PATHWAYS TO WELL-BEING DURING THE CULTURAL TRANSITION PROCESS: THE
DAILY EXPERIENCES OF CHINESE INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS
By
Ivan Wu

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Psychology – Doctor of Philosophy
2017

ABSTRACT
PATHWAYS TO WELL-BEING DURING THE CULTURAL TRANSITION PROCESS: THE
DAILY EXPERIENCES OF CHINESE INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS
By
Ivan Wu
The current study aims to increase knowledge and awareness of first-year Chinese
international students’ daily experiences of stress, coping, and psychological well-being. More
specifically, the current study seeks to (1) gather data about the daily experiences of stress
among Chinese international students at Michigan State University (MSU), (2) examine how
appraisals of stress and coping affect their psychological well-being, and (3) investigate how trait
mindfulness promotes their psychological well-being by influencing appraisals of stress and
coping. Research suggests that the cultural adjustment process can be particularly isolating and
stressful experience for international students that hail from countries that are dissimilar to the
U.S. (e.g., those from eastern cultures, such as China, compared to those from similar cultures,
such as England). Despite the dramatic increase in Chinese international students at MSU and
similar institutions, empirical information regarding Chinese international student experiences
and needs is sparse, which hinders efforts to provide culturally sensitive and appropriate mental
health counseling and student programming.
Grounded in stress and coping theory (e.g., Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987; Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984), the current study examines how perceived stress and coping strategies relate to
psychological well-being. Specifically, the role of emotion- and problem-focused coping
strategies was assessed. Building upon existing literature that underscores the psychological
benefits of trait mindfulness, the current study also examine how trait mindfulness influences
perceived stress, coping, and psychological well-being. Towards these goals, 30 Chinese

international students from MSU completed an online survey on mindfulness, and psychological
well-being, and then engage in a two-week daily diary about their experiences of stress and
coping as well as their daily affect. A mixed methods approach was used to analyze the
qualitative and quantitative data gathered from the study. Specifically, thematic analysis was
used to analyze qualitative data in order to reveal themes related to reported stressors.
Additionally, multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) was used to test hypotheses
related to stress, coping, trait mindfulness, and psychological well-being in a cross-cultural
context.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Over the past seven years I have received guidance, support, and encouragement from a
number of individuals. Dr. NiCole Buchanan has been a wonderful mentor and colleague who
has provided unwavering guidance and support through academic and personal struggles. I
would also like to thank my master’s and dissertation committee members Drs. Isis Settles,
Desiree Qin, Frederick Leong, Jason Moser, and Lee June whose invaluable input has not only
helped me move ideas to completed studies, but also the development of multiple manuscripts.
Thank you to a number of organizations that have provided support. The Asian American
Psychological Association (AAPA) and Multiple Intersecting Identities lab (MII) have both been
a source of inspiration and a safe-haven for me throughout graduate school. I would also like to
thank the Office of International Students and Scholars (OISS) for helping me recruit
participants for my dissertation and their whole-hearted dedication to supporting international
students at MSU. Thank you to the friends and colleagues I have made at the Center for
Statistical Training and Consulting (CSTAT) for helping refine and build up my statistical
knowledge. A special thanks to Dr. Steven Pierce for not only helping me understand a wide
array of statistical procedures, but also sharpening my analytical thinking.
Thank you to Dr. Kevin Chun, who inspired me to begin this journey as an undergraduate
junior in college. Without his mentorship I would not have developed the vision to use the tools
and skills learned in academia to give voice to underrepresented populations.
Thank you to the numerous friends I have made throughout this journey. Your friendship
has been invaluable. I will forever cherish the fun weekends, long work nights, and deep
conversations we had together.

iv

Thank you to my family for patiently supporting me throughout this academic journey.
Your stories are an inspiration for hard work and determination in the face of hardship.
Thank you to my partner, Shikha Bista, for opening my eyes to thinking sociologically
and critically about social institutions and ideas. More importantly, thank you for the emotional
support through difficult times and the frequent reminders about the important things in life.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3
Stress, acculturation, and psychological well-being ................................................................... 3
Coping with stress ....................................................................................................................... 7
Mindfulness ............................................................................................................................... 10
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 3: Current Study......................................................................................................... 17
Study Aim 1. Examine daily experiences of stress. ................................................................. 17
Study Aim 2. Understand how experiences of stress and coping affect psychological wellbeing among Chinese international students. ............................................................................ 18
Study Aim 3. Examine effects of mindfulness on stress, coping, and psychological well-being.
................................................................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 4: Method ................................................................................................................... 21
Sample and Procedure ............................................................................................................... 21
Recruitment ........................................................................................................................... 21
Procedure ............................................................................................................................... 21
Measures .................................................................................................................................... 23
Initial and final questionnaire ................................................................................................ 23
Mindfulness ....................................................................................................................... 23
Psychological Well-being .................................................................................................. 23
Daily questionnaire ................................................................................................................ 24
Positive/negative affect ...................................................................................................... 25
Coping strategy .................................................................................................................. 25
CHAPTER 5: Data analytic strategy ............................................................................................ 26
Research Question 1 (RQ1): What are the types of stressors Chinese international students
experience at the daily level? .................................................................................................... 26
Translation ............................................................................................................................. 26
Coding ................................................................................................................................... 26
Quality and trustworthiness ................................................................................................... 28
Research Question 2 and 3: What is the relationship between trait mindfulness, stress, coping
and psychological well-being? .................................................................................................. 29
Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling (MSEM) .............................................................. 29

vi

CHAPTER 6: Results ................................................................................................................... 31
Research Question 1 (RQ1): What types of daily stressors do Chinese international students
experience? ................................................................................................................................ 31
Research Question 2 (RQ2): What is the relationship between perceived stress, coping
strategy, and psychological well-being during a stressful event? ............................................. 37
Negative and positive affect .................................................................................................. 37
Coping by Stress Interactions ................................................................................................ 40
Research Question 3 (RQ3): What is the relationship between trait mindfulness, perceived
stress, coping, and psychological well-being? .......................................................................... 41
Direct effects of mindfulness................................................................................................. 42
Full MSEM model ................................................................................................................. 43
Mindfulness, stress, and suppression ................................................................................. 43
Mindfulness, stress, and problem solving coping .............................................................. 45
Mindfulness, stress, and reappraisal .................................................................................. 46
CHAPTER 7: Discussion.............................................................................................................. 48
Research Question 1. Daily Experiences of Stress among Chinese International Students ..... 49
Academic Stressors and Time Pressures ............................................................................... 49
Future Goal Oriented Stressors and Self-Concept Problems ................................................ 50
Basic Needs ........................................................................................................................... 52
Interpersonal Problems .......................................................................................................... 53
Environmental or Situational Stressors ................................................................................. 54
Summary................................................................................................................................ 55
Research Questions 2 and 3. The Relationships between Trait Mindfulness and Daily
Experiences of Stress, Coping, and Psychological Well-Being. ............................................... 56
Stress, coping, and affect ....................................................................................................... 57
Mindfulness and affect .......................................................................................................... 59
Mindfulness, coping, and affect ............................................................................................ 61
Mindfulness, stress, and affect .............................................................................................. 63
Summary................................................................................................................................ 63
Clinical Implications ................................................................................................................. 65
Institutional Implications........................................................................................................... 67
Limitations and Future Directions............................................................................................. 69
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 70
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 72
APPENDIX A: Figures and Tables. .......................................................................................... 73
APPENDIX B: Informed consent (Chinese). .......................................................................... 111
APPENDIX C: Survey flyer (Chinese). .................................................................................. 113
APPENDIX D: Initial survey (Chinese). ................................................................................ 114
APPENDIX E: Daily survey (Chinese). ................................................................................. 118
APPENDIX F: Informed Consent (English). .......................................................................... 123
APPENDIX G: Survey Flyer (English). ................................................................................. 125
APPENDIX H: Initial survey (English). ................................................................................. 126
APPENDIX I: Daily survey (English). ................................................................................... 129

vii

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 134

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Proposed research questions and hypotheses (RQ1 and RQ2). ...................................... 87
Table 2: Proposed research questions and hypotheses (RQ3). ..................................................... 88
Table 3: Qualitative themes, codes, and example quotations. ...................................................... 90
Table 4: Bivariate relationships, means, standard deviations, and ranges. ................................... 94
Table 5: Piece-wise models estimating direct effects of covariates on stress, coping, and affect. 96
Table 6: Model 1: Mediation model for H2 (Stress  Suppression  Negative Affect). .......... 97
Table 7: Model 2: Mediation model for H2 (Stress  Suppression  Positive Affect). ............ 98
Table 8: Model 3: Mediation model for H2 (Stress  Reappraisal  Negative Affect). ........... 99
Table 9: Model 4: Mediation model for H2 (Stress  Reappraisal  Positive Affect). ........... 100
Table 10: Model 5: Mediation model for H2 (Stress  Problem Solving  Negative Affect). 101
Table 11: Model 6: Mediation model for H2 (Stress  Problem Solving  Positive Affect). . 102
Table 12: Model testing effects of stress, coping, and interaction (stress*coping) effects on
negative affect. ............................................................................................................................ 103
Table 13: Model testing effects of stress, coping, and interaction (stress*coping) effects on
positive affect. ............................................................................................................................. 104
Table 14: Piece-meal models estimating direct effects of mindfulness facets on stress, coping,
and affect. .................................................................................................................................... 105
Table 15: Full model testing mediation for mindfulness, stress, suppression, and negative affect.
..................................................................................................................................................... 107
Table 16: Full model testing mediation for mindfulness, stress, suppression, and positive affect.
..................................................................................................................................................... 108
Table 17: Full model testing mediation for mindfulness, stress, problem solving, and negative
affect. .......................................................................................................................................... 109
Table 18: Full model testing mediation for mindfulness, stress, problem solving, and positive
affect. .......................................................................................................................................... 110

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Hypothesized model for stress, suppression, and negative affect. ................................ 73
Figure 2: Hypothesized model for stress, suppression, and positive affect. ................................. 74
Figure 3: Hypothesized model for stress, reappraisal, and negative affect. ................................. 75
Figure 4: Hypothesized model for stress, reappraisal, and positive affect. .................................. 76
Figure 5: Hypothesized model for stress, problem solving, and negative affect. ......................... 77
Figure 6: Hypothesized model for stress, problem solving, and positive affect. .......................... 78
Figure 7: Moderated structural model for stress, coping (reappraisal, problem solving, and
suppression), and negative affect. ................................................................................................. 79
Figure 8: Moderated structural model for stress, coping (reappraisal, problem solving, and
suppression), and positive affect. .................................................................................................. 80
Figure 9: Hypothesized model for mindfulness, stress, coping (reappraisal, problem solving, and
suppression), and negative affect. ................................................................................................. 81
Figure 10: Hypothesized model for mindfulness, stress, coping (reappraisal, problem solving,
and suppression), and positive affect. ........................................................................................... 82
Figure 11: Final estimated model for mindfulness (nonjudgment, observe, and aware),
suppression, and negative affect. .................................................................................................. 83
Figure 12: Final estimated model for mindfulness (nonjudgment, observe, and aware),
suppression, and positive affect. ................................................................................................... 84
Figure 13: Final estimated model for mindfulness (describe, observe, and aware), problem
solving, and negative affect. ......................................................................................................... 85
Figure 14: Final estimated model for mindfulness (describe, observe, and aware), problem
solving, and positive affect. .......................................................................................................... 86

x

CHAPTER 1: Introduction
Background
The psychological well-being of international students is a growing area of study, largely
because of the unique psychosocial stressors they experience while adjusting to a new cultural
environment. Compared to their American counterparts, international students are more likely to
experience discrimination, and feel lonely and isolated (Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Korobova &
Starobin, 2015). As a result these stressors, they express significant concerns about depression
and anxiety (Poyrazli, 2015). Moreover, studies show that international students, compared to
their American counterparts, are less aware of and use fewer institutional resources such as
campus counseling centers (Han, Han, Luo, Jacobs, & Jean-Baptiste, 2013; Yorgason, Linville,
& Zitzman, 2008). Recent data from 2010-11 showed that the number of international students in
the U.S. has increased 32% since 2000-01 making the total number of international students
residing in the US over 723,277 (IIE, 2010) and increasing universities’ responsibility to
appropriately address their unique cultural adjustment and mental health and needs.
Globally and across U.S. college campuses, students studying abroad from China are the
largest group of international students (approximately 25%, representing nearly 194,000
students; Institute of International Education, 2006). Their increased enrollment results in an
increasing number of students who will encounter a host of unique stressors that place them at
risk for mental health problems. Psychological well-being is a large concern given that
depression and anxiety has been shown to relate to lower GPA scores and dropping out of
college (Eisenberg, Golberstein, & Hun, 2009). Thus, greater attention towards the psychological
well-being of Chinese international students is tantamount to their academic success and
retention. At Michigan State University (MSU), the number of international undergraduate

1

students from China has risen dramatically from 92 in 2006 to 3,458 in 2013 (OISS Statistical
Report, 2014). Their increased enrollment contributes significant tuition to MSU and
approximately $273 million to the Lansing economy (OISS, 2014). As such, greater knowledge
about the daily experiences of Chinese international students can promote culturally sensitive
programming and interventions that facilitate the adjustment process, which benefits these
students, MSU community, and the larger local economy.
Based on theories of stress and coping in cross-cultural contexts (e.g., Berry, Kim,
Minde, & Mok, 1987; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and research on the psychological benefits of
trait mindfulness (i.e., tendency towards present moment awareness and non-judgmental
attitudes), the current study has three aims:
1. Gain knowledge about the daily experiences of stress among Chinese international
students.
2. Examine how appraisals of stress and coping affect psychological well-being among
Chinese international students.
3. Investigate how trait mindfulness promotes psychological well-being by influencing
appraisals of stress and coping among Chinese international students.
An experiential sampling study with daily diary methodology (Mehl & Conner, 2012)
using both qualitative and quantitative measures was used to obtain idiographic data that
minimizes retrospective response bias (Iida, Shrout, Laurenceau, & Bolger, 2012). The study
hypotheses were tested using multilevel structural equation modeling. Knowledge gained from
the study can aid counselors, clinicians, and university administrators in directing resources
towards implementing culturally sensitive and appropriate treatment, programming, and
community-based interventions.

2

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review
Introduction
In this literature review I will present the rationale for studying the effects of stress,
coping, and trait mindfulness on the psychological well-being of first-year Chinese international
students. The theoretical framework will build upon models of general stress and coping
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and briefly review stressors sojourners – temporary residents in a
new country – might experience in the cross-cultural context (Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok,
1987). I will expand upon the stress and coping review to consider the psychological benefits of
trait mindfulness. Therefore, the review will be conducted in three parts. First, I will provide a
brief review of the literature on acculturation with sojourners to contextualize contemporary
theory on stress in cross-cultural settings. Next, I will review the existing literature on stress and
coping as it relates to Chinese international students. Finally, my analysis of the past literature
will be used to examine how trait mindfulness can promote psychological well-being by
influencing perceptions of stress and use of coping strategies during a sojourn (temporary travel
to a new country).
Stress, acculturation, and psychological well-being
The current study draws upon acculturation theory (Berry et al., 1987) to contextualize
the daily experiences of stress among Chinese international students. Acculturation is defined as
the process of adaptation and adjustment to new cultural environments. It has been widely
studied among anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists. Early views of acculturation
described immigrants as learning and gaining the cultural mores of the dominant culture while
losing aspects of their heritage culture as they spent more time in the new country (Thurnwald,
1932). This unidimensional view perceived immigrants as losing their heritage culture, while

3

learning the new dominant culture over time. However, contemporary views have adopted a bidimensional view of acculturation wherein immigrants actively engage in both maintaining their
own heritage and learning the dominant culture (Berry et al., 1989). However, the cultural
adjustment process can be difficult and can present a set of unique challenges.
The increase in globalization and international travel in the mid-20th century sparked an
interest in the experiences of sojourners (Lysgaard, 1955; Watson & Lippitt, 1955). However,
initial studies of international students focused on adjustment during the sojourn and lacked
strong theoretical foundations, which limited hypothesis testing and predictive modeling. These
early studies were exploratory and attempted to describe “culture shock” or the initial difficulties
of adjusting to a new cultural climate. Various theories described the sojourner experience as
progressing through stages in the shape of a U-curve such that upon arrival sojourners would
experience a “honeymoon” period marked by excitement. This period was followed by
disillusionment due to adjustment difficulties. Finally, at the end of the sojourn, theory suggested
that students would come to accept their difficulties (Adler, 1975; Oberg, 1960). However, these
models have not been supported by empirical evidence (Becker, 1968; Klineberg & Hull, 1979;
Selby & Woods, 1966).
Other acculturation theories focused on the development of personality typologies to
describe groups of sojourners (Sewell & Davidesen, 1956). These theories described the
adjustment process as a function of the cultural differences one experienced between their
culture of origin and the host culture (Babiker, Cox, & Miller, 1980; Ward & Chang, 1997).
Since the early “culture shock” studies, development and theory shifted towards contextual
factors of the destination setting such as national attitudes towards immigration (Bourhis, Moise,
Perreault, & Senecal, 1997), congruence between immigrant and dominant attitudes towards

4

adjustment (Piontkowski, Rohmann, & Florack, 2002; Berry, 2006), and personality differences
between international and domestic students (Babiker, Cox, & Miller, 1980; Ward & Chang,
1997). A common theme in this area of study has been to describe the factors that cause negative
psychological well-being – commonly referred to as “acculturative stress” in contemporary
theory.
Theoretical development related to the effects of the cultural adjustment process on
psychological well-being among sojourners drew upon well-established theories of stress and
coping. An often cited term relating stress to the adjustment process is acculturative stress (Berry
et al., 1987). Based on theories of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), acculturative
stress is defined as the experience of negative outcomes when the demands for change outweigh
the resources to cope (Balls Organista, Marin, & Chun, 2010; Berry, 2006) and vary depending
on whether the traveler seeks permanent or temporary residency (Berry et al., 1987). For
example, international students may experience acculturative stressors such as difficulties related
to English language proficiency, discrimination, and lack of social support and connectedness
(Constantine, Okazaki, & Utsey, 2004; Lee, Koeske, & Sales, 2004; Poyrazli, Kavanaugh,
Baker, & Al-Timimi, 2004; Smith & Khwaja, 2011; Wang, & Mallinckrodt, 2006; Yeh & Inose,
2003). Further, these stressors have been linked to poor psychological well-being (Nguyen &
Benet-Martinez, 2013) over and above perceived general stress (Hwang & Ting, 2008).
The proliferation of acculturative stress studies has led to a number of criticisms in the
field that may be remedied by a mixed methods design. Notably, critics question the conceptual
and construct validity of current acculturative stress measures (see Rudmin, 2009, for a review).
First, acculturative stress measures include items related to mental health (e.g., symptoms of
depression, anxiety), socioeconomic status, and discrimination (e.g., Arends-Toth & van de

5

Vijver, 2006; Cabassa, 2003; Rudmin, 2009). As a result, acculturative stress is confounded with
psychological well-being, class, and negative interpersonal interactions. Second, acculturative
stress is strongly correlated with general stress (r = .46; Hwang & Ting, 2008; Joiner & Walker,
2002). Despite findings pointing to the incremental effects of acculturative stress on
psychological well-being over and above general stress, the strong correlation with general stress
measures raise questions about discriminant validity. Succinctly stated by Rudmin (2009),
“acculturative stress has become a catch-all concept for every kind of problem that minorities
might encounter however remotely related to second-culture acquisition” (p. 116). One remedy
may be to draw upon idiographic approaches that allow participants to not only identify
stressors, but also the extent to which they believe the stressor is related to cultural adjustment.
Thus, the current study used a mixed methods design to provide a more accurate picture of the
stressors experienced in the first semester when international students struggle most (e.g., Wang
et al., 2012; Wang, Wei, & Chen, 2015; Ying, 2005).
Despite growing research on Chinese international students, few studies use methods that
capture daily stressors, such as experiential sampling with daily diaries. Further, such methods
have been used to investigate some types of stressful events, but have generally been limited to
experiences of racial discrimination and have not focused specifically on first-year Chinese
international student populations. For instance, reports of racial discrimination and microaggressions among Asian American college students in the US range from once a week to
multiple times daily (Dang, 2012; Ong, Burrow, Fuller-Rowell, Ja, & Sue, 2013). Among other
racial/ethnic groups, reports reveal rates ranging from once a week to 4-5 days a week among
Latino high-school students with higher rates among adults and those living in rural areas
(Potochnick, Perreira, & Fuligni, 2012; Torres & Ong, 2010). Comparatively, other studies find

6

that Black/African American university students reported experiencing discrimination 3-4 days a
week, often with more than one incident a day (Burrow & Ong, 2010; Ong, Fuller-Rowell, &
Burrow, 2009). Unsurprisingly, studies consistently find that greater reports of discrimination are
related to worse psychological well-being. These rates, however, may underestimate the daily
stressors experienced by first-year Chinese international students given that only racial/ethnic
discrimination was assessed. Thus, the current study uses experience sampling to gather in depth
data on a wide range of daily stressors.
Coping with stress
The second aim of the study is to better understand how Chinese international students
appraise and manage daily stressors and how these stressors affect psychological well-being. The
current study draws upon the transactional model of stress and coping framework (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984), which proposes that individuals engage in two appraisal processes after
encountering a stressor. Initially, primary appraisal assesses the potential harm, threat, or
challenge presented by the stressor, then the individual evaluates his/her ability to cope and
options for coping with the stressor during secondary appraisal. Once appraising the situation
and resources for coping, the individual utilizes coping strategies broadly categorized as
problem- or emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping strategies refer to externally
focused methods of dealing with stressors such as directly handling the situation by seeking
authoritative figures for help or changing one’s behavior. In contrast, emotion-focused strategies
are defined as internally focused methods of dealing with stressors such as actively trying to
forget about the incident or changing one’s thoughts – two methods that can be considered
emotional suppression and cognitive reappraisal, respectively (Compas, 2009).

