff similarly form
groups and play a crucial role in shaping the perception of threat, belonging, loneliness, and
well-being of international students as they embody a campus’s commitment to diversity,
inclusion, and support for students. As Kezar et al. (2019) highlights, university educators and

30
support staff are central to student success and play a significant role in developing theories
about student motivation and how it is cultivated within a social environment.
In addition to reflecting on group identification and interpersonal bias, intersectionality is
another element worth mentioning. According to Crenshaw (1989), intersectional experiences
are more than just the sum of discriminations like racism and sexism, as their combination
creates a unique, compounded effect that amplifies the impact in a distinct way. In much the way
a person who is either blind or deaf may be considered disadvantaged, the individual who is both
experiences a compounded effect. Intersectionality has grown from its origins to become a
framework for understanding how various identities such as gender, race, class, and sexuality
intersect to create unique experiences of discrimination and privilege. The reason for introducing
this is simply to recognize that potentially discriminatory norms may intersect and interact with
age, race, ethnicity, disability, education status, and sexual orientation to impact health and wellbeing outcomes (Banati et al., 2024). Higher education professionals alongside parents and other
stakeholders should not forget that although international students, Asian international students,
and in-groups more generally, are thought of in discrete forms, they are also comprised complex
individual intersectionalities that need recognition and accommodation to improve campus health
outcomes.
Likewise, it would be a mistake to think of intersectionality or group preferences as only
producing negative effects. It should be assumed that threats to well-being may conceivably
produce positive outcomes like grit. Similarly, just as undue accommodation or coddling may
produce fragility or passivity. In adolescent children with cancer, grit is associated with better
health-related quality of life (McKelvey et al., 2023). Adolescent grit not only influences
academic success but also overall well-being and higher life satisfaction (Jesus et al., 2022). In a

31
highly discriminatory or racist context, intersectionality may mean circumstances may be
negative, but outcomes consequentially be positive.
Asian international students in the United States have a self-selection bias in choosing to
leave their homelands for opportunity. They must have, or develop, the ability to cope with risk
and uncertainty while adjusting to language and cultural differences. It is a unique challenge for
students to take responsibility for learning while emphasizing perseverance and passion in
diverse cultural contexts (Nausheen et al., 2019). Structural equation modelling analysis has
shown that grit among ethnic minority students is a strong predictor of language learning
achievements (Zhao & Wang, 2023) and grit is a general predictor of academic performance
(Morell et al., 2021).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework lends some key concepts of social identity creation through
ingroup/outgroup interactions, negative stereotypes, and bias, that can manifest in different ways
to influence group behaviors and produce negative outcomes. There are elements of individual
psychology and personal identity that can have a positive or negative reciprocal effect on social
identity, which is not the primary focus of the study. Rather, that student belonging, loneliness,
and well-being, are interwoven with social identity so that threats, anxiety, marginalization,
challenge, can have far-reaching consequences (Pedler et al., 2022; Zumbrunn et al., 2014). In
the conceptual framework in Figure 1, single-headed arrows are broadly considered causative.
Environmental factors such as policies and practices or latent negative anxiety, prejudice, or
stereotyping and other factors may also prove important, but are not currently being considered
in lieu of the lack of well-established scales for such variables on campuses.

32
The independent variables being considered are biological sex (male/female with intersex
categories removed), and visa status (yes/no, which is a proxy for international or domestic
student status). Perceptions of threat are being tested for their mediating effect on the dependent
variables, so it will be important to discuss the threats under consideration and how they differ
from each other.
A student’s visa status generally connotes domestic or international origins within higher
education in the United States. One’s visa status also indicates one’s proximity to international or
American groups, identities, and identification. International students are also subject to a variety
of different legal standards and requirements that domestic students do not need to experience to
attend schools in their country of citizenship, naturalization, or permanent residence.
Meanwhile, self-identified biological sex is an important normative difference between students
at universities and male and female international students have different experiences based upon
self-described gender (Brunsting et al., 2024). Intersex students were not included in the study as
the data could distort concepts of threat, belonging, loneliness, or well-being due to the
population’s significant negative physical and mental health diagnoses (Rosenwohl-Mack et al.,
2020). Similarly, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ+) individuals were not
specifically highlighted in this study as these groups have higher rates of perceived threats and
mental disorders (Frank et al., 2017) and are generally at higher risk due to persistent structural
inequalities and discrimination that contribute to detrimental psychological and physiological
health outcomes (Eisner et al., 2024). Each of these groups further represent a heterogeneity of
diverse experiences and identities that can introduce confounding variables that are difficult to
control. Aggregating data within groups may also obscure key differences while small sample
sizes can reduce statistical power. The interrelationship of independent variables with respect to

33
threats, such as sexual harassment, belonging, loneliness, or psychological well-being, each may
also have an independent path to any potential mediating or moderating variable, as well as the
dependent variables. The recognition of biological sex and visa status in this study are of
particular importance to help better understand the research questions given the available data.
The study explores students’ perceptions of threat across various themes that impact wellbeing and in daily life. Ramirez et al. (2023) indicates that during the coronavirus pandemic,
college students were especially vulnerable to interconnecting challenges related to academics,
career, economic pressure, and financial stress, including concerns about future prospects, which
add layers of pressure affecting a student’s ability to focus and feel secure. Lederer et al. (2021)
similarly points out how college student health was affected during the pandemic in ways related
to a lack of social connection, difficulties in social and personal relationships, which influence
family members, intimate partners, roommates, and peers, leading to feelings of isolation,
conflict, and perceptions of social threat. Chu et al. (2023) also points out the interacting role of
lifestyle behaviors such that unhealthy lifestyle behaviors can have multiple effects that can
create anxiety and introduce significant emotional challenges. Furthermore, experiences of
harassment and discrimination such as bullying, hazing, sexual harassment, discrimination and
cyberbullying pose serious threats to students’ health, sense of safety, and belonging (Ahmed et
al., 2023; Kotzé et al., 2023; Byrne, 2021). By examining such themes, factors that contribute to
students feeling threatened, and the consequences of those perceptions, can be better understood
to improve student well-being overall.
One concern in understanding threat perception is that problems or challenges that
students experience, such as death of a family member, sexual harassment, or procrastination, are
arguably different categories of understanding as they represent different domains of life. The

34
aggregate experience of one student who reports a sense of threat for six problems may
experience less total threat than the student with an academic challenge causing suicide ideation
(Altavini et al., 2023) or sexual harassment associated with posttraumatic stress suicidality
(Gilmore et al., 2023).
With respect to Asian international students specifically, the issue of threat becomes
increasingly more challenging. Using logistic regression models, Ozaki and Otis (2017) report
that “Asian students scored significantly higher than Europeans on dominance, hostility to
women, jealousy, negative attribution, and violence approval as well as perpetration of severe
physical assault in dating relationships” (p. 1076). Challenge or threat associated with intimate
relationships, peers, or sexual harassment, may further subjectively look very different from
Asian or Western perspectives. Meanwhile, cyberbullying often occurs alongside traditional
bullying in both Asian and Western contexts (Roshan et al., 2021), which is also correlated with
loneliness, along with problematic Internet use (Kokkinos & Antoniadou, 2019).
Next, while there is country specific research on problems like hazing, procrastination,
personal appearance, career, or health of someone close to me, there is very little research
literature that specifically links these variables to international students in the United States.
Similarly, while there is some research that connects international students to microaggression,
finance, family (distance), peers or roommates, and faculty relations, there is often a mediating
variable of focus like language or culture. For this reason, threats in the study were evaluated to
determine if what appear to be objectively different, in fact correlate on specific constructs,
which can be understood as themes. This provides insight for what research literature may be
most pertinent to this study.

35
Hostile or Intimidating Threats
The research literature has a variety of perspective on the notion of threat. As discussed,
problems or challenges that are academic, social, or health-related that may represent a certain
type that is different from unwanted physical threat or a created vulnerability or harm. They
represent a different of threat where perpetrators are intent upon tormenting others, such as with
bullying, cyberbullying, hazing, microaggression, and discrimination, which might be called a
hostile or intimidating threat (henceforth threat). Such actions involve behaviors by others that
create a hostile, intimidating, or unfair environment. The harm is primarily psychological and
emotional, though they can also have long-term effects on physical well-being, belonging,
academic performance, mental health, and social relationships (Ahmed et al., 2023; Kotzé et al.,
2023; Byrne, 2021).
Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is a unique, pervasive, and multifaceted threat category influenced by
macro-level factors (Cassino & Besen-Cassino, 2019). Factor loading suggested it is a construct
between relationship anxiety and hostile and intimidating threat. According to the Sex-Based
Harassment Inventory (SBHI), sexual harassment is related to gender status threats and that
threat perceptions mediate harassment intentions among those oriented towards social dominance
and hostile sexism (Grabowski et al., 2022). Often sexual harassment is a way for men to
reasserting dominance when they feel a challenge to their social identity (Maass et al., 2003).
Nationality and culture also significantly influence perceptions of sexual harassment, especially
with respect to high or low power distance and collectivist or individualistic cultures (Mishra &
Davison, 2020).

36
Belonging
A student’s sense of belonging is highly complex for both domestic and international
student groups and lacks a clear or uniform definition in the literature. Among domestic college
students in the United States, racial disparities in school belonging have been linked to long-term
health problems (Chen et al., 2023). Race, gender, and instructional modality, and curricular
content, also influence student perceptions of belonging depending upon their opportunities for
discussion, interaction with peers, and representation of racial or ethnic group in the curriculum
(DiGiacomo et al., 2023). In a national survey, significant variation was found in 1st-year
students’ self-reported sense of belonging across universities, suggesting that institutional
policies and practices may play a crucial role (Gopalan & Brady, 2020). Notably, schools that
focus on a positive interethnic atmosphere had stronger feelings of school belonging, better
psychological adjustment, and better grades, with no differences between White and non-White
students (Vang & Nishina, 2022).
Slaten et al. (2016) found that Among Asian international students, having a connection
with others from one’s own ethnic community as well as with U.S. students via structured social
events contributed to subjective well-being and belonging. Gomes (2015, 2020) observes that
Asian international students in Australia often form a parallel society with other international
students, which helps them cope and fosters a sense of belonging but may hinder their full
integration into the broader society.
Loneliness
The COVID-19 pandemic posed numerous public health challenges, significantly
affecting mental health worldwide and involving complex emotions like hope and loneliness
(Einav & Margalit, 2023). However, loneliness has been on the rise for at least 40 years (Maté &

37
Maté, 2022), which has been linked to neoliberalism (Becker et al., 2021) and the emphasis on
individualism over community, where people feel isolated even though physically surrounded by
others (Cann, 2020). Loneliness is also subjective and shaped by cultural norms making it
difficult to measure from a public health perspective (Heu, 2023; Ozawa-de Silva & Parsons,
2020). In collectivist societies like those in Asia, the negative effects of loneliness are more
pronounced (Beller & Wagner, 2020), while loneliness is more prevalent in individualistic
societies with younger men being most impacted (Barreto et al., 2021).
Loneliness is generally complex and closely linked with psychological distress, including
anxiety and depression (Conti et al., 2023). Avoidant and ambivalent attachment styles seem to
be associated with loneliness (Jalilian et al., 2023) as are various mediating variables including
general belongingness (Yıldız, 2016). Belonging among college students also plays a crucial role
in reducing the negative effects of loneliness on suicidal behavior and depression (Zhou et al.,
2023).
Among international students, mono-cultural bonds that can contribute to feelings of
isolation (Janta et al., 2014). Interestingly, Asian international students often feel lonelier than
domestic students, yet even with emotionally supportive ties their loneliness can increase, while
having a romantic partner is linked to reduced loneliness (Bilecen et al., 2024). This may be
explained by engagement and direct human interaction. International students experience
acculturative stress, loneliness, isolation, and racism, which is made worse by language and
cultural barriers, but improved by engagement, safety, and shared accommodation (Corney et al.,
2024).

38
Psychological Well-Being (Diener Flourishing Index)
There are challenges in clarifying notions of threat, belonging, and loneliness, while
survey responses from students will ultimately be up to a subjective interpretation rooted in the
question design. The matter of psychological well-being (PWB) poses no less difficultly.
According to the ACHA, the survey questions in the NCHAIII for psychological well-being
came from the Diener Flourishing Index (FI), which is a psychometric tool emphasizing
subjective well-being across multiple domains. It is meant to focus on factors that contribute to a
fulfilling life (eudaimonic well-being) rather than gratification (hedonic well-being). There may
be some confusion in nomenclature as the ACHA-NCHAIII uses the terms psychological wellbeing (PWB), Diener Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWBS), and the Diener Flourishing
Index, for the same scale. Just to be clear, the term psychological well-being (PWB) more often
aligns with the research of Ryff (1989, 1996, 2014), while Diener et al., (1985) used the term
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), which self-reported evaluations global life satisfaction
components of subjective well-being unrelated to affects like loneliness. The notion of a
Flourishing Scale most closely aligns with Diener et al. (2009, 2010) as a subjective rather than
objective measure of well-being from one’s individual point of view. It captures the extent to
which an individual perceives their life as successful in various domains like purpose,
relationships, engagement, contribution to others, and competence. The Diener Flourishing Scale
has also been validated in various cultural contexts to help develop well-being programs for
international students (De la Fuente et al., 2017; Fabiola et al., 2024; Martín-Carbonell et al.,
2021).
Life happiness is the affective aspect of subjective well-being (Andrews & Withey, 1976;
Diener, 1984). It is shaped by numerous factors, such as financial circumstances and migration

39
status (Bartram, 2013). Urban living in developed economies is often associated with lower life
satisfaction (Weckroth & Kemppainen, 2021). There are also cross-cultural correlates of life
satisfaction and self-esteem (Diener & Diener, 1995), while cultural backgrounds influence what
students perceive as happiness or sources of happiness (Chiasson et al., 1996; Gardiner et al.,
2020).
However, when looking at research with a focus on international and domestic student
well-being, it is difficult to recognize significance among conflicting results and bias. Li et al.
(2014) reports that in a total of 18 quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals from
2000 to 2011, 72% of researchers selected Chinese international students as a representative of
all East Asian and Asian international students in their studies. In 2011, Chinese international
students represented 21.8% of international students (National Center for Education Statistics,
2015). According to Makel and Plucker (2014), among the top 100 education journals in
2014, only 0.13% of publications were replication studies, and when replications were conducted
with no author overlap, the new authors succeeded only 54% of the time.
It is therefore not unsurprising that it is difficult to separate signals from noise. Kim
(2024) reports that student community satisfaction mediates the relationship between perceived
discrimination and subjective well-being, with well-being consequently differing between Asian
and non-Asian students. Meanwhile, Chaudhry et al. (2024), reports that academic engagement
fully mediates the relationship between institutional support and student psychological wellbeing. Both community satisfaction and academic engagement may mediate different dimensions
of well-being in different contexts, but that makes clearly defining well-being in a complex
multicultural educational environment difficult. This is especially true if there is the looming
possibility of irreplicability even in top high-impact journals. In a third study, Xiong et al. (2024)

40
conducted a meta-analysis of 35 studies with 283,412 participants, which revealed minimal and
non-significant differences in anxiety between domestic and international students, though highquality studies showed that international students experienced fewer symptoms of anxiety,
depression, and stress, while domestic students reported higher well-being scores.
Taken together, there are good reasons to believe that psychological well-being, along
with other affective states of students in schools, both exist and are difficult to understanding and
measure with absolute certainty. Given the important roles of culture, context, and individual
background, how and why students report certain findings is similarly unclear. This will need to
be part of how data is collected and evaluated for both international and domestic students in
both reviewing studies and conducting them.
Summary
The increasing presence of international students in U.S. colleges, particularly Asian
students who make up over 70% of this population, highlights important issues of discrimination
and psychological well-being (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2022). Despite their
substantial contribution to campus diversity and institutional finances, international students
often face xenophobia, marginalization, and other forms of discrimination (Stein & Andreotti,
2017; Yao & Viggiano, 2019). This chapter investigated the literature on perceived student
threats to well-being, belonging, and loneliness with intersections pertaining to biological sex
and visa status.
Research on international people in the United States fits into a large and complex
historical context and the evolution of U.S. immigration policy over time. From the Chinese
Exclusion Act of 1882 to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, U.S. immigration law has
systematically marginalized non-Northern European immigrants, particularly Asians, fueling

41
longstanding fears of foreignness and perceived threats to national identity (Gyory, 1998; U.S.
Department of State, n.d.). This historical foundation helps explain contemporary attitudes
toward international students and other foreign nationals in the United States. Recent legislation
in the United States following the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, and the COVID-19
pandemic commencing in March 2020, are the most recent chapters in a rational basis for legal
discrimination that disproportionately effects international students, and Asian international
students in particular.
International students are vulnerable to a range of psychological threats to well-being in
the United States including discrimination, racism, and xenophobia (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008).
As Kim (2024) reports, community satisfaction may mediate the relationship between perceived
discrimination and subjective well-being. These dynamics differ between Asian and non-Asian
students, with the role of community satisfaction on well-being varying across cultural
backgrounds. Additionally, international students experience other significant challenges, such as
limited social support and isolation, which may exacerbate their vulnerability to mental health
issues.
Chaudhry et al. (2024) highlighted that academic engagement fully mediates the
relationship between institutional support and student psychological well-being. This suggests
that students who are more engaged academically benefit from stronger institutional support
structures that improve psychological health. However, the nature of institutional support and its
effects can differ greatly depending on cultural and social factors, particularly for Asian students
who often face specific forms of racism and exclusion (Charles-Toussaint & Crowson, 2010;
George Mwangi et al., 2016).