7

A growing area builds upon existing western theories of stress and coping to incorporate
situational aspects related to culture. For instance, investigators have begun to consider how
interpretations of stress and resulting coping strategies function as a result of the traveler’s crosscultural knowledge in the new environment, contextual factors of the society of origin and
settlement, and deeply entrenched cultural values of the sending context (Cheng, Lo, and Chio,
2010; Berry, 1997; Slavin, Rainer, McCreary & Gowda, 1999; Wong, 1993; Wong, Reker, &
Peacock, 2006). Building upon the extant theory development, there continues to be a greater
need for research with specific populations such as first-year Chinese international students in
cross-cultural settings.
Notably, studies using predominantly western samples conclude that problem-, compared
to emotion-focused, coping strategies relate to better psychological well-being (Endler & Parker,
1994). Cross-cultural scholars argue that western cultures emphasizing individualism encourage
more problem-focused coping, whereas eastern cultures emphasizing collectivism encourage
more emotion-focused coping (Cross, 1995). Indeed, findings show that Asians are more likely
to engage in inwardly directed emotion-focused coping (see Cheng, Lo, Chio, 2010, for review).
Ostensibly, withholding one’s opinion or staying silent in the face of adversity may be perceived
as meek or docile from the standpoint of someone living in an individualistic culture. However,
the opposite may be true in collectivistic contexts where self-control and inhibition are highly
valued. Indigenous psychologists assert that the use of emotion-related coping reflects alternative
perceptions of self-control (Cheng, Lo, Chio, 2010). By unburdening the group to maintain
harmony (Wei, Su, Carrera, Lin, & Yi, 2013), emotion-focused coping may function to increase
a person’s social capital and increase the likelihood of receiving support during times of stress
(e.g., Spector et al., 2004). However, with these perspectives in mind, people often deploy both

8

problem- and emotion-focused coping styles (Gerdes & Ping, 1994). Therefore, further inquiry
into the role of both emotion- and problem-focused coping in cross-cultural settings is needed.
The effectiveness of emotion-focused coping during the cultural adjustment process is
mixed. This likely reflects the possibility that some emotion-focused coping strategies are more
effective than others. For instance, cognitive re-appraisals such as acceptance, reframing, and
striving have been related to better psychological well-being among Chinese international
students (Pan, Wong, Chan, & Joubert, 2008; Wang et al., 2012) and Asian refugees (Noh,
Beiser, Kaspar, Hou, & Rummens, 1999). In contrast, emotional suppression and forebearance
coping (i.e., withholding one’s distress to unburden others) have been found to exacerbate the
negative effects of high levels of perceived discrimination and acculturative stress (e.g, Noh &
Kaspar, 2003; Wei, Ku, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Liao, 2008; Wei, Liao, Heppner, Chao, & Ku,
2012). Thus, the current study seeks to clarify the role of emotion-focused coping in the stress
and psychological well-being relationship among first-year Chinese international students.
An alternative way of coping with stress is to directly address the situation using
problem-focused coping strategies. However, the current research on problem-focused coping
among Chinese international students is limited. For instance, one area focuses on social support.
Chinese international students who perceive greater social support or connectedness with other
students experience fewer social difficulties and better psychological well-being (Ye, 2006; Wei,
Wang, Heppner, & Du, 2012; Yan & Berliner, 2011). Another area gaining attention is problem
solving coping or the ability to follow through a plan in a stressful situation. Previous studies
with Asian international students suggest that problem solving predicts positive psychological
well-being (e.g., Yang & Clum, 1994; Wei, Wang, Heppner, & Du, 2012). However, this
strategy may only be beneficial if the person experiences few stressors such as low levels of

9

racial discrimination (Yoo & Lee, 2005). Thus, the current study also examines the role of
problem-focused coping along with emotion-focused coping among first-year Chinese
international students.
Mindfulness
The third aim of the current study is to examine how trait mindfulness promotes
psychological well-being by influencing appraisals of stress and coping. Rooted in eastern
philosophy, mindfulness has garnered significant attention in the U.S. since the 1990’s (see
Wilson, 2014, for history). A recent 2007 National Institute of Health report showed that
Americans spent about $4 billion on mindfulness-based treatments in 2009 (as referenced in
Pickert, 2014). Psychotherapy treatments that use mindfulness include Acceptance and
Commitment therapy (ACT; Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999), mindfulness-based stress
reduction (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, 1982), mindfulness-based cognitive behavior therapy (MCBT;
Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2002), and Dialectical Behavior Therapy (Linehan, 2014). Across
the various therapies, mindfulness techniques are used to increase self-awareness, encourage
emotion regulation, clarify values, and, ultimately, promote psychological well-being.
The current study defines mindfulness as the tendency towards actively paying attention
to internal and external events in the present moment with purpose and nonjudgment (KabatZinn, 1994; Bishop et al., 2004). Researchers generally agree that mindfulness incorporates two
primary components, attentional control and quality of attention (Sauer et al., 2013). Attentional
control refers to the ability to redirect attention to present moment experiences often based on the
five senses (e.g., hearing, smelling, seeing, touching, and tasting), and quality of attention refers
to the person’s attitude towards present moment experiences (e.g., acceptance and compassion).
Analayo’s (2003) discourse on the Sattipattana Sutta, a foundational text on mindfulness

10

practice, highlights the importance of cultivating present moment awareness (i.e., “sati”) and
guarding against desires and discontent while practicing sati. The importance of these two
aspects have been linked to contemporary psychological theories such as the theory of planned
behavior (Chatzisarantis & Hagger, 2007), theories related to control, awareness, and
consciousness (Brown & Ryan, 2003), and relational frame theory (Fletcher & Hayes, 2005).
Researchers continue to debate whether mindfulness is a state or trait. Conceptualized as
a state, mindfulness is a momentary event when an individual attends to the present moment with
open awareness. Bishop and colleagues (2004) argue that mindfulness is “much closer to a state
than a trait because we believe that its evocation and maintenance is dependent on the regulation
of attention while cultivating an open orientation to experience” (p.234). In contrast, a trait
conceptualization views mindfulness as an inherent ability or individual difference that does not
vary significantly without intervention. Recent data suggest that trait mindfulness increases with
mindfulness-based training (Kiken, Garland, Bluth, Palsson, & Gaylord, 2015) and is associated
with activation in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala during a labeling task (Creswell, Way,
Eisenberger, & Lieberman, 2007). Because trait mindfulness it is more amenable to intervention
and change, and to be consistent with similar studies examining mindfulness among ethnic
minority populations (e.g., Brown-Iannuzzi, Adair, Payne, Richman, & Fredrickson, 2014;
Graham, West, & Roemer, 2013), the current study is centered on a trait conceptualization of
mindfulness as a preliminary investigation into the role of mindfulness among first-year Chinese
international students.
The flexibility of the construct has generated a wide array of measures with the
conceptualization and measurement of mindfulness varying across study goals. Investigators
have noted limitations in current mindfulness self-report scales (e.g., Chiesa, Serretti, &

11

Jakobson, 2013; Bergomi, Tschacher, & Kupper, 2013; Davidson, 2010; Grossman & van Dam,
2011); nevertheless, an extensive body of research on mindfulness as a state, trait, and skill, has
led to self-report measures that demonstrate adequate reliability and validity (see Bergomi et al.,
2013 for review). Combining psychometrically strong items from previous measures, the FFMQ
has received significant attention and validation. Research using the Five-Facet Mindfulness
Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietmeyer, & Toney, 2006) proposes the
following five trait facets: (1) describe (using words to label experiences), (2) acting with
awareness (attention to the present moment), (3) non-judgment (non-evaluative stance towards
one’s experience), (4) non-reactance (not getting carried away by inner experience), and (5)
observe (noticing inner and outer experiences). This conceptualization views mindfulness as a
trait compared to others viewing mindfulness as a state (i.e., a momentary event of mindfulness)
or skill (i.e., an ability that can be trained) (Carlson, 2013). Thus, the current study uses the
FFMQ given its strong psychometric properties and consistent factor structure across a range of
samples and cultures (e.g., Baer et al., 2008; Bohlmeijer, Peter, Fledderus, Veehof, & Baer,
2011; Deng, Liu, Rodriguez, & Xia, 2011; Hou et al., 2014; Van Damn, Earleywine, & DanoffBurg, 2009).
The psychological benefits of mindfulness are well-established in large systematic
reviews and meta-analyses of mindfulness-based interventions (MBI’s) – therapeutic modalities
that incorporate mindfulness techniques. Reviews show that people engaging in MBI’s will
experience greater relationship quality, fewer symptoms of psychopathology (i.e., anxiety and
negative emotions), better attentional awareness, and better emotion regulation (n = 10, Chiesa &
Serretti, 2009; n = 47, Goyal et al., 2014; n = 209, Khoury et al., 2013; n = 39, Hoffman, Sawyer,
Witt, & Oh, 2010; n = 163, Sedlmeier et al., 2012). The benefits of MBI’s also seem to

12

effectively prevent relapse among individuals with a past history of major depressive disorder (n
= 6; Piet & Hougaard, 2011). Although it is still unclear if MBI’s increment other treatment
modalities (e.g., CBT, other behavioral therapies, pharmacotherapy, exercise, or progressive
muscle relaxation; Chiesa & Serretti, 2009; Goyal et al., 2014; Khoury et al., 2013), a large area
of study has moved towards understanding how mindfulness promotes psychological well-being.
Investigators have theorized that mindfulness enhances psychological well-being because
it encourages tolerating aversive emotions and feelings, engaging in meta-cognition, disrupting
automatic processes such as rumination, and deploying adaptive coping strategies such as selfcompassion and acceptance (e.g., Baer, 2003; Chiesa, Anselmi, & Serretti, 2014; van der Velden
et al., 2015). Based on neuropsychological studies, Hölzel and colleagues (2011) proposed four
mechanisms of trait mindfulness: (1) attention regulation, (2) emotion regulation, (3) body
awareness, and (4) changes in perspective of the self. Supporting these assertions, a recent metaanalysis of mediation studies showed that improvement in mindfulness skills, levels of selfcompassion, cognitive and emotional reactivity, psychological flexibility, and a decrease in
repetitive negative thinking accounted for the beneficial effects of MBI’s (n = 20; Gu, Strauss,
Bond, & Cavanaugh, 2015). Building on these theoretical advances, studies have turned towards
advanced methodologies, such as experience sampling, to gain ecological validity.
Emerging research seeking to examine the daily effects of trait mindfulness provide a
more detailed analysis of the potential mechanisms of change. Studies using daily diary methods
find that trait mindfulness buffers against neuroticism (Oken et al., 2014; Wenzel, von Versen,
Hirschmuller, & Kubiak, 2015), predicts greater self-directed behavior (Brown & Ryan, 2003;
Levesque & Brown, 2007) and emotion regulation (Hill & Updegraff, 2012), and perceptions of
less stress (Weinstein, Brown, & Ryan, 2009). Other benefits include improved psychological

13

well-being by increasing sustained attention and present moment awareness (Huffziger et al.,
2013; Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010; Mrazek, Smallwood, & Schooler, 2012). Across studies
using experience sampling methodology, findings were consistent with theories of mechanisms
of change. Questions, however, remaining to be explored include: how and which aspects of trait
mindfulness affect the stress and coping process? Do the reviewed findings generalize to firstyear Chinese international students?
How trait mindfulness affects one’s coping response during a stressful event is not wellknown. Conceptually, it is important to note that while mindfulness overlaps with emotion
regulation in that both capture an aspect of attending to emotions, mindfulness is distinguished
by the quality of attention and present moment awareness it requires (Coffey, Hartman, &
Frerickson, 2010). That is, mindfulness promotes a quality of awareness that broadens an
individual’s ability to attend to specific cues in the environment allowing for improved emotion
regulation (Roemer, Williston, & Rollins, 2015). Two mechanisms identified by Hölzel and
colleagues (2011) are attention and emotion regulation – constructs related to perceived stress
and coping strategy. A person with high levels of mindfulness may regulate her/his attention to
tolerate and openly experience a stressful event. As follows, s/he may report lower levels of
perceived stress. Further, s/he may be able to regulate her/his emotions effectively with adaptive
coping strategies. In short, trait mindfulness may promote top-down emotion regulation (see
Chiesa et al., 2013, for discussion related to mindfulness practice). Supporting these notions,
findings from a four-part study showed that those with higher levels of trait mindfulness
perceived less stress, and used more approach (and less avoidant) coping strategies (Weinstein,
Brown & Ryan, 2009). As a result, those with higher levels of trait mindfulness enjoyed better
psychological well-being. However, because the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS;

14

Brown & Ryan, 2003) was used – a uni-dimensional measure of poor attentional awareness
(Grossman, 2011) – less is known about the other aspects of trait mindfulness (i.e., describe,
observe, non-reactance, and non-judgment).
A paucity of research examines the role of trait mindfulness in buffering against stressors
during the cultural adjustment process. Cross-cultural counseling and clinical psychologists
suggest that mindfulness and acceptance-based therapies with roots in eastern philosophy may be
culturally syntonic approaches to psychotherapy for Asian and Asian American populations
(Hall, Hong, Zane, & Meyer, 2011; Hayes, Muto, & Masuda, 2011; Hwang, 2012; Muto, Hayes,
& Jeffcoat, 2011). Thus, trait mindfulness among non-clinical populations might serve as an
individual level characteristic that facilitates cultural adjustment. Emerging evidence has shown
that trait mindfulness predicted better psychological well-being among Asian American college
students (Masuda, Wendell, Chou, & Feinstein, 2010; Masuda, Mandavia, & Tully, 2014; Wu &
Buchanan, 2015). However, the extent to which mechanisms proposed using predominantly
White/European American samples generalize to a cross-cultural setting remains to be explored.
It is possible that the mechanisms may be similar, but different in quality. For instance, trait
mindfulness may encourage coping strategies that are culturally appropriate for one’s cultural
background.
Summary
The current study builds upon the past literature on stress, coping, and trait mindfulness
in the following ways. First, few studies focus on the experiences of Chinese international
students. Research among ethnic minorities tend to combine various ethnic minority groups (e.g.,
collapsing Japanese, Chinese, and Hmong participants into the category of “Asian”) to increase
sample size. This procedure leads to inferences that assume individuals are homogenous within

15

the group. Although important research has emerged from studies that broadly defined the target
population in these ways, increased sophistication in this body of research requires that the field
move toward disaggregating groups and empirically establish whether or not the theories
continue to be applicable. Further, the current study seeks to bring greater attention to Chinese
international students and focuses on their first year studying in the US given the stress
experienced during this transition. Greater knowledge about their experiences can inform early
interventions leading to increased retention and better psychological adjustment.
Second, technological advances in survey methodology and computing power allow for
more sophisticated analyses and novel research designs. Perceived stress, coping, and cultural
adjustment are complex processes that are best suited for longitudinal designs. Naturally, people
use various coping strategies depending on the situational demands – a phenomenon difficult to
capture using cross-sectional designs. Thus, the current study uses daily diary methods to allow
for a finer grain analysis of the variability in perceived stress, coping, and psychological wellbeing.
Third, many studies continue to use only qualitative or quantitative methods to assess
stress and coping among international students. A mixed methods design will offer greater
insight into the daily experiences of Chinese international students. Thus, the current study
leverages the advantages of qualitative assessments to gain rich detail on the daily experiences of
stress and coping. Further, quantitative data will build upon the qualitative findings to test how
daily perceived stress, coping, and trait mindfulness affect psychological well-being.

16

CHAPTER 3: Current Study
The cultural adjustment process can be isolating and stressful for Chinese international
students. Given the dramatic increase in Chinese international students at MSU and globally,
greater knowledge of their stress and coping experiences is needed to enhance culturally
sensitive psychotherapy and effective university programming. Drawing upon multiple theories
to address this need, the current study asserts that Chinese international students may experience
a host of stressors during the cultural adjustment process (Berry et al., 1987) and deploy a range
of coping strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Furthermore, trait mindfulness – a
characteristic marked by greater present moment attention and non-judgment – may promote
psychological well-being by decreasing perceptions of stress and encouraging adaptive coping
strategies. To this end, the current study aims to: (1) gain knowledge about the daily experiences
of stress among first-year Chinese international students, (2) examine how appraisals of stress
and coping affect psychological well-being, and (3) investigate how trait mindfulness promotes
psychological well-being by influencing perceived stress and coping strategies.
Study Aim 1. Examine daily experiences of stress.
The first aim of the study is to increase knowledge about the daily experiences of stress
among Chinese international students. Although past studies have focused on acculturative
stressors with this population, few assess stress more broadly. For instance, studies on Asian
students highlight the importance of acculturative stressors and daily experiences of
discrimination; however few use assessment strategies that broadly capture daily stressors. Thus,
the current study used open-ended assessments of stress that allowed Chinese international
students to ideographically identify stressors they experience during the day, thereby capturing a
range of stressors.

17

Study Aim 2. Understand how experiences of stress and coping affect psychological wellbeing among Chinese international students.
The second aim of the current study is to better understand how experiences of stress and
coping affect psychological well-being among Chinese international students. First, the first year
of college represents an important transition year for international students and universities. For
many international students, the first year can be a pivotal developmental milestone as it may
represent the first time they have spent significant time away from family. For universities, the
first year is an important window of time for early intervention and prevention programming to
mitigate mental health problems and aid in the adjustment process. Building on past studies that
combine Chinese international students across various developmental stages (e.g., graduate and
undergraduate students; Pan, Wong, Chan, & Joubert, 2008; Wang et al., 2012; Wei, Liao,
Heppner, Chao, & Ku, 2012; Wei, Su, Carrera, Lin, & Yi, 2013; Wei, Ku, Russell, Mallinckrodt,
& Liao, 2008), the current study specifies the population of interest as first-year Chinese
international students.
Second, the stress, coping, and mental health process is inherently dynamic and unfolds
over time, which lends itself to longitudinal research designs. Therefore, the current study
examines changes in positive and negative affect as a consequence of changes in stress and
coping responses over time. Daily assessments of affect provide a finer grain assessment of wellbeing than existing measures of mental health disorders. For instance, many measures tapping
into DSM-IV mental health disorders (e.g., Beck Depression Inventory; Beck, Steer, & Brown,
1996; Patient Health Questionnaire-9; Spitzer, Kroenke, & Williams, 1999) assess symptoms
across the past week, two weeks, or month. Measures designed to assess mental health over these
time periods miss day-to-day fluctuations in well-being. Thus, assessing changes in positive and

18

negative affect provides an alternative method for studying the relationship between daily stress
and well-being because affect is variability within a day and across a week (Augustine & Larsen,
2011; Finan, Zautra, & Wershba, 2011) allowing researchers to capture the link between daily
experiences of stress and psychological well-being. Furthermore, daily fluctuations in affect are
related to psychopathology. Notably, Myin-Germeys and colleagues (2009) reviewed experience
sampling studies of psychopathology and noted that affect instability and daily fluctuations were
strong predictors of affective, anxiety, and eating disorders.
Lastly, a daily diary method is used because measures of general tendencies in coping
can bias results and overlook nuanced daily variations in coping (Lazarus, 1999). For instance,
studies suggest that problem-focused coping may be more consistent across individuals and
situations, whereas social support may be more situationally-based (e.g., Lazarus, 1999; Roesch
et al., 2010). Longitudinal methods allow for the study of intra-individual variability in coping
strategies (e.g., Cheng, 2001). Thus, it remains unclear how often and to what extent different
types of coping are deployed among first-year Chinese international students.
Study Aim 3. Examine effects of mindfulness on stress, coping, and psychological wellbeing.
The third aim of the current study is to better understand how trait mindfulness affects
stress, coping, and psychological well-being among Chinese international students. The current
study builds upon past studies showing positive relationship between mindfulness and
psychological well-being among Asian American students (e.g., (Masuda, Wendell, Chou, &
Feinstein, 2010; Masuda, Mandavia, & Tully, 2014) by seeking to replicate findings among firstyear Chinese international students early in the cultural adjustment process. Furthermore, results
of the current study will also contribute to how various aspects of trait mindfulness relate to

19

stress and coping. Given that past studies in this area use the MAAS – a measure of inattention –
the study extends current research by using a multifaceted measure of mindfulness (i.e., FiveFacet Mindfulness Questionnaire; Baer et al., 2006).

20

CHAPTER 4: Method
Sample and Procedure
Chinese International undergraduates (n = 38) were recruited to complete the two-week
daily diary study. Eight students were removed from the final data set because they only
completed the initial survey. The retained sample (n = 30) was primarily female (85.6%),
ranging from 18-20 years old (M = 18.67, SD = .89). They all indicated that Chinese was their
first language and originated from various cities in China. Eleven originated from municipalities
(e.q., Beijing, Chongqing, and Tianjin; 31.4%), 11 from provinces (e.g., Guangdong and Anhui;
40.0%), and eight from prefecture-level cities (e.g., Huizhou and Xiangtan; 28.6%). Students
also reported a wide range of majors including psychology, accounting, business, math,
neuroscience, finance, biochemistry, education, pharmacy, art, food science and nutrition,
economics, advertising, and undecided.
Recruitment. Students were recruited through face-to-face canvassing across campus
(e.g., dorms, international center, library, and classrooms), snowballing, social media (e.g.,
WeChat) and flyers. Students were offered a $20 Amazon gift card for completing the two-week
study and an additional $5 if they completed all daily diary questionnaires. Three Chinese
international student undergraduate research assistants actively engaged with the participants by
sending and reminding participants’ daily questionnaires, answering questions, and checking
responses.
Procedure. Participants were sent a link directing them to a consent form that described
the nature of the study, ensured confidentiality, and outlined compensation. Students who
provided consent were asked to provide their mobile phone number or WeChat screen name for
contact in the case of technical difficulties or reminder calls, and their MSU email address for

21

which links to the daily diary and reward were sent. During the two-week study, the self-report
questionnaires included demographic information and measures of interest described below.
During the daily diary portion of the study, a fixed time schedule was used for data collection
where participants were sent a link to complete the questionnaire at 8:00pm and a reminder text
message to complete the survey between 8:00pm-midnight. The link directed participants to a
short daily self-report survey (less than 10 minutes as recommended by Gunthert & Wenze,
2012) related to stressful experiences during the day, their response, and affect. Daily diary
reports continued for a two-week period.
Bolger and Laurenceau (2013) categorize intensive longitudinal designs into two
categories: time-based designs and event-based designs. Time-based designs specify the timing
of assessments based on intervals (e.g., regular range of times during the day) or signals (e.g.,
prompts by researcher to complete assessments), whereas event-based designs ask participants to
complete assessments whenever a specified event occurs. The current study uses a daily diary
approach – an interval-contingent design that asks participants to complete an assessment at
regular time intervals across the study period.
Assessments occurred once-a-day at the end of the day to balance participant burden,
while minimizing retrospective bias. To this end, qualitative accounts of stressors and coping
were obtained along with quantitative data. This design is a modified version of the Day
Reconstruction Method (DRM; Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone, 2004) – an
interval-contingent design that asks participants to reconstruct the previous day’s events based on
qualitative descriptors to minimize memory bias and anchor memory recall on specific accounts.
This method has been used in an earlier study conducted by Cheng (2001), where Hong Kong
residents were asked to describe all stressors experienced during the day along with appraisals of

22

control and stress. Results showed variability in perceptions of controllability, and deployment of
emotion- and problem-focused across six days.
Measures
Initial and final questionnaire
The following measures were administered in Chinese at the beginning and end of the
study period (see Appendix A for both the Chinese and English versions of the measures).
Higher scores represented greater levels of the construct of interest unless otherwise specified.
Mindfulness. Mindfulness was measured using the short form version of the Chinese
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-SF; Hou et al., 2014). The 20-item short form
version (FFMQ-SF) includes the following five facets of mindfulness: observing (4-items; e.g.,
“When I’m walking, I deliberately notice the sensations of my body moving”), describing (4items; e.g., “I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings”), acting with awareness (4items; e.g., “When I do things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracted”), non-judging (4items; e.g., “I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions”), and non-reacting
(4-items; e.g., “I perceive my feelings and emotions without having to react to them”). Items are
rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never or very rarely true) to 5 (very often or
always true). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) demonstrated high correlation between the
FFMQ-SF and the full-scale FFMQ Chinese version (r = .96) and adequate fit in a correlated
CFA model (RMSEA = .071; CFA = .93; SRMR = .080). In the current study, the FFMQ
subscales demonstrated acceptable reliability estimates (Cronbach’s αobserve = .82; αdescribe = .78,
αawareness = .80, αnonjudgment = .69, αnonreactance = .67).
Psychological Well-being. The Chinese Bilingual version of the Patient Health
Questionnaire-9 (CB-PHQ-9; Yeung et al., 2008) for depression screening was used to measure

23

symptoms of depression experienced in the past two weeks. The instrument has demonstrated
adequate internal consistency across Chinese and Asian samples (see Kalibatseva, Wu, & Leong,
2013 for a review). This measure was used to assess baseline levels of depression and serve as a
control in subsequent analyses. The CB-PHQ-9 demonstrated adequate reliability in the current
study (Cronbach’s αcb-phq9 = .82).
A Chinese version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (C-STAI; Tsoi, Ho, & Mak,
1986) was used to measure levels of state anxiety at the initial questionnaire. The 20-item
instrument has demonstrated adequate internal consistency among Chinese and Asian samples
(Shek, 1993) and in the current study (Cronbach’s αC-STAI = .82). The measure was used to assess
baseline levels of state anxiety and serve as a control in subsequent analyses.
Daily questionnaire
The daily diary questionnaire was based on the Day Reconstruction Method (Kahneman
et al., 2004), the Coping Flexibility Questionnaire (Cheng, 2001), and an experience sampling
study conducted by Weinstein, Brown, and Ryan (2009) (see Appendix B for daily
questionnaire). First, an open-ended stimulus-based approach (Kamarck, Shiffman, &
Wethington, 2010) was used to capture qualitative experiences of stressful events during the day
(i.e., “Please describe three bothersome events/thoughts/issues that occurred today related to
friends, family, or being Chinese at MSU or America.”). Next, participants rated perceived stress
(i.e., “How stressful was the event at the time?”; range 0-100), positive/negative affect (Likert
scale 1-5; Hamid & Cheng, 1996), and state mindfulness (e.g., “I found it difficult to stay
focused on what was happening in the moment.”) for the most bothersome event. Lastly,
participants listed up to four coping strategies that they used in response to the most bothersome
event and then rated on a 7-point Likert scale the extent to which they agreed/disagreed with the

24

coping response, “Changed thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors associated with the problem” or
“Avoided making changes in the problem and in oneself.”
Positive/negative affect. Based on Likert scale ratings (1 = “Strongly Disagree”; 7 =
“Strongly Agree”), mean positive and negative composite scores were calculated such that
higher scores reflected higher levels of positive or negative affect during the most bothersome
event. Using items with the highest factor loadings in the Hamid and Cheng (1996) study, the
five negative affect items were feeling Helpless, Bitter, Annoyed, Depressed, and Disappointed.
In the current study, reliability estimates across the 14 daily measurements ranged from .86 to
.94 for negative affect (MCronbach α = .91, SDCronbach α = .03). The four positive affect items were
feeling Contented, Happy, Joyful, and Relaxed. Reliability estimates across the 14 daily
measurements of positive affect ranged from .88 to .98 (MCronbach α = .94, SDCronbach α = .03).
Coping strategy. For the most stressful event, students were prompted with an openended question asking about their coping response. Students were allowed to submit up to four
coping strategies. For each coping strategy, students rated the extent to which it was related to
emotion suppression (i.e., “I suppressed or avoided my thoughts or feeling”), cognitive
reappraisal (i.e., “I changed my thoughts or feelings”), or problem solving coping (i.e., “I
directly handled the problem”) on 7-point Likert scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree”; 7 = “Strongly
Agree”). For each day, the average score of each coping strategy was constructed by dividing the
sum of the ratings for each coping strategy by the number of coping strategies reported.

25

CHAPTER 5: Data analytic strategy
Research Question 1 (RQ1): What are the types of stressors Chinese international students
experience at the daily level?
RQ1 is exploratory in nature, and therefore, does not propose any hypotheses. Openended responses were used to elicit up to three stressful events per day, for a maximum of 42
distinct stressors per respondent over the course of the study period (see Table 1 for a summary
of extracted themes and sample responses).
Translation. Participants provided responses in their native language (i.e., Chinese).
Chinese responses were forward-back translated (Chapman & Carter, 1979) from Chinese to
English, and then English back to Chinese. This procedure ensures conceptual equivalence
between the original (i.e., Chinese) and new translation (i.e., English; Chen & Boore, 2010).
Three undergraduate senior Chinese international student research assistants, fluent in Chinese
and English, translated the data. Forward and back-translated statements were randomly assigned
to each of the three research assistants to minimize translator by statement effects. Once
completed, the research assistants and I reviewed each of the statements for clarity. Unclear or
conceptually non-equivalent translations were reviewed, discussed between the research group,
and retranslated amongst the group until the original and new translation reached conceptual
equivalence (Chapman & Carter, 1979; Chen & Boore, 2010).
Coding. Thematic analysis was used to form categories emerging from the data set of
stressful events. Thematic analysis is defined as “a method for identifying, analyzing, and
reporting patterns (themes) within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p.6) and is useful because it not
only organizes the data, but also facilitates rich, detailed description of the data. Thematic
analysis is a standalone technique subsumed under dominant epistemological qualitative analyses

26

such as grounded theory, content analysis, or narrative analysis. Braun and Clarke (2006)
recommend clarifying the approach to theme development by specifying how the themes
emerged (e.g., inductive or deductive), at what level (e.g., semantic or latent), and through what
epistemological lens (e.g., essentialist/realist or constructivist). The goal of RQ1 is to identify
stress themes emerging from the data, making the current approach ideal because it: (1) allows
themes to emerge from the data without imposing a theoretical lens (e.g., is inductive, “bottom
up”), (2) focuses on the direct meaning of statements (i.e., focuses on semantics), and (3)
assumes that participant reports reflect their intrapsychic experience (i.e., reflects an
essentialist/realist epistemology).
Thematic analysis has six phases outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). First, the
researcher familiarizes him/herself with the data through “repeated reading” of participant
reports. Second, the researcher generates initial codes by identifying basic elements of the data.
Third, the researcher searches for higher order themes by combining codes. Fourth, the
researcher reviews the themes to combine or segment themes. Fifth, the researcher defines and
names the themes by providing a name and operational definition for each theme. Last, the
researcher produces a report of the findings.
Following the Braun and Clarke’s (2006) guidelines, I approached the data in the
following manner. Prior to engaging in coding, each statement was reviewed multiple times to
develop familiarity with the data. Next, I iteratively reviewed the statements again while making
notes on potential codes. Once a pattern of codes emerged from my notes, I began a process of
coding the statements starting with the most frequently observed code. When possible, codes
were selected using direct words or phrases from participant’s statements. Statements that were
incomprehensible or seemingly unrelated to stress were temporarily coded as “remove.” Later,

27

these statements were recoded with an existing code or maintained the “remove” code as
appropriate. Once all frequently identified codes were assigned to statements, the remaining
statements were read and reread, while additional notes were made to identify additional codes.
This process of reading statements, taking notes, and assigning codes based on
popularity/frequency continued until all statements received a code.
In the next stage, each code was operationally defined to increase clarity. Definitions
were based on the statements within each code. Next, codes were grouped into larger themes
based on their theoretical and definitional closeness. For example, the code “Control,” defined as
“negative perceived ability to deploy internal resources to control behaviors towards a goal,” and
“Self-Concept,” defined as “negative self-perceptions related to personality or body-image” were
combined based on theoretical similarity within the theme, “Problems with Self-Concept.”
Themes were then operationally defined based on the codes. Once themes were developed, a
Ph.D. graduate student with expertise in qualitative methods and I recoded the statements based
on the themes. A Cohen’s Kappa statistic was then computed to assess inter-rater reliability (see
Results section for reliability estimates).
Quality and trustworthiness. Following Morrow’s (2005) guidelines for qualitative
research, each step of the qualitative analysis attempted to ensure credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability. Credibility refers to the internal consistency or rigor in the
process of qualitative research. The current study ensured credibility by using multiple
observations from each individual, engaging research assistants that had shared experiences with
the population of interest (i.e., Chinese international student research assistants), and an iterative
process of checking the fit between source data and emerging codes/themes. Transferability
refers to the generalizability of the findings to similar populations. Transferability was ensured

28

by providing a detailed description of the analytic process and individuals involved, thorough
discussion of sample characteristics and recruitment, and by discussion of how the instruments
were developed and translated to allow readers to determine how results may transfer to their
own contexts. Finally, dependability and confirmability refer to using rigorous, reflexive, and
transparent methodology to ensure results representing the lived experiences of the sample.
Dependability and confirmability were ensured by reflexively discussing the qualitative process
with another qualitative coder, maintaining rigorous notes during the coding stages of analysis,
and managing my subjective interpretations by following Braun and Clark’s (2006) description
of thematic analysis (see “Coding” section above).
Research Question 2 and 3: What is the relationship between trait mindfulness, stress,
coping and psychological well-being?
Research questions 2 and 3 are quantitative in nature. Table 1 and 2 outline the
hypotheses for each research question. To test these hypotheses, multilevel structural equation
modeling was used.
Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling (MSEM). MSEM can be considered a
general framework for generalized linear models (e.g., OLS regression). Typically, linear mixed
models (LME) or multilevel models (MLM) are a popular choice for analyzing longitudinal data
because of the flexibility. First, OLS regression does not allow for the addition of random effects
MLM allows. That is, variance in the slope between a predictor and response can be modeled as
a random effect, where the slopes are allowed to vary across individuals. Second, an important
assumption in OLS regression is the non-independence of data, which is violated with
longitudinal data given that a person’s report on the first day will be naturally correlated with
reports on subsequent days. MLM allows auto-correlation within data to be modeled.

29

Considering these two points in mind, MLM can be conducted using reliable and efficient
software that allows for the estimation of missing data. For example, Mplus will automatically
use full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) imputation for missing data – a method which
estimates a likelihood function for individuals based on available data.
The current study also tests multilevel mediation using Muthen and Asparouhov’s (2008)
MSEM as outlined by Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang (2010). This approach extends latent
variable modeling to allow parameters to vary across clusters. Carrying out the analyses in
Mplus version 7.4 (Muthen & Muthen), all level-1 variables are decomposed into within- and
between-variance and level-2 variables remain at the between-level. Mediation is tested by
examining the 95% bootstrapped estimates of the indirect effects (i.e., product of paths a and b)
using the R package RMediation (Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011). If zero lies within the range of
possible values, then the test fails to reject the null hypothesis.

30

CHAPTER 6: Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 4.
Research Question 1 (RQ1): What types of daily stressors do Chinese international
students experience?
A total of 902 statements were collected from the daily diaries. Thirty statements (3.3%
of all statements) were removed due to interpretation difficulties (e.g., “Horror movie,” “Playing
game, ADC is beginner,” “I’m too handsome”) or self-reported lack of stress (e.g., “Can’t think
of stressful event,” “None”). Fourteen statements (1.6% of overall statements) across seven
participants indicated lack of stress. Removed codes were reviewed to determine if there were
any patterns of responses that might imply problems with translation or participants’
understanding of the task. Given the absence of any systematic bias in the responses or among
participants who had removed codes, the removed codes were excluded from further analyses.
The final data set included 872 stressful statements, with an average of 2.50 (SD = .61)
statements per day per person, suggesting that students typically entered two or three stressful
experiences each day. Across the two-week study period, each student reported an average of
30.07 stressful events (SD = 11.91; range = 4-42).
In order of frequency, the following themes emerged: (1) academic stressors, (2)
fulfilling basic needs, (3) interpersonal problems, (4) time pressure, (5) environmental or
situational stressors, (6) future goal-oriented behaviors, (7) problems with self-concept, and (8)
cultural adjustment-related difficulties. Table 3 displays the themes that emerged and examples
of the stresses reported. Cohen’s Kappa’s ranged from .83 to .94 and demonstrated acceptable
inter-rater reliability.

31

Academic stressors included pressures related to coursework, classes, exams, maintaining
or attaining grade point averages (GPA), homework, studying or enrolling in classes. This theme
was noted the most frequently (total = 329 stressful events, 37.77% of total stressful events). All
30 students reported at least one academic stressor (M = 10.97, SD = 7.49, range = 1-30). Not
surprisingly, upcoming exams, homework assignments, and poor class grades were the most
common daily stressor reported. Students reported not finishing or knowing how to complete
assignments (e.g., “don't know how to do CSE homework”), difficulty understanding classes
(e.g., “do not understand biology course”), and trouble completing writing assignments (e.g.,
“Don't know how to structure an essay”). Stress related to exams are captured well by one
student who reported, “Finals exams are coming up and I feel lots of pressure. I feel tired every
day and do not have the motivation to study hard – so anxious.” Another student expressed
concerns about scheduling classes for the upcoming semester,
I have some problems about next semester’s class. I don’t know how to schedule the
courses properly. I don’t want to take too many hard classes at the same time because this
will affect my GPA, which will prevent me from applying for the major I want.
Ten days later the same student received advising, yet worries about successfully enrolling in the
classes persisted, “Finally got to talk to advisor about applying to enter college and enroll in
class problems. The next step is to worry if I can get the class I want or not. There are eight days
left for me to enroll course, but I don’t know if I can enroll in all the classes that already put in
the schedule builder.”
Stressors related to basic needs were defined as concerns about current physical health,
financial resources, sleep disturbances, hunger, and the availability of food. Eighty percent of the
participants (n = 24) reported at least one stressor related to basic needs (M = 6.17, SD = 4.32,

32

range = 1-14), which was comprised of 148 stressful events representing 16.97% of the overall
stressful events. Students reported physical health-related problems such as stomachaches,
menstruation, illness, and general body pains. Limited financial resources also caused stress. For
instance, one student stated, “I don't have money, I can't afford tuition, I can't afford a car loan or
a housing loan. One word: I am poor!” In addition, students reported problems overeating (e.g.,
“binge eating”), not eating enough (e.g., “did not eat enough for dinner”) or feeling hungry (e.g.,
“very hungry.”) Lastly, sleep disturbances were a source of stress. For instance, students reported
feeling tired, sleeping late, or not sleeping enough (e.g., “Did not sleep enough - hard to focus”).
A few students noted that “time is short and [I] don’t have time to sleep” or the desire “to sleep,
but [the] need to study.”
Interpersonal problems were defined as personal conflicts with others. This theme was
comprised of 113 stressful events representing 12.96% of the overall stressful events. Eighty
percent of the students (n = 24) reported at least one interpersonal problem (M = 4.71, SD = 2.94,
range = 1-9). Students reported problems with roommates (e.g., “My roommate is really
slovenly. I can't tolerate it, but I don't want to make the relationship worse with her”) or
coworkers (e.g., “Both of my working partners were not doing anything. I don’t want to work the
shift on Monday anymore.”). Others reported problems forming friendships (e.g., “Cannot find
true friends over here”; “Don’t have enough friends, spend a lot of time alone”), or maintaining
friendships (e.g., “Had an argument with friend and we’re no longer friends”). Problems with
romantic relationships were also commonly reported. Students either reported wanting to find a
romantic partner or complained about their partner’s negative attributes (e.g., “Boyfriend is too
dumb”; “Girlfriend is boring”).

33

Stressors related to time pressures were defined as concerns, worries, or feeling
overwhelmed due to perceiving time as a limited resource. This theme was comprised of 91
stressful events representing 10.44% of the overall stressful events. Seventy-three percent of the
students (n = 22) reported at least one stressor related to time pressures (M = 4.14, SD = 3.75,
range = 1-14). Often students reported feeling overwhelmed with many tasks to complete (e.g.,
“There is nothing for me to do but feel like many things I haven’t done”), possibly due to
problems managing time effectively (e.g., Time management is too tight, no resting time for
me”) or procrastinating (e.g., “Final is coming, cannot focus, always want to prepare finals but
lazy and procrastinating.”)
Environmental or situational stressors were defined as frustrating environmental demands
or practical problems that disrupt daily routines. This theme was comprised of 82 stressful events
representing 9.40% of the overall stressful events. Seventy-three percent of the students (n = 22)
reported at least one stressor related to environmental or situational pressures (M = 3.83, SD =
2.71, range = 1-9). Some students reported a general sense of malaise (e.g., “Not happy but don’t
know why”) or dissatisfaction with a particular non-academic related outcome (e.g., “Cannot win
at Mahjong”; “Flight delay”). Other students reported difficulties with daily logistical hassles
(e.g., “Laptop is broken”; “lost my stuff”) or problems with obtaining a driver’s license (e.g.,
“Didn’t pass the road test”; “Preparing for driving license test.”).
Future goal-oriented stressors were defined as concerns about future plans including
career, family, and logistics for leisure activities (e.g., travel). This theme was comprised of 79
stressful events representing 9.06% of the overall stressful events. Sixty percent of the students
(n = 18) reported at least one stressor related to future goal-oriented pressures (M = 4.39, SD =
4.25, range = 1-19). Students reported worrying about wide range of future events from

34

upcoming trips (e.g., “I still don't know the plan for winter break, airplane ticket has become
more and more expensive.”) to job searching (e.g., “Interview makes me feel pressure/stress”)
and family life (e.g., “Worried about future family.”)
Problems with self-concept were defined as intra-individual stressors stemming from
negative self-perceptions related to self-efficacy, self-esteem, ability to control one’s behavior, or
discrepancy between ideal and actual self. This theme was comprised of 79 stressful events
representing 9.05% of the overall stressful events. Sixty-seven percent of the students (n = 20)
reported at least one stressor related to problems with self-concept (M = 3.95, SD = 3.19, range =
1-11). The types of self-concept problems ranged from physical appearance (e.g., “Ugly”; “My
girlfriend always said I am ugly”) to low self-esteem or self-concept (e.g., “Very lazy, I cannot
persevere on many of things, I cannot successfully finish or follow the plan that I already
scheduled. I just want to be lazy and lay in bed every day. I want to make some change but it’s
hard because it's already become a habit.”) One student felt inadequate compared to his
classmates, “All my classmate are excellent, I feel unconfident or even low self-esteem when I
am with them. Right now I'm scared of going to this class. I feel depressed before class starts.”
Another perceived a problem reaching out for help, “I have a personality problem. I’m not good
at asking others for help.”
Lastly, cultural adjustment-related stressors were defined as statements that specifically
referred to difficulties that arose as a result of living in the U.S., meaning that only statements
that overtly referred to “America,” “U.S.,” or similar variants were included in this code. This
theme was comprised of 29 stressful events representing 3.32% of the overall stressful events.
Forty-three percent of the students (n = 13) reported at least one stressor related to cultural
adjustment (M = 2.23, SD = 2.09, range = 1-8). These problems often overlapped with the

35

previous themes and included problems with American food, homesickness, relationships and
language. Compared to other themes, stressful events reported in this theme were richer and
often gave a narrative glimpse into the student’s cultural struggles. One student described
difficulties with being an international student in a liberal arts course,
The thing that keep annoying me is about an elective class in this semester. Liberal arts is
harder compare to science course for international students. Liberal arts not only tested
on memories, but also the ability of understanding and applying. Due to language
difference, it is hard to understand some concepts of it. So even though I remembered all
of the concepts but it is still hard to apply and use them correctly while doing the problem
sets.
Struggles with communication often create difficulty integrating into American society (“Can't
assimilate into American culture. My speaking is not fluent enough and it makes me afraid to
communicate with foreigners”) and mistrust with strangers (“…afraid to communicate with
foreigners because I’ve been tricked by strangers before.”). One student’s tension in making
friends with Americans is revealed in multiple reports of stress “meeting with American
classmates,” yet “Always feels like staying in the Chinese circle…but it is difficult to find a
foreign friend.” In contrast, even those students who seemed to spend most of their time with
other Chinese students reported problems “finding true friends over here” and find out that some
like “to hang out instead of study. We don’t have the same values.” Students also reported
negative aspects of living in America related to food (e.g., “Food in America have lots of
calories that make me gain a lot of weight. I heard that lots of students have the same problem, I
am trying to control, but get fat anyway”), weather (e.g., “Can't adapt to weather in Lansing”),

36

and people (e.g., “Americans create lots of noise”). It is likely that perceived misfit in the new
cultural environment leads to longing to return home,
I miss my old friend, and feel helpless over here, I am all by myself, no one will help.
Also miss people and things in my hometown, it is hard to communicate with other
students from different provinces, I like people from my same city.
Research Question 2 (RQ2): What is the relationship between perceived stress, coping
strategy, and psychological well-being during a stressful event?
Two sets of hypotheses are proposed (see Table 1). The first set of hypotheses relate
perceived stress with psychological well-being. More specifically, perceived stress will be
positively related to negative affect (H2a.1) and negatively related to positive affect (H2a.2). The
second set of hypotheses relate perceived stress, suppression, reappraisal, problem solving
coping, and psychological well-being. Specifically, there will be a significant indirect effect of
perceived stress on negative affect through emotion suppression (H2b.1), reappraisal (H2b.3),
and problem solving coping (H2b.5); and there will be a significant indirect effect of perceived
stress on positive affect through emotion suppression (H2b.2), reappraisal (H2b.4), and problem
solving coping (H2b.6). The six hypotheses were tested by estimating six independent MSEM to
minimize estimated parameters for each hypothesis. Covariates (i.e., age, gender, anxiety,
depression) did not significantly predict any of the outcome variables and were left out of the
subsequent models (see Table 5).
Negative and positive affect. Tables 6-11 display the results for the MSEM for the
relationships between stress, coping (suppression, reappraisal, and problem solving), and affect
(positive and negative), and Figures 1-6 show the structural model. First, across the six models
substantial variability within individuals was revealed by the intraclass correlation for

37

suppression (ICC = .37), reappraisal (ICC = .36), problem solving (ICC = .39), negative affect
(ICC = .47), and positive affect (ICC = .35). That is, 37% of the variability in suppression
occurred between individuals and 63% occurred within individuals; 36% of the variability in
reappraisal occurred between individuals, and 64% occurred within individuals; 39% of the
variability in problem solving coping occurred between individuals, and 61% of the variability
occurred within individuals; 47% of the variability in negative affect occurred between
individuals, and 53% of the variability occurred within individuals; and 35% of the variability in
positive affect occurred between individuals, and 65% of the variability occurred within
individuals. The pattern of results suggested significant within-person variability supporting the
use of MSEM.
The first model examined the relationships between stress, suppression, and negative
affect and revealed a five significant effects (see Table 6 and Figure 1). Model 1 (i.e., stress,
suppression, and negative affect) showed that negative affect worsened if an individual reported
higher use of suppression (b = .118, p = .044) or perceived stress (b = .013, p < .001) on any
given day. Thus, results provided support for H2a.1 (i.e., perceived stress will be positively
related to negative psychological well-being). Further, at the between-person level, individuals
who reported higher stress tended to use more suppression (b = .012, p = .022) and individuals
who reported higher suppression tended to have worse negative affect (b = .779, p = .002). The
indirect effect of stress on negative affect through suppression was significant at the betweenperson level supporting H2b.1 (i.e., the indirect effect of perceived stress on negative affect
through emotion suppression will be significant). That is, across individuals and controlling for
daily effects, those who experienced more stress were more likely to use suppression, which
worsened negative affect.

38

The second model examined the relationships between stress, suppression, and positive
affect and revealed one significant finding (see Table 7 and Figure 2). Specifically, those who
experienced greater stress also reported higher levels of suppression (b = .012, p = .023).
However, no other effects were significant. As a result, results did not support H2a.2 (i.e.,
perceived stress will be negatively related to positive psychological well-being) or H2b.2 (i.e.,
indirect effect of perceived stress on positive affect through emotion suppression will be
significant).
The third model examined the relationships between stress, reappraisal, and negative
affect and revealed one significant finding (see Table 8 and Figure 3). Specifically, individuals
on any given day reporting high levels of stress also reported worsened negative affect (b = .013,
p < .001). Thus, results provided further support for H2a.1 (i.e., perceived stress will be
positively related to negative psychological well-being). However, no other effects were
significant. Results did not support H2b.3 (i.e., indirect effect of perceived stress on negative
affect through reappraisal will be significant).
The fourth model examined the relationships between stress, reappraisal, and positive
affect and did not reveal any significant findings (see Table 9 and Figure 4). Results did not
support H2b.4 (i.e., indirect effect of perceived stress on positive affect through reappraisal will
be significant) or H2b.4 (i.e., indirect effect of perceived stress on positive affect through
reappraisal will be significant).
The fifth model examined the relationships between stress, problem solving, and negative
affect and revealed three significant findings (see Table 10 and Figure 5). First, higher levels of
perceived stress during earlier in the day predicted greater negative affect at the end of the day (b
= .013, p < .001), and individuals across the two week study period who tended to report higher

39

levels of stress also reported greater negative affect (b = .015, p = .004). Results provided
support for H2a.1 (i.e., perceived stress will be positively related to negative psychological wellbeing). Further, individuals who tended to report higher problem solving coping also reported
less negative affect (b = -.674, p = .037). However, no other significant effects were found.
Results did not support H2b.5 (i.e., indirect effect of perceived stress on negative affect through
problem solving coping will be significant).
The sixth model examined the relationships between stress, problem solving, and positive
affect and did not reveal any significant findings (see Table 11 and Figure 6). Results did not
support H2b.4 (i.e., indirect effect of perceived stress on positive affect through reappraisal will
be significant) or H2b.6 (i.e., indirect effect of perceived stress on positive affect through
problem solving will be significant).
Coping by Stress Interactions. Alternative models examining moderation was estimated
(Figures 7 and 8). In the moderation model, direct effects of stress, reappraisal, problem solving,
and suppression on affect were estimated. The model included two additional parameters
estimating the effect of the product between stress and reappraisal (stress*reappraisal),
suppression (stress*suppression), and problem solving coping (stress*problem solving) on affect.
All effects were estimated at both the within and between level. An independent model was
estimated for negative and positive affect. Tables 12 and 13 displays both between and within
effects for negative and positive affect, respectively. As shown in the results, no significant main
or moderated effects were observed. Thus, suppression, reappraisal, and problem solving coping
did not moderate the relationship between stress and negative or positive affect.