42
Colleges and universities are generally community-oriented, so satisfaction is a crucial
factor in shaping the subjective well-being of international students. Kim (2024) shows that
community satisfaction can act as a protective buffer against the harmful effects of
discrimination, with difference among various ethnic groups. This aligns with research showing
that a strong sense of belonging and connection within a community significantly improves
students’ well-being (Vang & Nishina, 2022). For Asian international students, the sense of
exclusion from the domestic community may lead to increased loneliness, while bonds with conationals may both alleviate and contribute to feelings of isolation (Gomes, 2015).
An interesting counterpoint to the focus on discrimination and its negative effects is the
role of grit and resilience among international students. Some research suggests that the
challenges faced by international students can foster personal growth and resilience (Nausheen et
al., 2019). Grit, which refers to perseverance and passion for long-term goals, is a strong
predictor of academic success and well-being for students from diverse cultural backgrounds,
including ethnic minorities and international students (Zhao & Wang, 2023). The development of
grit may be seen as an adaptive response to the adversity that many international students face.
Grit is therefore likely an understudied factor in how international and domestic students
experience perceptions of threat, belonging, loneliness, and well-being.
Loneliness is a significant issue for many international students, especially those from
collectivist cultures like those in Asia, where the effects of social isolation are more pronounced
(Beller & Wagner, 2020). Studies using the UCLA Loneliness Scale reveal that international
students often feel lonelier than their domestic counterparts, even when strong bonds with conationals exist (Russell et al., 1980). Loneliness is linked to several negative outcomes, including

43
depression, anxiety, and lower life satisfaction, making it a critical area of focus for improving
international students’ mental health and well-being (Conti et al., 2023).
The experience of loneliness may have numerous passive or active causes whereas
international student experiences of discrimination or xenophobia are typically active. They are
also complicated by intersectionality, where multiple forms of disadvantage—such as race,
gender, or immigration status—compound to create unique challenges (Crenshaw, 1989). Asian
students also face multiple layers of bias, both as racial minorities and as foreigners, which may
intersect in ways that amplify the negative effects of discrimination (Moses et al., 2018). As
higher education becomes more globalized, recognizing and addressing these intersecting forms
of inequality is essential for fostering more inclusive and supportive learning environments.
The research reviewed in this chapter underscores the need for institutions to address the
systemic barriers faced by international students, particularly those from Asia. A variety of forms
of threat to well-being exist among students in general, which may influence loneliness,
belonging, and psychological well-being in various ways. At the same time, the research
literature is not uniform or consistent in articulating the meaning of threat, belonging, or wellbeing among students. As Russell et al. (2010) reported, if 58.8% of international students that
study felt satisfied, positive, and connected, it is important to understand why. 283,412 students
from 25 studies show minimal and non-significant differences in anxiety between domestic and
international students (Xiong et al., 2024), then that too needs to be better understood within the
context of campus satisfaction, connection, isolation, and stress, among individuals and groups
from various walks of life, socioeconomic backgrounds, and cultures.

44
Chapter Three: Methods
This chapter clarifies the research questions, provides an overview of the study design,
discusses data sources and procedures, outlines the analytic framework, and explains the
strategies used to maximize the study’s validity and reliability through ethical research practices
within a transparent and limited scope of inquiry.
A quantitative design was selected for two reasons. First, much of the research literature
that considers international student experiences is qualitative and thus not generalizable. To
make meaningful claims about international and domestic students in the United States as a
whole, quantitative analyses are therefore necessary. Providing quantitative measures further
creates reliable measures about student experiences that can validate or challenge the accuracy
and appropriateness of the inferences drawn by qualitative findings already in publication. Such
data can also provide novel contributions to the quantitative literature about this topic, which can
improve schools’ abilities to understand student perceptions, experiences, and needs. This
research therefore intends to fill a gap in the literature both in terms of content and methodology.
This will be accomplished via the following questions supported by the existing literature.
Research Questions
1. Does student status (international versus domestic) have a direct effect on perceived
threat, sexual harassment, belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being?
2. Does biological sex (male or female) have a direct effect on perceived threat, sexual
harassment, belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being?
3. Are the effects of biological sex and student status on belonging, loneliness, and
psychological well-being mediated by perceived threat or sexual harassment.

45
Participants and Setting
Quantitative research tests theories and hypotheses to determine what relationships
between variables may exist and to determine if there is any correlation between variables that
help explain phenomena (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This study will use a quantitative
approach to examine Asian international student and domestic student perceptions of belonging,
threat, loneliness, and psychological well-being on college and university campuses. Survey data
from the American College Health Association (ACHA) National College Health Assessment
(NCHA) III from 2019–2023 will be used. Selected scales were chosen based upon alignment
with the research questions and conceptual framework, which includes responses from more than
100,000 domestic and international students in the United States. The survey asks students to
self-report about their perceptions of threat, sense of belonging and inclusion, feelings of
loneliness and psychological well-being.
This research aims to develop data-supported causal propositions using analytic logic and
statistics to better understand student perceptions and needs, enabling advocates to improve
outcomes. By Fall 2019, the ACHA–NCHA survey collected data from 2.2 million students at
over 1,000 institutions, resulting in nearly 200 peer-reviewed articles (ACHA, 2024; Lederer &
Hoban, 2022). This research will work to meaningfully contribute to this listerature.
Instruments and Procedure
This research draws upon secondary source data from the ACHA–National College
Health Assessment III (Fall 2019 to Spring 2023), which is a widely respected research tool that
offers detailed insights into the health habits, behaviors, and perceptions of college students on a
national scale in the United States. Since student populations are diverse and each faces distinct
health challenges that require tailored interventions, current and relevant data collection on

46
student health and well-being can help institutions effectively enhance campus-wide health
promotion and prevention initiatives as well as produce learning environments that are more
equitable and inclusive.
Each dependent, independent, and mediating variable being studied in the research
questions is outlined in the described conceptual framework, each with high construct validity
supported by unidimensional scales unchanged from the primary research. Inferential statistics
using ordinary least squares regression analysis with a simultaneous regression solution (Type III
sum-of-squares) to carry out a 2x2x2 ANOVA will be employed to examine the relationships
between student demographic characteristics and perceptions of threat and belonging, feelings of
loneliness (UCLA Three-Item Loneliness Scale), and psychological well-being (Diener
Flourishing Scale). The findings of this study will help to identify the factors that differ between
the biological sexes as well as between domestic students and Asian international students. This
will help inform the development of interventions to improve student experiences and success on
college campuses.
The independent variables for this study are options regarding biological sex
(Male/Female excluding intersex categories) and visa status (Yes/No). The data draw upon
survey responses from 102,905 college students in the United States, approximately 70% report
being female and 30% male, of which 13,242 (12.8%) are international students (F-1, J-1, or M-1
visa holders). Inferential statistics will be used to generalize from the data to determine if
observed patterns or differences are statistically significant and not due to random chance. A
descriptive analysis will also summarize the data, including the distribution, such as how many
international students are male or female, and how many are Asian. Ultimately, a factional
ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be used to compare the means of dependent variables

47
across the different levels of the three independent variables and determine whether interactions
may be present. The main effects the ANOVA will determine what statistically significant
differences exist in the dependent variable between male and female students and between
international and domestic students. Similarly, the interaction will evaluate whether the effect of
biological sex on the dependent variable varies depending on visa status and whether the effect
of visa status on the dependent variable varies depending on biological sex. The interaction
between threat and the independent variables will also be analyzed.
Threat is the mediating variable (both independent and dependent) with a binary scale
including 18 questions (yes or no) that asks the student about their perceived sense of threat
related to problems or challenges with the following: academics; career; finances;
procrastination; faculty; family; intimate relationships; roommate/housemate; peers; personal
appearance; health of someone close to me; death of a family member, friend, or someone close
to me; bullying (e.g., making threats, spreading rumors, physical or verbal attacks, or excluding
someone from a group); cyberbullying (use of technology to harass, threaten, embarrass, or
target another person); hazing (rituals, challenges, and other activities involving harassment,
abuse, embarrassment, ridicule, or humiliation used as a way of initiating a person into a group);
microaggression (a subtle but offensive comment or action directed at a minority or other nondominant group, whether intentional or unintentional, that reinforces a stereotype); sexual
harassment (unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature); and discrimination (the unjust or prejudicial treatment of a
person based on the group, class, or category to which the person is perceived to belong).
Given the objective differences between threat types, a principal component analysis with
orthogonal Varimax rotation was used to find correlations between variables and simplify

48
interpretation. After rotation, four main factors emerged. These factors represent an underlying
construct based on the variables that load strongly onto them, making the structure of the data
more interpretable. The extracted factors include: academic challenges (Cronbach Alpha =
0.636): academics, career, finances, procrastination, Faculty; Relationship Anxiety Scale
(Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.626): family, intimate relationships, roommate/housemate, peers, personal
appearance; threat scale (Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.580): bullying, cyberbullying, hazing,
microaggression, discrimination, and sexual harassment; health scale (Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.517):
health of someone close to me, death of a family member, friend, or someone close to me.
Cronbach’s alpha relies on the variance of item responses. If the data demonstrates itself
to be highly skewed, meaning most respondents choose the same answer, there would be little to
no variance. A greater variance in responses across items measuring the same construct. For
instance, it is reasonable to expect that victims of bullying might also experience hazing or
discrimination. While there is enough variance in responses to yield a moderate Cronbach’s
alpha, the lack of widespread collective experiences across bullying, cyberbullying, hazing,
microaggression, and discrimination prevents a high reliability score (e.g., ± 0.8 or higher). This
suggests that fewer individuals experiencing multiple forms of threat gives the appearance that
the same underlying construct is not being consistently measured across all items, hence the
more moderate score (± 0.41 to ± 0.70).
Sexual harassment is the single threat variable uniquely related to an independent
variable, within a sample size skewed towards female participants, and with a factor loading
falling between groups. For this reason, sexual harassment was regarded as a unique threat that
should be evaluated differently from other types of threat. Similarly, while academic challenges,
relationship anxiety, and health groups include problems or challenges that may represent

49
unwanted vulnerability or harm, they are objectively different from the sort of threat where
perpetrators are intent upon tormenting others, as with sexual harassment or the other threat
variables.
The first dependent variable is a scale measuring the sense of belonging, consisting of
four items. Responses are averaged to produce a score ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6
(strongly agree). The items on the scale include the following statements: “I feel that I belong at
my college/university.” “I feel that students’ health and well-being are a priority at my
college/university.” “At my college/university, I feel that the campus climate encourages free
and open discussion about students’ health and well-being.” “At my college/university, we are a
campus where we look out for each other.” Higher scores on this scale indicate a greater sense of
belonging.
Loneliness in this study was determined by the UCLA Loneliness Scale, which was
developed using the cognitive discrepancy theory of loneliness to measure loneliness and social
isolation (D. Russell et al., 1978; J. Russell et al., 1980). The survey was later shortened so that it
could be used in large surveys (Hughes et al., 2004). The tool is widely recognized and reliable
for assessing loneliness across various populations. The questions included the following: “How
often do you feel that you lack companionship?” “How often do you feel left out?” “How often
do you feel isolated from others?”
The final dependent variable is psychological well-being, assessed using the Diener
Flourishing Scale, which consists of eight items. Responses are rated on a 7-point Likert scale,
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The items on the scale include the
following statements: “I lead a purposeful and meaningful life.” “My social relationships are
supportive and rewarding.” “I am engaged and interested in my daily activities.” “I actively

50
contribute to the happiness and well-being of others.” “I am competent and capable in the
activities that are important to me.” “I am a good person and live a good life.” “I am optimistic
about my future.” “People respect me.” Composite item averages ranged from 1 to 6, with higher
scores indicating greater psychological well-being.
The rationale for the variables studied in this study stems from the research literature that
describes the discrimination and threats many international students experience. Much of the
data, however, is based upon interviews and with relatively small target populations. There is a
gap in generalizable findings pertaining to international students, especially with respect to
perceptions of belonging and threat, but also along lines of race, ethnicity, and biological sex.
This research seeks to recognize international students as an equity-seeking group with an equal
right to educational access, something difficult to obtain given perceptions and norms on
campuses relative to domestic students.
The primary strategy used to maximize the validity and reliability of the study is the
evaluation of secondary data from a highly reliable and scrutinized source. The AHCA-NCHA
survey is the first comprehensive population-level health status assessment tool for college
students in the United States and has been gathering data and revisions for more than 20 years.
To date, the instrument has surveyed more than two million students at over 1,000 colleges. To
generate generalizable results about a large population, such as international and domestic
college students in the United States, it is difficult for an individual researcher to gather accurate
and reliable results with sufficient scale and scope to be meaningful. Drawing upon data from a
well-established source like the National College Health Assessment (NCHA), provides the
solution while lending a level of legitimacy generally impossible for individual researchers.

51
Reliability is the degree to which a measure is error-free. According to Churchill (1979),
reliability must be the first measure in assessing the quality of the instrument. Having a
thoroughly scrutinized survey instrument with a 20-year record of quality methods, survey
piloting, expert review, and significant data production all contribute to reliability as well as
content and construct validity in the present study. To ensure that the selected items produce
reliable scales, Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient of internal consistency was examined. High
reliability means that items positively and significantly intercorrelate when they are measuring
the same construct. A higher value of Cronbach’s alpha refers to greater internal consistency and
reliability, with a range from 0 to 1. In general, the reliability of results is interpreted as: α < 0.5
is unacceptable, 0.5 < α < 0.6 is poor, 0.6 < α < 0.7 is questionable but acceptable, 0.7 < α < 0.8
is adequately acceptable, and everything > 0.8 is good or excellent (Bland & Altman, 1997;
Daud et al., 2018; Hair et al., 1998). To help ensure a reliability (α) of greater than 0.7, only
unidimensional scales of one construct will be measured using scales of at least three items
whenever possible.
Data Analytic Strategy
Regarding significance levels, p-values < .05 are labeled as the threshold for significance
prior to data analysis as a matter of convention. However, this research recognizes that this is an
overused, arbitrary, and often misinterpreted convention debated by statistical methodologists for
more than a century in part because such a simplistic and mechanical approach does not consider
the role of context or the magnitude of effect size (Kafadar, 2021). This research seeks
acknowledge the importance of p-values as an indicator, but also that it mainly provides
conditional probability (Chuang-Stein & Kirby, 2021). Given the diversity and complexity of
student populations, especially among international students, it is assumed that numerous

52
contextual elements play very important and underappreciated roles. While p-values will be used
throughout this research, it is important to note that the large sample size makes the study grossly
overpowered, which can lead to statistically significant results even for small effects. Therefore,
in addition to p-values, effect sizes will be carefully considered, with Cohen’s d used to measure
the effects of biological sex, visa status, and perceived threat group. The conceptual framework
also accounts for multiple parameters and comparisons, emphasizing the importance of
interpreting results through effect sizes, which provide a more nuanced understanding than pvalues alone.
Statistical power represents the probability that a statistical test will detect a true effect if
it exists. As with the matter of significance, by convention this research suggests that adequate
power to determine if a relationship is true be set at .80. However, power, effect size, and
significance are interwoven concepts. Again, this research seeks to emphasize that importance of
this feature against the study’s highly diverse populations and contexts. Even among basic
science research publications, de Vries et al. (2023) observed that among 256 reviews with
10,686 meta-analyses and 47,384 studies, the standardized mean difference was 0.2–0.4. As
Althouse and Chow (2019) explain, “if the study result was not statistically significant at the
observed sample size and effect size, a post hoc power calculation based on the observed effect
size will always appear to be underpowered” (p. e78), so increasing the sample size may bolster
the power. Given this, it is important to recognize that just as it is logically incorrect to assume
that a study with non-significant results (p > 0.05) must simply be underpowered, it is likewise
wrong to assume that a highly powered study with no significant result means a likely true null
hypothesis since there was enough power to detect an effect. Power and the p-value are
mathematically linked, so lower p-values correspond to higher power and higher p-values

53
correspond to lower power. So, whatever findings are produced by this study, it will be important
to evaluate the data in terms of power, p-values, and effect sizes, but not solely on such
conventions due to the power approach paradox. It will also be important to reflect upon the
choices of hypotheses with a deep understanding of the practical context and populations in the
findings. This is especially important since extremely large samples can lead to detecting
statistical significance even when the practical real-world effects are insignificant.
The first battery of statistical tests utilizes descriptive statistics to provide a good
summary of the data involving continuous variables for the scales of threat, belonging,
loneliness, and psychological well-being. The key elements of interest include central tendency
(mean, median, mode), variability (range, variance, standard deviation), and distribution shape
(skewness and kurtosis). Frequency analyses serve to describe the distribution of categorical
variables. In this study, frequencies and percentages for the independent variables of biological
sex and visa status provide an initial overview of the sample’s composition and highlight any
imbalance in distribution.
Pearson’s chi square test (χ2
) is a non-parametric statistical test that evaluates the
likelihood of observed differences between categorical data sets being due to chance. As a result,
Pearson’s chi squared test was used to determine whether there is a significant relationship
between biological sex and visa status. If the Pearson chi square observed p-value exceeds the
alpha value of 0.05, the null hypothesis holds that there is likely little to no association between
the two variables. The test is based on the difference between the observed count (the observed
frequency) and the expected count (the predicted frequency for the null hypothesis). The greater
the divergence between these values, the higher the chi square score, and the greater the

54
likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis and concluding that the variables are significantly
associated with one another.
A 2x2x2 ANOVA was used, which involves three independent variables, each with two
levels. This design allows for an examination of main effects, two-way interactions, and threeway interactions. To continue the previous example, a variable like threat (yes/no) can be treated
as an independent variable, so it can be viewed with biological sex and visa status to determine if
there are any unique effects on loneliness.
Effect Sizes
Effect size pertains to the measure of the magnitude of a phenomenon or the strength of a
relationship between variables, which provides a standard for comparing results across studies
independent of sample size. Whereas p-values suggest if an effect exists, effect sizes pertain to
the size of the effect. For this study, Cohen’s d was chosen as the statistical measure used to
quantify the effect size because it is effective at determining the strength of a relationship
between two variables. Since it is commonly used when comparing the means of two groups in a
t-test. The interpretation of effect sizes can depend on the context and the specific field of study.
What is considered a large effect in one field might be seen as small in another. As Cohen (1977)
explains, “The terms ‘small,’ ‘medium,’ and ‘large’ are relative, not only to each other, but to the
area of behavioral science or even more particularly to the specific content and research method
being employed in any given investigation” (p. 25). In practical terms for this study, a small
effect size (d = 0.2) indicates a subtle difference between groups, with their means differing by
0.2 standard deviations, a medium effect size (d = 0.5) represents a noticeable difference of 0.5
standard deviations, and a large effect size (d = 0.8) reflects a substantial difference with a gap of
0.8 standard deviations or more between group means.

55
This study’s large sample size makes it highly powered. Even mall effects can suggest
significant public health outcomes when large populations are involved. Using Cohen’s d allows
the study to capture a range of effect sizes, providing useful insights for improving student health
in higher education.