40

Research Question 3 (RQ3): What is the relationship between trait mindfulness, perceived
stress, coping, and psychological well-being?
Three sets of hypotheses are proposed (see Table 2). In the first set, I examine the
relationship between trait mindfulness and affect. More specifically, trait mindfulness facets will
be negatively related to negative affect (H3a.1) and positively related to positive affect (H3a.2).
In the second set, perceived stress and coping are hypothesized to mediate the relationship
between trait mindfulness and psychological well-being. That is, the indirect effect of trait
mindfulness facets on negative affect through perceived stress (H3b.1), emotion suppression
(H3b.3), reappraisal (H3b.5), and problem solving coping (H3b.7) will be significant; and the
indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on positive affect through perceived stress (H3b.2),
emotion suppression (H3b.4), reappraisal (H3b.6), and problem solving coping (H3b.8) will be
significant. Lastly, the third set examines how perceived stress and coping will serially mediate
the relationship between trait mindfulness and psychological well-being. Specifically, the
indirect effect of trait mindfulness on negative affect through perceived stress and emotion
suppression (H3c.1), perceived stress and appraisal (H3c.3), and perceived stress and problem
solving coping (H3c.5) will be significant; and the indirect effect of trait mindfulness on positive
affect through perceived stress and emotion suppression (H3c.2), perceived stress and appraisal
(H3c.4), and perceived stress and problem solving coping (H3c.6) will be significant.
A step-wise procedure was used to assess the relationships between trait mindfulness,
perceived stress, coping strategy, and affect given the complexity of the model and large number
of parameters estimated. Figures 9 and 10 shows a hypothesized final model with all parameters
and variables included for both negative and positive affect, respectfully. In step one, four
separate models were constructed to examine the direct effects of trait mindfulness facets on

41

stress, coping, and positive/negative affect (see Table 14). Trait mindfulness facets showing nonsignificant effects across perceived stress, suppression, reappraisal, and positive/negative affect
were removed from subsequent models for parsimony. In step two, models estimating all withinand between-person effects between trait mindfulness, stress, coping, and positive/negative
affect were constructed and indirect effects were computed. Non-significant pathways were
trimmed to increase parsimony at this stage.
Direct effects of mindfulness. In step one, the first model constructed included betweenperson trait mindfulness facets, and partitioned between- and within-person stress variance (see
Table 14; Model 1). Model 1 examined the direct effect of trait mindfulness on stress and results
showed one significant effect where higher trait levels of nonjudgment predicted lower levels of
stress (b = -17.477, p < .001). Model 2 regressed coping (suppression, reappraisal, and problem
solving coping) on trait mindfulness facets at the between-person level. Between- and withinperson variances of suppression, reappraisal, and problem solving coping were partitioned
similarly to the previous model. Three significant effects for suppression were found. Higher
levels of observe (b = -.450, p < .001), awareness (b = -.324, p = .003), and nonjudgment (b = .407, p = .027) predicted lower levels of suppression. Similarly, three significant effects for
problem solving coping were found. Higher levels of observe (b = .387, p = .008) and awareness
(b = .263, p = .003) predicted greater problem solving coping, whereas higher levels of describe
predicted lower levels of problem solving coping (b = -.259, p = .003). No significant
relationships were found between trait mindfulness and reappraisal.
Model 3 examined the effects of trait mindfulness on negative affect and found that the
only significant predictor was awareness. That is, higher trait levels of awareness were related to
lower levels of negative affect (b = -.362, p = .006). Thus, H3a.1 (i.e., trait mindfulness will be

42

negatively related to negative affect) was partially supported. Model 4 replacing negative affect
with positive affect did not yield any significant effects. Thus, H3a.2 (i.e., trait mindfulness will
be negatively related to positive affect) was not supported. As a result of the three models,
reappraisal was removed from the final model given no relationship with trait mindfulness,
nonreacting was removed from the final model given no significant relationships with any of the
variables.
Full MSEM model. Those variables that were not significant in the previous analyses
(i.e., nonreact and reappraisal) were not included in the full model. Therefore, the final model
(Tables 15-18; Step 2) examined the relationships between four facets of mindfulness (i.e.,
observe, describe, awareness, and nonjudgment), perceived stress, suppression, problem solving
coping, and negative and positive affect (see Figures 11-14).
Mindfulness, stress, and suppression. Table 15 displays findings for a model examining
mindfulness, stress, suppression and negative affect (see Figure 11). Results revealed two
significant effects at the within-person level and six significant effects at the between-person
level. First, results at the within-person level showed that greater use of suppression (b = .122, p
= .044) and higher levels of perceived stress was related to worse negative affect (b = .013, p <
.001). Second, results at the between-person level showed that higher levels of trait nonjudgment
was related to less stress (b = -17.565, p = .001) and less suppression (b = -.511, p = .021);
higher levels of trait observe was related to less suppression (b = -.435, p = .001) and higher
negative affect (b = .442, p = .006); and higher levels of trait awareness was related to less
suppression (b = -.329, p = .001). Furthermore, higher levels of suppression was related to worse
negative affect (b = 1.085, p < .001). Thus, results partially supported H3a.1 (i.e., mindfulness

43

facets will be negatively related to negative affect). However, counter evidence was revealed for
the effect of the mindfulness facet observe.
In addition, two significant indirect effects were observed. First, the indirect effect of
mindfulness trait observe on negative affect through suppression was significant (est. = -.472,
95% CI: -0.866, -0.078). That is, individuals who reported higher levels of trait mindfulness
observe reported less suppression, which was related to worse negative affect. Second, the
indirect effect of mindfulness trait awareness on negative affect through suppression was also
significant (est. = -.357, 95% CI: -.617, -.096). That is, individuals who reported higher levels of
trait mindfulness awareness reported less suppression, which was related to worse negative affect
supporting H3b.3 (i.e., indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on negative affect through
emotion suppression will be significant). However, results did not support H3b.1 (i.e., indirect
effect of trait mindfulness facets on negative affect through perceived stress will be significant)
or the parallel mediation model (H3c.1; indirect effect of trait mindfulness on negative affect
through perceived stress and emotion suppression coping will be significant).
Table 16 displays findings for the model examining mindfulness, stress, suppression, and
positive affect (see Figure 12). No significant effects were revealed at the within-person level.
However, three significant effects were revealed at the between-person level. Specifically, higher
levels of trait nonjudgment were related to less suppression (b = -.498, p = .002), higher levels of
trait observe was related to less suppression (b = -.434, p = .002); and higher levels of trait
awareness was related to less suppression (b = -.339, p = .001). These results are consistent with
the previous model. No significant indirect effects were revealed. Results did not support H3a.2
(i.e., trait mindfulness facets will be positively related to positive affect), H3b.2 (i.e., indirect
effect of trait mindfulness facets on positive affect through perceived stress will be significant),

44

H3b.4 (i.e., indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on positive affect through emotion
suppression will be significant), or H3c.2 (i.e., indirect effect of trait mindfulness on positive
affect through perceived stress and emotion suppression coping will be significant).
Mindfulness, stress, and problem solving coping. Table 17 displays findings for the
model examining mindfulness, stress, problem solving coping, and negative affect (see Figure
13). Results revealed one significant effect at the within-person level, and seven significant
effects at the between-person level. First, higher perceived stress was related to greater negative
affect for an individual on any given day (b = .013, p < .001). Second, higher levels of trait
observe (b = .460, p < .001) and awareness (b = .324, p = .002) were related to greater use of
problem solving coping, whereas higher levels of trait describe was related to lower use of
problem solving coping (b = -.250, p = .007). Further, individuals reporting higher levels of
perceived stress (b = .019, p < .001) and higher levels of trait observe (b = .498, p < .001)
reported worse negative affect, whereas individuals reporting higher levels of problem solving
coping reported lower levels of negative affect (b = -.992, p = .003).
Results also revealed four significant indirect effects. First, the indirect effect of trait
observe on negative affect through problem solving was significant (est. = -.457, 95% CI: -.809,
-.105). That is, individuals reporting higher levels of trait observe reported using greater problem
solving, which was related to less negative affect. Second, the indirect effect trait describe on
negative affect through problem solving coping was significant (est. = .248, 95% CI: .005, .491).
That is, individuals reporting higher levels of trait describe reported less problem solving coping,
which was related to less negative affect. Third, the indirect effect of trait awareness on negative
affect through perceived stress (est. = -.154, 95% CI: -.296, -.011) and problem solving coping
(est. = -.321, 95% CI: -.633, -.010) were significant. That is, individuals reporting greater trait

45

awareness perceived less stress and used greater problem solving coping, which was related to
less negative affect. Results supported H3b.1 (i.e., indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on
negative affect through perceived stress will be significant) and H3b.7 (i.e., indirect effect of trait
mindfulness facets on negative affect through problem solving coping will be significant).
However, results did not support H3c.5 (i.e., indirect effect of trait mindfulness on negative
affect through perceived stress and problem solving coping will be significant).
Table 18 displays findings for the model examining mindfulness, stress, problem solving
coping, and positive affect (see Figure 14). No significant effects were revealed at the withinperson level. However, six significant effects were revealed at the between-person level.
Specifically, higher levels of trait observe (b = -.498, p = .002) and awareness (b = .315, p =
.004) was related to greater problem solving coping, whereas greater levels of trait describe were
related to lower levels of problem solving coping (b = -.257, p = .004). Furthermore, higher
levels of trait observe was related to lower levels of positive affect (b = -.397, p = .009), whereas
higher levels of trait describe were related to higher levels of positive affect (b = .457, p = .013).
Higher levels of trait awareness was related to less perceived stress (b = -8.224, p = .026). No
significant indirect effects were revealed. Results did not support H3b.2 (i.e., indirect effect of
trait mindfulness facets on positive affect through perceived stress will be significant), H3b.8
(i.e., indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on positive affect through problem solving coping
will be significant), or H3c.6 (i.e., indirect effect of trait mindfulness on positive affect through
perceived stress and problem solving coping will be significant).
Mindfulness, stress, and reappraisal. A model estimating the relationships between
mindfulness, stress, and reappraisal was not constructed given the null results found in Table 10
(i.e., Step 1). Thus, H3b.5 (i.e., indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on negative affect

46

through reappraisal will be significant), H3b.6 (i.e., indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on
positive affect through reappraisal will be significant), H3c.3 (i.e., indirect effect of trait
mindfulness on negative affect through perceived stress and reappraisal coping will be
significant.), and H3c.4 (i.e., indirect effect of trait mindfulness on positive affect through
perceived stress and reappraisal coping will be significant.) were not supported. Summary.
Results from the four models suggested the following. First, pattern of results suggested that
higher levels of trait observe and aware were directly related to less emotional suppression and
greater problem solving coping. However, higher levels of trait describe were related to less
problem solving coping. Second, higher levels of trait observe was related to greater negative
affect and less positive affect, whereas higher levels of trait describe was related to higher levels
of positive affect. Third, higher levels of trait nonjudgment and awareness was related to lower
levels of perceived stress. Fourth, suppression was related to worse negative affect, whereas
problem solving coping was related to less negative affect. Fifth, higher levels of perceived stress
was related to worse negative affect. Lastly, suppression, problem solving coping, and stress
mediated the relationship between trait mindfulness and negative affect. Specifically, higher
levels of trait observe were associated with less suppression, and less suppression was related to
lower negative affect; and higher levels of trait observe were related to greater levels of problem
solving, and greater levels of problem solving were related to less negative affect. Further,
problem solving coping mediated the relationships between trait describe, observe, and
awareness, such that higher levels of trait describe was related to less problem solving coping,
higher levels of trait observe and awareness was related to greater problem solving, and higher
levels of problem solving were related to less negative affect. Lastly, higher levels of trait
awareness was related to less stress, and less stress was related to less negative affect.

47

CHAPTER 7: Discussion
Chinese international students are the largest group of international students globally
(Institute of International Education, 2006). Their numbers have increased from 92 in 2006 to
3,458 in 2013 at MSU (OISS Statistical Report, 2014). Given the many stressors of the sojourn,
transition to the US, and academic pressures, many may suffer from mental health and
consequent academic problems. Studies exploring stressors among Chinese international students
are limited in the following ways. First, existing research with this population has mainly
focused on acculturative stress (e.g., Yan & Berliner, 2009, 2011) or racial discrimination (e.g.,
Dang, 2012; Ong, Burrow, Fuller-Rowell, Ja, & Sue, 2013), leaving broader types of stressors to
be explored. Second, studies often combine undergraduate and graduate students (e.g., Pan,
Wong, Chan, & Joubert, 2008; Wang et al., 2012; Wei, Liao, Heppner, Chao, & Ku, 2012; Wei,
Su, Carrera, Lin, & Yi, 2013; Wei, Ku, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Liao, 2008) limiting
generalizability to newly arrived sojourners. Third, few studies among Chinese international
students leverage daily diary methodology to understand the relationships between stress,
coping, and psychological well-being. Lastly, emerging evidence suggests that mindfulness can
be protective factor among Asian groups (e.g., Masuda, Wendell, Chou, & Feinstein, 2010;
Masuda, Mandavia, & Tully, 2014; Muto, Hayes, & Jeffcoat, 2011), yet few studies examine
mechanisms of mindfulness among individuals in a cross-cultural context. Thus, the current
study addresses these limitations by focusing on first-year Chinese international students using a
mixed-method longitudinal daily diary design that examines the relationships between trait
mindfulness, stress, coping, and psychological well-being.

48

Research Question 1. Daily Experiences of Stress among Chinese International Students
The first research question focused on illuminating the types of daily stressors Chinese
international students experience and used thematic analysis to reveal eight themes. In order of
frequency, the themes included: (1) academic stressors, (2) fulfilling basic needs, (3)
interpersonal problems, (4) time pressure, (5) environmental or situational stressors, (6) future
goal-oriented behaviors, (7) problems with self-concept, and (8) cultural adjustment-related
difficulties. The following discussion of the themes, grouped based on similarity, will be
informed by cultural explanations drawing on a modified social-ecological theoretical framework
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) to understand each theme’s impact on the mental health of the
sojourner (Serdarevic & Chronister, 2005). This approach proposes that the sojourner’s
experience is a result of dynamic interactions between the individual’s characteristics, behaviors,
and culture with his/her environment. In understanding the origins of the themes, I seek to
emphasize how culture plays a role in shaping Chinese international students’ stress in a midWestern American university. The finding that the Cultural Adjustment stressor theme (i.e.,
difficulties arising due to living in another country) spanned across existing codes and
highlighted culturally based problems not otherwise reported lends support for a culturally
informed social-ecological framework. Thus, this lens provides a comprehensive story of the
transnational migration experience of this sample of Chinese international student.
Academic Stressors and Time Pressures. First, the Academic Stressors theme was
related to pressures to complete homework assignments, attend classes, perform on upcoming
exams, maintain high GPAs, homework assignments, and logistical issues such as enrolling in
classes or scheduling classes. The fourth theme, Time Pressures, was similar to the Academic
Stressors theme such that it was related to perceiving time as a finite resource and lacking time to

49

complete all desired tasks, struggling with time management, or feeling overwhelmed. Both
academic stressors and time pressures are likely to be significant sources of stress among
domestic students. However, the cultural backdrop of Chinese international students may
differentially influence how academics and time pressures are experienced. For instance, in
traditional Chinese culture, educational goals and aspirations are influenced by Confucian
ideology and dictates normative behavior in the classroom. Comparing eastern to western
cultural approaches to education, the Confucian-Socratic framework (Tweed & Lehman, 2002)
proposes that Socratic reasoning, the dominant approach in western society, emphasizes
questioning knowledge and challenging others’ beliefs, whereas Confucian learning, the
dominant approach in China, emphasizes effortful learning through hard work and pragmatic
acquisition of knowledge for civil service jobs. As a result of internalizing the Confucian values
in education, newly arrived Chinese international students may experience cultural tensions in
the classroom causing difficulties in the learning process. Thus, Chinese international students
may mask misunderstandings or difficulties with lecture material to save face for both professor
and student, and participate less than American students in critical discussions of lecture material
given that challenging credible knowledge sources may not be culturally congruent (Huang &
Klinger, 2006). It is also possible that Chinese international students may be more likely to
experience these problems in the social sciences where challenging knowledge is encouraged.
Future Goal Oriented Stressors and Self-Concept Problems. Following the discussion
of academic-related stressors, the transition to a new cultural environment also brings along
shifts in expectations regarding the self and future. Future goal oriented stressors were related to
concerns about future plans such as career, future family, and logistics for leisure activities; and
problems with self-concept were related to negative self-perceptions or cognitive distortions

50

(e.g., dissatisfaction with self, physical appearance problems, low self-esteem and efficacy, and
feeling inadequate compared to others). These shifts in expectations may be linked to their initial
motivations to study abroad. Reasons to study abroad among Chinese international students
outlined include increasing access to certain positions in China, pursuing personal goals in a
more merit-based system within the US, leaving an environment with fewer economic and labor
opportunities (see Yan & Berliner, 2011, for greater discussion) or changing life circumstances
(Fong, 2011).
Traditional Confucian beliefs also elevate the importance of education and students may
experience “exceptional pressure placed on them by their families’ and cultural expectations to
excel academically…to bring honor to the family… [given that] an American degree is a
guarantee of social and economic ascent either in China or in the US” (Yan & Berliner, 2011,
p.179). At the individual level, the emphasis on success can be seen in the self-reflective process
whereby students periodically monitor their abilities and long-term plans. Thus, a combination of
stressors (e.g., expectations to obtain a prestigious degree from an American university, family
pressures to succeed, and other acculturative stressors) may increase perfectionistic tendencies
(e.g., Wei et al., 2007), leading students to set high expectations for performance and strongly
internalize negative feedback. At a structural level, deciding to study abroad often involves a
desire for upward social mobility (e.g., improve current socioeconomic status or career prestige),
yet the determinants of the outcome depend on the context of reception in the U.S. (Alba & Nee,
2007). As time goes by, international students may grow weary of the many obstacles they need
to overcome in order to meet their own personal goals and expectations (e.g. improve their
English, express desire to meet and engage with domestic students). This also includes the ability

51

to successfully demonstrate an ability to eventually cope with the constraints created by their
new academic and social environment.
Basic Needs. Third, the Basic Needs theme may reflect struggles with meeting the
demands of the environment. Problems with basic needs included health and financial problems
both of which can be related to the cultural experience of living in the U.S. First, financial
problems are not uncommon as students from China must adapt to changes in standards of living.
This is particularly salient given that Chinese international students at MSU are sometimes
stereotyped for being wealthy and driving expensive cars (e.g., Kozlowski, 2015). Further,
increased costs of living may also be related to lifestyle changes. For instance, whereas shared
living with many other students is common in China, many conforming to U.S. student norms
choose to live alone or with a smaller number of roommates in the U.S., causing greater financial
burden (Fong, 2011). That is, living with three or more roommates in a university setting is
common among university students in China due to the lack of space in metropolitan areas,
whereas university students in the U.S. may live alone, or with only one or two roommates.
This theme also highlighted challenges attending to basic physical demands such as
sickness or ailment. An important issue worth considering are manifestations of culturally-based
conceptualizations of illness and its difference from U.S.-based healthcare. First, the stressors
reported by the students may reflect true illnesses, however, may also reflect somatization of
psychological distress. Given that “help-seeking in many cultures is organized around the
presentation of bodily complaints rather than explicit mention of emotional disturbance”
(Kirmayer, 1984, p.159), it is important to consider that these types of stressors reported by
students in this study may reflect culturally appropriate expressions of psychological distress
rather than simple bodily complaints (see Mak, Cheung, & Leung, 2012, for greater discussion).

52

Given their increased likelihood of reporting and seeking treatment for physical, as opposed to
psychological, health concerns, including culturally sensitive mental health screenings during
medical visits may identify and intervene with distressed students earlier. Second, this highlights
the importance of understanding cultural differences in illness treatment between the US and
China. For instance, cultural concepts of diabetes among Chinese immigrants include a theme of
“hot” and “cold” body temperature dysregulation (Chun & Chesla, 2004). Regulating the
hot/cold dynamic included eating specific types of foods, herbs, or medicines that would regulate
the hot/cold imbalances. Typically, traditional Chinese medicine is used to treat bodily
imbalances through herbal remedies (Kleinman, 1980), which may be difficult to find in
surrounding areas at MSU.
Interpersonal Problems. Traveling to a new cultural environment can bring along a
unique set of interpersonal problems related to conflicts with others, such as roommates,
romantic partners, family members, Americans, or friends. It is important to note that many of
the stressful events in this category are likely to emerge among any university student (e.g.,
arguments with friends or a romantic partner). However, for the students in this study, a notable
stressor was related to engaging with ethnically similar or dissimilar students. Results
highlighted perceived intergroup differences between Chinese and domestic American students.
International students who anticipate easily making friends with domestic students may become
disappointed when expectations are not met. Not surprisingly, cultural and structural barriers can
hinder intergroup contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2013), however, structural barriers may be less
visible than cultural barriers, which may explain why none of the students reported structural
barriers as problematic in making friends with domestic students. Cultural barriers include high
cultural distance – or differences between the sojourner’s heritage culture and the mainstream

53

culture of the university setting (Babiker, Cox, & Miller, 1980). Studies suggest that cultural
distance impedes intergroup contact but also relates to poor psychological well-being (Wu,
Settles, Buchanan, Nnawulezi, & Rogers, unpublished). Alternatively, MSU’s increased Chinese
international student population may also be a protective factor given that strong in-group ties
and social connectedness is related to less acculturative stress (Yeh & Inose, 2003). Potential
structural barriers such as segregated new student orientations and dorms can also hinder
intercultural relationships from developing. It is important to note here that high concentrations
of Chinese international students living in a dorm may also serve as a protective factor. Thus,
universities are faced with the difficult task of managing structural barriers that might hinder
intergroup contact, but also be protective.
Environmental or Situational Stressors. Fifth, daily environmental or situational
stressors are commonly experienced across both domestic and international students.
Environmental or Situational Stressors were related to daily frustrations due practical problems
that inhibit goal-directed activities such as a general sense of malaise, logistical problems, or
dissatisfaction with non-academic related outcomes. The results suggested that Environmental or
Situation Stressors occurred somewhat infrequently compared to other themes. Given that the
study design asked students at the end of the day to submit up to three stressful events that
occurred during the day, it is possible that specific pressing issues (e.g., upcoming exam,
argument with romantic partner etc.) more easily came to mind than daily hassles. Alternatively,
students may have habituated to daily hassles leading to lower reported rates. Regardless, the
mental health implications of daily hassles cannot be underestimated. During the acculturation
process, some studies suggest that general daily stressors predict depressive symptoms above and
beyond acculturative stressors for immigrant/minority group members (Lay & Safdar, 2003).

54

Conversely, other studies find larger effects of acculturative stress, compared to non-specific
daily hassles, on mental health (Lay & Nguyen, 1998). The mixed findings likely point towards
the importance of both constructs and the difficulty assessing each. It is possible that daily
environmental or situational stressors additively increase the likelihood of Chinese international
students experiencing mental health problems.
Summary. The identified themes are consistent with the existing qualitative and
quantitative studies among international and domestic students, yet contribute to the literature in
a number of ways. First, the results converge with stressors domestic students’ experiences
(Hurst, Baranik, & Daniel, 2013), while illuminating cultural nuances about the stressors that
Chinese international students experience. Differences between Eastern and Western learning
styles (e.g., Tweed & Lehman, 2002) can impact how Chinese international students internalize
negative feedback (e.g., poor grades) and experience learning in the classroom. These academic
stressors are exacerbated by increased pressure to succeed based on situations in the homeland
and motivations to study abroad (Yan & Berliner, 2011). All the while, Chinese international
students must adapt to changing economic conditions upon their arrival. The cumulative
stressors and daily hassles serve as additional problems that negatively influence mental and
physical health, which may manifest as physical ailments (Mak, Cheung, & Leung, 2012).
Second, the Cultural Adjustment stressor theme was comprised of codes categorized in
other themes and included only those stressors that specifically mentioned difficulties related to
living in the US. It likely that coding the data in this manner resulted in a significant
underreporting of the true frequency of acculturative stressors, particularly given the fact that the
open-ended nature of the question did not directly cue participants to report acculturative
stressors. It is also likely that some of the statements referred to stress due to living in the US,

55

but did not explicitly identify them as such, and as a result, were not included under the Cultural
Adjustment theme. Extensions of this research will benefit from a direct assessment of cultural
adjustment for this population.
Third, the results suggest that the daily diary method can be a relatively fast and efficient
method of gaining rich information similar to that found in longer qualitative interviews and
quantitative self-report questionnaires. For instance, results corroborated with findings from
qualitative studies highlighting problems with academics, language expression, and intergroup
contact (Berry, 1987; Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1994; Smith & Khawaja, 2011; Yan & Berliner, 2009;
Yan & Berliner, 2011; Yan & Berliner, 2013). Further, stressful events in the Problems with
Cultural Adjustment theme were consistent with validated acculturative stress measures for
Asians and Asian Americans, which identify challenges related to homesickness, problems with
American food, relationships with American domestic students, and language problems as
critical acculturative stressors for this population (e.g., Benet-Martinez & Haritatos, 2005;
Miller, Kim, & Benet-Martinez, 2011; Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1998; Ying, 2005).
Research Questions 2 and 3. The Relationships between Trait Mindfulness and Daily
Experiences of Stress, Coping, and Psychological Well-Being.
The aims of Research Questions 2 and 3 were to better understand the relationships
between trait mindfulness, stress, coping, and psychological well-being. Given the ample
evidence supporting the psychological benefits of mindfulness practice (Chiesa & Serretti, 2009;
Goyal et al., 2014; Khoury et al., 2013; Hoffman, Sawyer, Witt, & Oh, 2010; Sedlmeier et al.,
2012) and trait mindfulness (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Hill & Updegraff, 2012; Levesque & Brown,
2007; Oken et al., 2014; Weinstein, Brown, & Ryan, 2009; Wenzel, von Versen, Hirschmuller,
& Kubiak, 2015), investigators propose multiple explanatory mechanisms that account for the

56

relationship between mindfulness and psychological well-being. In the face of adversity,
mindfulness may increase emotion regulation and attention regulation to help deploy effective
coping strategies (Baer, 2003; Chiesa, Anselmi, & Serretti, 2014; Hölzel et al., 2011; van der
Velden et al., 2015). However, few studies examine how trait mindfulness relates to coping
strategies and far fewer examine this among individuals in a new cultural environment who
experience acculturative stress. Therefore, the study sought to examine the adaptive coping
strategies used and how trait mindfulness influences the stress-coping process among first-year
Chinese international students.
Stress, coping, and affect. The first set of hypotheses aimed to examine the relationship
between stress and psychological well-being (H2a). Results suggested that higher perceived
stress was related to increased negative affect. In particular, within-person results suggested that
high levels of perceived stress during the most stressful event of the day predicted end of day
negative affect. This finding is particularly important given that greater daily negative affect
predicts higher levels of daily cortisol (Stawski, Cichy, Piazza, & Almeida, 2013) – a hormone
released during times of stress and can lead to detrimental health effects when stress is chronic –
and even symptoms of affective disorders 10 years later (Charles, Piazza, Mogle, Sliwinski, &
Almeida, 2013). The cumulative effects of seemingly innocuous daily stress can have long term
health consequences.
I hypothesized that coping would mediate the relationship between stress and affect
(H2b) and found that one coping response, emotional suppression, did mediate the relationship
between stress and negative affect. That is, individuals who perceived higher levels of stress
tended to use more suppression, which led to increased negative affect (H2b.1). This finding is
consistent with the transactional model of coping and stress, which proposes a temporal sequence

57

of events whereby perceived stress would lead to engaging in coping strategies and influence
resulting psychological well-being (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). It is important to note that
emotional suppression was the only coping mechanism that mediated this relationship, and was
positively related to negative affect – consistent with previous research (e.g., Park, Sulaiman,
Schwartz, Kim, Ham, & Zamboanga, 2011). Thus, emotion suppression may not be a
particularly effective coping strategy for the individual (Richard & Gross, 1999) despite it being
a culturally syntonic approach to coping aimed at maintaining social harmony (Butler, Lee &
Gross, 2007; Murata, Moser, & Kitayama, 2013; Wei, Su, Carrera, Lin, & Yi, 2013). The
implications of this finding are important within the Western clinical context where direct and
problem-solving coping strategies are reinforced. Clinicians unaware of this culturally-based
coping strategy may recommend culturally dystonic approaches to coping with the risk of
causing iatrogenic effects for the individual and his/her immediate social network. For instance,
asking a Chinese international student client to directly approach a friend or supervisor with
feedback may be counter to saving face and maintaining social harmony.
Results also suggested that problem solving coping was related to less negative affect,
although problem solving coping did not mediate the relationship between stress and affect. The
finding contributes to results suggesting that problem solving coping is adaptive among Chinese
(Chan, 1992; Chan, 1995) and Hong Kong adolescents (Liu, Tein, & Zhao, 2004). However, it is
possible that problem solving coping is most effective when stressors are generally low. For
instance, problem solving coping was effective in buffering low levels of racial discrimination
(Yoo & Lee, 2005) and family conflict (Lee, Su, & Yoshida, 2005) among Asian American
college students. Further, it is important to note that the problem focused coping deployed among
collectivistic, compared to individualistic, oriented individuals may look different. For instance,

58

Confucian influences on relationship dynamics in China promote indirect modes of
communication (Yum, 1988). Thus, indirect routes to resolve a stressor will emphasize the locus
of preferred activity (e.g., in what ways to exert control) over locus of control (e.g., whether or
not one has control over the outcome of a situation) (Noh et al., 1999).
Lastly, the null findings regarding reappraisal point to interesting cultural explanations.
One explanation stems from how individuals from different cultures regulate their emotions.
Preferred emotion regulation strategies differ across cultures, which can be linked to personality
differences across countries. For instance, extraversion, a personality trait strongly related to
reappraisal, is higher in the United States than in Japan (Matsumoto, 2006). Thus, Chinese
students’ cultural and personality profiles may lend towards more emotion suppression and
similar types of coping strategies rather than reappraisal (Matsumoto et al., 2008).
Mindfulness and affect. Hypotheses relating mindfulness with affect were partially
supported (H3a). Results suggested differential effects of mindfulness on affect (see Table 15).
In particular, individuals with higher levels of acting with awareness experienced less negative
affect controlling for other mindfulness facets. No other direct effects of mindfulness facets on
affect were observed. Acting with awareness can be understood as acting with intention, and
contrasted with “autopilot mode.” Individuals who are more in tune with their behaviors and
engaged in present moment activities experience greater psychological well-being (Killingsworth
& Gilber, 2010). The significant direct effect of acting with awareness on negative affect is
consistent with previous research (Brown & Ryan, 2003). In particular, it may be that one’s
tendency to be more engaged in the present moment best predicts one’s tendency to experience
less negative affect.

59

The effects of two mindfulness facets, describe and non-react, on positive affect
approached significance (see Table 15; Model 4; p <.10). The sign of the regression coefficients
suggested that higher levels of describe and non-react were related to higher levels of positive
affect, which is consistent with previous research (Brown & Ryan, 2013). The mindfulness facet,
describe, relates to the ability to put words to thoughts and experiences. The ability to put words
to thoughts and differentiate between discrete emotions can improve psychological well-being
(Hill & Updegraff, 2012). Interventions asking participants to write expressively about their
emotions decreases depressive symptoms and rumination (Gortner, Rude, & Pennebaker, 2006)
and may promote positive emotions. Similarly, the mindfulness facet non-react refers to
maintaining level-headedness during psychological distress. Individuals who demonstrate higher
levels of non-reactance to internal experiences report lower trait neuroticism (Hollis-Walker &
Colosimo, 2011) and likely experience greater positive emotionality. These effects likely only
approached significance due to the limited sample size at the between-person level (n = 30).
However, the findings highlight the importance of increasing positive affect in light of the
broaden-and-build theory that proposes positive emotions beget further positive emotions
(Fredrickson, 2001).
Interestingly, results suggested that the trait mindfulness facet, observe, may be related to
worse negative affect and less positive affect when controlling for other mindfulness facets,
perceived stress, and coping (see Table 16). This finding is consistent with two studies
identifying the same pattern of findings suggesting that the mindfulness construct, observe, may
function differentially between meditators and non-meditators (Baer et al., 2008; de Bruin et al.,
2012). The authors contend that through mindfulness training meditators learn to observe their
experiences in a non-biased manner. Because non-meditators lack this training, they may be

60

selectively attending to unpleasant or threatening internal and external cues. Furthermore,
meditators may be more likely to engage in multiple aspects of mindfulness simultaneously and
flexibly attend to a wide range of experiences rather than narrowing focus on a particular
experience.
Mindfulness, coping, and affect. Hypotheses relating mindfulness, coping, and affect
were partially supported (H3b). Results from the current study found varying relationships
between mindfulness trait facets and coping responses. Interestingly, emotion suppression and
problem solving coping both mediated the relationships between awareness and negative affect.
Specifically, individuals with higher levels of awareness used more problem solving coping and
less emotion suppression, which was related to less negative affect. Thus, the tendency to act
with intention and awareness promotes adaptive coping strategies that lead to less negative
affect.
The implications of the pattern of results with the describe facet are less clear. Although
individuals with higher levels of trait describe reported higher levels of positive affect, they also
used less problem solving coping, and less problem solving coping was related to higher
negative affect. One explanation might be that individuals with higher levels of the describe facet
in general experience greater positive affect at the end of the day mediated by alternative coping
strategies not assessed. For instance, individuals who are better able to put words to their
thoughts may also be engaging in positive self-talk when faced with difficulties that promotes
positive affect. An alternative explanation might be that individuals with higher levels of
describe may not deploy problem solving coping strategies when appropriate, leading to greater
negative affect. Because describe was not associated with suppression or reappraisal, in the face
of significant stress, individuals high on this facet may tend to engage in maladaptive coping

61

strategies such as ruminative thinking. These potentially opposing theories are worth future
investigation.
Similar to describe, the pattern of results for the observe facet are also less clear. The
direct effect of observe on negative and positive affect controlling for other facets was not
significant. However, when the model included stress and problem solving, a positive direct
effect between observe and negative affect was revealed along with a negative indirect effect
(αβ). This pattern of opposite signs between the direct effect and indirect effect is evidence of
suppression (MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000). Simply, suppression describes how the
introduction of a third variable (i.e., mediator) may artificially strengthen the relationship
between two other variables. This pattern of results related to greater negative affect and lower
positive affect is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Baer et al., 2008; de Bruin et al., 2012)
discussed earlier. However, the mediating relationships suggest that individuals with higher
levels of observe reported greater problem solving coping, which was related to less negative
affect; and individuals with higher levels of observe reported less suppression, which was related
to less negative affect. Thus, the mediating results suggest while observe may be directly related
to worse psychological well-being, it may also act upon adaptive coping strategies.
The pattern of mediation results contribute to the current literature by highlighting the
importance of disaggregating mindfulness into its component facets. Many studies using the
FFMQ compute full scale scores to tap into the construct of mindfulness unintentionally masking
important facet level effects. Consistent with previous studies (Sears & Kraus, 2009; Weinstein,
Brown, & Ryan, 2009) perceived stress and coping strategy mediated the relationship between
mindfulness and negative affect. The variable effects of mindfulness facets on coping strategy
may reflect differential effects of mindfulness among somewhat stressed individuals (Josefsson,

62

Lindwall, & Broberg, 2014). That is, mindfulness training may enhance more adaptive coping
for only individuals experiencing high levels of stress as those experience lower levels of stress
benefit more from relaxation aspects of mindfulness (Donald & Atkins, 2016).
Mindfulness, stress, and affect. Hypotheses relating mindfulness, stress, and affect were
also partially supported (H3b). Results showed that two mindfulness facets were related to
perceived stress. Specifically, individuals with higher levels of nonjudgment and awareness
experienced less perceived stress during the most stressful event during the day. Furthermore,
stress mediated the relationship between awareness and negative affect. First, the pattern of
results is consistent with studies suggesting higher levels of mindfulness predict less perceived
stress (Baer, Carmody, & Hunsinger, 2012; Garland, Gaylord, & Fredrickson, 2011; Weinstein,
Brown, & Ryan, 2009). However, the contribution of the current findings relates specific facets
to perceived stress, whereas the aforementioned studies use mindfulness as a full scale. Thus, it
may be nonjudgment and acting with awareness that significantly reduces perceived stress.
Second, by incorporating all mindfulness facets in the analysis, results showed that perceived
stress only mediated the relationship between acting with awareness and negative affect. From
the perspective of stress reduction, perhaps acting with awareness is the active ingredient in
mindfulness. In a sample of 1,000 individuals from Sweden, acting with awareness was
consistently the strongest predictor of depression, anxiety, positive states of mind, and perceived
health after controlling for other facets (Bränström, Duncan, & Moskowitz, 2011).
Summary. These results support the transactional model of stress and coping proposing
that stress leads to coping, which influences psychological well-being (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). First, the coping strategies predicted affect. In particular, higher levels of suppression was
related to greater negative affect, whereas higher levels of problem solving coping was related to

63

less negative affect. Second, higher levels of perceived stress was related to greater use of
suppression, which was related to greater negative affect. Results corroborate with previous
findings highlighting the detrimental effects of emotional suppression (Park, Sulaiman,
Schwartz, Kim, Ham, & Zamboanga, 2011) and benefits of problem solving coping among
Asians (Chan, 1992; Chan, 1995; Liu, Tein, & Zhao, 2004). Thus, it is possible that first-year
Chinese international students are more likely to use emotional suppression to bear the burden of
stress to maintain social harmony (Butler, Lee & Gross, 2007; Wei, Su, Carrera, Lin, & Yi,
2013).
Results also supported the two mechanism theory for mindfulness highlighting the
importance of attentional and emotional control (Hölzel et al., 2011). First, the mindfulness facet
acting with awareness was related to less negative affect, whereas the effect of describe and nonreact on positive affect approached significance. Second, emotional suppression mediated the
relationship between observe and acting with awareness on negative affect; and problem solving
coping mediated the effect of describe, observe, and aware on negative affect. Lastly, perceived
stress mediated the effect of acting with awareness on negative affect. The results support the
psychological benefits of mindfulness among Asian students (Masuda, Wendell, Chou, &
Feinstein, 2010; Masuda, Mandavia, & Tully, 2014; Wu & Buchanan, 2015) as well as the effect
of trait mindfulness on adaptive coping strategies (Weinstein, Brown & Ryan, 2009).
Lastly, the results showed differential results for positive and negative affect such that a
majority of the significant findings were related to negative affect. It is possible that the
relationships reflect cultural expressions of emotion among Chinese international students. For
instance, studies suggest that East Asian populations tend to experience less positive affect than
White/European American samples due to cultural differences in how emotion is expressed and

64

regulated (see Mesquita & Leu, 2007). Thus, the Chinese students in this sample may moderate
expressions of positive affect leading to less variance in positive affect scores and null findings.
The pattern of results may also reflect the independent nature of positive and negative affect
evidenced by an individual’s long term experiences of negative affect not predicting long term
experiences of positive affect (see Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999 for a review). As such, we
might not expect symmetric results for positive and negative affect. However, this argument has
been contested by scholars who argue that positive and negative affect represent two ends of the
affect spectrum (Russell & Carroll, 1999).
Clinical Implications
Chinese international students are the largest group of international students in the US,
representing 30% of all international students globally (IIE, 2012). This trend places greater
pressure on universities and clinicians to provide culturally sensitive programming and
interventions. First, the results highlight the importance of a host of daily stressors. Notably,
cultural differences between the sending nation and context of reception in the US can manifest
in academic problems, interpersonal problems, daily hassles, and plans for the future as found in
the current study. Clinicians working with first-year Chinese international students should
inquire about the domains found in the current study. Psychoeducation around the adjustment
process due to cultural differences between the US and China may facilitate the acculturation
process (e.g., Lin & Yi, 1997). This approach can also encourage cultural empathy and
flexibility, which has been related to better adjustment among international students (Kağnıcı,
2012; Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002; Suanet & Van de Vijver, 2009).
Second, these results highlight the complexities in the daily difficulties Chinese
international students may experience. Thus, greater import is placed on the clinician’s cultural

65

sensitivity and awareness of working with this particular group (Yakunina, Weigold, Weigold,
Hercegovac, & Elsayed, 2012). Clinicians should be aware of cultural differences between the
US and China with regards to domains such as academic achievement, illness expression and
stigma, and adjustment-related difficulties. The importance of clinician cultural competence
cannot be understated given its potential to decrease ethnic minority health disparities (Brach &
Fraserirector, 2000). Counseling centers and training programs should consider mandating
cultural sensitivity trainings and implement cultural competency guidelines outlined by the
American Psychological Association (APA; American Psychological Association, 2003, 2012;
Lowman, 2013).
Third, the results suggest that clinicians should not overly pathologize coping strategies
by viewing them through a western cultural perspective. For instance, emotion suppression was
related to worse psychological well-being in the current study; however, clinicians must consider
the cultural significance of emotion suppression as a way of maintaining group harmony. During
the clinical interview, clinicians should consider the function of emotion suppression within the
client’s immediate social group and avoid recommending potentially culturally inappropriate
coping strategies such as directly confronting others.
Fourth, the results suggest mindfulness as a potentially culturally appropriate intervention
for Chinese international students. Mindfulness and acceptance-based psychotherapies may be
culturally congruent approaches to working with Asian clients (Hall, Hong, Zane, & Meyer,
2011). Preliminary evidence in the current study suggests that clinicians may consider
mindfulness-based interventions as a way to increase acting with awareness and observing
internal and external experiences to encourage more adaptive daily coping strategies. For

66

instance, online intervention programs aimed to increase self-compassion and mindfulness are
available for clinicians to use with Chinese speaking clients (e.g.,http://www.livingwithheart.hk).
Fifth, it is recommended that clinicians examine how students may internalize oppression
with greater exposure to discrimination and microaggressions in various ways. For instance,
clinicians can focus on ways to empower clients in a culturally congruent way (e.g., Chin, 2007),
developing multidisciplinary teams that use health promotion outreach techniques to sidestep
mental health stigma (Kim & Park, 2009), and explore structural and societal inequities that
(Ibrahim & Heuer, 2016).
Institutional Implications
The results of the current study can also inform recommendations for universities.
Acknowledging that institutional resources are often limited and administrators and service
providers are often overburdened, the following recommendations are suggested as free or lowcost solutions to facilitate adjustment. It is likely that these recommendations will increase
international student enrollment rates, retention, and life satisfaction.
First, it is recommended that institutions consider starting student orientation prior to
arrival in the U.S. For instance, the Office of International Students and Scholars (OISS) at MSU
has implemented an online pre-departure orientation program where international students are
required to complete a set of checklists and view orientation videos related to cultural adjustment
and academics at MSU. The aim of the program is to facilitate cultural adjustment and modify
new international students’ expectations prior to arriving in the U.S.
Second, institutions should assess factors that influence intercultural contact between
international and domestic students. Because close relationships are developed in the first few
months of college, it is unclear how the separate international and domestic student orientations

67

at MSU influence the development of intercultural social networks. One strategy to increase
intercultural dialogue and exchange may be to provide greater support for student led
organizations geared towards cultural inclusion. Greater institutional support and recognition
may serve to: (1) highlight the importance of intercultural dialogue/exchange and increase
domestic student involvement, (2) promote intercultural learning, and (3) increase the reputation
of university as a culturally diverse and inclusive environment. Furthermore, institutionally
recognized programming may also be attractive for those students who anticipate becoming
friends with domestic student.
Third, institutions should consider increasing ethnic minority representation in university
counseling centers. Although research shows that client-therapist racial/ethnic match does not
significantly influence treatment outcome, racial/ethnic minorities have a strong preference for
therapists of their own race/ethnicity (Cabral & Smith, 2011). Thus, greater representation and
visibility of racial/ethnic minority counselors may increase the likelihood that Chinese
international students seek help for mental health problems. In addition, institutions may
consider having representatives from the counseling center spend part of their time at the
International Center. Increased mental health professional representation in frequently visited
offices may serve to promote mental health awareness and increase mental health service use
among international students.
Fourth, institutions should consider a formal mechanism that allows international
students to acknowledge particularly helpful professors. For instance, awards and recognition
through university organizations such as the Office of International Students and Scholars
(OISS) or Office of Cultural and Academic Transitions (OCAT) may allow professors who excel
at working with international students to be recognized for their contribution. This type of formal

68

recognition will also allow faculty members to demonstrate service in their portfolios, CV, and
tenure review applications (Sherry, Thomas, & Chui, 2010).
Fifth, institutions should consider training faculty and staff about the unique difficulties
international students experience during the cultural adjustment process. For instance, training
faculty about the special circumstances and cultural difficulties international students experience
in the classroom may facilitate adjustment (Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). Further, institutions
should consider developing specialty programs that reach out to international students to help
them with writing. For instance the MSU English Language Center provides a service called the
ESL Lab (elc.msu.edu/esl-lab/) that helps international students with their writing. Writing
consultants trained to work with international students might be more aware of common writing
mistakes seen among international students.
Limitations and Future Directions
The current study’s limitations have implications for future development. First, the study
was conducted during the second semester of the first year. It is possible that stressors
experienced during the second semester may differ from those experienced during the first
semester – the moment they arrive in the US. Students may develop compensatory coping
strategies to mitigate stress. Future studies should consider conducting daily diary assessments
across two stages – during the first semester when they arrive to the MSU campus, and then at
the end of their first year. This allows for researchers to control for effects due to changes in the
season or semester. Second, the sample size included 30 participants who were predominantly
female. Thus, findings may not generalize to the entire Chinese international student population.
Further, given the relatively small sample size (n = 30), findings may be underpowered at the
second level. Thus, future studies should consider recruiting a more balanced sample of men and

69

women as well as increasing the sample size. Third, the study was conducted at a mid-western
university. A number of environmental factors may limit the generalizability of the findings. For
instance, MSU has one of the most Chinese international students in the nation. Students may
experience less stress due to the relatively strong Chinese international student presence. Thus,
future studies should consider sampling across various universities to control for unique effects
due to the university settings. Fourth, the study of how mindfulness influences coping and
psychological well-being was correlational. Although findings suggested that higher levels of
mindfulness were related to less stress and more adaptive coping strategies, future studies
building off these findings should consider conducting intervention studies with Chinese
international students. Existing intervention studies with ethnic minorities suggest that
mindfulness based interventions do change trait mindfulness; however, no studies to date have
examined the effect of mindfulness based interventions among Chinese international students.
Fifth, the current study of coping was limited to emotion suppression, reappraisal, and problem
solving coping. Additional culture specific coping strategies were not examined. For instance, a
non-Western perspective on coping drawing upon collectivistic coping theory may investigate
alternative coping strategies such as forbearance, fatalism, and family support (Yeh, Arora, &
Wu, 2006).
Conclusion
Chinese international students are the largest group of international students globally and
across U.S. college campuses (IIE, 2006). As universities look to accommodate this growing
population, more research is needed about daily stressors experienced among first-year Chinese
students acclimating to new cultural and learning environments. The current study addresses this
research gap by using a novel mixed method two-week daily diary approach and found that first-

70

year Chinese students experience daily stress across multiple domains, and use various emotion
regulation strategies in response to the stress. Interestingly, study findings suggest that specific
aspects of trait mindfulness are related to decreased levels of stress and deployment of more
effective coping strategies. Implications of this study highlight the importance of cultural
competence among clinicians, the feasibility of using mindfulness-based approaches in reducing
stress among acculturating first-year Chinese international students, the need for greater
institutional resources directed towards training clinicians, staff, and faculty about the unique
stressors facing Chinese international students, and the ways in which innovative programming
that allows for greater intercultural dialogue and contact among international and U.S.-born
students can improve outcomes more broadly.

71

APPENDICES

72

APPENDIX A: Figures and Tables.

Figure 1: Hypothesized model for stress, suppression, and negative affect.

73

Figure 2: Hypothesized model for stress, suppression, and positive affect.

74

Figure 3: Hypothesized model for stress, reappraisal, and negative affect.

75

Figure 4: Hypothesized model for stress, reappraisal, and positive affect.

76

Figure 5: Hypothesized model for stress, problem solving, and negative affect.

77

Figure 6: Hypothesized model for stress, problem solving, and positive affect.

78

Figure 7: Moderated structural model for stress, coping (reappraisal, problem solving, and suppression), and negative affect.

79

Figure 8: Moderated structural model for stress, coping (reappraisal, problem solving, and suppression), and positive affect.

80

Figure 9: Hypothesized model for mindfulness, stress, coping (reappraisal, problem solving, and suppression), and negative affect.

81

Figure 10: Hypothesized model for mindfulness, stress, coping (reappraisal, problem solving, and suppression), and positive
affect.

82

Figure 11: Final estimated model for mindfulness (nonjudgment, observe, and aware), suppression, and negative affect.

83

Figure 12: Final estimated model for mindfulness (nonjudgment, observe, and aware), suppression, and positive affect.

84

Figure 13: Final estimated model for mindfulness (describe, observe, and aware), problem solving, and negative affect.

85

Figure 14: Final estimated model for mindfulness (describe, observe, and aware), problem solving, and positive affect.

86

Table 1: Proposed research questions and hypotheses (RQ1 and RQ2).
RQ1
H1

What are the types of stressors Chinese international students
experience at the daily level?
Chinese international students will report both acculturative
and general stress-related events.
What is the relationship between perceived stress, coping strategy,
and psychological well-being during a stressful event?

RQ2
H2a

Perceived stress will be related to psychological well-being

H2a.1

Perceived stress will be positively related to negative affect

H2a.2

Perceived stress will be negatively related to positive affect

H2b

Coping will mediate the relationship between perceived stress
and psychological well-being

H2b.1

The indirect effect of perceived stress on negative affect
through emotion suppression will be significant

H2b.2

The indirect effect of perceived stress on positive affect through
emotion suppression will be significant

H2b.3

The indirect effect of perceived stress on negative affect
through reappraisal will be significant

H2b.4

The indirect effect of perceived stress on positive affect through
reappraisal will be significant

H2b.5

The indirect effect of perceived stress on negative affect
through problem solving coping will be significant

H2b.6

The indirect effect of perceived stress on positive affect through
problem solving coping will be significant

87

Table 2: Proposed research questions and hypotheses (RQ3).
What is the relationship between trait mindfulness, perceived
stress, coping, and psychological well-being?

RQ3
H3a

Trait mindfulness will be related to affect

H3a.1

Trait mindfulness facets will be negatively related to negative
affect

H3a.2

Trait mindfulness facets will be positively related to positive
affect

H3b

Perceived stress and coping will mediate the relationship
between trait mindfulness and psychological well-being

H3b.1

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on negative
affect through perceived stress will be significant

H3b.2

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on positive
affect through perceived stress will be significant

H3b.3

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on negative
affect through emotion suppression will be significant

H3b.4

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on positive
affect through emotion suppression will be significant

H3b.5

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on negative
affect through reappraisal will be significant

H3b.6

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on positive
affect through reappraisal will be significant

H3b.7

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on negative
affect through problem solving coping will be significant

H3b.8

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness facets on positive
affect through problem solving coping will be significant

88

Table 2: (cont’d).
H3c

Perceived stress and coping will serially mediate the
relationship between trait mindfulness and psychological wellbeing

H3c.1

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness on negative affect
through perceived stress and emotion suppression coping will
be significant.

H3c.2

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness on positive affect
through perceived stress and emotion suppression coping will
be significant.

H3c.3

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness on negative affect
through perceived stress and reappraisal coping will be
significant.