56
Chapter Four: Results
The following chapter presents the results of the data analysis conducted for this study,
organized according to the research questions outlined in earlier chapters. Three research
questions guided this study:
1. Does student status (international versus domestic) have a direct effect on perceived
threat, sexual harassment, belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being?
2. Does biological sex (male or female) have a direct effect on perceived threat, sexual
harassment, belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being?
3. Are the effects of biological sex and student status on belonging, loneliness, and
psychological well-being mediated by perceived threat or sexual harassment.
Preliminary Analysis
This chapter presents findings from the quantitative analysis, focusing on relationships
between demographic variables (biological sex and visa status) and perceptions of threat, sexual
harassment, belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being. It begins with a summary of
descriptive statistics on the demographics of survey respondents, followed by a discussion of
inferential statistical analyses that explore how variables interrelate, using tables and figures to
clearly illustrate these relationships.
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics such as means and standard deviations for each
variable. The sample size is different from the starting size since intersex students and non-Asian
international students have been removed. The mean statistic for biological sex (1.2962)
indicates a high degree of skewness (.893) and that a majority of respondents were female. As
with biological sex, the visa variable is binary, so either students report having a visa or not. The
mean of 1.0631, coupled with very high skewness of 3.594, indicates that the vast majority of

57
students did not have visas. This is not surprising since international students represent a small
population at any given school. From 2022 to 2023 international students went from 4.6 to 5.6
percent of the total U.S. student population (Irwin et al., 2023).
Visa status similarly indicates very high positive skewness (3.594) and a low standard
deviation (0.24312), because the majority of respondents were non-visa holders. For Threat,
again a high level of positive skewness emerged indicating a restriction of range problem. With a
mean (1.08) close to the minimum with low variability and high skewness (2.411), most
respondents did not perceive much threat among the provided categories.
Regarding the dependent variables, the Likert scale ranges for belonging (1 to 6),
psychological well-being (1 to 7), and loneliness (1 to 3) reveal a trend toward positive feelings.
The mean values for belonging (4.4375, skewness = –0.832) and well-being (5.5552, skewness =
–1.115) indicate that respondents generally reported a high sense of belonging and well-being as
the negative skewness shows responses clustered at the higher end of the scale. Loneliness, with
a mean of 1.8502 and a skewness of 0.290, shows a more balanced distribution, indicating
moderate levels of loneliness. These dependent variables reflect a generally positive sentiment
among respondents, with minimal restriction of range problems. By contrast, the Threat variable
(mean = 1.0797, skewness = 2.411) shows that most respondents did not perceive significant
levels of threat, with responses concentrated at the lower end of the scale. This indicates that
while respondents felt a positive sense of belonging and well-being, the perception of threat was
minimal, highlighting a positive overall campus climate despite occasional loneliness.

58
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics
n Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
deviation
Skewness
Skewness
std. error
Sex 94138 1.00 2.00 1.2962 0.45657 0.893 .008
Visa 94201 1.00 2.00 1.0631 0.24312 3.594 .008
Threat 93953 1.00 2.00 1.0797 0.16132 2.411 .008
Belonging 94105 1.00 6.00 4.4375 0.96448 –0.832 .008
Loneliness 94051 1.00 3.00 1.8502 0.62794 0.290 .008
Well-being 94113 1.00 7.00 5.5552 1.09367 –1.115 .008
Valid n 93402
Table 2 shows the frequency distribution for the threat variable, indicating that most
respondents (70,268 or 74.5%) reported no perception of threat across all scale questions.
Additionally, 13,932 respondents (14.8%) reported very low levels of threat while 958 (1.0%)
reported threat on nearly all questions. Altogether, 89.6% of respondents indicated low to no
threat, confirming the positive skewness (2.411) described earlier. The small number of
respondents who rated threat levels above 1.20 highlights the low variability within the sample,
hence the low standard deviation (0.16132). Since threat was severely skewed, it was
dichotomized into two groups: no threat or one or more threats.
Often data is excluded due to a non-response to reduce bias and maintain the integrity of
the analysis, which can otherwise create skewness or difficulty in analysis due to variables being

59
missing. For this reason, some researchers may have preferred to exclude the students who report
no level of threat, since its inclusion created an extreme degree of skewness. However, in this
study a response of “none” is included because these values represent meaningful information
rather than missing data. Students selecting that they did not face a particular challenge or threat
represents an actual measurement. Excluding such data could lead to bias or a distorted
representation of the reality of threat among student respondents.

60
Table 2
Threat Distribution
Percent
Threat
score
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
1.00 70268 74.5 74.8 74.8
1.20 13923 14.8 14.8 89.6
1.25 46 0.0 0.0 89.7
1.40 6959 7.4 7.4 97.1
1.50 24 0.0 0.0 97.1
1.60 1766 1.9 1.9 99.0
1.67 2 0.0 0.0 99.0
1.75 7 0.0 0.0 99.0
1.80 657 0.7 0.7 99.7
2.00 301 0.3 0.3 100.0
Total 93953 99.6 100.0
Missing 337 0.4
Total 94290 100.0
Table 3 presents the crosstabulation of biological sex (male/female) and visa status
(yes/no). Of the 94,052 respondents 66,187 (70.4%) were female, of which 3,182 (4.8%) had a
visa. For males, 27,865 (29.6%) respondents were male and 2,743 (9.8%) had a visa. To explore

61
the relationship between sex and visa, a 2x2 Pearson chi square test with a continuity correction
was conducted. The relationship was statistically significant at the .05 level, X
2
(1) = 841.75, p
= .001. Males (9.8%) were approximately twice as likely as females (4.8%) to hold a visa.
Table 3
Sex by Visa Crosstabulation
Visa
No Yes Total
Sex
Female
Count 63005 3182 66187
% within sex 95.2% 4.8% 100.0%
Male
Count 25122 2743 27865
% within sex 90.2% 9.8% 100.0%
Total
Count 88127 5925 94052
% within sex 93.7% 6.3% 100.0%

62
Table 4 presents the crosstabulation of biological sex (male/female) and threat (yes/no).
Of the 93,826 of respondents 66,050 (70.4%) were female, of which 18,300 (27.7%) experienced
threat. For males, 27,776 (29.6%) of respondents were male and 2,743 (9.8%) experienced
threat. To explore the relationship between sex and threat, a 2x2 Pearson chi square test with a
continuity correction was conducted. The relationship was statistically significant at p = .001
with a chi square of 825.543. Males were less likely to have reported one or more threats.
Table 4
Sex by Threat Group Crosstabulation
Threat group
No Yes Total
Sex
Female
Count 47750 18300 66050
% within sex 72.3% 27.7% 100.0%
Male
Count 22444 5332 27776
% within sex 80.8% 19.2% 100.0%
Total
Count 70194 23632 93826
% within sex 74.8% 25.2% 100.0%

63
Table 5 presents the crosstabulation of visa status (yes/no) by threat (yes/no). Of the
93,875 student respondents, 65,770 (70%) were domestic students who experienced no threat
and 22,212 (23.6%) who experienced threat. Among Asian international students (visa holders),
4,448 (75.5%) experienced no threat and 1,445 (24.5%) who experienced threat. The relationship
was statistically significant at p = .001 with a chi square of 45.549. Visa holders were less likely
to have reported one of more threats.
Table 5
Visa by Threat Group Crosstabulation
Threat group
No Yes Total
Visa
No
Count 65770 22212 87982
% within visa 74.8% 25.2% 100.0%
Yes
Count 4448 1445 5893
% within visa 75.5% 24.5% 100.0%
Total
Count 70218 23657 93875
% within visa 74.8% 25.2% 100.0%

64
The effects of sex, visa, and threat on belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being
were analyzed using a 2x2x2 analysis of variance (ANOVA). This analysis adjusts for the
influence of each factor while examining the effects of the other factors on the dependent
variables, The F-ratio is used in ANOVA to determine whether there are significant differences
between groups. It is the ratio of the variance explained by the model to the variance not
explained. A higher F-ratio indicates that the model explains a greater proportion of the variance
relative to the error variance. The degrees of freedom associated with the F-ratio consist of two
numbers: The first represents the degrees of freedom between groups (in this case, one, since
there are two groups [males and females]), and the second represents the degrees of freedom
within groups, which is related to the sample size. The p-value indicates the likelihood that the
observed data would occur under the null hypothesis (no effect of sex on the variable), while a pvalue of less than .05 typically indicates that the results are statistically significant.
Table 6 provides the main effects of biological sex on the variables belonging, loneliness,
and psychological well-being. Males have a slightly higher adjusted mean for the sense of
belonging compared to females, indicating that males in the sample reported feeling a marginally
stronger sense of belonging. The difference is small, but statistically, the comparison was
significant given the large sample size. Both females and males reported almost identical levels
of loneliness, with females having a slightly higher adjusted mean. This suggests that females
might feel marginally lonelier than males, but the difference is minimal and not statistically
significant. Females reported a slightly higher level of psychological well-being compared to
males. The difference, though small, could indicate that females in the sample perceive their
psychological well-being as marginally better than males. Given the large sample sizes, these
small differences were statistically significant even if they are not large in magnitude.

65
Table 6
Main Effects for Sex
Females (n = 65,884) Males (n = 27,695)
Adjusted mean Standard error Adjusted mean Standard error
Belonging 4.534 .009 4.585 .010
Loneliness 1.842 .006 1.832 .006
Well-being 5.570 .010 5.505 .011
Table 7 shows results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining the main effects of
sex on belonging, loneliness, and well-being. While there is no statistically significant effect of
sex on loneliness, as indicated by the F-ratio of 1.363 and a p-value of .243, the effect of sex on
the sense of belonging and well-being have p-values lower than .001, indicating the difference
between males and females is significant.
Table 7
Statistical Findings for Sex
F-ratio
Degrees of
freedom
Observed
probability
Belonging 13.908 1, 93574 < .001
Loneliness 1.363 1, 93615 .243
Well-being 19.000 1, 93680 < .001

66
Table 8 presents the crosstabulation of sex and experiences of sexual harassment. The
majority of both females (86.6%) and males (96.6%) reported no harassment. However, among
the total sample of 93,715 individuals, 13.4% of females experienced sexual harassment,
compared to only 3.4% of males.
Table 8
Sex by Sexual Harassment Crosstabulation
Sexual harassment
No Yes Total
Sex
Female
Count 57154 8821 65975
% within sex 86.6% 13.4% 100.0%
Male
Count 26786 954 27740
% within sex 96.6% 3.4% 100.0%
Total
Count 83940 9775 93715
% within sex 89.6% 10.4% 100.0%

67
Table 9 presents the crosstabulation between visa status and experiences of sexual
harassment. Among domestic students (no visa), 89.1% reported no experience of sexual
harassment, while 10.9% reported being sexually harassed. In contrast, among Asian
international students (visa holders), 96.2% reported no sexual harassment and 3.8% reported
being sexually harassed.
Table 9
Visa by Sexual Harassment Crosstabulation
Sexual Harassment
No Yes Total
Visa
No
Count 78326 9563 87889
% within visa 89.1% 10.9% 100.0%
Yes
Count 5654 223 5877
% within visa 96.2% 3.8% 100.0%
Total
Count 83980 9786 93766
% within visa 89.6% 10.4% 100.0%

68
Table 10 presents the adjusted main effects for visa status on three variables: belonging,
loneliness, and well-being, along with their standard errors. Visa holders (Asian international
students) report a higher adjusted mean for belonging (4.531) compared to non-visa holders
(4.259), indicating a slightly greater sense of belonging, though the difference is small. For
loneliness, both groups have nearly identical adjusted means (1.952 for non-visa holders and
1.949 for visa holders), suggesting no significant difference in feelings of loneliness. Regarding
Well-being, non-visa holders have a slightly higher adjusted mean (5.378) compared to visa
holders (5.260), though again, the difference is minimal.
Table 10
Adjusted Main Effects for Visa
No Visa Visa
Adjusted mean Standard error Adjusted mean Standard error
Belonging 4.259 0.009 4.531 0.038
Loneliness 1.952 0.006 1.949 0.025
Well-being 5.378 0.010 5.260 0.044

69
Table 11 show statistical findings related to visa status, which show significant
differences in belonging and well-being, but not in loneliness. For belonging, the F-ratio of
47.493 (df = 1, 93464) and an observed probability of p = 0.001 indicate a statistically
significant difference between visa and non-visa holders, with visa holders (Asian international
students) reporting a higher sense of belonging. Similarly, for well-being, the F-ratio of 6.968 (df
= 1, 93,572) and a p-value of 0.008 suggest a significant difference in well-being between
groups, though the effect is smaller. In this case, domestic students have slightly better wellbeing. In contrast, for Loneliness, the F-ratio of 0.018 (df = 1, 93510) and a p-value of 0.894
show no statistically significant difference between visa and non-visa holders in terms of feelings
of loneliness.
Table 11
Statistical Findings for Visa
F ratio
Degrees of
freedom
Observed
probability
Belonging 47.493 1, 93464 < 0.001
Loneliness 0.018 1, 93510 0.894
Well-being 6.968 1, 93572 0.008

70
Table 12 presents the adjusted main effects for individuals who experienced sexual
harassment, versus those who did not, across the belonging, loneliness, and well-being variables.
Individuals who did not experience sexual harassment report a significantly higher adjusted
mean for belonging (4.585) compared to those who did (4.205). Similarly, those who
experienced harassment report a higher level of loneliness (2.080) compared to those who did
not (1.821), indicating greater social isolation. Finally, the adjusted mean for well-being is lower
for those who experienced harassment (5.073) compared to those who did not (5.565), with the
difference suggesting sexual harassment negatively correlates with overall well-being.
Table 12
Adjusted Main Effects for Sexual Harassment
No sexual harassment Some sexual harassment
Adjusted mean Standard error Adjusted mean Standard error
Belonging 4.585 0.007 4.205 0.039
Loneliness 1.821 0.004 2.080 0.025
Well-being 5.565 0.008 5.073 0.044

71
Table 13 presents the statistical findings for the relationship between sexual harassment
and belonging, loneliness, and well-being. For all three variables, the F ratios are quite large:
84.905 for belonging, 101.701 for loneliness, and 120.739 for well-being. This means sexual
harassment has a significant effect on levels of belonging, loneliness, and well-being.
Table 13
Statistical Findings for Sexual Harassment
F ratio
Degrees of
freedom
Observed
probability
Belonging 84.905 1, 93464 < 0.001
Loneliness 101.701 1, 93510 < 0.001
Well-being 120.739 1, 93572 < 0.001

72
Analysis of Research Questions
This study was a secondary analysis of data collected by the NCHA-ACHA III (National
College Health Assessment by the American College Health Association), which is a
comprehensive health survey used to assess college student health and wellness. The survey data
being considered was from student responses from Fall 2019 through Spring 2023. The survey
collects data on a variety of health topics, including mental health, substance use, and sexual
health, to help inform health programs on college campuses. The initial sample size was 102,905
students. However, due to missing data on some of the study’s key variables, and a few
delimitations established (such as removal of intersex students) the analyses reported herein were
based on a sample of about 94,000 students. Judging from these numbers, the study was severely
overpowered. Such excessive power in research can lead to statistical significance for even the
smallest of differences or relationships. That was the case in this study. Of the 18 tests reported
in this chapter, only two were not statistically significant.
Instead of relying on traditional parametric statistical tests, Cohen’s d was used, which is
a commonly applied effect size index. Cohen’s d measures the magnitude of differences in terms
of the estimated population standard deviation (Cohen, 1988). A value of 0.50, representing half
a standard deviation, indicates a moderate effect size. Values of 0.20 and 0.80 are considered
small and large effect sizes, respectively. This approach provided a deeper insight into the
practical significance of the findings, moving beyond the merely determining statistical
significance. Cohen’s d requires that one variable be dichotomous, and one variable be
continuous. In the case of a 2x2 crosstabulation, there is no analog to Cohen’s d. The is not a
problem because percentages are typically easy to understand in terms of magnitude.

73
Research Question 1: Direct Effects of Student Visa Status
Table 14 shows the effect sizes of student sex, visa status, threat group and sexual
harassment on belonging, loneliness and well-being. Row 2 is relevant to Research Question 1.
Visa status alone had no demonstrable relationship to either loneliness or psychological wellbeing. The effect size indices, .039 and .067 and standard deviations were negligible. The effect
size index for belonging (–277) was small to moderate, and the negative sign indicates that the
international students had higher belonging scores than domestic students.
Research Question 2: Direct Effects of Biological Sex
Row 1 of Table 14 displays the effect sizes for biological sex on belonging, loneliness
and psychological well-being. The effect sizes are negligible, –.064, .069 and .067, respectively.
No notable differences between males and females were observed on each of the three dependent
variables.
Table 14
Effect Sizes: Cohen’s d
Belonging Loneliness Well-being
Biological sex –.064 .069 .067
Visa status –.277 .039 .020
Threat group .427 –.448 –.319
Harassment group .376 –.371 .281

74
Research Question 3: Threat as a Mediator Variable
A mediator variable functions by explaining the relationship between independent
variables (in this case, biological sex and visa status) and dependent variables (belonging,
loneliness, and psychological well-being). For mediation to be confirmed, two key relationships
must be established: first, the independent variables must significantly relate to the mediating
variable (threat), and second, the mediating variable must significantly relate to the dependent
variables. Both sets of relationships must hold to support the mediation hypothesis.
Effects of Biological Sex and Visa Status on Threat Group and Sexual Harassment
Since the dependent variable (threat group) is dichotomous, Cohen’s d cannot be
computed. However, because percentages are inherently interpretable, the lack of an effect size
index for threat group is not a problem. The crosstabulation of sex and threat group indicated that
27.7% of the females and 19.2% of the males reported one or more threats. The difference of
8.5% was large enough to justify a conclusion that biological sex and threat group were
moderately related. When sex was cross tabulated with sexual harassment grouping, the resulting
sex difference was even larger (13.4% for females and 3.4% for males)
The cross tabulation of visa status yielded almost identical percentages of threat group
membership for domestic and international students. 25.2% of the domestic students and 24.5%
percent of the international students reported one or more threats. When visa status was cross
tabulated with sexual harassment, the difference between domestic and international students
was much larger. 10.9% of the domestic students compared 3.8% of the international students
reported sexual harassment. The difference of 7.1% is substantial and justifies a conclusion that
international students are less likely to say they were a victim of sexual harassment.

75
Effects of Threat Group and Sexual Harassment on Belonging, Loneliness and Psychological
Well-Being
Table 14 at the beginning of this section presents the Cohen’s d value for the effects of
threat group and sex harassment group. For threat group, the direct effects of having reported one
or more threats are moderate or higher for each dependent variable. Specifically, having reported
one or more threats resulted in a diminished sense of belonging, greater loneliness and
diminished psychological well-being. When sex harassment was analyzed, the effect size was
smaller but still in the moderate range and the pattern was identical. Participants who reported
sexual harassment were more likely to have a diminished sense of belonging, a feeling of
loneliness and a lesser sense of psychological well-being.
Mediated Effects
Biological sex was related to both threat group and sexual harassment group. Males were
less likely to report one or more threat indices or sexual harassment. In addition, both reporting
one or more threats or sexual harassment were related to lower belonging scores, higher
loneliness scores and lower psychological well-being scores. Thus, a conclusion that the effects
of biological sex on the three dependent variables was mediated by threat or sexual harassment is
warranted. Visa status (domestic versus international) was not related to threat group so the
conclusion that threat group mediated the effect of visa on the three dependent variables. In
contrast, visa status was related to sexual harassment group. Domestic students were more likely
to report being harassed. In addition, sexual harassment was associated with diminished
belonging, greater loneliness and lower psychological well-being. This result supports the
conclusion that sexual harassment mediated the relationship between visa status and the three
dependent variables.