H3c.4

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness on positive affect
through perceived stress and reappraisal coping will be
significant.

H3c.5

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness on negative affect
through perceived stress and problem solving coping will be
significant.

H3c.6

The indirect effect of trait mindfulness on positive affect
through perceived stress and problem solving coping will be
significant.

89

Table 3: Qualitative themes, codes, and example quotations.
Theme
Academic stressors

Basic needs

Interpersonal
problems

Operational Definition
Pressures related to coursework,
classes, exams, GPA, homework,
studying or enrolling in class

Concerns about current physical
health, financial resources,
availability of food or hunger, and
sleep disturbances

Conflicts with others, relationship
problems, desire for more meaningful
relationships

Representative Quotes
-

I don’t know how to choose classes for next semester.
Still haven’t decided my major yet, and major
requirement courses are hard so I cannot hastily make the
decision.

-

There is a Quiz for CSE tomorrow. I didn't have a good
score last semester, so I am retaking the class this
semester. So far so good, but I don't know if I can keep
this status, otherwise I will be wasting my time and
money.

-

The results of math exam came out and I didn’t do well
on the test due to careless –I got some questions wrong, I
am depressed right now.

-

I’m worried that my grade will influence applying to
better graduate schools.

-

I don't have money, I can't afford tuition, I can't afford
car loan or house loan. One word: I am poor!

-

Dysmenorrhea

-

No time to sleep – very tired.

-

I feel hungry.

-

My boyfriend and I are in a long distance relationship
and he came visit me; however he is leaving today.

90

Table 3: (cont’d).
-

Time pressure

Environmental or
situational stressors

Concerns, worries, or feeling
overwhelmed due to perceiving time
as a limited resource or problems
with time management

Frustrating environmental demands
or practical problems that disrupt
daily routines

I want to meet more students who are working hard, I
think they will inspire me.
If people around me are lazy, I will be easily distracted
and get lazy too. There are a lot of students wasting their
time, not focus on learning, My roommate is one of them
– she disturbs my life and learning severely.

-

My girlfriend and I had a small argument with her friend.
I said something wrong so she got angry.

-

Almost finished with the first freshman semester. To be
honest I have no real good friend. Relationships only up
to certain level, but don’t go further.

-

Finals exams are coming up and I feel a lot of pressure. I
feel tired every day and do not have motivation to study
hard, so I’m anxious.

-

Always need more time. I want to study but I can't, and
can't finish my homework.

-

I feel very busy everyday but do not know what I have
done.

-

I want to read a novel, but I don't have time.

-

I didn’t pass the road test.

-

I messed up the painting for my friend and it’s a bad
looking painting. I don't know how to fix it.

-

I do not want to do anything because the weather is too
cold.

-

The line is too long for beef noodles in Brody.

91

Table 3: (cont’d).
Future goal-oriented
stressors

Self-concept

Cultural adjustment
stressors

Concerns about future plans
including career, family, immigration
status, and logistics for leisure
activities (e.g., travel)

Intra-individual stressors stemming
from negative self-perceptions related
to self-efficacy, self-esteem, ability to
control one’s behavior, or
discrepancy between ideal and actual
self

Difficulties due to living in another
country

-

Applying for a visa is complicated.

-

Having no idea how to deal with tomorrow's interview.
I’ve prepared some questions and practiced how to
answer them by myself. However, I’m still very nervous,
I don’t know if I can pass or not.

-

Applying for Business college.

-

I feel so lost for my future and I don’t know if I should
double major or not.

-

Due to Thanksgiving sales, I spent too much money
buying the things that are unnecessary. I feel so bad for
my parents.

-

I feel my EQ is getting lower.

-

Very lazy, cannot persevere on many of things. I cannot
successful finish or follow the plan that I have scheduled.
I just want to be lazy and lie in bed every day. I want to
make some changes, but it’s hard because it's already
become a habit.

-

Low self-esteem. I do not have confidence in myself no
matter what aspect.

-

Food in America has lots of calories that make me gain a
lot of weight. I heard that lots of students have the same
problem, I am trying to control, but get fat anyway.

92

Table 3: (cont’d).
-

If the professor has an accent, I can't learn anything at all.
I have to learn on my own after that.

-

I’ve become uglier after coming to America.

-

I can't fuse into American culture. My speaking is not
fluent enough and I’m afraid to communicate with
foreigners. Sometimes I can't understand the course.

93

Table 4: Bivariate relationships, means, standard deviations, and ranges.
1
1 Observe (FFMQ)
2 Describe (FFMQ)

2

3

4

5

6

.48**

3 Aware (FFMQ)
Nonjudgment
4
(FFMQ)
5 Nonreact (FFMQ)

-.10*

-.20**

-.43**

-.35**

.41**

.26**

-.11*

-.22**

6 Stress_gm

-.03

.02

-.36**

-.48**

.23**

-.05

-.27**

-.19**

.20**

.19**

-.36**

.07

-.57**

-.36**

-.16**

.32**

.45**

-.07

.35**

7 Reappraise_gm
8 Suppress_gm
9 Direct_gm

.46**

-.02

-.12*

.34**

.04

-.12*

-.13**

-.34**

-.22**

-.02

.31**

11 Neg. Affect_gm

.09

.12*

-.52**

-.44**

-.12*

.40**

12 Pos. Affect_gm

-.03

.22**

.06

.20**

.23**

13 Age

-.15**

.06

.21**

.10*

.05

-.51**

14 Gender

-.03

-.11*

.31**

.08

.16**

-.42**

Mean

3.57

3.53

2.97

2.44

3.17

62.64

SD

0.89

0.79

0.85

0.59

0.50

18.89

10 Depression

.03

Range
2.00-5.00 2.00-5.00 1.00-4.25 1.00-3.50 2.25-4.25 20.29-98.00
Note: * = p < .05; ** = p < .01. FFMQ = Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire; gender coded as 1 = men, 0 =
women; gm = group mean centered across 14 days of measurement.

94

Table 4: (cont’d).
7
7 Reappraise_gm
8 Suppress_gm
9 Direct_gm

8

9

10

11

12

13

.07
-.72**

-.02

10 Depression

.36**

.40**

-.11*

11 Neg. Affect_gm

.19**

.64**

-.41**

.41**

12 Pos. Affect_gm

.04

-.16**

.15**

-.27**

-.43**

-.30**

.09

-.25**

-.20**

-.06

-.05

-.18**

.47**

13 Age
14 Gender

-.11

*

.05

-.05
*

*

-.10

-.11

Mean

3.07

3.07

3.48

2.43

3.36

2.10

18.62

SD

0.56

0.63

0.63

0.96

0.73

0.64

0.98

Range
1.71-3.90 1.10-3.75 2.06-5.00 0.00-4.33 1.29-4.63 1.06-3.63 18-20
Note: * = p < .05; ** = p < .01. FFMQ = Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire; gm = group mean centered across
14 days of measurement; gender coded as “1” = man, and “0” = woman,

95

Table 5: Piece-wise models estimating direct effects of covariates
on stress, coping, and affect.
Model 1: Between effects of covariates on stress
Predictor
b
SE
p-value
Age
-7.142
3.812
.061
Gender
-12.592
14.304
.379
State Anxiety
-.172
1.731
.921
Depression symptoms
5.068
5.280
.337
Model 2: Between effects of covariates on Suppression and
Reappraisal
Outcome: Suppression
b
SE
p-value
Age
.183
.150
.657
Gender
-.124
.280
.165
State Anxiety
.099
.071
.165
Depression symptoms
.168
.141
.233
Outcome: Reappraisal
b
SE
P-value
Age
-.101
.106
.341
Gender
-.018
.200
.929
State Anxiety
.042
.061
.491
Depression symptoms
.122
.119
.305
Outcome: Problem Solving
b
SE
p-value
Age
-.053
.143
.713
Gender
-.115
.237
.626
State Anxiety
-.056
.078
.474
Depression symptoms
-.012
.138
.931
Model 3: Between effects of covariates on affect
Outcome: Negative Affect
B
SE
p-value
Age
-.090
.202
.657
Gender
.059
.395
.881
State Anxiety
.022
.108
.839
Depression symptoms
.268
.197
.174
Outcome: Positive Affect
B
SE
p-value
Age
.041
.157
.791
Gender
-.464
.269
.085
State Anxiety
.069
.073
.344
Depression symptoms
-.030
.097
.502

96

Table 6: Model 1: Mediation model for H2 (Stress  Suppression  Negative Affect).
Within-person
SE
p-value Mediating Effect 95% CI
Predictor
Outcome
b
.002
.249
Stress
Suppression
.002
.000
[.000, .001]
.059
.044
Suppression
Negative Affect .118
.003
.000
Stress
Negative Affect .013
Between-person
SE
p-value Mediating Effect 95% CI
Predictor
Outcome
b
.005
.022
Stress
Suppression
.012
.009
[.002, .019]
.254
.002
Suppression
Negative Affect .779
.007
.443
Stress
Negative Affect .006
Note: Mediated effect is based on a Monte Carlo simulation method calculated by rMediation (Tofighi
& MacKinnon, 2011).

97

Table 7: Model 2: Mediation model for H2 (Stress  Suppression  Positive Affect).
Within-person
SE
p-value Mediating Effect 95% CI
Predictor
Outcome
b
.002
.249
Stress
Suppression
.002
.000
[.000, .000]
.055
.456
Suppression
Positive Affect
-.041
.003
.072
Stress
Positive Affect
-.006
Between-person
SE
p-value Mediating Effect 95% CI
Predictor
Outcome
b
.005
.023
Stress
Suppression
.012
-.002
[-.010, .004]
.304
.522
Suppression
Positive Affect
-.194
.007
.592
Stress
Positive Affect
.004
Note: Mediated effect is based on a Monte Carlo simulation method calculated by rMediation (Tofighi
& MacKinnon, 2011).

98

Table 8: Model 3: Mediation model for H2 (Stress  Reappraisal  Negative Affect).
Within-person
SE
p-value Mediating Effect 95% CI
Predictor
Outcome
b
.002
.077
Stress
Reappraisal
.004
.000
[.000, .001]
.074
.357
Reappraisal
Negative Affect .068
.002
.000
Stress
Negative Affect .013
Between-person
SE
p-value Mediating Effect 95% CI
Predictor
Outcome
b
.005
.331
Stress
Reappraisal
.005
.001
[-.003, .005]
.333
.692
Reappraisal
Negative Affect .132
.008
.056
Stress
Negative Affect .014
Note: Mediated effect is based on a Monte Carlo simulation method calculated by rMediation (Tofighi
& MacKinnon, 2011).

99

Table 9: Model 4: Mediation model for H2 (Stress  Reappraisal  Positive Affect).
Within-person
SE
p-value Mediating Effect 95% CI
Predictor
Outcome
b
.077
Stress
Suppression
.004 .002
.000
[.000, .000]
.463
Reappraisal
Positive Affect
.052 .071
.003
.052
Stress
Positive Affect
-.006
Between-person
SE
p-value Mediating Effect 95% CI
Predictor
Outcome
b
.329
Stress
Suppression
.005 .005
.000
[-.003, .004]
.863
Reappraisal
Positive Affect
.054 .310
.008
.883
Stress
Positive Affect
.001
Note: Mediated effect is based on a Monte Carlo simulation method calculated by rMediation
(Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011).

100

Table 10: Model 5: Mediation model for H2 (Stress  Problem Solving  Negative Affect).
Within-person
SE
p-value Mediating Effect 95% CI
Predictor
Outcome
b
.002
.812
Stress
Problem Solving .001
.000
[.000, .000]
.055
.783
Problem Solving
Negative Affect -.015
.003
.000
Stress
Negative Affect
.013
Between-person
SE
p-value Mediating Effect 95% CI
Predictor
Outcome
b
.005
.901
Stress
Problem Solving .001
-.001
[-.007, .005]
.323
.037
Problem Solving
Negative Affect -.674
.005
.004
Stress
Negative Affect
.015
Note: Mediated effect is based on a Monte Carlo simulation method calculated by rMediation (Tofighi &
MacKinnon, 2011).

101

Table 11: Model 6: Mediation model for H2 (Stress  Problem Solving  Positive Affect).
Within-person
SE
p-value Mediating Effect 95% CI
Predictor
Outcome
b
.002
.810
Stress
Problem Solving .001
.000
[.000, .000]
.063
.662
Problem Solving
Positive Affect
.028
.003
.068
Stress
Positive Affect
-.006
Between-person
SE
p-value Mediating Effect 95% CI
Predictor
Outcome
b
.005
.896
Stress
Problem Solving .001
.000
[.000, .000]
.292
.492
Problem Solving
Positive Affect
.201
.006
.837
Stress
Positive Affect
.001
Note: Mediated effect is based on a Monte Carlo simulation method calculated by rMediation (Tofighi &
MacKinnon, 2011).

102

Table 12: Model testing effects of stress, coping, and interaction
(stress*coping) effects on negative affect.
Within Effects
B
SE
p-value
Stress
.009
.018
.607
Suppression
.159
.160
.319
Reappraisal
-.031
.223
.891
Problem solving
-.056
.159
.727
Stress*Suppression
-.001
.003
.742
Stress*Reappraisal
.001
.003
.770
Stress*Problem Solving
.001
.002
.647
Between Effects
B
SE
p-value
Stress
-.005
.029
.858
Suppression
.706
.937
.451
Reappraisal
.442
.588
.452
Problem solving
-.157
.741
.833
Stress*Suppression
.002
.009
.779
Stress*Reappraisal
-.005
.009
.591
Stress*Problem Solving
.005
.011
.664

103

Table 13: Model testing effects of stress, coping, and interaction
(stress*coping) effects on positive affect.
Within Effects
B
SE
p-value
Stress
-.015
.012
.214
Suppression
-.157
.099
.114
Reappraisal
.027
.254
.914
Problem solving
-.046
.173
.790
Stress*Suppression
.002
.001
.280
Stress*Reappraisal
.001
.004
.809
Stress*Problem Solving
.001
.003
.850
Between Effects
B
SE
p-value
Stress
.010
.031
.761
Suppression
.070
1.436
.961
Reappraisal
.744
.860
.387
Problem solving
.853
1.485
.566
Stress*Suppression
.007
.011
.513
Stress*Reappraisal
-.009
.013
.499
Stress*Problem Solving
-.003
.011
.785

104

Table 14: Piece-meal models estimating direct effects of
mindfulness facets on stress, coping, and affect.
Model 1: Between effects of trait mindfulness on stress
Predictor
b
SE
p
Observe
-3.990
4.12
0.330
Describe
-1.408
3.302
0.670
Aware
-3.712
3.522
0.292
Nonjudgment
-17.477*
4.958
0.000
Nonreact
-6.583
6.665
0.323
Model 2: Between effects of trait mindfulness on
Suppression and Reappraisal
Outcome: Suppression
B
SE
p
Observe
-0.450*
0.118
0.000
Describe
0.150
0.107
0.161
Aware
-0.324*
0.108
0.003
Nonjudgment
-0.407*
0.182
0.027
Nonreact
-0.120
0.163
0.462
Outcome: Reappraisal
b
SE
p
Observe
0.173
0.156
0.267
Describe
-0.197
0.129
0.127
Aware
-0.182
0.098
0.064
Nonjudgment
-0.009
0.203
0.964
Nonreact
0.133
0.179
0.459
Outcome: Problem Solving
b
SE
p
0.387
0.146
0.008
Observe
-0.259
0.087
0.003
Describe
0.263
0.089
0.003
Aware
-0.008
0.167
0.961
Nonjudgment
0.268
0.181
0.140
Nonreact
Model 3: Between effects of trait mindfulness on negative
affect
b
SE
p
Observe
0.020
0.161
0.899
Describe
-0.004
0.119
0.975
Aware
-0.362*
0.133
0.006
Nonjudgment
-0.352
0.245
0.150
Nonreact
-0.365
0.256
0.155

105

Table 14 (cont’d).
Model 4: Between effects of trait mindfulness on positive
affect
b
SE
p
Observe
-0.154
0.161
0.338
Describe
0.311
0.178
0.080
Aware
-0.004
0.129
0.974
Nonjudgment
0.324
0.229
0.157
Nonreact
0.342
0.207
0.098
Note: * p < .05

106

Table 15: Full model testing mediation for mindfulness, stress, suppression, and negative
affect.
Within-person (Stress  Suppression  Negative Affect)
b
Predictor
Outcome
SE
p-value
.002
Stress
Suppression
.002
.229
.013
Negative affect
.003
.000
.122
Suppression
Negative affect
.060
.044
Estimate
Indirect effect
95% CI
.000
Stress -> Suppression -> Negative Affect
[.000, .001]
Between-Person (Mindfulness  Stress  Suppression  Negative Affect)
b
Predictor
Outcome
SE
p-value
-17.565 5.090
Nonjudgment
Stress
.001
-.511
Suppression
.222
.021
.312
Negative affect
.215
.147
-6.303
Observe
Stress
3.415
.065
-.435
Suppression
.137
.001
.442
Negative affect
.161
.006
-3.235
Awareness
Stress
3.415
.065
-.329
Suppression
.101
.001
-.004
Stress
Suppression
.005
.472
.009
Negative affect
.007
.204
1.085
Suppression
Negative affect
.237
.000
Estimate
Indirect effects
95% CI
-.163
Nonjudgment -> Stress -> Negative Affect
[-0.409, 0.082]
-.555
Nonjudgment -> Suppression -> Negative Affect
[-1.144, 0.035]
Nonjudgment -> Stress -> Suppression -> Negative Affect .069
[-0.112, 0.250]
-.059
Observe -> Stress -> Negative Affect
[-0.152, 0.0350]
-.472
Observe -> Suppression -> Negative Affect
[-0.866, -0.078]
.025
Observe -> Stress -> Suppression -> Negative Affect
[-0.050, 0.100]
-.030
Awareness -> Stress -> Negative Affect
[-0.111, 0.051]
-.357
Awareness -> Suppression -> Negative Affect
[-0.617, -0.096]
.013
Awareness -> Stress -> Suppression -> Negative Affect
[-0.040, 0.065]
Model fit: Chi-square (3) = 12.397, p < .01; RMSEA = .09; CFI = .91.

107

Table 16: Full model testing mediation for mindfulness, stress, suppression, and positive
affect.
Within-person (Stress  Suppression  Positive Affect)
b
Predictor
Outcome
SE
p-value
.002
Stress
Suppression
.002
.242
-.006
Positive affect
.003
.074
-.040
Suppression
Positive affect
.055
.464
Estimate
Indirect effect
95% CI
.000
Stress -> Suppression -> Positive affect
[.000, .000]
Between-Person (Mindfulness  Stress  Suppression  Positive Affect)
b
Predictor
Outcome
SE
p-value
-17.116
Nonjudgment
Stress
3.434
.069
-.498
Suppression
.139
.002
.261
Positive affect
.309
.398
-6.239
Observe
Stress
3.434
.069
-.434
Suppression
.139
.002
.019
Positive affect
.194
.923
-3.601
Awareness
Stress
3.428
.307
-.339
Suppression
.106
.001
-.004
Stress
Suppression
.005
.478
.007
Positive affect
.007
.356
-.118
Suppression
Positive affect
.343
.730
Estimate
Indirect effects
95% CI
-.118
Nonjudgment -> Stress -> Positive affect
[-0.397, 0.161]
.059
Nonjudgment -> Suppression -> Positive affect
[-0.303, 0.421]
Nonjudgment -> Stress -> Suppression -> Positive
-.007
affect
[-0.053, 0.039]
-.043
Observe -> Stress -> Positive affect
[-0.144, 0.058]
.051
Observe -> Suppression -> Positive affect
[-0.260, 0.362]
-.003
Observe -> Stress -> Suppression -> Positive affect
[-0.020, 0.015]
-.024
Awareness -> Stress -> Positive affect
[-0.087, 0.039]
.040
Awareness -> Suppression -> Positive affect
[-0.189, 0.269]
Awareness -> Stress -> Suppression -> Positive
-.001
affect
[-0.012, 0.009]
Model fit: Chi-square (3) = 12.808, p < .01; RMSEA = .09; CFI = .76.

108

Table 17: Full model testing mediation for mindfulness, stress, problem solving, and
negative affect.
Within-person (Stress  Problem Solving  Negative Affect)
b
Predictor
Outcome
SE
p-value
.000
Stress
Problem Solving
.002
.850
.013
Negative affect
.003
.000
-.022
Problem Solving Negative affect
.056
.688
Estimate
Indirect effect
95% CI
.000
Stress -> Problem Solving -> Negative Affect
[.000, .000]
Between-Person (Mindfulness  Stress  Problem Solving  Negative Affect)
b
Predictor
Outcome
SE
p-value
-2.046
Observe
Stress
4.299
.634
.460
Problem Solving
.105
.000
.498
Negative affect
.122
.000
.009
Describe
Stress
.005
.087
-.250
Problem Solving
.092
.007
-.234
Negative affect
.157
.135
-8.240
Awareness
Stress
3.721
.027
.324
Problem Solving
.106
.002
.009
Stress
Problem Solving
.005
.087
.019
Negative affect
.005
.000
-.992
Problem Solving Negative affect
.330
.003
Estimate
Indirect effects
95% CI
Observe -> Stress -> Negative Affect
-.038
[-0.196, 0.120]
Observe -> Problem Solving -> Negative Affect
-.457
[-0.809, -0.105]
Observe -> Stress -> Problem Solving -> Negative
Affect
.018
[-0.066, 0.101]
Describe -> Stress -> Negative Affect
.003
[-0.154, 0.161]
Describe -> Problem Solving -> Negative Affect
.248
[0.005, 0.491]
Describe -> Stress -> Problem Solving -> Negative
Affect
-.001
[-0.074, 0.071]
Awareness -> Stress -> Negative Affect
-.154
[-0.296, -0.011]
Awareness -> Problem Solving -> Negative Affect
-.321
[-0.633, -0.010]
Awareness -> Stress -> Problem Solving ->
Negative Affect
.071
[-0.061, 0.203]
Model fit: Chi-square (4) = 9.518, p < .05; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .93.

109

Table 18: Full model testing mediation for mindfulness, stress, problem solving, and positive
affect.
Within-person (Stress  Problem Solving  Positive Affect)
b
Predictor
Outcome
SE
p-value
.001
Stress
Problem Solving
.002
.811
-.006
Positive affect
.003
.068
.027
Problem Solving
Positive affect
.064
.676
Estimate
Indirect effect
95% CI
.000
Stress -> Problem Solving -> Positive affect
[.000, .000]
Between-Person (Mindfulness  Stress  Problem Solving  Positive Affect)
b
Predictor
Outcome
SE
p-value
-2.206
Observe
Stress
4.257
.604
.465
Problem Solving
.105
.000
-.397
Positive affect
.153
.009
.348
Describe
Stress
4.240
.935
-.257
Problem Solving
.090
.004
.457
Positive affect
.185
.013
-8.224
Awareness
Stress
3.699
.026
.315
Problem Solving
.110
.004
.009
Stress
Problem Solving
.005
.093
-.001
Positive affect
.006
.803
.488
Problem Solving
Positive affect
.294
.097
Estimate
Indirect effects
95% CI
.003
Observe -> Stress -> Positive affect
[-0.023, 0.029]
.227
Observe -> Problem Solving -> Positive affect
[-0.074, 0.528]
Observe -> Stress -> Problem Solving -> Positive
-.009
affect
[-0.052, 0.034]
-.125
Describe -> Stress -> Positive affect
[-0.284, 0.033]
.000
Describe -> Problem Solving -> Positive affect
[-0.012, 0.011]
Describe -> Stress -> Problem Solving -> Positive
.001
affect
[-0.033, 0.036]
.011
Awareness -> Stress -> Positive affect
[-0.075, 0.098]
.154
Awareness -> Problem Solving -> Positive affect
[-0.070, 0.378]
Awareness -> Stress -> Problem Solving -> Positive
-.034
affect
[-0.109, 0.040]
Model fit: Chi-square (3) = 9.137, p < .05; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .79.

110

APPENDIX B: Informed consent (Chinese).
知情同意书
您好！我们邀请您参与密歇根州立大学 2015 中国留学生调查。首先，感谢您参与这份密歇根
州立大学的问卷调查，本次调查的负责人是估学聪博士生(Ivan Wu)。估学聪是临床心理学专
业的在读博士生, 这份研究将是估学聪的毕业论文。
这个研究是用来探索关于您的文化，经历过的压力，情感健康以及思维觉察力。当您决定参
与，您需要先花 30 分钟完成一份在线问卷。在此之后两周，您将需要在每天晚上 8-12 点之
间完成一份五分钟的问卷。您可以在您的手机上完成调查问卷，但是您的手机必须能够连接
网络， 而且我们需要您提供您的电话号码。您也可以选择用您的电脑完成问卷， 这时我们需
要您提供您的电子邮箱地址。在两周结束时，您将需要完成与第一份相似的问卷。请您认真
诚实的回答每个问题。这里没有正确或错误答案。
当您完成研究，您会获得亚马逊礼品卡。当您完成每天问卷，您将收到$ 1 亚马逊礼品
卡， 当您完成最初和最后问卷时，每个问卷您会收到$ 3 亚马逊礼品卡。完成所有的问卷，
您将获得额外的$5 亚马逊礼品卡。每一个认真，真实完成此次调查问卷的学生填完问卷总共
会得到$25 亚马逊礼品卡。
参与此次问卷调查并无任何已知风险。此调查仅限于了解您的日常生活，以及您对如何适应
密歇根州立大学学习与生活的观点和看法.
您的隐私将会在法律允许的最大范围内受到保护。您的所有回答将会受到严格的保护。研究
数据将会在有密码保护的电脑上存档。电脑放置在估学聪的办公室，位于 316 Physics Rm 26,
East Lansing, 48824。问卷上所有跟个人相关的信息将会被移除，这些信息将会保存在另一个
单独的文档中。研究数据会在此研究项目完成后存放五年。您的参与是自愿的。您可以在任
何时候拒绝参与或退出此研究，并不会受到任何处罚。同时，您有权利选择跳过或拒绝回答
任何您不想回答的问题。为了确保我们数据的可用性，如果你没有完成整个调查的 80％以上
或者没有认真填写每一个问题，您可能得不到$25 gift card. 您的参与或退出并不会影响您在学
校或在任何附属机构享有的服务。
如果您对您作为研究参与者的角色和权利有任何疑虑，或希望获取或提供相关信息，或希望
对此研究项目进行投诉，您可以通过以下方式，实名或匿名联系密歇根州立大学人类研究保
护项目：电话：517-355-2180, 邮箱：irb@msu.edu，或寄信到 408 W. Circle Drive, 207 Olds
Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
如果您对此研究项目有任何问题或疑虑，例如对研究方法的疑问，对如何完成此研究项目的
疑问，或上报在参与过程中受到的损害（包括生理、心理、社交、金钱、或其他方面的损害
），请通过以下方式与研究人员 Ivan Wu 联系：316 Physics Rm 26, East Lansing, MI
48824, wuivan@msu.edu , (970)984-8266。
通过在下列选择“同意并自愿参与提交此问卷调查”，您表示您已年满 18 岁，已了解上述信
息，并决定参与此研究项目。

111

Ivan’s information:
Name: 估学聪 Ivan Wu, M.A.
Office: Psychology Building, 316 Physics Room 26, East Lansing
Email: wuivan@msu.edu
Phone number: (970) 984-8266

112

APPENDIX C: Survey flyer (Chinese).

113

APPENDIX D: Initial survey (Chinese).
请细心阅读以下有关想法或感觉的句子,并选出最能描述你以下想法或感觉的频繁度
从不

很少

有時

常常

经常

1. 我擅于用言语来形容自己的感受











2. 当我做事时,我的思绪会游走,而且我很容易分心











3. 我能轻易地以言语表达自己的信念、意见和期望











4. 我不留心自己正在做的事,因为我在做白日梦,担忧或被
其他事情分了心











5. 我告诉自己不应该有现在这些感受











6. 遇到困难时,我能稍作停顿而不立即作出反应











7. 我留心自己身体的感觉,例如风吹过头发或阳光照在脸
上的感觉











8. 我会判断自己的想法是好或是坏











9. 当我有烦恼的想法或影像时,我会「退一步」,并知道那
些想法或影像而不被其控制











10. 我留心声音,例如时钟滴答声、麻雀声或汽车经过的
声音











11. 我很容易分心











12. 当我有一些困扰的想法或影像时,我很快回复平静











13. 我告诉自己,我不应该这样想











14. 我注意到事物的气息和香味











15. 这个问题请选常常











16. 即使我感到非常心烦意乱,我仍有办法用语言来表达











17. 我想我有些情绪是坏的,或不恰当的,我不应该感到这
样











18. 我会留意艺术或大自然等视觉元素,例如:颜色、形
状、质地,或光线和阴影的图案











19. 我倾向把我的经验化为言语











20. 当我有一些困扰的想法或影像时,我只是注意它们,并
且不管它们











21. 我发觉自己并不专注于正在做的事情











114

在过去两星期中，你有多经常以下问题困扰？
完全没有

几天

超过一半或以上的
天数

几乎每天

做事缺兴趣或乐趣









感到低落，沮丧，
或绝望









难以入睡，容易睡
醒，或过度睡眠









感到疲倦和精力不
足









食欲不振或过度饮
食









觉得自己很差劲，
觉得自己是个失败
者，使自己和家人
失望









难以集中精神，例
如阅报和看电视









连别人也察觉得到
动作或说话缓慢：
或经常徘徊踱步，
心绪不宁或坐立不
安









有最好死去或以某
些方法自残的想法









115

说明： 以下是一些人们用以描述自己的句子。 请阅读每一个句子，并在下边最能表明你现在的感
受， 也就是选择你此时此刻感受的相应数字。 答案无所谓。 请不要在每个句子上花太多时间，
但是要选出最能表达你现在感受的那个答案。
一点也不

有点

相当

非常

我感到平静









我感到安全









我感到紧张









我感到很累









我感到悠闲舒适









我感到心烦意乱









我感到可能会遇到
一些不幸的事情









我感到满意









我感到害怕









我感到舒服









我感到有自信心









我感到忐忑不安









我感到心神不定









我感到犹豫不决









我感到轻松









我感到心满意足









我感到忧心忡忡









我感到迷惑









我感到沉着，镇定









我感到愉快









请提供您的个人资讯
名字
姓氏
年龄
平均 GPA

116

性别
 男性
 女性
 其他（请指出） ____________________
你是来自中国的哪个地区？







直辖市 ____________________
省辖市 ____________________
地级市 ____________________
镇县 ____________________
乡村 ____________________
特别行政区 ____________________

高中在哪里就读？
 美国
 中国
 其他（请指出） ____________________
您的专业

感谢您参与第一份调查！接下来的两周将在每晚的八点会收到一个链接，请务必在每晚十二点之
前完成问卷如有任何问题请 email 联系：wuivan@msu.edu

117

APPENDIX E: Daily survey (Chinese).
重要信息： 为了信息查询，请输入您的 MSU ID________@msu.edu

整体而言，我今天觉得：
非常不同意

有点不同意

不确定

有点同意

完全同意

我觉得精神振
奋而且生机勃
勃











我觉得无精打
采的











我有时候过于
兴奋，以至于
想要发泄出去











我觉得精力充
沛而且受到鼓
舞











我对今天充满
了期待











我感觉头脑清
醒而且专注











我感觉自己充
满了活力











118

请详述三个对
你造成困扰
（或持续对你
造成困扰的）
事件，想法，
或者问题。
请尽量的举出
三个事件
（请尽可能的
详细描写）

我困扰是因为我来到了新的环境

非常
不同
意

不同意

有点不同
意

不确定

有点同意

同意

非常同意

事件/想
法/问题
1















事件/想
法/问题
2















事件/想
法/问题
3















在你举例的三个事件，想法或问题中， 那个最令你困扰
 ${q://QID32%231/ChoiceTextEntryValue/1/1}
 ${q://QID32%231/ChoiceTextEntryValue/2/1}
 ${q://QID32%231/ChoiceTextEntryValue/3/1}
当 "${q://QID4/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}"，请思考一下问题，并对下列情况做出评价
______ 我直面问题，并解决了它
______ 我感到压力很大

119

请根据下列范围去评价下列状态。 请选择最符合你想法的一个选项。当
"${q://QID4/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}" 发生的时候。.
完全不符合

有点不符合

有时候符合

经常符合

完全符合

我（对正在做
的事）无法集
中注意力，因
为我感到担心











我会很容易分
心











我觉得很难对
正在发生的事
情集中注意力











"${q://QID4/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}" 发生时让我觉得
非常不同意

部分不同意

不确定

部分同意

非常同意

感到无助











痛苦的











烦躁的











情绪低落的











失望的











满足的











开心的











享受的











放松的











请简单的叙述当你面对"${q://QID4/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}" 的时候，你是如何减少压力呢？
可以是一种行为， 也可以是一种想法。（我们想知道你如何应对压力，行为或想法，即使有时候
无法控制你的压力，但也请写出来。请尽量举出四个例子。 ）
应对方法 1
应对方法 2
应对方法 3
应对方法 4

120

当 "${q://QID8/ChoiceTextEntryValue/1}" 发生的时候，你觉得：
非常不同意

部分不同意

不确定

部分同意

非常同意

我直面问题，
并且想要解决
它











我改变了自己
的思想或者感
觉











我压抑或者避
免一些想法或
者感觉











你使用这种应对方法的目的是什么？
 直面问题，并且想要解决它
 我改变了自己的思想或者感觉
 我压抑或者避免一些想法或者感觉
当"${q://QID8/ChoiceTextEntryValue/2}"? 发生的时候，我觉得
非常不同意

有点不同意

不确定

部分同意

非常同意

我直面问题，
并且想要解决
它











我改变了自己
的思想或者感
觉











我压抑或者避
免一些想法或
者感觉











你使用这种应对方法的目的是什么？
 我直面问题，并且想要解决它
 我改变了自己的想法或者感觉
 我压抑或者避免一些想法或者感觉

121

当 "${q://QID8/ChoiceTextEntryValue/3}"?发生的时候，你觉得：
非常不同意

部分不同意

不确定

部分同意

非常同意

我直面问题，
并且想要解决
它











我改变了自己
的想法或者感
觉











我压抑或者避
免一些想法或
者感觉











你使用这种应对方法的目的是什么？
 我直面问题，并解决它
 我改变了自己的想法或者感觉
 我压抑或者避免一些想法或者感觉
当 "${q://QID8/ChoiceTextEntryValue/4}" 发生的时候， 你觉得：
非常不同意

部分不同意

不确定

部分同意

非常同意

我直面问题，
并解决它











我改变了自己
的想法或者感
觉











我压抑或者避
免一些想法或
者感觉











你最初想如何控制你的压力？
 我直面问题，并解决它
 我改变了自己的想法或者感觉
 我压抑或者避免一些想法或者感觉
非常感谢您完成今天的问卷，您的回答对我们非常重要， 谢谢。

122

APPENDIX F: Informed Consent (English).
Hello! We invite you to participate in 2015 MSU Chinese student’s survey at the. First of all,
thank you for participating in this survey led by Ivan Wu, a doctoral student at Michigan State
University. He is a doctoral candidate in clinical psychology and this research is part of his
dissertation.
The study explores culture, perceptions stress, mental health, and thoughts at MSU. When you
decide to participate, you need to take 30 minutes to complete an online questionnaire. For two
weeks, you will need complete a five-minute questionnaire every night between 8-12pm. You
can complete the questionnaire on your phone, but your phone must be able to connect to the
Internet, and we will need you to provide your phone number. You can also choose to use your
computer to complete the questionnaires, which we will require you to provide your email
address.
At the end of two weeks, you will need to complete similar to the first questionnaire. Please
honestly answer each question carefully. There is no right or wrong answers. When you
complete the study, you will receive an Amazon gift card. Each daily questionnaire is worth a $1
credit and the final and initial questionnaire is worth a $3 credit. If you complete all
questionnaires, you will get an additional $5 Amazon gift card. Students who complete all
questionnaires will receive a $25 Amazon gift card.
There is no known risk to participating in this survey. The study is limited to your daily life, how
you adapt to the Michigan State University, and your opinions and views of life. Your privacy is
protected to the maximum extent permitted by law. All your answers will be strictly protected.
Data is on a password-protected archive computer placed in the investigators office, located in
316 Physics Rm 26, East Lansing, 48824. After data collection, personal information will be
removed. Data will be stored for five years after the completion of this research project.
Your participation is voluntary. You can participate at any time refuse or withdraw from this
study will not be subject to any penalties. Also, you have the right to choose to skip or refuse to
answer any questions you want to answer. To ensure the quality of data, if you do not complete
at least 80% of all surveys or do not fill in every question, you might not receive the $25 gift
card. Your participation or withdrawal does not affect you in school or in the service of any
subsidiary bodies. If you have any concerns, or wish to obtain or provide information, or wish to
make complaints to this research project, you can use the following methods using your real
name or an anonymous contact. MSU human research protection program: phone: 517-3552180, email: IRB@MSU.edu, or send a letter to the 408 w. Circle Drive, 207 Olds Hall, MSU,
East Lansing, MI 48824.
If you have any problem or questions (regarding negative physiological, and psychological
effects of the survey), please contact Ivan Wu: 316 Physics Rm 26, East Lansing, MI 48824,
wuivan@MSU.edu, (970) 984-8266.

123

Through the following selection "consent and voluntary participation submitted this a
questionnaire", you are indicating that you are 18 years of age and understand the above
information, and decided to participate in this research project.
Ivan’s information:
Name: 估学聪 Ivan Wu, M.A.
Office: Psychology Building, 316 Physics Room 26, East Lansing
Email: wuivan@msu.edu
Phone number: (970) 984-8266

124

APPENDIX G: Survey Flyer (English).

125

APPENDIX H: Initial survey (English).
Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire – Short Form (FFMQ-SF; Hou et al., 2014)
Description:
This instrument is based on a factor analytic study of five independently developed mindfulness questionnaires.
The analysis yielded five factors that appear to represent elements of mindfulness as it is currently conceptualized.
The five facets are observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judging of inner experience, and nonreactivity to inner experience.
Please rate each of the following statements using the scale provided. Write the number in the blank that best
describes your own opinion of what is generally true for you.
1
Never or very rarely
true

2

3

4

Rarely true

Sometimes true

Often true

5
Very often or
always true

_____ 1. I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings.
_____ 2. When I do things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracted.
_____ 3. I can easily put my beliefs, opinions, and expectations into words.
_____ 4. I don’t pay attention to what I’m doing because I’m daydreaming, worrying, or otherwise distracted.
_____ 5. I tell myself I shouldn’t be feeling the way I’m feeling.
_____ 6. I am easily distracted.
_____ 7. I pay attention to sensations, such as the wind in my hair or sun on my face.
_____ 8. I make judgments about whether my thoughts are good or bad.
_____ 9. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I “step back” and am aware of the thought or image without
getting taken over by it.
_____ 10. I pay attention to sounds, such as clocks ticking, birds chirping, or cars passing.
_____ 11. In difficult situations, I can pause without immediately reacting.
_____ 12. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I feel calm soon after.
_____ 13. I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking the way I’m thinking.
_____ 14. I notice the smells and aromas of things.
_____ 15. Even when I’m feeling terribly upset, I can find a way to put it into words.
_____ 16. I think some of my emotions are bad or inappropriate and I shouldn’t feel them.
_____ 17. I notice visual elements in art or nature, such as colors, shapes, textures, or patterns of light and
shadow.
_____ 18. My natural tendency is to put my experiences into words.
_____ 19. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I just notice them and let them go.
_____ 20. I find myself doing things without paying attention.

126

Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; Yeung et al., 2008)

127

State-Trait Anxiety Questionnaire

128

APPENDIX I: Daily survey (English).
Right now, I feel...
Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)

Somewhat
Disagree (3)

Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
(4)

Somewhat
Agree (5)

Strongly
Agree (7)

Agree (6)

Helpless (1)















Bitter (2)















Annoyed (3)















Depressed (4)















Disappointed (5)















Contented (6)















Happy (7)















Joyful (8)















Relaxed (9)















Please describe three events/thoughts/issues that bothered you or continue to bother you today (please be as descriptive as possible)
How much of this is related to being in a new cultural environment?
Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Moderately (3)

Mostly (4)

Completely (5)

Event/thought/issue #1 (1)











Event/thought/issue #2 (2)











Event/thought/issue #3 (3)











Which was the most bothersome?
 ${q://stressor/ChoiceTextEntryValue/1} (1)
 ${q://stressor/ChoiceTextEntryValue/2} (2)
 ${q://stressor/ChoiceTextEntryValue/3} (3)

129

For "${q://bother/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}", please consider the following questions and rate the extent to which you agree or disagree
Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)

Somewhat
Disagree (3)

Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
(4)

Somewhat
Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly
Agree (7)

I was able to control the situation (1)















I was stressed (2)















How did ${q://bother/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices} make you feel at the time?
Strongly Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)

Somewhat
Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor
Disagree (4)

Somewhat
Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly
Agree (7)

Helpless (1)















Bitter (2)















Annoyed (3)















Depressed (4)















Disappointed (5)















Contented (6)















Happy (7)















Joyful (8)















Relaxed (9)















<div>Describe in a few words the different thoughts or behaviors you used to manage (e.g., master, tolerate, reduce, minimize) the stress
associated with "${q://bother/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}". We would like to know your actual efforts made, and such thoughts or behaviors
NEED NOT be completed or successful</div>
Coping strategy 1 (1)
Coping strategy 2 (2)
Coping strategy 3 (3)
Coping strategy 4 (4)

130

To what extent do the following statements reflect the goal for "${q://cope/ChoiceTextEntryValue/1}"?
Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)

Somewhat
Disagree (3)

Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
(4)

Somewhat
Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly
Agree (7)

I directly handled the problem (1)















I changed my thoughts or feelings (2)















I suppressed or avoided my thoughts or feeling (3)















Which was your primary goal?
 I directly handled the problem (1)
 I changed my thoughts or feelings (2)
 I suppressed or avoided my thoughts or feeling (3)
Describe in a few words the different thoughts or behaviors you used to manage (e.g., master, tolerate, reduce, minimize) the stress associated with
"${q://QID4/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}".
To what extent do the following statements reflect the goal for "${q://cope/ChoiceTextEntryValue/2}"?
Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)

Somewhat
Disagree (3)

Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
(4)

Somewhat
Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly
Agree (7)

I directly handled the problem (1)















I changed my thoughts or feelings (2)















I suppressed or avoided my thoughts or feeling (3)















Describe in a few words the different thoughts or behaviors you used to manage (e.g., master, tolerate, reduce, minimize) the stress associated with
"${q://QID4/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}".
Which was your primary response?
 I directly handled the problem (1)
 I changed my thoughts or feelings (2)
 I suppressed or avoided my thoughts or feeling (3)

131

Answer If Describe in a few words the different thoughts or behaviors you used to manage (e.g., master, tolerate, reduce, minimize) the stress
associated with "${q://QID4/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}". We wo... Coping strategy 3 Is Not Empty
To what extent do the following statements reflect the goal for "${q://cope/ChoiceTextEntryValue/3}"?
Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)

Somewhat
Disagree (3)

Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
(4)

Somewhat
Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly
Agree (7)

I directly handled the problem (1)















I changed my thoughts or feelings (2)















I suppressed or avoided my thoughts or feeling (3)















Describe in a few words the different thoughts or behaviors you used to manage (e.g., master, tolerate, reduce, minimize) the stress associated with
"${q://QID4/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}".
Which was your primary response?
 I directly handled the problem (1)
 I changed my thoughts or feelings (2)
 I suppressed or avoided my thoughts or feeling (3)
Describe in a few words the different thoughts or behaviors you used to manage (e.g., master, tolerate, reduce, minimize) the stress associated with
"${q://QID4/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}".
To what extent do the following statements reflect the goal for "${q://cope/ChoiceTextEntryValue/4}"?
Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)

Somewhat
Disagree (3)

Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
(4)

Somewhat
Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly
Agree (7)

I directly handled the problem (1)















I changed my thoughts or feelings (2)















I suppressed or avoided my thoughts or feeling (3)















132

Describe in a few words the different thoughts or behaviors you used to manage (e.g., master, tolerate, reduce, minimize) the stress associated with
"${q://QID4/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}".
Which was your primary response?
 I directly handled the problem (1)
 I changed my thoughts or feelings (2)
 I suppressed or avoided my thoughts or feeling (3)

133

REFERENCES

134

REFERENCES

Adler, P. S. (1975). The transitional experience: An alternative view of culture shock. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology.
Alba, R., & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of
immigration. International Migration Review, 826-874.
American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training,
Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists. The American
Psychologist, 58(5), 377.
American Psychological Association. (2012). A practical guidebook for the competency
benchmarks.
Arends- Tóth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Assessment of psychological acculturation. In
D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology (pp.
142–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Augustine, A. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2012). Emotion research. In Mehl, M. R., & Conner, T. S.
(Eds.). Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life (pp.497-510). New York,
US: The Guilford Press.
Babiker, I. E., Cox, J. L., & Miller, P. M. (1980). The measurement of cultural distance and its
relationship to medical consultations, symptomatology and examination performance of
overseas students at Edinburgh University. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 15(3), 109-116.
Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical
review. Clinical psychology: Science and practice, 10(2), 125-143.
Baer, R. A., Carmody, J., & Hunsinger, M. (2012). Weekly change in mindfulness and perceived
stress in a mindfulness‐based stress reduction program. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 68(7), 755-765.
Baer, R. A., Lykins, E. L., & Peters, J. R. (2012). Mindfulness and self-compassion as predictors
of psychological wellbeing in long-term meditators and matched nonmeditators. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(3), 230-238.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report
assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27-45.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck depression inventory-II. San Antonio,
78(2), 490-8.
Becker, T. (1968). Patterns of attitudinal changes among foreign students. American Journal of
Sociology, 431-442.
135

Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., & Kupper, Z. (2013). The assessment of mindfulness with selfreport measures: existing scales and open issues. Mindfulness, 4(3), 191-202.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative
stress. International Migration Review, 491-511.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J.... & Devins, G.
(2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science
and Practice, 11(3), 230-241.
Bohlmeijer, E., Peter, M., Fledderus, M., Veehof, M., & Baer, R. (2011). Psychometric
properties of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in depressed adults and
development of a short form. Assessment, 1073191111408231.
Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive
acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of
Psychology, 32(6), 369-386.
Brach, C., & Fraserirector, I. (2000). Can cultural competency reduce racial and ethnic health
disparities? A review and conceptual model. Medical Care Research and Review, 57(4
suppl), 181-217.
Bränström, R., Duncan, L. G., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2011). The association between dispositional
mindfulness, psychological well‐being, and perceived health in a Swedish population‐
based sample. British Journal of Health Psychology, 16(2), 300-316.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in
psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In
R. M. Lerner (Ed.) Handbook of child development: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human
development (6th ed., pp. 793-828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822.
Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Adair, K. C., Payne, B. K., Richman, L. S., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2014).
Discrimination hurts, but mindfulness may help: Trait mindfulness moderates the
relationship between perceived discrimination and depressive symptoms. Personality and
Individual Differences, 56, 201-205.
Burrow, A. L., & Ong, A. D. (2010). Racial identity as a moderator of daily exposure and
reactivity to racial discrimination. Self and Identity, 9(4), 383-402.
Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and culture: are the social
consequences of emotion suppression culture-specific?. Emotion, 7(1), 30.

136

Cabassa, L. J. (2003). Measuring acculturation: Where we are and where we need to
go. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(2), 127-146.
Cabral, R. R., & Smith, T. B. (2011). Racial/ethnic matching of clients and therapists in mental
health services: a meta-analytic review of preferences, perceptions, and
outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 537.
Carlson, E. N. (2013). Overcoming the barriers to self-knowledge mindfulness as a path to
seeing yourself as you really are. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 173-186.
Chapman, D. W., & Carter, J. F. (1979). Translation procedures for the cross cultural use of
measurement instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(3), 71-76.
Chen, H. Y., & Boore, J. R. (2010). Translation and back‐translation in qualitative nursing
research: methodological review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19(1‐2), 234-239.
Cheng, C. (2001). Assessing coping flexibility in real-life and laboratory settings: a multimethod
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 814.
Cheng, C., Lo, B. C., & Chio, H. M. (2010). The Tao (ways) of Chinese coping. In Bond, M. H.
(Ed.). The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology. Oxford; New York: Oxford
University Press.
Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for stress management in
healthy people: a review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine, 15(5), 593-600.
Chiesa, A., Anselmi, R., & Serretti, A. (2014). Psychological mechanisms of mindfulness-based
interventions: what do we know?. Holistic Nursing Practice, 28(2), 124-148.
Chiesa, A., Serretti, A., & Jakobsen, J. C. (2013). Mindfulness: Top–down or bottom–up
emotion regulation strategy?. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(1), 82-96.
Chun, K. M., & Chesla, C. A. (2004). Cultural issues in disease management for Chinese
Americans with type 2 diabetes. Psychology & Health, 19(6), 767-785.
Coffey, K. A., Hartman, M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Deconstructing mindfulness and
constructing mental health: Understanding mindfulness and its mechanisms of
action. Mindfulness, 1(4), 235-253.
Compas, B. E. (2009). Coping, regulation, and development during childhood and
adolescence. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2009(124), 87-99.
Constantine, M. G., Okazaki, S., & Utsey, S. O. (2004). Self-concealment, social self-efficacy,
acculturative stress, and depression in African, Asian, and Latin American international
college students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(3), 230.