76
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore and better understand the experiences of
international students on U.S. college and university campuses, with a particular focus on Asian
students, who comprise the majority of the international student population. By contrasting their
experiences with those of domestic students, this research examined key issues such as perceived
threats, belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being. The study also considered the role
of biological sex and visa status in shaping these perceptions.
Key Findings
The results presented in Chapter Four provided detailed insights into the relationships
between demographic factors, perceived threat, belonging, loneliness, and psychological wellbeing among students, with specific attention given to student visa status (international versus
domestic) and biological sex. The data analyses ultimately involved more than 94,000 students
and revealed mostly statistically significant results. As a result, an index of effect size was used
(Cohen’s d) to supplement the statistical findings.
Beginning with the descriptive statistics and demographic characteristics, the skewness of
the visa data (3.594) indicates that Asian international students were a small percentage of the
total respondents, which was unsurprising since they are a minority on most college campuses
across the United States. Males were almost twice as likely as females to be international
students (9.8% vs. 4.8%). Contrary to expectations, visa status had no demonstrable relationship
to either loneliness or psychological well-being. The effect size index for belonging (–0.277) was
small to moderate, but the negative value indicates that international students reported higher
belonging scores than domestic students, which was also contrary to expectations.

77
The overall mean for biological sex (1.29) was unexpected and notable as it reflects a
much higher proportion of female respondents. While there is no specific explanation for this,
some research suggests that women have increasingly become the predominant respondents in
surveys (Minhas & Oksol, 2019). There were negligible direct effects of biological sex on
belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being, indicating no substantial differences
between males and females on these outcomes.
Perceived threat in this study focused upon bullying, cyberbullying, hazing,
microaggression, and discrimination. These were addressed earlier as a form of hostile and
intimidating threat (Ahmed et al., 2023; Kotzé et al., 2023; Byrne, 2021). The data indicates that
most students did not perceive threats. The mean for Belonging (4.4375) and Well-being
(5.5552) suggest that respondents generally also have positive feelings about their campus
experience, with moderate average loneliness. Contrary to expectations, international and
domestic students did not show a significant relationship with either loneliness or psychological
well-being, with negligible effect sizes for these variables. As mentioned, only a small to
moderate effect indicates that international students have higher belonging scores than domestic
students.
Research Question 3 examined the mediation hypothesis regarding the relationship
between biological sex, visa status, perceived threats, and sexual harassment, and the association
with belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being. The data reveal that 27.7% of female
respondents and 19.2% of male respondents reported experiencing one or more threats, with the
8.5% difference suggesting a moderate relationship between biological sex and perceived threat.
The gender disparity is even more pronounced in cases of sexual harassment, with 13.4% of
females and 3.4% of males reporting incidents. These findings indicate that both perceived

78
threats and sexual harassment negatively influence students’ sense of belonging, increase
feelings of loneliness, and reduce psychological well-being.
Additionally, the hypothesis that threat and sexual harassment mediate the effects of
biological sex and visa status on belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being was tested.
25.2% of domestic students and 24.5% of international students reported experiencing one or
more threats, showing a relatively small difference. However, when examining sexual
harassment, 10.9% of domestic students and 3.8% of international students reported harassment.
The 7.1% difference suggests that international students are significantly less likely to report
sexual harassment. These results highlight the mediating role of threat and sexual harassment in
the relationship between demographic factors and a student’s sense of belonging, loneliness, and
psychological well-being.
Interpretation
Research has extensively examined the negative impact of victimization and threat on
student belonging. Data for this study were collected before and during the COVID-19
pandemic, which was a period associated with increased victimization and perceptions of threat
among college students (Daigle et al., 2021). Kurpiel (2023) review of school victimization using
a nationally representative U.S. sample of college students (N = 2,241), investigated the
perceived negative effects on health, self-esteem, and social relationships. Additionally,
numerous studies focus on international students who often face marginalization and
objectification (Buckner & Stein, 2020), commodification (Yao & Viggiano, 2019), while being
“othered” (Tavares, 2021) labeled as threats (Charles-Toussaint & Crowson, 2010; Witt, 2008)
and thought of as cash cows (Yao & George Mwangi, 2022). International students experience
mistrust (Allen & Bista, 2021), oppression (Stein & Andreotti, 2017), and discrimination (Fries-

79
Britt et al., 2014; George Mwangi et al., 2016; Hanassab, 2006). Asian students specifically are
also vulnerable to anti-Asian racism and hate (Yang et al., 2023; Zheng & Zompetti, 2023),
which intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic as Asian individuals were often perceived as
perpetual foreigners and carriers of disease (Williams et al., 2022).
One might assume from such research that thousands of Asian international students in
the United States would report via survey extensive experiences of threat to belonging,
psychological well-being, and increased loneliness. This research presents the counterintuitive
findings that such students overall have, if anything, improved belonging, average loneliness,
and psychological well-being on par with their domestic counterparts. In addition, none of the
studies above, offer the degree of statistical power and generalizability of the research presented
here.
The overall results presented in this study are suggested in a few studies discussed earlier.
Xiong et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis of 35 studies involving 283,412 participants that
found minimal differences in anxiety between domestic and international students, with highquality studies showing fewer anxiety, depression, and stress symptoms in international students.
Russell et al. (2010) considered 979 international students and revealed 58.8% of international
students felt satisfied, positive, and connected, while 34.4% felt isolated, dissatisfied, and
stressed, with 6.7% feeling the high levels of psychological distress, depression, and anxiety.
Such findings, as with the present study, do a lot to detail what international and domestic
students are experiencing, but not why.
It should be reasonably assumed that the quantitative research literature is accurate, so it
is therefore important to understand international students in general, and Asian international
students in particular, as part of a very large and complex population within the context of U.S.

80
higher education. Asia students, for example, are not a monolithic group. Intergroup conflict
theory (Stephan & Stephan, 1985) could just as easily explain how negative stereotypes produce
realistic and symbolic threats that lead to conflicts between Asian groups. Similarly, as Tajfel
and Turner (1979) describe, individuals seek to categorize themselves and others as part of an ingroup or an out-group, but such groups may be based on nationality, culture, or language, despite
in-group biases often operating along racial lines (Axt, 2017; Gibson et al., 2017; Wilkins,
2014). It may be that a heightened sense of belonging and reduced anxiety is a product of group
formations, which may begin as a response to negative experiences such as harassment, bias, and
discrimination, but ultimately act as a protective barrier to newcomers. Intergroup threat explains
that in-group favoritism reinforces out-groups and foments prejudice and conflict, but it may also
paradoxically provide a cohesive and protective effect on belonging, loneliness, and
psychological well-being.
Implications
In the theory the paradox of tolerance, Popper (1945) explains that to be a tolerant
society, the intolerable must be discriminated against. U.S. history provides good examples of
this. When schools tried to move away from racial segregation, the argument was that the “races
were not inherently inferior,” but simply less developed, so new programs would have a
civilizing effect on the “less advanced races” (Kliebard, 2004, p. 107). Often institutions have
good intentions behind programs, but bias and prejudice if often not far behind. Schools have
certainly improved, but there is still a “disparity between what we [schools] know to be right and
what we actually do” for students (Ladson-Billings, 2006, p. 8). The implications for this
research pertain to a wide variety of direct and indirect effects on U.S. campuses at a time of

81
increasing politicization as schools need to navigate troublesome discriminatory precedence and
draw boundaries to become ideologically aligned one way or another.
Direct Implications
When it comes to the direct implications for this research, school administrators and
teachers can adjust programs that can create greater benefits to students and campus
communities. Although the study found minimal perceived threat among students, the research
highlights the importance of ensuring that a positive climate is maintained. Experienced threats
are negatively associated with student belonging and psychological well-being, so educators
need work to create safe, supportive school environments by addressing potential sources of
psychological distress and offer support for all students dealing with loneliness or other
emotional challenges. It is important understand that the results on international student
belonging, although unexpected, do not mean that all international students do not suffer from
experiences of threats to belonging, loneliness, and isolation. Precisely because not enough is
known about student perceptions of threat, belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being,
institutions need to be proactive in identifying more ways to gather more data while prioritizing
mental health and well-being practices on campuses.
The data suggests small but significant sex differences in belonging, loneliness, and
psychological well-being, and international students are about twice as likely to be male. Sexual
harassment is also associated with these differences, so developing community-based strategies
that work to protect and create a sense of safety could improve these outcomes. This appears
particularly true for domestic female students, who may not have the group support and
belonging of their female international student counterparts.

82
Most major universities have health care centers and recognize the role of mental health
care for college students. This research also provides quantitative evidence that perceived
hostilities are significantly and negatively associated with reduced student psychological wellbeing. Policymakers on campus can use this data to advocate for mental health initiatives that
address these specific concerns that are most relevant for their specific community. Campuswide programs focused on reducing threat, enhancing social inclusion, and supporting student
well-being, would be similarly beneficial.
Loneliness was identified as a key issue for both domestic and international students.
Although not established in this research, the various causes and effects of loneliness are surely
very diverse and can be addressed by campus programs. It stands to reason that a school’s
knowledge of widespread loneliness may provide enough of a rationale to introduce
interventions like creating peer networks, mentorship programs, and extracurricular activities
that can foster deeper social connections.
This research has also shown that quantitative surveys can provide rich insights into
student experiences. This study can act as a model for assessing international and domestic
student threat, sexual harassment, belonging, and well-being, in a targeted way. Data-driven
practices on campuses can be tailored to suit the unique demographic and cultural features of a
campus, which can produce more relevant and actionable data to help students and communities.
Such practices can be well integrated with qualitative methods such as focus groups or
interviews to gain deeper insights into student experiences.
Indirect Implications
When an extensive body of qualitative research clearly articulates that certain kinds of
phenomena are widespread, yet a large quantitative study like this one demonstrably fails to

83
suggest similar results, questions should be asked. These questions are not necessarily about
future research or practical applications, but about epistemology. Such philosophical
implications are indirect, but have serious potential social and political consequences that can
dramatically alter institutions and society at large. Further investigation is warranted.
First, the purpose of this research began as a reflection about unfairness in the structures
of higher education that claim to seek positive student growth and social transformation. The
premise was simple: Unfair and unequal treatment of international students in U.S. higher
education should change. The research literature on this topic is very clear such is the case. It is
certainly true that legal discrimination of international students occurs. Whether or not students
feel a looming sense of threat, the marginalizing effects and discrimination are not debated.
This currently takes place at the same time as there is an intense debate about diversity,
equity, and inclusion (DEI) on U.S. college campuses. The general critique seems to be that
institutions are moving away from the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and traditional constructivism where the focus was on sociocultural learning and
knowledge based on experience, and instead want to deconstruct constructivism (Kruger, 2002).
The accusation is that supporting marginalized people and identities is being used as justification
to advocate for relativism, a rejection of unified schemes, and to challenge traditional notions of
objective truth. In essence, that post-modernists and post-structuralists seeks to reshape
education.
Constructivist scholarship in education has long urged caution for how language and
ways of knowing provide a means of oppression (Bourdieu, 1973). Freire (1970/2000) famously
added to this sentiment by describing how domination, oppression, and violence can come from
anywhere within a power hierarchy, including between marginalized groups. Incrementally over

84
the last 50 years, the lines between traditional education and post-structuralist efforts appears to
have become blurred. This, in part, has split the professional DEI community along ideological
lines, requiring alignment either with the promotion of civil and human rights or towards a focus
on revolutionary social activism (Phillips, 2023). This requires some unpacking since the indirect
implications of this research involve looking at demographics and what kinds of research is
being promoted.
According to the Pew Research Center (2021), left-leaning Americans (mostly
Democrats) are by far the population most interested in DEI and combating racial inequality, but
they differ notably in approach. Establishment liberals and Democrats are generally closest to
classical liberals, which appear to fall on the side of those who want to address inequality by
promoting civil and human rights. They represent about 29% of the American public.
Meanwhile, the Outsider Left are 10% of the public. They are 53% Independent, the youngest
group with 40% under age 30 and 83% under age 50, 57% women, and 49% White, 20%
Hispanic, 15% Black, and 10% Asian. This group is mainly concerned with power, government
inefficiency, and are dissatisfied with national conditions as 94% say that the economy unfairly
favors the powerful (Pew Research Center, 2021).
The revolutionary-type of social activism appears largely in the Progressive Left, which
is 6% of U.S. citizens. They are highly educated, very political, and majority White. Most in this
group say U.S. laws and major institutions need to be completely rebuilt because they are
fundamentally biased against some racial and ethnic groups (71%), illegal immigration makes
communities better (86%), increased attention to the history of slavery and racism is very good
(82%), White people benefit a great deal from the disadvantages of Black people (76%), and a
lot more needs to be done to ensure equal rights (96%) (Pew Research Center, 2021).

85
Within this landscape, there is an immense pressure among genuine experts to publish,
demonstrate academic talent, and show competency (Rawat & Meena, 2014). This pressure is
often compounded by the need for scholarly publications to gain academic recognition, which
can sometimes be achieved through controversy. When this happens, it creates an opportunistic
space for experts to gain attention by expressing provocative or offensive views inside popular
spectacle. Under the recent banner of DEI, such content has gone to print. For example, Matias
and Mackey (2016) wrote that hegemonic whiteness dominates the field of education. Spears
(2023) meanwhile argues that since white students are fragile, defensive, and angry, they need to
recognize and confront their racial privilege. Such publication titles seem not to suggest a desire
for inclusion, but for sensation. The backlash has been an opposition to DEI because it is thought
rooted in opinion and false narratives (Baker, 2024). The implication has been growing that DEI
is not genuinely focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion and has made even those seeking
accommodation cautious about the authenticity of DEI statements (Kurtzberg & Ameri, 2024).
Critics argue that DEI cannot address discrimination by disadvantaging and defaming other
groups, stifling intellectual diversity, and hindering equal opportunity (Magness, 2023).
Yet the drive for academic recognition persists and can also promote contentious ideas
not well supported by substantive research, propagating ideas through loaded language intended
to favor sensation over substance. When published, such peer-reviewed articles give an
impression of a certain reality, which the academic community of students and scholars
presumes correct. However, if only 0.13% of top educational research publications are
replication studies, which succeed only about half the time when there is no author overlap
(Makel & Plucker, 2014), then such confidence may not be warranted. Among top tier
international and comparative education journals, about half of the publications are qualitative

86
with authors who claim a Constructivist paradigm, yet key elements of such an approach (goals,
questions, sampling, data, writing, positionality, and rhetoric) are not consistent or largely absent
from their studies (da Costa et al., 2016). Taken together, the implication should be clear:
Quantitative and qualitative research and publications may provide contradictory results because
of conflicts between philosophical paradigms, methodological flexibility, researcher reflexivity,
and varying attitudes about reliability, validity, transparency, and truth.
Contributions
This study utilized concepts rooted in the theoretical frameworks of social identity theory
and intergroup conflict theory to explore the roles of student visa status, biological sex, and
perceptions of threats including sexual harassment, on belonging, loneliness, and psychological
well-being among U.S. college students. These theoretical frameworks are often used to look at
negative outcomes, like prejudice and discrimination, which result from group formation and ingroup bias. These theoretical frameworks are certainly also supported by a broad research
literature, especially with small-scale studies. However, these results presented here suggests that
social identity theory is the more relevant theory as population sizes increase. This is an
important contribution that needs to be tested further. The research broadly agrees that proximity
and engagement between groups helps to reduce conflicts, so this suggests that although social
identity groups are formed on campuses, which may lead to prejudicial and discriminatory
attitudes, the physically confining space and forced engagement of schools may have a buffering
effect on the degree of intergroup conflict students experience, and therefore the amount of threat
or challenge perceived.
Another contribution is that these theoretical frameworks have had limited applications
between international and domestic student groups, and the resulting effects. International

87
students reporting a higher sense of belonging compared to domestic students is contrary to
traditional social identity theory predictions that minority or out-group members experience
lower belonging due to group differentiation. It may be that the self-selection bias international
students have leads to certain kinds of student visitors, such as non-risk avoidant or high-grit
students. They may also be able better form in-groups based upon their international status than
domestic students within the individualistic context of American culture and college life. Several
studies cited in this research also point to the positive role college and universities can play in
supporting students.
Another contribution is to integrated threat theory, which generally suggests that power
imbalances, such as between domestic and international students, can create threat and conflict.
However, this research suggests that institutional, environmental, cultural, or linguistic factors
may mitigate conflict or reduce the possibility of threat. Colleges and universities tend to be
highly structured, collaborative, and goal-oriented settings, which may minimize competitive
intergroup dynamics.
In terms of this research advancing methodological approaches, the results strongly
suggest that quantitative approaches in social science education using large-scale data offer
unique insights that are not possible to glean using qualitative analysis. Much of the
understanding that schools have about international students, especially from specific regions or
countries, comes from qualitative studies, which although interesting are not generalizable. Yet
policies and practices are based upon such studies. Meanwhile, a large sample size increases
precision and reliability, but as was observed can also create skewness and restriction of range
problems. Even when showing how multiple demographic factors relate to shape student
experiences, this study did not back away from the data skewness in the data, and showed a

88
commitment to rigor in interpreting small differences meaningfully using effect size statistics.
This approach sets a benchmark for future research in educational methodology when using
large-scale data analysis with social or demographic data that is likely to be skewed. This
understanding can help refine methods and research question design to lead to more nuanced
findings in understanding group dynamics in educational settings.
Limitations and Delimitations
It is important to acknowledge the constraints inherent in quantitative research,
particularly concerning the conventional types of validity. Statistical validity, which
encompasses reliability and power, ensures that the results are consistent and that the study has
sufficient power to detect meaningful effects. However, even with high reliability, there may be
limitations in the generalizability of the findings due to potential biases in sample selection or
measurement. Internal validity, meaning the accuracy of the conclusions drawn about causal
relationships within the study, can be affected by uncontrolled variables or confounding factors,
potentially limiting the strength of conclusions. External validity, or the extent to which the
findings can be generalized to other populations or settings, may also be constrained by the
specific sample context of this study and the measurements employed.
This study focuses on reported student perceptions concerning feelings of belonging,
threat, loneliness, and psychological well-being. International students are a key demographic of
interest. Such research necessitates comparison, such as to domestic students, to demonstrate
novel and meaningful results. To analyze the data, the conceptual framework considers
demographic data, mediating variables, and dependent variables. The reason for this is partially
based upon a review of the literature generally, and intergroup threat theory specifically, which
describes how perceived or real threats based upon prejudice and bias lead to stronger in-group

89
identification and out-group rejection. This study sought to understand in-group/out-group
relations with respect to domestic and international students to determine how perceptions of
threat on campus may negatively influence one’s sense of belonging, loneliness, and well-being.
Due to the diversity and size of the populations, and the number of variables being considered,
there are several limitations and delimitations that should be presented.
In terms of delimitations, this study has deliberately set specific boundaries to exclude
certain variables and participants from the study, which will narrow the scope of the study and
make it less generalizable, but more manageable. The most notable delimitations are
demographic. The data offers the opportunity to study intersex students, transgender students,
and those who self-report various gender identities and sexual orientations. This study will focus
only on students who report being male or female and heterosexual. The reason for this is
because other group identifications have their own challenges with threat and belonging on
university campuses irrespective of international or domestic status, which may produce
independent paths to the dependent variables and create statistical associations that are
misleading.
One delimitation placed upon the study is also a limitation, which involves not including
student health data that may also independently relate to an individual’s sense of belonging,
engagement, well-being, and isolation. These are various and examples could include: body
dysmorphia, lack of a nutritious diet or food scarcity, sleeping disorders, abusive intimate
relationships, substance abuse or addiction issues, pregnancy, mental health problems
(depression, suicidal tendencies, phobias, etc.), autoimmune disorders or immunocompromised
status, ongoing physical illness/pain or chronic disease, or a condition such as post-traumatic
stress, obsessive-compulsive disorder, Tourette’s syndrome, or Autism spectrum. It is important

90
to mention that such conditions are widespread and indiscriminate, so may be considered part of
a generalizable background of domestic and international student males and females.
Two additional limitations of this study relate to the identity of the students being
studied. First, both domestic and international student populations represent very high levels of
diversity. The cultural and ethnic pluralism found in the United States means that domestic
students will include descendants of British colonists and African slaves alongside firstgeneration or recent migrants from all corners of the globe, each conceivably living in a
subculture of one of 50 states or five inhabited territories. Similarly, international student
diversity could arguably be less than that of the domestic population since most international
students—about 70%—come from Asia (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2022).
They are also affluent enough to travel to the United States and live for an extended period while
paying the full cost of tuition and residency, which is much more than the average cost for
domestic students.
Another concern is linguistic subjectivity. Give the lack of homogeneity across all
student groups, varying backgrounds, and home country cultures, could mean that notions of
belonging, and threat, may vary considerably. In Japanese, the concept of amae (甘え) is related
to feelings of belonging and inclusion, but also connotes dependence and trust in the
benevolence of others, so there is a higher degree of closeness compared to the student who
considers belonging and inclusion to be more akin to membership and acceptance. Similarly,
notions of threat or distress depend much on environmental and social factors, so it is reasonable
to assume that students coming from locations as dissimilar as El Salvador and Iceland are likely
to have very different mental models governing perceptions of threat or well-being. The issue,
however, is not that international and domestic students are fundamentally different on cultural

91
or linguistic levels, even though it is expected they generally are, but rather whether the two
discrete groups report a meaningful difference in belonging, threat, and achievement, with
respect to their international and gender status alone. Any statistically significant and large
findings are noteworthy; Why they exist is a matter for additional research and exploration.
A clear limitation of this study relates to unknown mediating variables. It is suspected
that domestic students will have a better ability to fashion belonging and inclusion while
mitigating threats within their home country of residence or citizenship—the United States.
International students may similarly be able to enjoy ethnic communities in and around their
school community that provide comforts and support that align with their home country. This
study does not attempt to consider the value of such participation as a buoy against threats.
Questions about campus-related belonging or inclusion do not consider student off-campus
group affiliations that offer spiritual or religious activity, family engagement, athletic or sports
involvement, community service, or cultural events, which could provide a sense of belonging,
inclusion, and well-being. Also, it is expected that some international students have no interest in
belonging or inclusion in the United States as they have transactional reasons for studying in the
United States that are unrelated to personal transformation. They may also have a high sense of
belonging or personal well-being rooted in their home country culture and family that provide
the self-determination and self-efficacy to engage in the risk-taking associated needed to travel to
a foreign country for education. Meanwhile, there will certainly be domestic student populations
who perceive threats, real or imagined, to safety, inclusion, belonging, and well-being, not
because of a campus environment, but because they have been enculturated to identify with
marginalization, persecution, inferiority, systemic oppression, and so forth. Again, although this
is an important area of research, this study is concerned with various student perceptions by

92
group, not about why such perceptions exist or how to better help students. Understanding and
distinguishing correlational differences between domestic and international student groups can
provide valuable insights for future research, and the large number of students surveys in this
study will help mitigate against outlier effects, whether the results are surprising or not.
For the reasons discussed, it should be noted that this research does not claim results will
provide obvious explanations, or that results are internally valid. After all, correlation does not
prove causation. However, presuming this research can identify true effects (power > .80) with
reliable measures (alpha > .70) then it should be possible to draw reasonable and valid
conclusions and inferences from the data.
Future Research
This research provides a lot of information about what students perceive, but very little
about why. The research literature across many disciplines discusses the important role of
institutional factors, relationships, or culture, which this study does not address. Cultural and
subcultural differences, for example, are certainly important towards an improved understanding
of threat perception, belonging, sexual harassment, and well-being. Future research could
investigate cultural differences between international student groups (such as Asian, European,
or African students) and how feelings of threat or belonging may be perceived differently.
This study did not attempt to consider intersectionality and how biological sex,
nationality, race, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or other identities might intersect to
differently act on perceptions of threat, belonging, loneliness, well-being, and so forth. Similarly,
the role of time on perception was not explored with respect to student identity both culturally
and within the framework of how long the international students have been in the United States.
Longitudinal studies may also give more insight into the relationship between perception and

93
time. Students still experiencing a honeymoon period on campus are more likely to report
positive feelings than those who have spent years away from their home while potentially
accruing negative experiences. Time is also related to exposure and engagement, which suggests
that levels of threat could go down over time as awareness increases. More research is needed to
get a better understanding of these communities.
The dichotomous nature of the threat variable in the current study also limited the depth
of analysis. Future studies could focus on more nuanced scales, such as degree of distress and the
dimension of threat itself, which might provide better insight into the threat scales as a whole and
how distressing students find particular problems or challenges. Such data could then be
compared again to a variety of dependent variables.
Conclusion
This research would not have been conducted if not for a combination of historical
forces, legal inequities, and present-day struggles to create more equitable learning environments
in higher education. It is based upon the fundamental notion that the United States is on a
continuous road of transformation and introspection about what it means to be a more perfect
Union. This operates in concert with uncertainty regarding the future of American civil society,
institutions, and culture, as increasing hostilities have been directed at international people. This
research has demonstrated some unexpected and surprising results that are ultimately quite
positive, but those results also suggest contradictions and imply problematic practices in
research, educational programming, and narrative construction.
According to the spiral of silence theory, individuals fearing isolation refrain from
expressing opinions they perceive as being unpopular (Glynn et al., 1995). Selective silence then
characterizes how individuals and affinity groups self-select and organize as individuals who

94
speak-out remain unchecked. Beginning in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic further divided an
already polarized American public over vaccine-denial, which was shaped by partisan media
framing and politicization (Motta & Stecula, 2023; Stroebe et al., 2021; Van Scoy et al., 2021,
2022). The pandemic also coincided with a sharp increase in neo-populism, which is predicted
by religiosity (Wojtasik et al., 2020) or at least correlated with it and nationalism (Bullock et al.,
2023).
In 2023 the U.S. Supreme Court abolished affirmative action, which had permitted the
consideration of students’ racial status in college admissions (Malcom, 2024). At the time of this
writing (2024), there are also currently 30 bills across the United States to try and limit diversity,
equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at state funded institutions, with legal implications that
could affect hiring practices and in other sectors of society (BestColleges, 2024). There have
been 81 such legislative actions since 2023 (Bauman, 2023). Iowa is a noteworthy example as
the state attempts to limit the types of positions and viewpoints an institution can hold. It lists
examples of such views that Iowa considers widely contested opinion, such as implicit and
unconscious bias, microaggressions, systematic oppression, gender theory, cultural
appropriation, transgenderism, intersectionality, heteronormativity, antiracism, social justice, and
racial privilege (Iowa Legislature, 2024).
In such a climate, it is important to very clear about what diversity, equity, and inclusion,
and DEI, mean for both higher education and this research. Amid the current ubiquity of social
media, higher perceptions of truth are shaped by congruent repetition (Nadarevic et al., 2020).
What is repeated at schools becomes true via consensus, groupthink, and collective confirmation
(Holmes, 2016; Wexler, 1995), whether or not there exist elements of pragmatism or objective
empirical support. The media also produce high levels of misconception due to viewers’

95
avoidance of evidence, biased evaluation of experts, contesting evidence sources, and seeking
like-mindedness (Stubenvoll & Matthes, 2021). Furthermore, negatively framed statistics are
often perceived as more true than positive ones, shaping how individuals perceive facts,
statistics, and one’s understanding of reality (Lindgren et al., 2022). Within the present media
and digital ecosystem, partisan polarization and politicization are making DEI initiatives unable
to achieve their goals (Armstrong, 2024). Yet DEI professionals have also argued that DEI has
become largely rhetorical race-consciousness and generally performative rather than
transformative (Glass, 2023; Gray et al., 2023). Even among advocates, there are claims that the
industry has become misguided and has done little to bring about greater equality (Hellerstedt et
al., 2024; Newkirk, 2019).
At the time of this writing, in part because of DEI and politicization, there is a very
widespread and robust epistemological debate within practical and academic life between logic,
and what Toulmin (1958) calls people’s habits of inference. Logic, Toulmin argues, has rules for
something to have formal validity, but the true nature of human understanding does not contain
such logical consistency or reason, which he calls “logic masquerading as psychology” (p. 229).
An argument may therefore be rationally justified through the assertions and opinions found in
daily life, or within the norms of an academic discipline, via these human tendencies to
reasonably infer about a particular topic. This suggests that an argument need not have the
validity of formal logic, but field dependent validity. For professionals who work with students
and care about student health, statistical significance matters little when faced with the certain
knowledge of students experience problems on campus.
Judging from the results of this research, much of the literature on the perceptions of
threat, belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being use such habits of inference to make

96
probabilistic and inductively reasoned claims. DEI professionals and school administrators do
the same. The assertions are subjective and unfalsifiable, but people are so accustomed to
making inferences that they recognize what they consider a reasonable argument when they can
identify a relationship between their preferences and probability. This appears true even if there
is no ontological referent, or real-world equivalent for concepts that are supposed to exist within
a given context. For example, it is presumed that international students discussed theoretically,
are also a group that exists in real life. Yet there is little similar certainty that an individual’s
abstract and personal notion of threat or belonging, for example, refers to something identifiably
uniform and real between individuals. The closest one can hope for is that an abstraction, theory,
or linguistic expressions, is inductively close to something in reality and possibly even shared.
If one is a realist, threat is ontologically real if it has a tangible and measurable effect on
individuals. If one is a constructivist, such a concept may be socially constructed, but real in the
sense of the effect it has on human experiences and relationships. This research invites the reader
to reflect on the difference between statistical significance and practical significant, and to
consider that however inferential and unfalsifiable the given research and support literature may
be, it endeavors first and foremost to appeal to the common sense and pragmatism of field
dependent validity in the form of life experience.
However, field dependent validity and the search for truth and practical does not mean
that something can be true even if unintelligible or meaningless, such as something
simultaneously true and false (liar’s paradox). Contradictory beliefs can exist in one’s feelings,
but there are no personal facts. This does not mean that an individual’s private beliefs are not
real, just that those feelings do not automatically carry a truth-weight sufficient to compel others
about the rest of objective reality. Similarly, this study suggests that a consensus theory of truth,

97
where truth is determined solely by group agreement, is a similarly misguided idea. The social
proof provided by groups may produce consensus, bandwagoning, or groupthink, but also
replace critical thinking and generate contradictions, collective confirmation bias, and cult
behavior (Wexler, 1995). This research assumes that to make generalizable claims, a higher
standard must be set. It is actually also an older standard.
Pragmaticism (pragmatism) has historically been very popular among scholars as it
allows for things to become true as they become useful and instrumental; To say an idea is true is
to say it works well and produces satisfactory results (Kirkham, 1992). John Dewey was a
pragmatist to the extent he believed truth is something that happens to an idea (1938, 1951,
1957). The problem with this is it only explains how truth is arrived at, not what it is, other than
perhaps useful. Traditional pragmatic scholarship would be opposed to a consensus notion of
truth, but would not be opposed to correspondence truth (rooted in objective facts and observable
reality corresponding to identifiable objective conditions) or coherence truth (Idealism:
Sometimes there is no guarantee that a perfectly coherent set of beliefs matches objective reality,
so truth exists in degrees, but must cohere with other beliefs). Pragmatic notions of truth may
follow positivist or constructivist paradigms, but they rely on substantive and reliable evidence.
By definition this would have field dependent validity. What does not is political tribalism and
selective listening to which people are prone (Arendt et al., 2023; Dilliplane, 2011). This creates
deafness to practical utterances of an outgroup. It fosters intergroup threat. When unchecked,
these consensus notions of a group’s truth form ideological norms (Kelly et al., 2023). The create
“spreadable spectacle” and blur the lines between reality and fiction (Mihailidis & Viotty, 2017).
There is significant power in being heard to engender empathy (Bruneau & Saxe, 2012), even
when one’s work is unaccountable and performative (Zheng, 2022a, 2022b). The result is that

98
consensus advocates feel they have an increasing moral authority over aspects of human life
where they do not necessarily have relevant expertise, diverting attention away from genuine
experts (Levy, 2023).
Mor-Barak suggested, “diversity is about belonging to groups that are visibly or invisibly
different from whatever is considered ‘mainstream’ in society” (2017, p. 189). The historically
dominant and mainstream, such as in the form of white supremacists have been well established
(Boatman, 2019). However, in the United States, empowered leaders of diversity, equity, and
inclusion programs are predominantly non-White (Paluch & Shum, 2024) and the risk of
horizontal violence to international people is broadly not insignificant (Freire, 1970/2000;
Stewart, 2008). This research advocates for international students because the mainstream, as
well as marginalized groups in a dominance hierarchy participate in foreigner oppression
because learned nativist self-interest urges them to maximize their own relative advantage at the
disadvantage of others (Sassenberg et al., 2007; Savelkoul et al., 2011; Sherif, 1966). As Kendi
(2019) expressed “denial is the heartbeat of racism, beating across ideologies, races, and nations.
It is beating within us” (p. 9).
Kendi (2019) continues to explain that although each person has the power to
discriminate and can be in denial about their discriminations, few are empowered to make policy.
Freire (1970/2000) similarly argued that such power of the few is maintained by those who seek
to exploit, including those who seek to be “oppressors of the oppressors,” rather than restorers of
humanity (p. 44). Freire further describes the tendency of “horizontal violence” by an impowered
minority in the grip of the attraction to oppress, especially against those who are similarly
marginalized, dominated, or oppressed, but less powerful (p. 62). As a whole, international

99
students are such a group without the protections and access afforded to domestic students,
including the marginalized minority populations.
The paradox of tolerance demands us to recognize if we allow for intolerable occurrences
to take place, eventually the society will be eaten alive by its own tolerance. The paradox invites
us to reflect upon what is intolerable. Freire, however, as a critical theorist and proponent of
revolutionary praxis would not consider himself an antiracist. He would argue that manipulation,
sloganizing, and prescription are components of domination and elitism by those who claim to
want transformation for the people, yet not with the people, because such people are not
interested dialogue (1970/2000, p. 126). This is an important distinction for universities,
administrators, and students to understand if they want schools to be a personally and socially
transformative and liberating place. Humans are necessarily biased about different races and
nationalities, but the question is whether it to an intolerable and discriminatory extent with an
unwillingness to dialogue. This research argues and demonstrates support for the idea that there
are widespread, intolerable, and discriminatory actions regularly taken against international
students with an unwillingness to dialogue, both at the level of government, and in higher
education. And yet, due to their grit, resilience, or myriad other factors, international students to
not identify threats.
School leaders or faculty may then argue that students experience few ill-effects from
unequal treatment or unequal access, so there is no harm. In fact, it is often necessary because we
are not all the same, such as due to positionality or legal status, so institutions must be willing to
make things unequal in the pursuit of equity or tolerance. If schools and government are willing
to create proclamations about what is odious in terms of equality, or claim interest in all students
through diversity, equity, and inclusion on university campuses, then they must offer dialogue

100
and explanations to indebted international students, because denial is also the heartbeat of
nativism and chauvinism.

101
References
Abelson, P. H. (1997). Evolution of higher education. Science, 277(5328), 747.
Ahmad, F. B., & Cisewski, J. A. (2023). Quarterly provisional estimates for selected indicators
of mortality, 2020–Quarter 3, 2022. National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital
Statistics System, Vital Statistics Rapid Release Program.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/mortality-dashboard.htm
Ahmed, B., Yousaf, F. N., Ahmad, A., Zohra, T., & Ullah, W. (2023). Bullying in educational
institutions: college students’ experiences. Psychology, health & medicine, 28(9), 2713–
2719. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2022.2067338
Allen, R., & Bista, K. (2021). Talented, yet seen with suspicion: Surveillance of international
students and scholars in the United States. Journal of International Students, 12(1), 175–
194. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v12i1.3410
Altavini, C. S., Asciutti, A. P. R., Santana, G. L., Solis, A. C. O., Andrade, L. H., Oliveira, L. G.,
Andrade, A. G., Gorenstein, C., & Wang, Y. P. (2023). Suicide ideation among Brazilian
college students: Relationship with academic factors, mental health, and sexual
abuse. Journal of affective disorders, 329, 324–334. https://doi.org/nmrq
Althouse, A. D., Chow, Z. R. (2019). Comment on “Post-hoc Power: If You Must, At Least Try
to Understand.” Annals of Surgery, 270(6), e78. https://doi.org/ggjdz7
American College Health Association (ACHA). (2024). National College Health Assessment.
ACHA Home. https://www.acha.org/NCHA/NCHA_Home
Amodio, D. M., & Mendoza, S. A. (2010). Implicit intergroup bias: Cognitive, affective, and
motivational underpinnings. In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit
social cognition (pp. 353–374). Guilford.