137

Creswell, J. D., Way, B. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Neural correlates of
dispositional mindfulness during affect labeling. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69(6), 560565.
Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress in cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 673-697.
Dang, T. A. (2012). Effects of Perceived Discrimination on Asian Americans: A Daily Process
Study (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University).
Davidson, R. J. (2010). Empirical explorations of mindfulness: conceptual and methodological
conundrums. Emotion, 10(1), 8-11.
Deng, Y. Q., Liu, X. H., Rodriguez, M. A., & Xia, C. Y. (2011). The five facet mindfulness
questionnaire: psychometric properties of the Chinese version. Mindfulness, 2(2), 123128.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three
decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276-302.
Duru, E., & Poyrazli, S. (2007). Personality dimensions, psychosocial-demographic variables,
and English language competency in predicting level of acculturative stress among
Turkish international students. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(1), 99.
Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Hunt, J. B. (2009). Mental health and academic success in
college. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 9(1).
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping: Task, emotion,
and avoidance strategies. Psychological Assessment, 6, 50-60.
Finan, P. H., Zautra, A. J., & Wershba, R. (2011). The dynamics of emotion in adaptation to
stress. In Baum, A., & Contrada, R. (Eds.), The handbook of stress science: Biology,
psychology, and health (pp.209-220), New York, NY, Spring Publishing Company
Fletcher, L., & Hayes, S. C. (2005). Relational frame theory, acceptance and commitment
therapy, and a functional analytic definition of mindfulness. Journal of Rational-Emotive
and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 23(4), 315-336.
Fong, V. (2011). Paradise redefined: Transnational Chinese students and the quest for flexible
citizenship in the developed world. Stanford University Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broadenand-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218.
Garland, E. L., Gaylord, S. A., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2011). Positive reappraisal mediates the
stress-reductive effects of mindfulness: An upward spiral process. Mindfulness, 2(1), 5967.

138

Gerdes, E. P., & Ping, G. (1994). Coping differences between college women and men in China
and the United States. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 120(2),
169-198.
Gortner, E. M., Rude, S. S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Benefits of expressive writing in
lowering rumination and depressive symptoms. Behavior Therapy, 37(3), 292-303.
Goyal, M., Singh, S., Sibinga, E. M., Gould, N. F., Rowland-Seymour, A., Sharma, R., ... &
Haythornthwaite, J. A. (2014). Meditation programs for psychological stress and wellbeing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(3), 357-368.
Graham, J. R., West, L. M., & Roemer, L. (2013). The experience of racism and anxiety
symptoms in an African-American sample: Moderating effects of trait
mindfulness. Mindfulness, 4(4), 332-341.
Grossman, P., & van Dam, N. T. (2011). Mindfulness, by any other name…: trials and
tribulations of sati in western psychology and science. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(01),
219-239.
Gu, J., Strauss, C., Bond, R., & Cavanagh, K. (2015). How do mindfulness-based cognitive
Therapy and mindfulness-based stress reduction improve mental health and wellbeing? A
systematic review and meta-analysis of mediation studies. Clinical Psychology
Review, 37, 1-12.
Gunthert, K. C., & Wenze, S. J. (2012). Daily diary methods. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner
(Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 144-159). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Hall, G. C., Hong, J. J., Zane, N. W., & Meyer, O. L. (2011). Culturally competent treatments for
Asian Americans: The relevance of mindfulness and acceptance‐based
psychotherapies. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 18(3), 215-231.
Hamid, P. N., & Cheng, S. T. (1996). The development and validation of an index of emotional
disposition and mood state: The Chinese Affect Scale. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 56(6), 995-1014.
Han, X., Han, X., Luo, Q., Jacobs, S., & Jean-Baptiste, M. (2013). Report of a mental health
survey among Chinese international students at Yale University. Journal of American
College Health, 61(1), 1-8.
Hayes, S. C., Muto, T., & Masuda, A. (2011). Seeking cultural competence from the ground
up. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 18(3), 232-237.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An
experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press.
Hill, C. L., & Updegraff, J. A. (2012). Mindfulness and its relationship to emotional
regulation. Emotion, 12(1), 81.
139

Hofmann, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Witt, A. A., & Oh, D. (2010). The effect of mindfulness-based
therapy on anxiety and depression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 78(2), 169.
Hollis-Walker, L., & Colosimo, K. (2011). Mindfulness, self-compassion, and happiness in nonmeditators: A theoretical and empirical examination. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50(2), 222-227.
Hölzel, B. K., Lazar, S. W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R., & Ott, U. (2011). How
does mindfulness meditation work? Proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptual
and neural perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 537-559.
Hou, J., Wong, S. Y. S., Lo, H. H. M., Mak, W. W. S., & Ma, H. S. W. (2014). Validation of a
Chinese Version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Hong Kong and
development of a short form. Assessment, 21(3), 363-371.
Huang, J., & Klinger, D. A. (2006). Chinese graduate students at North American universities:
Learning challenges and coping strategies. Comparative and International
Education/Éducation Comparée et Internationale, 35(2), 48-61.
Huffziger, S., Ebner-Priemer, U., Koudela, S., Reinhard, I., & Kuehner, C. (2013). Induced
rumination in everyday life: Advancing research approaches to study rumination.
Personality and Individual Differences, 53(6), 790-795.
Hurst, C. S., Baranik, L. E., & Daniel, F. (2013). College student stressors: A review of the
qualitative research. Stress and Health, 29(4), 275-285.
Hwang, K. K. (2012). Foundations of Chinese psychology: Confucian social relations (Vol. 1).
Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London: Springer Science & Business Media.
Hwang, W. C., & Ting, J. Y. (2008). Disaggregating the effects of acculturation and
acculturative stress on the mental health of Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(2), 147.
Ibrahim, F. A., & Heuer, J. R. (2016). Cultural and Social Justice Counseling: Client-Specific
Interventions. New York: Springer.
Iida, M., Shrout, P. E., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Bolger, N. (2012). Using diary methods in
psychological research. In H. Cooper, P. Camic, D. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf &
K. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methodology in psychology (3 volumes).
Washington, DC: APA Books.
Institute of International Education. (2010). Open Doors Data: Fast Facts 2010. [Online]
Available: http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/FastFacts.
Joiner Jr, T. E., & Walker, R. L. (2002). Construct validity of a measure of acculturative stress in
African Americans. Psychological Assessment, 14(4), 462.
140

Josefsson, T., Lindwall, M., & Broberg, A. G. (2014). The effects of a short-term mindfulness
based intervention on self-reported mindfulness, decentering, executive attention,
psychological health, and coping style: examining unique mindfulness effects and
mediators. Mindfulness, 5(1), 18-35.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients
based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and
preliminary results. General Hospital Psychiatry, 4(1), 33-47.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday life.
New York, N.Y: Hyperion.
Kağnıcı, D. Y. (2012). The role of multicultural personality in predicting university adjustment
of international students in Turkey. International Journal for the Advancement of
Counselling, 34(2), 174-184.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey
method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction
method. Science, 306(5702), 1776-1780.
Kalibatseva, Z., Wu, I. H., & Leong, F. T. (2014). Assessing Depression and Suicidality in
Asian-Americans. In Guide to Psychological Assessment with Asians (pp. 181-198).
Springer New York.
Kamarck, T. W., Shiffman, S., & Wethington, E. (2011). Measuring psychosocial stress using
ecological momentary assessment methods. In R. J. Contrada & A. Baum (Eds.), The
handbook of stress science: Biology, psychology, and health (pp. 597-617). New York:
Springer.
Khoury, B., Lecomte, T., Fortin, G., Masse, M., Therien, P., Bouchard, V., ... & Hofmann, S. G.
(2013). Mindfulness-based therapy: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology
Review, 33(6), 763-771.
Kiken, L. G., Garland, E. L., Bluth, K., Palsson, O. S., & Gaylord, S. A. (2015). From a state to a
trait: trajectories of state mindfulness in meditation during intervention predict changes in
trait mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 41-46.
Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A wandering mind is an unhappy
mind. Science, 330(6006), 932-932.
Kim, P. Y., & Park, I. J. (2009). Testing a multiple mediation model of Asian American college
students’ willingness to see a counselor. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 15(3), 295.
Kirmayer, L. J. (1984). Culture, affect and somatization. Transcultural Psychiatric Research
Review, 21(3), 159-188.

141

Kleinman, A. (1980). Patients and healers in the context of culture: An exploration of the
borderland between anthropology, medicine, and psychiatry (Vol. 3). Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Klineberg, O., & Hull, F. W. (1979). At a foreign university: An international study of
adaptation and coping. Praeger Publishers, New York, NY 10017.
Korobova, N., Starobin, S.S. (2015). A comparative study of student engagement, satisfaction,
and academic success among international and American students. Journal of
International Students, 4(1), 72-82.
Kuyken, W., Watkins, E., Holden, E., White, K., Taylor, R. S., Byford, S., ... & Dalgleish, T.
(2010). How does mindfulness-based cognitive therapy work? Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 48(11), 1105-1112.
Lay, C. H., & Safdar, S. F. (2003). Daily hassles and distress among college students in relation
to immigrant and minority status. Current Psychology, 22(1), 3-22.
Lay, C., & Nguyen, T. (1998). The role of acculturation-related and acculturation non-specific
daily hassles: Vietnamese-Canadian students and psychological distress. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du
Comportement, 30(3), 172.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Pub.
Co..
Lee, J. S., Koeske, G. F., & Sales, E. (2004). Social support buffering of acculturative stress: A
study of mental health symptoms among Korean international students. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(5), 399-414.
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The Social Connectedness and
the Social Assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 232.
Lee, R. M., Su, J., & Yoshida, E. (2005). Coping with intergenerational family conflict among
Asian American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 389.
Levesque, C., & Brown, K. W. (2007). Mindfulness as a moderator of the effect of implicit
motivational self-concept on day-to-day behavioral motivation. Motivation and
Emotion, 31(4), 284-299.
Linehan, M. M. (2014). DBT® skills training manual. Guilford Publications.
Liu, X., Tein, J. Y., & Zhao, Z. (2004). Coping strategies and behavioral/emotional problems
among Chinese adolescents. Psychiatry Research, 126(3), 275-285.
Lowman, R. L. (2013). Internationalizing multiculturalism: Expanding professional
competencies in a globalized world (1st ed.). Washington, D.C: American Psychological
Association.
142

Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright grantees visiting the
United States. International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 45-51.
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation,
confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173-181.
Masuda, A., Mandavia, A., & Tully, E. C. (2014). The role of psychological inflexibility and
mindfulness in somatization, depression, and anxiety among Asian Americans in the
United States. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 5(3), 230.
Masuda, A., Twohig, M. P., Stormo, A. R., Feinstein, A. B., Chou, Y. Y., & Wendell, J. W.
(2010). The effects of cognitive defusion and thought distraction on emotional discomfort
and believability of negative self-referential thoughts. Journal of Behavior Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry, 41(1), 11-17.
Matsumoto, D. (2006). Are cultural differences in emotion regulation mediated by personality
traits?. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(4), 421-437.
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Nakagawa, S. (2008). Culture, emotion regulation, and
adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 925.
Mehl, M. R., & Conner, T. S. (2012). Handbook of research methods for studying daily life.
New York: Guilford Press.
Mesquita, B., & Leu, J. (2007). The cultural psychology of emotions. In Kitayama, Shinobu, and
Cohen, Dov, eds. Handbook of cultural psychology (pp.734-759). New York, US: The
Guilford Press, 2007.
Myin-Germeys, I., Oorschot, M., Collip, D., Lataster, J., Delespaul, P., & van Os, J. (2009).
Experience sampling research in psychopathology: Opening the black box of daily
life. Psychological Medicine, 39(9), 1533-1547.
Miller, M. J., Kim, J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2011). Validating the riverside acculturation stress
inventory with Asian Americans. Psychological Assessment, 23(2), 300.
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling
psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250.
Mrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Mindfulness and mind-wandering:
finding convergence through opposing constructs. Emotion, 12(3), 442.
Muto, T., Hayes, S. C., & Jeffcoat, T. (2011). The effectiveness of acceptance and commitment
therapy bibliotherapy for enhancing the psychological health of Japanese college students
living abroad. Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 323-335.
Nguyen, A. M. TD, & Benet-Martinez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A metaanalysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 122-159.

143

Noh, S., & Kaspar, V. (2003). Perceived discrimination and depression: Moderating effects of
coping, acculturation, and ethnic support. American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 232238.
Noh, S., Beiser, M., Kaspar, V., Hou, F., & Rummens, J. (1999). Perceived racial discrimination,
depression, and coping: A study of Southeast Asian refugees in Canada. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 193-207.
Oberg, K. (1960). The cultural shock and the problems of adjustment to new cultural
environments. Sociologia, 22(1), 71-79.
Office for International Students and Scholars (OISS) Statistical Report. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://oiss.isp.msu.edu/documents/statsreport/14pdfs/CountryLevel2014.pdf.
Office for International Students and Scholars | Michigan State University. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://oiss.isp.msu.edu/about/statistics.htm
Office of International Students and Scholars (OISS, 2014).
http://oiss.isp.msu.edu/documents/statsreport/14pdfs/StatsSummary2014.pdf.
Oken, B., Miller, M., Goodrich, E., & Wahbeh, H. (2014). Effects of mindfulness meditation on
self-rated stress-related measures: improvements in neuroticism and ecological
momentary assessment of stress. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary
Medicine, 20(5), A64-A64.
Ong, A. D., Burrow, A. L., Fuller-Rowell, T. E., Ja, N. M., & Sue, D. W. (2013). Racial
microaggressions and daily well-being among Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 60(2), 188.
Ong, A. D., Fuller-Rowell, T., & Burrow, A. L. (2009). Racial discrimination and the stress
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1259.
Organista, P. B., Marin, G., & Chun, K. M. (2010). The psychology of ethnic groups in the
United States. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Pan, J. Y., Wong, D. F. K., Chan, C. L. W., & Joubert, L. (2008). Meaning of life as a protective
factor of positive affect in acculturation: A resilience framework and a cross-cultural
comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(6), 505-514.
Park, I. J., Sulaiman, C., Schwartz, S. J., Kim, S. Y., Ham, L. S., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2011).
Self-construals and social anxiety among Asian American college students: Testing
emotion suppression as a mediator. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 2(1), 39.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2013). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact.
New York, NY: Psychology Press.

144

Piazza, J. R., Charles, S. T., Sliwinski, M. J., Mogle, J., & Almeida, D. M. (2013). Affective
reactivity to daily stressors and long-term risk of reporting a chronic physical health
condition. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(1), 110-120.
Pickert, K. (2014, January 23). The Mindful Revolution. Retrieved August 14, 2015, from
http://time.com/1556/the-mindful-revolution/
Piet, J., & Hougaard, E. (2011). The effect of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for
prevention of relapse in recurrent major depressive disorder: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6), 1032-1040.
Piontkowski, U., Rohmann, A., & Florack, A. (2002). Concordance of acculturation attitudes and
perceived threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5(3), 221-232.
Pitariu, A. H., & Ployhart, R. E. (2010). Explaining change: Theorizing and testing dynamic
mediated longitudinal relationships. Journal of Management, 36(2), 405-429.
Porter, R. E., & Samovar, L. A. (1991). Basic principles of intercultural
communication. Intercultural Communication: A Reader, 6, 5-22.
Potochnick, S., Perreira, K. M., & Fuligni, A. (2012). Fitting In: The Roles of Social Acceptance
and Discrimination in Shaping the Daily Psychological Well‐Being of Latino
Youth. Social Science Quarterly, 93(1), 173-190.
Poyrazli, S. (2015). Psychological Symptoms and Concerns Experienced by International
Students: Outreach Implications for Counseling Centers. Journal of International
Students, 5(3), 306-312.
Poyrazli, S., Kavanaugh, P. R., Baker, A., & Al‐Timimi, N. (2004). Social support and
demographic correlates of acculturative stress in international students. Journal of
College Counseling, 7(1), 73-82.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for
assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209.
Roemer, L., Williston, S. K., & Rollins, L. G. (2015). Mindfulness and emotion
regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 52-57.
Roesch, S. C., Aldridge, A. A., Stocking, S. N., Villodas, F., Leung, Q., Bartley, C. E., & Black,
L. J. (2010). Multilevel factor analysis and structural equation modeling of daily diary
coping data: Modeling trait and state variation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(5),
767-789.
Rudmin, F. (2009). Constructs, measurements and models of acculturation and acculturative
stress. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 106-123.
Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative
affect. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 3.
145

Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a
dynamic reflection of well‐being. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529-565.
Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or
bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity,
and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 49.
Sandhu, D. S., & Asrabadi, B. R. (1994). Development of an acculturative stress scale for
international students: Preliminary findings. Psychological Reports, 75(1), 435-448.
Sauer, S., Walach, H., Schmidt, S., Hinterberger, T., Lynch, S., Büssing, A., & Kohls, N. (2013).
Assessment of mindfulness: Review on state of the art. Mindfulness, 4(1), 3-17.
Sears, S., & Kraus, S. (2009). I think therefore I om: Cognitive distortions and coping style as
mediators for the effects of mindfulness meditation on anxiety, positive and negative
affect, and hope. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 561-573.
Sedlmeier, P., Eberth, J., Schwarz, M., Zimmermann, D., Haarig, F., Jaeger, S., & Kunze, S.
(2012). The psychological effects of meditation: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 138(6), 1139.
Segal, Z. V., Teasdale, J. D., Williams, J. M., & Gemar, M. C. (2002). The mindfulness‐based
cognitive therapy adherence scale: inter‐rater reliability, adherence to protocol and
treatment distinctiveness. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 9(2), 131-138.
Selby, H. A., & Woods, C. M. (1966). Foreign students at a high-pressure university. Sociology
of Education, 138-154.
Serdarevic, M., & Chronister, K. M. (2005). Research with immigrant populations: The
application of an ecological framework to mental health research with immigrant
populations. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 7(2), 24-34.
Sewell, W. H., & Davidsen, O. M. (1956). The adjustment of Scandinavian students. Journal of
Social Issues, 12(1), 9-19.
Shapiro, S. L., Astin, J. A., Bishop, S. R., & Cordova, M. (2005). Mindfulness-based stress
reduction for health care professionals: results from a randomized trial. International
Journal of Stress Management, 12(2), 164.
Slavin, L. A., & Rainer, K. L. (1991). Toward a multicultural model of the stress
process. Journal of Counseling and Development: JCD, 70(1), 156.
Smith, R. A., & Khawaja, N. G. (2011). A review of the acculturation experiences of
international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(6), 699-713.
Spector, P. E., Poelmans, S., O’Driscoll, M., Dewe, P., & Hart, P. (2004). Work—family
stressors, working hours, and well-being: China and Latin America versus the Anglo
world. Personnel Psychology, 57, 119-142.
146

Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & and the Patient Health Questionnaire Primary
Care Study Group. (1999). Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD:
The PHQ primary care study. JAMA, 282(18), 1737-1744.
Stawski, R. S., Cichy, K. E., Piazza, J. R., & Almeida, D. M. (2013). Associations among daily
stressors and salivary cortisol: Findings from the National Study of Daily
Experiences. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38(11), 2654-2665.
Suanet, I., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (2009). Perceived cultural distance and acculturation among
exchange students in Russia. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(3),
182-197.
Thurnwald, R. (1932). The psychology of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 34(4), 557569
Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis
confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 692-700.
Torres, L., & Ong, A. D. (2010). A daily diary investigation of Latino ethnic identity,
discrimination, and depression. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 16(4), 561.
Tsoi, M. M., Ho, E., & Mak, K. C. (1986). Becoming pregnant again after still birth or the birth
of a handicapped child. In L. Dennerstein & L. Fraser (Eds.), Hormones and behavior
(pp. 310–316). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context:
Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57(2), 89.
Van Dam, N. T., Earleywine, M., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2009). Differential item function across
meditators and non-meditators on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. Personality
and Individual Differences, 47(5), 516-521.
van der Velden, A. M., Kuyken, W., Wattar, U., Crane, C., Pallesen, K. J., Dahlgaard, J., ... &
Piet, J. (2015). A systematic review of mechanisms of change in mindfulness-based
cognitive therapy in the treatment of recurrent major depressive disorder. Clinical
Psychology Review, 37, 26-39.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2002). Predicting multicultural effectiveness of
international students: The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 26(6), 679-694.
Wang, C. C. D., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2006). Acculturation, attachment, and psychosocial
adjustment of Chinese/Taiwanese international students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53(4), 422.

147

Wang, K. T., Heppner, P. P., Fu, C. C., Zhao, R., Li, F., & Chuang, C. C. (2012). Profiles of
acculturative adjustment patterns among Chinese international students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 424.
Wang, K. T., Wei, M., & Chen, H. H. (2015). Social factors in cross-national adjustment
subjective well-being trajectories among Chinese international students. The Counseling
Psychologist, 43(2), 272-298.
Ward, C., & Chang, W. C. (1997). “Cultural fit”: A new perspective on personality and sojourner
adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(4), 525-533.
Watson, J., & Lippitt, R. (1955). Learning across cultures: A study of Germans visiting America.
Oxford, England: Institute for Social Research, U. M, Oxford.
Wei, M., Ku, T. Y., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Liao, K. Y. H. (2008). Moderating
effects of three coping strategies and self-esteem on perceived discrimination and
depressive symptoms: A minority stress model for Asian international students. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 55(4), 451.
Wei, M., Liao, K. Y. H., Heppner, P. P., Chao, R. C. L., & Ku, T. Y. (2012). Forbearance
coping, identification with heritage culture, acculturative stress, and psychological
distress among Chinese international students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(1),
97.
Wei, M., Su, J. C., Carrera, S., Lin, S. P., & Yi, F. (2013). Suppression and interpersonal
harmony: A cross-cultural comparison between Chinese and European
Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 625.
Wei, M., Wang, K. T., Heppner, P. P., & Du, Y. (2012). Ethnic and mainstream social
connectedness, perceived racial discrimination, and posttraumatic stress
symptoms. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 486.
Weinstein, N., Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). A multi-method examination of the effects
of mindfulness on stress attribution, coping, and emotional well-being. Journal of
Research in Personality, 43(3), 374-385.
Wenzel, M., von Versen, C., Hirschmüller, S., & Kubiak, T. (2015). Curb your neuroticism–
Mindfulness mediates the link between neuroticism and subjective well-being.
Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 68-75.
Wilson, J. (2014). Mindful America: The mutual transformation of Buddhist meditation and
American culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press..
Wong, P. T. (1993). Effective management of life stress: The resource–congruence model. Stress
Medicine, 9(1), 51-60.
Wong, P. T., Reker, G. T., & Peacock, E. J. (2006). A resource-congruence model of coping and
the development of the coping schemas inventory. In P.T.P. Wong and L.C.J. Wong
148

(Eds.) Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping (pp. 223-283). New
York: Springer US.
Yakunina, E. S., Weigold, I. K., Weigold, A., Hercegovac, S., & Elsayed, N. (2012). The
multicultural personality: Does it predict international students’ openness to diversity and
adjustment?. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4), 533-540.
Yan, K., & Berliner, D. C. (2009). Chinese international students’ academic stressors in the
United States. College Student Journal, 43(4), 939.
Yan, K., & Berliner, D. C. (2011). Chinese international students in the United States:
Demographic trends, motivations, acculturation features and adjustment challenges. Asia
Pacific Education Review, 12(2), 173-184.
Yan, K., & Berliner, D. C. (2013). Chinese international students' personal and sociocultural
stressors in the United States. Journal of College Student Development, 54(1), 62-84.
Yang, B., & Clum, G. A. (1994). Life stress, social support, and problem‐solving skills
predictive of depressive symptoms, hopelessness, and suicide ideation in an Asian
student population: A test of a model. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 24(2), 127139.
Yeh, C. J., & Inose, M. (2003). International students' reported English fluency, social support
satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress. Counseling
Psychology Quarterly, 16(1), 15-28.
Yeh, C. J., Arora, A. K., & Wu, K. A. (2006). A new theoretical model of collectivistic coping.
In P.T.P. Wong and L.C.J. Wong (Eds.) Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress
and coping (pp. 55-72). New York: Springer US.
Yeung, A., Fung, F., Yu, S. C., Vorono, S., Ly, M., Wu, S., & Fava, M. (2008). Validation of the
Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for depression screening among Chinese
Americans. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 49(2), 211-217.
Yoo, H. C., & Lee, R. M. (2005). Ethnic identity and approach-type coping as moderators of the
racial discrimination/well-being relation in Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52(4), 497.
Yorgason, J. B., Linville, D., & Zitzman, B. (2008). Mental health among college students: do
those who need services know about and use them? Journal of American College
Health, 57(2), 173-182.
Yum, J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and
communication patterns in East Asia. Communications Monographs, 55(4), 374-388.

149