102
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: America’s perception
of life quality. Plenum.
Arendt, F., Northup, T., Forrai, M., & Scheufele, D. (2023). Why we stopped listening to the
other side: How partisan cues in news coverage undermine the deliberative foundations
of democracy. Journal of Communication, 73(5), 413–426. https://doi.org/nmrr
Armingeon, K., & Bonoli, G. (Eds.). (2006). The politics of post-industrial welfare states:
Adapting post-war welfare states to new social risks. Routledge.
Armstrong, S. (2024). Diversity, equity and inclusion work: A difference that makes a
difference…? Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1108/edi-10-2023-0325
Asim, M., Kurlaender, M., & Reed, S. (2023, August). California test scores show the
devastating impact of the pandemic on student learning. EdPolicyInCA.
https://edpolicyinca.org/newsroom/california-test-scores-show-devastating-impactpandemic-student-learning
Attiyeh, G., & Attiyeh, R. (1997). Testing for Bias in Graduate School Admissions. Journal of
Human Resources, 32(3), 524–548. https://doi.org/10.2307/146182
Axt, J. (2017). An unintentional pro-Black bias in judgement among educators. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 87, 408–421. https://doi.org/gf52kr
Bai, J. (2016). Perceived support as a predictor of acculturative stress among international
students in the United States. Journal of International Students, 6(1), 93–
106. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i1.483
Baker, B. (2024). Higher education & systemic racism hyperbole. Journal of Higher Education
Theory and Practice, 24(1), 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4642516

103
Banati, P., Jones, N., Moreau, C., Mmari, K., Kågesten, A., Austrian, K., & Lundgren, R. (2024).
Intersectionality, gender norms, and young adolescents in context: a review of
longitudinal multicountry research programmes to shape future action. The Lancet. Child
& adolescent health, 8(7), 522–531. https://doi.org/gt74vr
Barreto, M., Victor, C., Hammond, C., Eccles, A., Richins, M. T., & Qualter, P. (2021).
Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in
loneliness. Personality and individual differences, 169, 110066. https://doi.org/gpckw5
Bartram, D. (2013). Happiness and ‘economic migration’: A comparison of Eastern European
migrants and stayers. Migration Studies, 1(2), 156–175.
https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnt006
Batalova, J., & Feldblum, M. (2020). Immigrant-Origin Students in U.S. Higher Education: A
Data Profile. Migration Policy Institute.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigrant-origin-students-us-higher-education
Bauman, D. (2023, January 31). Here are the states where lawmakers are seeking to ban
colleges’ DEI efforts. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/here-are-the-states-where-lawmakers-are-seeking-toban-colleges-dei-efforts
Becker, J. C., Hartwich, L., & Haslam, S. A. (2021). Neoliberalism can reduce well-being by
promoting a sense of social disconnection, competition, and loneliness. The British
journal of social psychology, 60(3), 947–965. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12438
Bell, R. L., & Martin, J. S. (2012). The relevance of scientific management and equity theory in
everyday managerial communication situations. Journal of Management Policy and
Practice, 13(3), 106–115. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2372166

104
Beller, J., & Wagner, A. (2020). Loneliness and Health: The Moderating Effect of CrossCultural Individualism/Collectivism. Journal of aging and health, 32(10), 1516–1527.
https://doi.org/gjqm2k
Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.),
Acculturation: Theory, models, and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Westview Press.
Berry, J. W. (1995). Psychology of acculturation. In N. R. Goldberger & J. B. Veroff (Eds.), The
culture and psychology reader (pp. 457–488). New York University Press.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural
societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38(2), 185–206.
https://doi.org/d98dxd
BestColleges. (2024, May 22). Anti-DEI legislation tracker. BestColleges.
https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/anti-dei-legislation-tracker/
Bilecen, B., Diekmann, I., & Faist, T. (2024). The puzzle of loneliness: A sociostructural and
transnational analysis of international Chinese students’ networks in Germany.
International Migration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13298
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. Bmj, 314(7080), 572.
https://doi.org/dp68m6
Boatman, E. (2019). The kids are alt-right: How media and the law enable white supremacist
groups to recruit and radicalize emotionally vulnerable individuals. Law Journal for
Social Justice, 12, 2–61.
Böhm, R., Rusch, H., & Baron, J. (2020). The psychology of intergroup conflict: A review of
theories and measures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 178, 947–962.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.020

105
Bok, D. (2002). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education.
Princeton University Press.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2008). Old faces, new places: Equity theory in crosscultural
contexts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 29–50.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.454
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Arum & I. Beattie
(Eds.), The structure of schooling: Readings in the sociology of education (pp. 56–68).
McGraw Hill.
Brewer, M. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations. The
American Psychologist, 62, 728–738. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.8.728
Broćić, M., & Miles, A. (2021). College and the “Culture War”: Assessing Higher Education’s
Influence on Moral Attitudes. American Sociological Review, 86(5), 856–895.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224211041094
Brookover, W., & Lezotte, L. (1981). Educational equity: A democratic principle at a crossroads.
Urban Review, 13(2), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01956008
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2012). The power of being heard: The benefits of ‘perspectivegiving’ in the context of intergroup conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
48(4), 855–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.017
Brunsting, N., Katsumoto, S., Lee, H., & Bingham, W. P. (2024). Differential Adjustment
Outcomes of International Students at U.S. Universities: Examining the Intersections of
Region of Origin, Gender, and Graduate Level. Journal of International Students, 14(3),
448–467. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v14i3.4798

106
Brunsting, N., Zachry, C., & Takeuchi, R. (2018). Predictors of Undergraduate International
Student Psychosocial Adjustment to US Universities. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 66, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.06.002
Buckner, E., & Stein, S. (2020). What counts as internationalization? Deconstructing the
internationalization imperative. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(2),
151–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319829878
Bullock, J., Lane, J. E., Mikloušić, I., & Shults, F. L. (2023). Modeling nationalism, religiosity,
and threat perception: During the COVID-19 pandemic. PloS One, 18(4), e0281002.
https://doi.org/nmr6
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2018). Hate crime victimization, 2004-2015.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcv0415.pdf
Burmeister, J., Kiefner, A. E., Carels, R. A., & Musher-Eizenman, D. R. (2013). Weight bias in
graduate school admissions. Obesity, 21(5), 918–920. https://doi.org/f45r4b
Byrne, V. L. (2021). Blocking and self-silencing: Undergraduate students’ cyberbullying
victimization and coping strategies. TechTrends, 65, 164–173.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00560-x
Cann, P. (2020). A Biography of Loneliness: The History of an Emotion Fay Bound Alberti.
Ageing and Society, 40(7), 1613–1614. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/nmr7
Capers, Q., 4th, Clinchot, D., McDougle, L., & Greenwald, A. G. (2017). Implicit Racial Bias in
Medical School Admissions. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American
Medical Colleges, 92(3), 365–369. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001388
Capps, R., Gelatt, J., Ruiz Soto, A. G., & Van Hook, J. (2020). Unauthorized immigrants in the
United States: Stable numbers, changing origins. Migration Policy Institute.

107
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/unauthorized-immigrants-united-states-stablenumbers-changing-origins
Capps, R., Gelatt, J., Ruiz Soto, A. G., & Van Hook, J. (2021, October 8). A turning point for the
unauthorized immigrant population in the United States. Migration Policy Institute.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/turning-point-us-unauthorized-immigrantpopulation
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 426 (2018).
Cassino, D., & Besen-Cassino, Y. (2019). Race, threat and workplace sexual harassment: The
dynamics of harassment in the United States, 1997–2016. Gender, Work & Organization,
26(9), 1221–1240. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12394
Cena, E., Burns, S., & Wilson, P. (2021). Sense of belonging and the intercultural and academic
experiences among international students at a university in Northern Ireland. Journal of
International Students, 11(4), 812–831. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v11i4.2541
Center on the Developing Child (2010). The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early
Childhood. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/the-foundations-of-lifelonghealth-are-built-in-early-childhood/
Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism. (2021, April 30). Report to the nation: Anti-Asian
prejudice & hate crime. California State University, San Bernardino.
Chai, D., & Weseley, A. J. (2017). Is STEM running out of steam for Asian Americans? College
admissions officers’ perceptions of applicants. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,
20(2), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12165

108
Charles-Toussaint, G. C., & Crowson, H. M. (2010). Prejudice against international students:
The role of threat perceptions and authoritarian dispositions in U.S. students. The Journal
of Psychology, 144(5), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2010.496643
Chaudhry, S., Tandon, A., Shinde, S., & Bhattacharya, A. (2024). Student psychological wellbeing in higher education: The role of internal team environment, institutional, friends
and family support and academic engagement. PloS one, 19(1), e0297508.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297508
Chen, E., Lam, P. H., Yu, T., & Brody, G. H. (2023). Racial Disparities in School Belonging and
Prospective Associations With Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome. JAMA
pediatrics, 177(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/nmr8
Chiasson, N., Dube, L., & Blondin, J.-P. (1996). Happiness: A Look into the Folk Psychology of
Four Cultural Groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(6), 673–691.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022196276002
Chin, G. J., & Villazor, R. C. (Eds.). (2015). The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965:
Legislating a new America. Cambridge University Press.
China Institute in America. (1954). A survey of Chinese students in American universities and
colleges in the past one hundred years: In commemoration of the one hundredth
anniversary of the graduation of the first Chinese from an American university, Yung
Wing, B.A., Yale 1854. A preliminary report. China Institute in America.
Chu, T., Liu, X., Takayanagi, S., Matsushita, T., & Kishimoto, H. (2023). Association between
mental health and academic performance among university undergraduates: The
interacting role of lifestyle behaviors. International journal of methods in psychiatric
research, 32(1), e1938. https://doi.org/nmr9

109
Chuang-Stein, C., & Kirby, S. (2021). p-Values and Replicability: A Commentary on “The Role
of p-Values in Judging the Strength of Evidence and Realistic Replication Expectations.”
Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 13(1), 36–39. https://doi.org/nmsb
Churchill Jr., G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of marketing research, 16(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150876
Clark Oropeza, B. A., Fitzgibbon, M., & Baron, A. (1991). Managing mental health crises of
foreign college students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 280–284.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1991.tb01506.x
Coe, K., & Neumann, R. (2011). Finding foreigners in American national identity: Presidential
discourse, people, and the international community. International Journal of
Communication, 5, 819–840. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/872/563
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (1st ed.). Academic
Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-10517-X
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
College Board. (2022). Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2022.
https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-in-college-pricing-student-aid2022.pdf
Conti, C., Lanzara, R., Rosa, I., Müller, M. M., & Porcelli, P. (2023). Psychological correlates of
perceived loneliness in college students before and during the COVID-19 stay-at-home
period: a longitudinal study. BMC psychology, 11(1), 60. https://doi.org/nmsc
Corney, T., du Plessis, K., Woods, B., Lou, C., Dewhurst, A., & Mawren, D. (2024). ‘If you are
feeling alone and you are not feeling safe, it impacts everything’: a mixed-methods

110
exploration of international students’ accommodation, subjective wellbeing and mental
health help-seeking. BMC public health, 24(1), 1262. https://doi.org/nmsd
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Pub. L. No. 116–136, 116th
Cong., 2d Sess. (March 27, 2020). https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ136/PLAW116publ136.pdf
Costello, M. (2016). The Trump effect: The impact of the presidential campaign on our nation’s
schools. Southern Poverty Law Center.
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/splc_the_trump_effect.pdf
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
da Costa, R. B., Hall, S. M., & Spear, A. (2016). Whose Reality? A Meta-Analysis of Qualitative
Research in International and Comparative Education. The Qualitative Report, 21(4),
661–676. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2252
Daigle, L. E., Hancock, K. P., & Chafin, T. C. (2021). Covid-19 and Its Link to Victimization
Among College Students. American journal of criminal justice: AJCJ, 46(5), 683–703.
https://doi.org/nmsf
Daud, K. A. M., Khidzir, N. Z., Ismail, A. R., & Abdullah, F. A. (2018). Validity and reliability
of instrument to measure social media skills among small and medium entrepreneurs at

111
Pengkalan Datu River. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 7(3),
1026–1037. https://isdsnet.com/ijds-v7n3-15.pdf
Davies, P. G., Steele, C. M., & Markus, H. R. (2008). A nation challenged: The impact of
foreign threat on America’s tolerance for diversity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95(2), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.308
De la Fuente, R., Parra, A., & Sánchez-Queija, I. (2017). Psychometric Properties of the
Flourishing Scale and Measurement Invariance Between Two Samples of Spanish
University Students. Evaluation & the health professions, 40(4), 409–424.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278717703446
de Vries, Y. A., Schoevers, R. A., Higgins, J. P. T., Munafò, M. R., & Bastiaansen, J. A. (2023).
Statistical power in clinical trials of interventions for mood, anxiety, and psychotic
disorders. Psychological medicine, 53(10), 4499–4506. https://doi.org/nmsg
Deckard, F. M., Goosby, B. J., & Cheadle, J. E. (2022). Debt Stress, College Stress: Implications
for Black and Latinx Students’ Mental Health. Race and social problems, 14(3), 238–
253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-021-09346-z
Denson, N., & Bowman, N. (2013). University diversity and preparation for a global society: the
role of diversity in shaping intergroup attitudes and civic outcomes. Studies in Higher
Education, 38(4), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.584971
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Holt.
Dewey, J. (1951). The influence of Darwin on philosophy. Peter Smith.
Dewey, J. (1957). Reconstruction in philosophy. Beacon Press.
Dewey, J. (2009). Democracy and education. Wilder Publications. (Original work published
1916).

112
Dhanani, L. Y., & Franz, B. (2020). Unexpected public health consequences of the COVID-19
pandemic: A national survey examining anti-Asian attitudes in the USA. International
Journal of Public Health, 65(6), 747–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-020-01440-0
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., & Oishi, S. (2010). New well-being
measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social
Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653–663.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life
Scale. Journal of personality assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.68.4.653
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2009).
New measures of well-being: Flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social
Indicators Research, 39, 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
DiGiacomo, D. K., Usher, E. L., Han, J., Abney, J. M., Cole, A. E., & Patterson, J. T.
(2023). The benefits of belonging: Students’ perceptions of their online learning
experiences. Distance Education, 44(1), 24–39.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2155615
Dilliplane, S. (2011). All the news you want to hear: The impact of partisan news exposure on
political participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 287–316.
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr006

113
Dooley, D. G., Bandealy, A., & Tschudy, M. M. (2020). Low-income children and Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the US. JAMA Pediatrics, 174(10), 922–923.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.2065
Eid, M., & Larsen, R. J. (Eds.). (2008). The science of subjective well-being. The Guilford Press.
Einav, M., & Margalit, M. (2023). Loneliness before and after COVID-19: Sense of Coherence
and Hope as Coping Mechanisms. International journal of environmental research and
public health, 20(10), 5840. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20105840
Eisner, L., Fischer, S., Juster, R. P., & Hässler, T. (2024). The impact of marriage equality
campaigns on stress: Did a Swiss public vote get under the skin?. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(31), e2400582121.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2400582121
Fabiola, E., Arizaga, I. P., Reyes, Y. L., Sánchez, M. R., & Placencio. (2024). Análisis de las
propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Florecimiento de Diener en jóvenes
universitarios [Analysis of the psychometric properties of the Diener flourishing scale in
young university students]. Espacios, 45(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.48082/espaciosa24v45n02p08
FactCheck.org. (2013, May 9). 9/11 hijackers and student visas.
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/911-hijackers-and-student-visas/
Frank, A., Sattler, J., Zeyen, H., & Christiansen, H. (2017). Does sexual identity stress mediate
the association between sexual identity and mental health? Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4(3), 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000232
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.; 30th anniversary ed.).
Continuum. (Original work published 1970).

114
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.
Fries-Britt, S., George Mwangi, C. A., & Peralta, A. M. (2014). Learning Race in The U.S.
Context: Perceptions of Race among Foreign-born Students of Color. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035636
Frowd, P. M. (2023). Nationalism, racism, and xenophobia. In X. Guillaume & K. Grayson
(Eds.), Security studies: Critical perspectives (1st ed., pp. 171–187). Oxford University
Press.
Furnham, A. (2004). Foreign students: Education and culture shock. The Psychologist, 17, 16–
19. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/foreign-students-education-and-culture-shock
Gallagher, S., & Palmer, J. (2020, September 29). The pandemic pushed universities online. The
change was long overdue. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/09/thepandemic-pushed-universities-online-the-change-was-long-overdue
Gardiner, G., Lee, D., Baranski, E., Funder, D., & Members of the International Situations
Project (2020). Happiness around the world: A combined etic-emic approach across 63
countries. PloS one, 15(12), e0242718. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242718
George Mwangi, C. A., Fries-Britt, S., Peralta, A. M., and Daoud, N. (2016). Examining
Intraracial Dynamics and Engagement between Native-born and Foreign-born Black
Collegians in Stem. Journal of Black Studies, 47(7), 773–794. https://doi.org/f84ht4
Giannakakis, V. (2019). Neoliberalism and culture in higher education: On the loss of the
humanistic character of the university and the possibility of its reconstitution. Studies in
Philosophy and Education, 39(4), 365–382. https://doi.org/gk32th

115
Gibson, B. L., Rochat, P., Tone, E. B., & Baron, A. S. (2017). Sources of implicit and explicit
intergroup race bias among African-American children and young adults. PloS One,
12(9), e0183015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183015
Gibson, R. (2022). Does the perception of discrimination impact Asian American boundaries?
An analysis of group threat and closure ideology. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 45(12),
2362–2389. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2021.2015417
Gilmore, A. K., López, C. M., Mullican, K. N., Davis, K. C., Leone, R. M., Orchowski, L. M.,
Kaysen, D., & Moreland, A. D. (2023). Sexual Assault, Posttraumatic Stress, Alcohol
Use, and Suicidality Among Diverse College Students. Journal of interpersonal
violence, 38(19-20), 10588–10610. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231174698
Glass, C. R., & Westmont, C. M. (2014). Comparative effects of belongingness on the academic
success and cross-cultural interactions of domestic and international students.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 106–119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.04.004
Glass, L. E. (2023). Fools gold: DEI and the performance of race-consciousness. Contexts, 22(2),
36–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/15365042231172463
Glynn, C. J., Ostman, R. E., & McDonald, D. G. (1995). Opinions, perception, and social reality.
In T. L. Glasser & C. T. Salmon (Eds.), Public opinion and the communication of consent
(pp. 249–277). Guilford Press.
Godfried, A., Sekimoto, S., & Brown, C. (2016). Becoming “Black”: Exploring the racialized
experiences of African immigrants in the United States. Howard Journal of
Communications, 27(4), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2016.1206047

116
Gomes, C. (2015). Negotiating everyday life in Australia: Unpacking the parallel society
inhabited by Asian international students through their social networks and entertainment
media use. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(4), 515–536.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2014.992316
Gomes, C. (2020). Living in a Parallel Society: International Students and their Friendship
Circles. Journal of International Students, 10(1), xiii–xv.
https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v10i1.1850
Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why Do Women Opt Out? Sense of Belonging
and Women’s Representation in Mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,102(4), 700–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026659
Gopalan, M., & Brady, S. T. (2020). College students’ sense of belonging: A national
perspective. Educational Researcher, 49(2), 134–137.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19897622
Grabowski, M., Dinh, T. K., Wu, W., & Stockdale, M. S. (2022). The Sex-Based Harassment
Inventory: A Gender Status Threat Measure of Sex-Based Harassment Intentions. Sex
Roles, 86, 648–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01294-1
Gray, A., Blackman-Richards, N., & Rodgers, S. T. (2023). The DEI industrial complex:
Undermining Black woman leadership. In T. B. Johnson (Ed.), The experiences of Black
women diversity practitioners in historically White institutions (pp. 261–280). IGI
Global.
Gwan-ja, J. (2015). Beyond the criticism of assimilation: rethinking the politics of ethno-national
education in postwar Japan. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 16(2), 174–191.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649373.2015.1037070

117
Gyory, A. (1998). Closing the gate: Race, politics, and the Chinese Exclusion Act. University of
North Carolina Press.
Hair Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data
Analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Harris, M., Marti, J., Watt, H., Bhatti, Y., Macinko, J., & Darzi, A. W. (2017). Explicit Bias
Toward High-Income-Country Research: A Randomized, Blinded, Crossover Experiment
Of English Clinicians. Health affairs (Project Hope), 36(11), 1997–2004.
https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0773
Harvard University. (n.d.). Timeline. Harvard University.
https://www.harvard.edu/about/history/timeline/
Hanassab, S. (2006). Diversity, International Students, and Perceived Discrimination:
Implications for Educators and Counselors. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 10(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315305283051
Hattery, A. J., Smith, E., Magnuson, S., Monterrosa, A., Kafonek, K., Shaw, C., Mhonde, R. D.,
& Kanewske, L. C. (2022). Diversity, equity, and inclusion in research teams: The good,
the bad, and the ugly. Race and Justice, 12(3), 505–530.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21533687221087373
Hellerstedt, K., Uman, T., & Wennberg, K. (2024) Fooled by diversity? When diversity
initiatives exacerbate rather than mitigate bias and inequality. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 38(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2022.0123456
Heu, L. C. (2023). The Loneliness of the Odd One Out: How Deviations From Social Norms Can
Help Explain Loneliness Across Cultures. Perspectives on psychological science: a

118
journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 17456916231192485. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231192485
Hirschman, C., & Mogford, E. (2009). Immigration and the American industrial revolution from
1880 to 1920. Social Science Research, 38(4), 897–920.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.001
Hochschild, J. L., & Weaver, V. (2007). The skin color paradox and the American racial order.
Social Forces, 86(2), 643–670. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/86.2.643
Holmes, K. R. (2016). The closing of the liberal mind: How groupthink and intolerance define
the left. Encounter Books.
Houwer, J. D. (2019). Implicit bias is behavior: A functional cognitive perspective on implicit
bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(5), 835–840.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619855638
Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). A short scale for
measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies.
Research on Aging, 26(6), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110
Stat. 3009 (1996).
Institute of International Education (IIE). (2020). International student enrollment trends. Open
Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. http://www.iie.org/opendoors
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965).
Ioku, T., & Watamura, E. (2024). Cultural invariance and ideological variance of collective
ownership threat in intergroup relations. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology, 30(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000707

119
Iowa Legislature. (2024, May 9). Senate File 2435. Iowa General Assembly.
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF2435
Irwin, V., Wang, K., Tezil, T., Zhang, J., Filbey, A., Jung, J., Bullock Mann, F., Dilig, R., and
Parker, S. (2023). Report on the Condition of Education 2023 (NCES 2023-144). U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2023144
Jalilian, K., Momeni, K., & Jebraeili, H. (2023). The mediating role of early maladaptive
schemas in the relationship between attachment styles and loneliness. BMC
psychology, 11(1), 136. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01172-9
Janta, H., Lugosi, P., & Brown, L. (2014). Coping with loneliness: A netnographic study of
doctoral students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(4), 553–571.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2012.726972
Jelić, M., Uzelac, E., & Čorkalo Biruški, D. (2020). Intergroup Threat as a Mediator of Ethnic
Identification and Intergroup Orientations. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 39(4), 534–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20932632
Jesus, A., Daep, D., Datu, M., Yuen, M., Fung, J., Zhang, J., Yuen, S. Y., Chan, F. K. Y., & Wu,
F. K. Y. (2022). The satisfied lives of gifted and gritty adolescents: Linking grit to career
self-efficacy and life satisfaction. Journal of Early Adolescence, 42(8), 1052–1072.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316221096082
Johnson, D., Terry, D. J., & Louis, W. R. (2005). Perceptions of the intergroup structure and
anti-Asian prejudice among White Australians. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, 8(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430205048616

120
Kafadar, K. (2021). Editorial: Statistical significance, P-values, and replicability. The Annals of
Applied Statistics, 15(3):1081–1083. https://doi.org/10.1214/21-AOAS1500
Kalicki, K. (2009). Ethnic Nationalism and Political Community: The Overseas Suffrage
Debates in Japan and South Korea. Asian Studies Review, 33(2), 175–195.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10357820902923241
Kelly, S., Frank, C., & Richardson, J. (2023). Upping the anti: Antiracist identity work and its
obfuscations. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power. Routledge.
Kendi, I. (2019). How to be an antiracist. One World.
Kezar, A., DePaola, T., & Scott, D. (2019). Gig Academy: Mapping Labor in the Neoliberal
University. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kim, S. (2024). Subjective well-being of international students: Interplay of perceived
discrimination, health status, and community satisfaction. Journal of International
Students, 14(4), 570–590. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v14i4.6480
Kirkham, R. L. (1992). Theories of truth: A critical introduction. MIT Press.
Kliebard, H. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958 (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Kokkinos, C. M., & Antoniadou, N. (2019). Cyber-bullying and cyber-victimization among
undergraduate student teachers through the lens of the General Aggression Model.
Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.007
Kotzé, J. L., Frazier, P. A., Huber, K. A., & Lust, K. A. (2023). Predictors of Sexual Harassment
Using Classification and Regression Tree Analyses and Hurdle Models: A Direct
Replication. The Journal of Sex Research, 1–12. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2232354

121
Kruger, D. J. (2002). The deconstruction of constructivism. American Psychologist, 57(6-7),
456–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.6-7.456
Krumer-Nevo, M., & Sidi, M. (2012). Writing against othering. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(4), 299–
309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800411433546
Kurpiel, A. (2023). Biased and Nonbiased Victimization at School: Perceived Impacts Among
Victimized Youth in a National Sample. Journal of School Violence, 23(1), 82–
97. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2023.2272133
Kurtzberg, T. R., & Ameri, M. (2024). Beyond compliance: A randomized trial of DEI
statements and subsequent signals for job seekers with disabilities. Disability and Health
Journal, 17(1), 101513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2023.101513
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding
Achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Le, T. T.-K., & Huyen-Nguyen, T. T. (2024). Stressors and Solutions: A Preliminary
Examination of Acculturative Stress among International Students. Journal of
Comparative & International Higher Education, 15(5S), 62–71.
https://doi.org/10.32674/jcihe.v15i5(S).5838
Leary, M. R. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging: The pursuit of interpersonal
connection. In S. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology. Wiley.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem:
Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80003-9

122
Lederer, N., & Hoban, M. (2022). The development of the American College Health
Association-National College Health Assessment III: An improved tool to assess and
enhance the health and well-being of college students. Journal of American College
Health, 70(6), 1606–1610. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1834401
Lederer, A. M., Hoban, M. T., Lipson, S. K., Zhou, S., & Eisenberg, D. (2021). More Than
Inconvenienced: The Unique Needs of U.S. College Students During the COVID-19
Pandemic. Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for
Public Health Education, 48(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120969372
Lee, J. (2021). Asian Americans, affirmative action, & the rise in anti-Asian hate. Daedalus,
150(2), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01860
Levy, N. (2023). Intellectual virtue signaling. American Philosophical Quarterly, 60(3), 311–
324. https://doi.org/10.5406/21521123.60.3.07
Li, J., Wang, Y., & Xiao, F. (2014). East Asian International Students and Psychological WellBeing: A Systematic Review. Journal of International Students, 4(4), 301–
313. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v4i4.450
Li, M., Leidner, B., Hirschberger, G., & Park, J. (2023). From Threat to Challenge:
Understanding the Impact of Historical Collective Trauma on Contemporary Intergroup
Conflict. Perspectives on psychological science: a journal of the Association for
Psychological Science, 18(1), 190–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221094540
Lie, J. (2008). Zainichi (Koreans in Japan): Diasporic nationalism and postcolonial identity.
University of California Press.
Lindgren, E., Lindholm, T., Vliegenthart, R., Boomgaarden, H. G., Damstra, A., Strömbäck, J.,
& Tsfati, Y. (2022). Trusting the facts: The role of framing, news media as a (trusted)

123
source, and opinion resonance for perceived truth in statistical statements. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221117117
Lindgren, K. P., Tristao, T., & Neighbors, C. (2023). The association between student loan debt
and perceived socioeconomic status and problematic drinking and mental health
symptoms: A preliminary investigation. Addictive behaviors, 139, 107576.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107576
Luke, A. (2010). Educating the Other: Standpoint and Theory in the ‘Internationalization’ of
Higher Education. In E. Unterhalter & V. Carpentier (Eds.), Global Inequalities and
Higher Education (pp. 43–65). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/nmsn
Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social
identity threat: the computer harassment paradigm. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 85(5), 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853 ‘
Magness, P. W. (2023, March 13). Abolish DEI bureaucracies and restore colorblind equality in
public universities. Manhattan Institute. https://manhattan.institute/article/abolish-deibureaucracies-and-restore-colorblind-equality-in-public-universities
Main, T. J. (2021). The Rise of Illiberalism. Brookings Institution Press.
Makashvili, A., Vardanashvili, I., & Javakhishvili, N. (2018). Testing Intergroup Threat Theory:
Realistic and Symbolic Threats, Religiosity and Gender as Predictors of
Prejudice. Europe’s journal of psychology, 14(2), 464–484.
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1483
Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Facts Are More Important Than Novelty: Replication in
the Education Sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 304–316.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14545513

124
Malcom, S. (2024). Strengthen the case for DEI. Science, 383(6690), 1395.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp4397
Martín-Carbonell, M., Espejo, B., Checa, I., & Fernández-Daza, M. (2021). Adaptation and
Measurement Invariance by Gender of the Flourishing Scale in a Colombian
Sample. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(5), 2664.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052664
Maté, G., & Maté, D. (2022). The myth of normal: Trauma, illness, and healing in a toxic
culture. Avery.
Matias, C. E., & Mackey, J. (2016). Breakin’ down whiteness in antiracist teaching: Introducing
critical whiteness pedagogy. The Urban Review, 48(1), 32–50.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-015-0344-7
Matthay, E. C., Hagan, E., Gottlieb, L. M., Tan, M. L., Vlahov, D., Adler, N., & Glymour, M. M.
(2021). Powering population health research: Considerations for plausible and actionable
effect sizes. SSM - population health, 14, 100789.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100789
McKelvey, E. R., Zelikovsky, N., & Psihogios, A. M. (2023). Grit and health-related quality of
life in adolescents and young adults with cancer: Mediating role of health self-efficacy
and treatment adherence. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 48(11), 952–959.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsad066
McLaren, L., Tsatsou, P., & Zhu, Y. (2024). Blaming minorities during public health crises:
post-COVID-19 substantive and methodological reflections from the UK. Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2024.2342408
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W.W. Norton & Company.

125
Migration Policy Institute. (2015, October 15). Fifty years on, the 1965 Immigration and
Nationality Act continues to reshape the United States. Migration Policy Institute.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationalityact-continues-reshape-united-states
Migration Policy Institute. (n.d.). Immigrant population and share over time, 1850-present.
Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/datahub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
Mihailidis, P., & Viotty, S. (2017). Spreadable spectacle in digital culture: Civic expression, fake
news, and the role of media literacies in “post-fact” society. American Behavioral
Scientist, 61(4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217701217
Minhas, S., & Oksol, A. (2019). Speaking for herself: Changing gender roles in survey response.
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Research Working Paper No. 19-01.
https://doi.org/10.18651/RWP2019-01
Mishra, V., & Davison, H. K. (2020). Sexual harassment training: A need to consider cultural
differences. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13(2), 163–167.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.25
Mor-Barak, M. E. (2017). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (4th ed.).
Sage Publications.
Morell, M., Yang, J. S., Gladstone, J. R., Turci, L., Faust, A. R., Ponnock, A. R., Lim, H. J., &
Wigfield, A. (2021). Grit: The long and short of it. Journal of Educational Psychology,
133(5), 1038–1058. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000594

126
Morris, D., & Targ, H. (2022). The crisis of higher education: Neoliberalism and the privileging
of “innovation” in the twenty-first century. Critical Criminology, 30(3), 527–540.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-022-09654-9
Moses, M. S., Maeda, D. J., & Paguyo, C. H. (2018). Racial politics, resentment, and affirmative
action: Asian Americans as “model” college applicants. The Journal of Higher
Education, 90(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1441110
Motta, M., & Stecula, D. (2023). The effects of partisan media in the face of global pandemic:
How news shaped COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Political Communication, 40(5), 505–
526. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2187496
Nadarevic, L., Reber, R., Helmecke, A. J., & Oeberst, A. (2020). Perceived truth of statements
and simulated social media postings: An experimental investigation of source credibility,
repeated exposure, and presentation format. Cognitive Research: Principles and
Implications, 5(56). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00251-4
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Foreign students enrolled in institutions of
higher education in the United States, by continent, region, and selected countries of
origin: Selected years, 1980-81 through 2014-15. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_310.20.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022, April 30). Postsecondary Institution Expenses.
In Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cue
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Fast Facts: Financial aid. U.S. Department of
Education. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=31

127
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. (2004). 9/11 Commission
Staff Statement on Terrorism and Travel.
https://www.911commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf
Nausheen, P.-Z., Afari, E., Sevi, B., Urganci, B., & Durham, J. (2019). Responsibility of
learning: A cross-cultural examination of the relationship of grit, motivational belief, and
self-regulation among college students in the US, UAE, and Turkey. Learning
Environments Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-018-9268-y
Neumann, E. (2021, March 4). Immigration is not a security threat. National Immigration
Forum. https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Immigration-Is-Not-aSecurity-Threat-3_4_2021.pdf
Newkirk, P. (2019). Diversity, Inc.: The failed promise of a billion-dollar business. Bold Type
Books.
Newman, B., Merolla, J. L., Shah, S., Lemi, D. C., Collingwood, L., & Ramakrishnan, S. (2020).
The Trump effect: An experimental investigation of the emboldening effect of racially
inflammatory elite communication. British Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 1138–
1159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123419000590
Nilsson, J. E., Butler, J. B., Shouse, S., & Joshi, C. (2008). The relationship among
perfectionism, acculturation, and stress in Asian international students. Journal of
College Counseling, 11, 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2008.tb00031.x
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Nowrasteh, A. (2020, July 14). Foreign students are not a serious national security threat. The
CATO Institute. https://www.cato.org/blog/foreignstudents-are-not-serious-nationalsecurity-threat

128
Nye, J. (2002). The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It
Alone. Oxford University Press.
Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). The Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act). U.S. Department of State.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/immigration-act
Open Doors Report. (2021). Enrollment Trends: International Student Data.
https://opendoorsdata.org/data/international-students/enrollment-trends/
Orchowski, M. S. (2015). The law that changed the face of America: The Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1965. Rowman & Littlefield.
Osuji, C. K. (2019). Boundaries of Blackness: Groupness and linked fate. In Boundaries of love:
Interracial marriage and the meaning of race. NYU Press.
Ozaki, R., & Otis, M. D. (2017). Gender Equality, Patriarchal Cultural Norms, and Perpetration
of Intimate Partner Violence: Comparison of Male University Students in Asian and
European Cultural Contexts. Violence against women, 23(9), 1076–1099.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216654575
Ozawa-de Silva, C., & Parsons, M. (2020). Toward an anthropology of loneliness. Transcultural
psychiatry, 57(5), 613–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/136346152096162
Paluch, R. M., & Shum, V. (2024). The non-White standard: Racial bias in perceptions of
diversity, equity, and inclusion leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(7), 971–
986. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001106
Park, E., Orum Hernández, G., & Lee, S. J. (2022). Asian Americans and the battle against
affirmative action: Opposition to race-based admissions as neoliberal racial subjectivity

129
performance. Race Ethnicity and Education, 27(4), 474–494.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2022.2154331
Patton, L. (2016). Disrupting Postsecondary Prose: Toward a Critical Race Theory of Higher
Education. Urban Education, 51(3), 315–342.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915602542
Pedler, M., Willis, R., & Nieuwoudt, J. (2022). A sense of belonging at university: student
retention, motivation and enjoyment. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 46(3), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1955844
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Metaanalytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–
934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
Pew Research Center. (2014, June). Political polarization in the American public.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/06/6-12-2014-PoliticalPolarization-Release.pdf
Pew Research Center. (2017, July 26). U.S. Muslims concerned about their place in society, but
continue to believe in the American Dream.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/07/26/findings-from-pew-research-centers2017-survey-of-us-muslims/
Pew Research Center. (2021, November 9). Beyond red vs. blue: The political typology.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/20/2021/11/PP_2021.11.09_political-typology_REPORT.pdf

130
Phillips, M. (2023, July 20). DEI college director fired for not being the ‘right kind’ of Black
person. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/dei-college-director-fired-not-beingright-kind-black-person-1813481
Piketty, T. (2022). A brief history of equality. Harvard University Press.
Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2007). Academic and Psychological Functioning in Late
Adolescence: The Importance of School Belonging. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 75(4), 270–290. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.75.4.270-292
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Popper, K. (1945). The open society and its enemies (Vol. 1 & 2). Routledge.
Prooijen, Jan-Willem van. (2022). Psychological benefits of believing conspiracy theories.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 47,1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101352
Ramirez, A., Rivera, D. B., Valadez, A. M., Mattis, S., & Cerezo, A. (2023). Examining Mental
Health, Academic, and Economic Stressors During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among
Community College and 4-Year University Students. Community college review, 51(3),
463–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521231163929
Rawat, S., & Meena, S. (2014). Publish or perish: Where are we heading? Journal of Research in
Medical Sciences, 19(2), 87–89.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3999612/pdf/JRMS-19-87.pdf
Renick, J., & Reich, S. M. (2023). The couch as a classroom: Exploring the school environment
of low-income Latine adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal for
Multicultural Education, 17(2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-06-2022-0066

131
Rice, K. G., Choi, C., Zhang, Y., Morero, Y. I., & Anderson, D. (2012). Self-critical
perfectionism, acculturative stress, and depression among international students. The
Counseling Psychologist, 40, 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000011427061
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A
meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
Rivas, J., Hale, K., & Galloway, M. (2019). Seeking a sense of belonging: Social and cultural
integration of international students with American college students. Journal of
International Students, 9(2), 687–703. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v9i2.943
Rosenwohl-Mack, A., Tamar-Mattis, S., Baratz, A. B., Dalke, K. B., Ittelson, A., Zieselman, K.,
& Flatt, J. D. (2020). A national study on the physical and mental health of intersex
adults in the U.S. PloS one, 15(10), e0240088. https://doi.org/nmss
Roshan, C., Tiiri, E., Brunstein Klomek, A., Ong, S. H., Fossum, S., Kaneko, H., Kolaitis, G.,
Lesinskiene, S., Li, L., Huong, M. N., Praharaj, S. K., Sillanmäki, L., Slobodskaya, H. R.,
Srabstein, J. C., Wiguna, T., Zamani, Z., & Sourander, A. (2021). Victimization by
traditional bullying and cyberbullying and the combination of these among adolescents in
13 European and Asian countries. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01779-6
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale:
Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39(3), 472–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472

132
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 42(3), 290–294.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4203_11
Russell, J., Rosenthal, D., & Thomson, G. (2010). The international student experience: three
styles of adaptation. High Education, 60(2), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-
009-9297-7
Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of
eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and psychosomatics, 83(1), 10–28.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000353263
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–
1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (1996). Psychological well-being: Meaning, measurement, and
implications for psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65(1), 14–
23. https://doi.org/10.1159/000289026
S. 3548, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019, March 14).
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s3548/BILLS-116s3548is.pdf
Samari, G., Nagle, A., & Coleman-Minahan, K. (2021). Measuring structural xenophobia: US
State immigration policy climates over ten years. SSM - population health, 16, 100938.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100938
Sassenberg, K., Moskowitz, G. B., Jacoby, J., & Hansen, N. (2007). The carry-over effect of
competition: The impact of competition on prejudice towards uninvolved outgroups.

133
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 529–538.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.009
Savelkoul, M., Gesthuizen, M., & Scheepers, P. (2011). Explaining relationships between ethnic
diversity and informal social capital across European countries and regions: Tests of
constrict, conflict and contact theory. Social Science Research, 40, 1091–1107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.03.003
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Educational psychology handbook: Vol. 1. Theories, constructs,and critical issues (pp.
101–123). American Psychological Association.
Schüller, S. (2016) The Effects of 9/11 on Attitudes toward Immigration and the Moderating
Role of Education. Kyklos, 69, 604–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12122
Schwartzberg, M. (2023). Democratic law. The Philosophical Review, 132(3), 520–525.
https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-10469616
Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. Oxford University Press India.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
SEVP v. Harvard University, 526 F. Supp. 3d 250 (D.D.C. 2021).
Shaw, M. (2000). Theory of the Global State: Globality as an Unfinished Revolution. Cambridge
University Press.
Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and
cooperation. Houghton Mifflin.
Simon, R. J. (1993). Old minorities, new immigrants: Aspirations, hopes, and fears. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530(1), 61–73.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716293530001005

134
Slaten, C. D., Elison, Z. M., Lee, J.-Y., Yough, M., & Scalise, D. (2016). Belonging on Campus:
A Qualitative Inquiry of Asian International Students. The Counseling
Psychologist, 44(3), 383–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000016633506
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state,
and higher education. Hopkins University Press.
Smith, R. A., & Khawaja, N. G. (2011). A review of the acculturation experiences of
international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 699–713.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.08.004
Smith, R. A., & Khawaja, N. G. (2014). A group psychological intervention to enhance the
coping and acculturation of international students. Advances in Mental Health, 12,
110–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/18374905.2014.11081889
Smooha, S. (1987). Ethnic groups. In Social problems and mental health (1st ed., pp. 6).
Routledge.
Soennichsen, J. R. (2011). The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Greenwood.
Spears, Y. (2023). Managing white fragility: Teaching while Black. In L. Abrams et al. (Eds.),
Social work, white supremacy, and racial justice: Reckoning with our history,
interrogating our present, reimagining our future (online ed., pp. 715–727). Oxford
Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197641422.003.0038
Statista. (2023). Online Education – Worldwide. https://www.statista.com/outlook/emo/onlineeducation/worldwide
Stebenne, D. (2017). Social welfare in the United States, 1945–1960. In R. Mason & I. Morgan
(Eds.), The liberal consensus reconsidered: American politics and society in the postwar
era. University Press of Florida.

135
Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2017). Decolonization and higher education. In M. Peters
(Ed). Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory. Springer.
Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In D. Mackie
and E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions
to social groups, 191–207. Psychology Press.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–
175. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/ccs4zd
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson
(Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43–60). Psychology
Press.
Stewart, F. (Ed.). (2008). Horizontal inequalities and conflict: Understanding group violence in
multiethnic societies (Conflict, Inequality and Ethnicity). Palgrave Macmillan.
Stone, H. F., & Supreme Court of The United States. (1943) U.S. Reports: Hirabayashi v. United
States, 320 U.S. 81. The Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep320081/
Stop AAPI Hate. (2023, May 3). Righting wrongs: How civil rights can protect Asian Americans
Pacific Islanders against racism. https://stopaapihate.org/2023/05/03/righting-wrongshow-civil-rights-can-protect-asian-americans-pacific-islanders-against-racism/
Stroebe, W., vanDellen, M. R., Abakoumkin, G., Lemay, E. P., Jr, Schiavone, W. M., Agostini,
M., Bélanger, J. J., Gützkow, B., Kreienkamp, J., Reitsema, A. M., Abdul Khaiyom, J.
H., Ahmedi, V., Akkas, H., Almenara, C. A., Atta, M., Bagci, S. C., Basel, S., Berisha
Kida, E., Bernardo, A. B. I., Buttrick, N. R., … Leander, N. P. (2021). Politicization of
COVID-19 health-protective behaviors in the United States: Longitudinal and crossnational evidence. PloS one, 16(10), e0256740. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12909

136
Stubenvoll, M., & Matthes, J. (2021). Four paths to misperceptions: A panel study on resistance
against journalistic evidence. Media Psychology, 25(2), 318–341.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2021.1951767
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 143 S. Ct. 126
(2023).
Sullivan, C., & Kashubeck-West, S. (2015). The interplay of international students’ acculturative
stress, social support, and acculturation modes. Journal of International Students, 5(1),
1–11. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v5i1.438
Syla, S. (2014). Adapting the personnel with the changes at school. International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(2), 195–201.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v4-i2/617
Tai, D. B. G., Sia, I. G., Doubeni, C. A., & Wieland, M. L. (2022). Disproportionate Impact of
COVID-19 on Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups in the United States: A 2021 Update.
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 9(6), 2334–2339.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-021-01170-w
Tai, E. (2007). Korean ethnic education in Japanese public schools. Asian Ethnicity, 8(1), 5–
23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631360601146166
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology,
33, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245
Tajfel, H. (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press. (1982).
Tajfel, H. (2010). Social stereotypes and social groups. In T. Postmes & N. R. Branscombe
(Eds.), Rediscovering social identity (pp. 191–206). Psychology Press.

137
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. 33–47).
Brooks/Cole.
Tavares, V. (2021). Feeling excluded: International students experience equity, diversity and
inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2008536
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
The White House. (2023, April). Bill Signed: H.J.Res. 7. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefingroom/legislation/2023/04/10/bill-signed-h-j-res-7/
Thomas, L. (2012). Building Student Engagement and Belonging in Higher Education at a Time
of Change. Paul Hamlyn Foundation, 100(1-99), 1-102. https://s3.eu-west2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-documentmanager/documents/hea/private/what_works_final_report_1568036657.pdf
Tikly, L. (2004). Education and the New Imperialism. Comparative Education, 40, 173–198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006042000231347
Tough, P. (2021). The inequality machine: How college divides us. Mariner Books.
Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, replacement, and settler futurity.
Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(1), 72–89.
https://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/view/411/pdf
Turkheimer, E. (2000). Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 9(5), 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00084

138
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2012). Overview of INS history. U.S. Department of
Homeland Security. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/factsheets/INSHistory.pdf
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (n.d.). Origins of the federal immigration service.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/ourhistory/explore-agency-history/overview-of-agency-history/origins-of-the-federalimmigration-service
U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2022, June 2). CBP completes Simplified Arrival
expansion at all US airports. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-mediarelease/cbp-completes-simplified-arrival-expansion-all-us-airports
U.S. Department of Education. (2023, May 6). National Center for Education Statistics,
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). U.S. Department of
Education. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data
U.S. Department of Education. (2010, September). An overview of the U.S. Department of
Education. U.S. Department of Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/what.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Advancing diversity and inclusion in higher education:
Key data highlights focusing on race and ethnicity and promising practices.
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/advancing-diversity-inclusion.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (2015, August 6). Combating Post-9/11
Discriminatory Backlash. https://www.justice.gov/crt/combating-post-911-
discriminatory-backlash-6

139
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2001). Hate Crimes in 2001.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2001
U.S. Department of State (2020, July). Visa Services Operating Status Update.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/visas-newsarchive/suspension-of-routine-visa-services.html
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2022). SEVIS by the Numbers: 2022.
https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/sevisBTN2022.pdf
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2023, May 31). Frequently asked questions for
SEVP stakeholders about COVID-19.
https://www.ice.gov/doclib/coronavirus/covid19faq.pdf
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2023, May 31). Frequently asked questions for
SEVP stakeholders about COVID-19.
https://www.ice.gov/doclib/coronavirus/covid19faq.pdf
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (n.d.). Full course of study.
https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/students/study/full-course-of-study
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107–56, 115 Stat. 272
(2001). https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.htm
Van Scoy, L. J., Snyder, B., Miller, E. L., Toyobo, O., Grewel, A., Ha, G., Gillespie, S., Patel,
M., Reilly, J., Zgierska, A. E., & Lennon, R. P. (2021). Public anxiety and distrust due to
perceived politicization and media sensationalism during early COVID-19 media
messaging. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 14(3), 193-205.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2021.1953934

140
Van Scoy, L. J., Snyder, B., Miller, E. L., Toyobo, O., Grewal, A., Ha, G., Gillespie, S., Patel,
M., Zgierska, A. E., & Lennon, R. P. (2022). ‘Us-Versus-Them’: Othering in COVID-19
public health behavior compliance. PloS one, 17(1), e0261726.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261726
Vang, T. M., & Nishina, A. (2022). Fostering School Belonging and Students’ Well-Being
Through a Positive School Interethnic Climate in Diverse High Schools. The Journal of
school health, 92(4), 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13141
Villaverde, L. E. (2008). Feminist theories and education primer: Primer. Peter Lang.
Vu, L., Soraperra, I., Leib, M., van der Weele, J., & Shalvi, S. (2023). Ignorance by choice: A
meta-analytic review of the underlying motives of willful ignorance and its
consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 149(9-10), 611–635.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000398
Waldinger, R., Soehl, T., & Luthra, R. R. (2022). Nationalising foreigners: The making of
American national identity. Nations and Nationalism, 28(1), 47–65.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12806
Wallace, L., Mikkelborg, A., Gonzales, R., Hurd, K., Romano, C., & Plaut, V. (2024). COVID19 responsibility and blame: How group identity and political ideology inform
perceptions of responsibility, blame, and racial disparities. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, e12927. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12927
Wan, T.-Y., Chapman, D. W., & Biggs, D. A. (1992). Academic stress of international students
attending U.S. universities. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 607–623.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00973761

141
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.).
Routledge.
Ward, L. M., & Bridgewater, E. (2023). Media use and the development of racial attitudes
among U.S. youth. Child Development Perspectives, 17, 83–89.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12480
Warren-Gordon, K., & Rhineberger, G. M. (2021). The “Trump effect” on hate crime reporting:
Media coverage before and after the 2016 presidential election. Journal of Ethnicity in
Criminal Justice, 19(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2021.1895944
Weckroth, M., & Kemppainen, T. (2021). (Un)Happiness, where are you? Evaluating the
relationship between urbanity, life satisfaction and economic development in a regional
context. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 8(1), 207–227.
Wexler, M. N. (1995). Expanding the groupthink explanation to the study of contemporary cults.
Cultic Studies Journal, 12(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2021.1925146
Widenhorn, M., Hardy, D. W., Manuel, J. A., Botha, A., & Robinson, R. (2023, January 8).
Comparing Global University Mindsets and Student Expectations: Closing the Gap to
Create the Ideal Learner Experience. The 2nd Global Trends in E-Learning Forum.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4320170
Wilkins, C., Kaiser, R. (2014) Racial Progress as Threat to the Status Hierarchy: Implications for
Perceptions of Anti-White Bias. Psychological Science, 25(2), 439–446.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613508412
Williams, J. C., Nunes, D., & Tankeh, L. (2022). COVID-19 racism and the perpetual foreigner
narrative: the impacts on Asian American students. Race Ethnicity and Education, 26(2),
129–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2022.2114511

142
Williams, R. (2008). Barack Obama and the complicated boundaries of Blackness. Black
Scholar, 38(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00064246.2008.11413436
Witt, A. (2008). Closed borders and closed minds: Immigration policy changes after 9/11 and
U.S. higher education. Journal of Educational Controversy, 3(1).
https://cedar.wwu.edu/jec/vol3/iss1/5/
Wojtasik, W., Muster, R., & Buszman, K. (2020). Religiosity and new populism. European
Journal of Science and Theology, 17(5), 93–106.
http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/90/9_Wojtasik%20et%20al.pdf
Xiong, W., Radunz, M., Ali, K., King, D., Kyrios, M., Zhao, Y., & Fassnacht, D. (2024).
Comparing the mental health and wellbeing of domestic and international tertiary
students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of International
Students, 14(4), 702–740. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v14i4.6647
Yang, D. H., Justen, M., Lee, D., Kim, H., Boatright, D., Desai, M., & Tiyyagura, G. (2023).
Experiences with Racism Among Asian American Medical Students. JAMA network
open, 6(9), e2333067. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.33067
Yang, J. Q. (2020). One mighty and irresistible tide: The epic struggle over American
immigration, 1924-1965. W.W. Norton & Company.
Yao, C. W. (2016). Unfulfilled expectations: Influence of Chinese international students’
roommate relationships on sense of belonging. Journal of International Students, 6(3),
762–778. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i3.355
Yao, C. W., & Mwangi, C. A. G. (2022). Yellow peril and cash cows: The social positioning of
Asian international students in the USA. Higher Education, 84, 1027–1044.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00814-y

143
Yao, C.W., & Viggiano, T. (2019). Interest convergence and the commodification of
international students and scholars in the United States. Journal Committed to Social
Change on Race and Ethnicity, 5(1), 82–109. https://doi.org/nmst
Yıldız, M. A. (2016). Serial multiple mediation of general belongingness and life satisfaction in
the relationship between attachment and loneliness in adolescents. Educational Sciences:
Theory & Practice, 16(2), 553–578. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.2.0380
Zein, A., Diana, M. B., Krenca, K., & Chen, X. (2024). The impact of online learning during the
pandemic on language and reading performance in English–French bilingual children.
Journal of Research in Reading, 47(3), 330-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9817.12450
Zhang, Q. (2015). Perceived intergroup stereotypes, threats, and emotions toward Asian
Americans. Howard Journal of Communications, 26(2), 115–131.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2014.1001097
Zhang, Q. (2016). The Mitigating Effects of Intergroup Contact on Negative Stereotypes,
Perceived Threats, and Harmful Discriminatory Behavior Toward Asian
Americans. Communication Research Reports, 33(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2015.1089854
Zhao, X., & Wang, D. (2023). Grit, emotions, and their effects on ethnic minority students’
English language learning achievements: A structural equation modelling analysis.
System, 102979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.102979
Zheng, J., & Zompetti, J. P. (2023). ‘I’m not a virus’: Asian hate in Donald Trump’s
rhetoric. Asian Journal of Communication, 33(5), 470–503.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2023.2246509

144
Zheng, L. (2022a). DEI deconstructed: Your no-nonsense guide to doing the work and doing it
right. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Zheng, L. (2022b, December 1). The failure of the DEI-industrial complex: How organizations
can hold themselves—and the practitioners they work with—accountable for measurably
improving outcomes for marginalized populations. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2022/12/the-failure-of-the-dei-industrial-complex
Zhou, C., Gao, M., Shi, X., & Zhang, Z. (2023). Suicidal behavior, depression and loneliness
among college students: the role of school belonging. Psychology, health &
medicine, 28(6), 1520–1526. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2022.2113105
Zumbrunn, S., McKim, C., Buhs, E., & Hawley, L. R. (2014). Support, belonging, motivation,
and engagement in the college classroom: a mixed method study. Instructional Science,
42(5), 661–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9310-0

145
Appendix A: Protocol
The secondary data utilized for this study was the National College Health Assessment
III conducted by the American College Health Association (NCHA–ACHA III). The survey and
data were obtained with permission via data use agreement directly from the American College
Health Association (ACHA) and include survey responses from the Fall 2019 until the Spring
2022 academic year.
One key limitation of the NCHA–ACHA III data is its reliance on self-reported responses
to sensitive questions, which may be vulnerable to response bias and introduce or inaccuracies.
Additionally, the survey is cross-sectional, which limits the ability to make causal inferences.
Lastly, since only participating institutions are included, the data may not be fully representative
of all U.S. college students.
All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 28.
Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize the sample characteristics and key variables.
Inferential statistical tests were performed to examine the relationships between variables and
test the research questions.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract International students contribute significantly to the diversity and financial well-being of U.S. higher education institutions. These students often experience mistreatment while they are rarely described as a marginalized group in need of inclusive accommodation. This quantitative study investigates perceptions of threat and sense of belonging, loneliness, and psychological well-being among domestic and international students, with particular attention to the largest subgroup of nonimmigrants, Asian students. Data was collected on more than 100,000 international and domestic students in the United States from 2019 to 2022 using the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment III. The statistical analyses used to explore relationships were descriptive statistics, chi-square and crosstabulation, 2x2x2 ANOVA with F-ratios, Cohen’s d for effect sizes, correlation and mediation analysis, and t-tests. The study found that although Asian international students reported slightly higher levels of perceived threat than domestic students, overall threat perceptions were low, with 89.6% reporting minimal to no threat. Among international students that experienced more perceived threat, the association with belonging and well-being was marginal. Male students felt a stronger sense of belonging than females, who reported higher psychological well-being. Loneliness levels were similar between the sexes. Most international students reported a strong sense of belonging and well-being and demonstrably lower levels of sexual harassment. These findings suggest that international students, despite facing mistreatment in higher education, may use ingroup belonging, self-efficacy, and other characteristics, as buffers against risks to belonging, increased loneliness, and reduced psychological well-being

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

Students with disabilities in higher education: examining factors of mental health, psychological well-being, and resiliency

PDF

Understanding the perceptions of Latine undocumented students' sense of belonging in higher education

PDF

Examining the influence of new student orientation on graduate international students’ campus involvement, intent to persist, and sense of belonging

PDF

Latine college belonging: influences and differences of immigration and college generation

PDF

Mama learns: examining factors that influence intent to persist in student mothers

PDF

A pathway to success: experiences of first-generation minority students in academic jeopardy

PDF

U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist

PDF

Working-class social identity and sense of belonging in higher education: a mixed-methods study

PDF

An exploration of the relationship of awareness and use of student services to sense of belonging, overall satisfaction with institution, and intent to persist to degree completion among internat...

PDF

Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

The crisis of male college graduation and what institutions of higher education are doing about it

PDF

Psychosociocultural predictors of help seeking among Latino community college students

PDF

Understanding international graduate engineering students’ engagement with DEI initiatives

PDF

Presidential perceptions and responses to threats to the viability of private, non-profit, rural-serving institutions (RSIs)

PDF

Investigating differences in online & traditional student perceptions of value and satisfaction with five key educational elements

PDF

Development of higher education student affairs staff to assist U.S. military veteran college students

PDF

Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

PDF

Developing rates of psychological safety in Army Officer Candidates

Asset Metadata

Creator Larsen, Christian Grant (author)

Core Title International student perceptions of threat in U.S. higher education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-12

Publication Date 10/15/2024

Defense Date 09/13/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Asian international students,belonging,higher education.,Loneliness,perceived threat,well-being

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), Chung, Ruth (committee member), Madni, Ayesha (committee member)

Creator Email chrisglarsen@gmail.com,larsench@usc.edu

Unique identifier UC11399CJ8Z

Identifier etd-LarsenChri-13596.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-LarsenChri-13596

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Larsen, Christian Grant

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20241018-usctheses-batch-1219 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu