Psych

Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 106–110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Examining associations among achievement motivation, locus of control, academic stress, and life satisfaction: A comparison of U.S. and international undergraduate students

Mehmet A. Karaman a,⁎, Joshua C. Watson b a Department of Counseling and Guidance, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, EDUC 1.642, 1201 W University Dr., Edinburg, TX 78539, USA b Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi, ECDC 151, 6300 Ocean Dr., Corpus Christi, TX 78412, USA

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.A.

[email protected] (J.C. Watson).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.006 0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 19 September 2016 Received in revised form 29 January 2017 Accepted 2 February 2017 Available online 9 February 2017

This study compared measures of achievement motivation, life satisfaction, academic stress, and locus of control across 307 U.S. and international undergraduate students. Descriptive statistics and MANOVA were used to ana- lyze the variables. A hierarchical multiple regression was employed to determine the extent to which locus of control, academic stress, and life satisfaction predicted achievement motivation. The results indicated a statisti- cally significant difference between U.S. and international students as related to achievement motivation. Further analysis revealed significant relationships among predictor and criterion variables. Locus of control, academic stress, and life satisfaction significantly explained 18% of the variance in achievement motivation. However, a comparison of model fit between U.S. and international students revealed no statistically significant differences.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Achievement motivation Life satisfaction Locus of control Academic stress International students

1. Introduction

The world has become a more globalized environment as a result of cutting-edge technology, mass media, social movements, economic trade, and more expedient forms of transportation. These innovations have had a profound effect on the internationalization of education, making it easier for students to apply to different universities and move across states and countries for their education, thus establishing a new life for themselves during and after their educational careers. Consequently, this process has resulted in the highest number of stu- dents – almost 4.5 million – enrolling in postsecondary institutions out- side their country of citizenship worldwide (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2013).

International students in higher education are one of the fastest growing populations in the United States (Institute of International Education [IIE], 2015). Moving to another country is more than studying for international students. Adapting to a new environment and culture is stressful, and can seriously affect a student's life satisfaction and mo- tivation to achieve. Martinez (2001) found that high levels of motiva- tion to achieve and satisfaction with life increase student retention rates. However, the majority of literature focusing on the acculturation process (Chavajay & Skowronek, 2008; Desa, Yusooff, & Abd Kadir,

Karaman),

2012; Smith & Khawaja, 2011) neglects how these students motivate themselves to achieve and how their satisfaction of life, academic stress, and sense of control of their environment affects their level of achieve- ment motivation.

Achievement motivation was theorized by McClelland (1961) as identifying three distinct needs: (1) a need for achievement, (2) a need for affiliation, and (3) a need for power. These distinct needs are learned, acquired over time, and shaped by one's own life experiences. Educational researchers have demonstrated achievement motivation to be a strong predictor of success, perceived accomplishment, and aca- demic ability (Liao, Ferdenzi, & Edlin, 2012; Story, Hart, Stasson, & Mahoney, 2009). In addition, researchers have found achievement mo- tivation to be significantly correlated with occupational choice, subjec- tive well-being, college satisfaction, neuroticism, life goals, locus of control, and learning strategies (Ahmad & Rana, 2012; Bakhtiarvand, Ahmadian, Delrooz, & Farahani, 2011; Rosa & Bernardo, 2013; Guns, Richardson, & Watt, 2012; Li, Lan, & Ju, 2015). In this respect, knowing the predictors and factors of achievement motivation holds value since achievement motivation is directly related to student retention and success (Martinez, 2001).

There are different factors affecting both international and U.S. col- lege students' achievement, academic stress, and life satisfaction. For example, Chen (1999) stated that international college students study- ing in North America endure substantial psychological stress in their daily lives. He described academic stress as one of the common stressors experienced among international students. There are many factors

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, VIF, and bivariate correlations for scores among scales used as predictor and criterion variables (N = 307).

Variable 1 2 3 4 VIF

1. Achievement motivation ⁎ −0.31⁎ 0.03 0.32⁎ – 2. Locus of control ⁎ 0.29⁎ −0.26⁎ 1.13 3. Academic stress ⁎ −0.24⁎ 1.14 4. Life satisfaction ⁎ 1.09 M 39.36 10.68 151.00 24.17 – SD 6.45 3.70 27.33 6.27 – α 0.82 0.68 0.93 0.84 –

⁎ p b 0.001.

107M.A. Karaman, J.C. Watson / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 106–110

associated with academic stress experienced within this population, in- cluding different educational systems, limited language proficiency, an unfamiliar culture, test-taking anxiety, academic skills, and perfor- mance expectations (Abel, 2002; Kosheleva, Amarnor, & Chernobilsky, 2015; Misra & Castillo, 2004).

Understanding how international and U.S. students correspond or differentiate in terms of satisfaction of life, academic stress, locus of con- trol, and achievement motivation is important for college and university administrators and student support personnel. Moreover, university services (e.g. admission procedures, counseling services, and student accommodations) and academics (e.g. quality of education, university ranking, and variety of curricula offered) have been the top two factors negatively affecting the satisfaction of students. Perhaps more coherent education programs and university services can be developed to in- crease student achievement, well-being, and retention of international students. The purpose of this study was to compare locus of control, ac- ademic stress, life satisfaction, and achievement motivation across in- ternational and U.S. undergraduate students. Specifically, this study aimed to examine the degree to which locus of control, academic stress, and life satisfaction predicts achievement motivation and how this hy- pothesized prediction model varies for international and U.S. under- graduate students.

2. Method

2.1. Procedures and participants

An a priori power analysis using G*Power 3.0.10 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) was used to calculate the minimum sample size needed to evaluate the research questions of this study. Using a minimum level of power of 0.80, considered an adequate level of power (Cohen, 1992), a medium effect size as f2 = 0.15, and a 0.05 alpha level, the target sample size for this study was reported to be 154. The sample of the study included 307 students. Two hundred and forty-one (78%) of the participants were U. S (137 male and 104 female) and 66 (22%) were international students (39 male and 27 female). The mean age of the U.S. participants was 21.27 years (SD = 5.35; range: 17–49 years), with two participants failing to respond to the demo- graphic query. The U.S. students reported the following demographics on ethnicity: White or Caucasian 45.6% (n = 110), African American 3.6% (n = 9), Asian American 3.6% (n = 9), Hispanic or Latino 37% (n = 90), and Mixed 9.4% (n = 22). One participant failed to respond to this demographic query. The mean age of the international partici- pants was 21.51 years (SD = 2.92; range: 17–34 years) with one partic- ipant failing to respond to this demographic query. International students were from different countries (China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Vietnam, Taiwan, Mexico, South Korea, India, etc.).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Achievement motivation The Smith Achievement Motivation Scale (SAMS; Smith, Karaman,

Balkin, & Arora, 2016) was used to measure achievement motivation. The instrument is a self-report measure estimating level of achievement motivation in 14 items across two factors based on achievement behav- iors and thoughts in the context of McClelland's (1961) high achieving individual. The SAMS uses a 5-point Likert-type response format with values ranging from 0 (Never) to 4 (Always). The 14-item scale includes items such as “I feel that my present work is meaningful” and “I try and follow the rule: Business before pleasure.” Smith et al. (2016) reported a moderate Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.82 for the SAMS.

2.2.2. Locus of control We used the Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control scale (I-E

Scale; 1966), which measures behaviors from life areas such as love, dominance, and social-political events. The instrument is a forced-

choice 29-item questionnaire including six filler items. Participants are asked to select one statement from a pair of statements they believe to be true in their lives. Each items on the scale consists two statements represent internal and external locus of control. Twenty-three items are scored giving one point for each external response. Scores ranges be- tween zero and 23. The I-E scale includes items such as “a) many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck,” or “b) people's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.” In this exam- ple “a” represents an external response and “b” an internal response. Rotter (1966) reported test-retest reliabilities for several samples vary- ing between 0.49 and 0.83 over one to two-month time intervals.

2.2.3. Academic stress The Student Life Stress Inventory-Revised (SSI-R; Gadzella & Masten,

2005) was used to measure academic stress. The SSI-R is a self-report measure that estimates academic stress of college level students with 53 items organized into nine factors. The SSI-R uses a 5-point Likert- type response format with values ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Most of the Time). The SSI-R includes items such as “I have experienced frustra- tions due to delays in reaching my goal” and “I have experienced both positive and negative alternatives.” Authors reported strong Cronbach's alpha values. The total reliability of instrument was 0.92. The correla- tions (test-retest) between each category ranged from 0.46 to 0.76. The reliability of subscales ranged from 0.61 on the self-imposed sub- scale to 0.86 on the changes subscale.

2.2.4. Life satisfaction We used the 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener,

Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), which assesses how satisfied an indi- vidual is with his/her life in terms of well-being. The scale is a self-report questionnaire that estimates perceived level of life satisfaction across five items using a 7-point Likert-type response format with values rang- ing from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Results of the five items are summed to produce an overall score with high scores indicat- ing high satisfaction with life and low scores indicating low satisfaction with life. The 5-item scale includes items such as “In most ways my life is close to my ideal” and “I am satisfied with life.” The SWLS has been translated into 32 different languages and is well-suited for use with in- dividuals from different cultural backgrounds (Satisfaction with Life Scale, 2014). The internal consistency for this scale was found to be 0.84 (Diener et al., 1985).

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary analyses

First, descriptive statistics and alpha coefficients were computed for each instrument used in the study (see Table 1). Next, the assumptions of MANOVA and multiple linear regression models were tested. To as- sess the assumption of normality, box plots were inspected and a Sha- piro-Wilk goodness-of-fit test was computed and its results interpreted. Box plot analyses and the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality (W N 0.01) indicated the data to be normally distributed for all measures

Table 3 Predictors of achievement motivation.

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B B 95% CI B 95% CI

Constant 45.10⁎⁎ 41.23⁎⁎ [37.27, 45.20] 31.10⁎⁎ [25.75, 36.47] Locus of control −0.54⁎⁎ −0.60⁎⁎ [−0.80, −0.40] −0.50⁎⁎ [−0.69, −0.31] Academic stress 0.03⁎ [0.004, 0.06] 0.04⁎ [0.02, 0.07] Life satisfaction 0.30⁎⁎ [0.18, 0.41] R2 0.10⁎⁎ 0.11⁎ 0.18⁎⁎

ΔR2 0.09⁎⁎ 0.10⁎ 0.18⁎⁎

Note. N = 307. CI = confidence interval. ⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

108 M.A. Karaman, J.C. Watson / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 106–110

except for life satisfaction in the U.S. student group. Upon analyzing the skewness of this variable (−0.44), the value was considered acceptable in order to prove normality (George & Mallery, 2010). To assess the as- sumption of homogeneity of covariances, Box's M was inspected. Box's M (14.70, p = 0.157) indicated that the assumption was met. To assess the assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity, standardized residu- al plots were inspected. To assess for multicollinearity, bivariate correla- tions and variance inflation factors (VIF) were examined (see Table 1). The results of these preliminary analyses indicated no evidence suggest- ing these assumptions had been violated.

3.2. Statistical analyses

A one-way MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of stu- dent status (U.S. or international) on levels of achievement motivation, locus of control, academic stress, and life satisfaction. An alpha level of 0.05 was utilized as the criterion for determining statistical significance. Descriptive statistics for each of the dependent variables across student status are presented in Table 2. A statistically significant effect was iden- tified between student status and the four dependent variables, Wilks' λ = 0.961, F(4, 302) = 3.06, p b 0.05. In this study, statistical signifi- cance was noted with a small effect size (f2 = 0.04), limiting the practi- cal significance of these results. A follow-up post-hoc discriminant analysis was conducted to determine how group differences were man- ifested across the dependent variables. The discriminant function was significant, Wilks' λ = 0.961, x2(4) = 12.04, p b 0.05. Achievement mo- tivation loaded strongly (r N 0.74) and had a strong relationship (β = 0.816) with the discriminant function. Based on these results, interna- tional students were found to have marginally lower achievement mo- tivation scores than U.S. students.

A three-step hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between achievement motiva- tion, locus of control, academic stress, and life satisfaction (see Table 3). In the first step, locus of control was added to the model as a predic- tor variable with achievement motivation as the criterion. Previous re- searchers (Fini & Yousefzadeh, 2011; Strain, 1993) indicated a strong relationship between achievement motivation and locus of control. Hence, the first variable included in the equation was locus of control. This predictor variable explained a significant portion of the variance in undergraduate student achievement motivation, F(1, 305) = 31.96, p b 0.001, R2 = 0.10 (ΔR2 = 0.09). Specifically, locus of control was neg- atively correlated with achievement motivation. In the second step, ac- ademic stress was added to the model as a predictor variable to determine the extent to which academic stress improves the prediction of achievement motivation. Research showed that there were signifi- cant correlations between college students' stress levels and locus of control (Carvalho, Gadzella, Henley, & Ball, 2009), and motivation and academic stress (Struthers, Perry, & Menec, 2000). The linear combina- tion of these two predictor variables explained a significant portion of the variance in undergraduate student achievement motivation, F(2, 304) = 18.76, p b 0.05, R2 = 0.11 (ΔR2 = 0.10). In contrast to locus of control, academic stress was not significantly correlated with achieve- ment motivation. In the third step, life satisfaction was added to the sec- ond model to determine whether this variable significantly improved

Table 2 Summary statistics, correlations and multiple regression weights from U.S. and international s

U.S. students (N = 241)

Variable M SD r with AMO B β

AMO 39.86 6.63 LOC 10.76 3.72 −0.31⁎ −0.54 −0.3 LS 24.25 6.45 0.30⁎ 0.29 0.28 AS 152.73 27.75 0.03 0.04 0.19 Constant 31.91

Note. AMO = Achievement Motivation, LOC = Locus of Control, LS = Life Satisfaction, AS = A ⁎ p b 0.001

the amount of explained variance in student achievement motivation attributed to the linear model. In previous studies, researchers (Chai, Krägeloh, Shepherd, & Billington, 2012; Dave, Tripathi, Singh, & Udainiya, 2011) reported relationship between life satisfaction and other predictor variables. However, theoretically this was not enough to enter life satisfaction into the analysis before two other variables. The inclusion of life satisfaction resulted in a significant portion of the variance in undergraduate student achievement motivation being explained by the linear combination of the three predictor variables, F(3, 303) = 22.85, p b 0.001, R2 = 0.18 (ΔR2 = 0.18). Life satisfaction was positively correlated undergraduate student achievement motivation.

Following Cohen's (1992) recommendation that unique contribu- tions to the overall variance of a model are indicated by ΔR2 values ≥0.02, the computed ΔR2 value of 0.08 in this study indicates that life satisfaction is a significant predictor of undergraduate student achieve- ment motivation after controlling for both locus of control and academic stress. A post hoc power analysis indicated that power was sufficient for this study, 1-β N 0.95; given the sample size of n = 307, statistical signif- icance was detected for small effect sizes, f2 = 0.06.

A series of simultaneous multiple regression analyses were run to examine the relationships between achievement motivation, locus of control, academic stress, and life satisfaction and compare the models derived from U.S. and international undergraduate students. Table 2 shows the univariate statistics, correlations of each variable with achievement motivation, and the multiple regression beta weights for each of the two student groups.

Comparing model fit for the U.S. and international student groups revealed no significant difference between their respective R2 values, Fisher Z = −0.353, p N 0.05. A comparison of the structure of the models from the two groups was also conducted by applying the model derived from international students to the data from U.S. students and compar- ing the resulting crossed R2 with the direct R2 originally obtained from this group. The direct R2 = 0.40 and crossed R2 = 0.43 were not significantly different, Fisher Z = −1.208, p N 0.05, indicating that the apparent differential structure of the regression weights from the two groups described above do not warrant further interpretation and investigation.

tudents.

International students (N = 66)

M SD r with AMO B β

37.53 5.39 0 10.42 3.60 −0.37⁎ −0.36 −0.24

23.86 5.59 0.41⁎ 0.31 0.33 144.66 24.91 −0.07 0.01 0.07

31.72

cademic Stress.

109M.A. Karaman, J.C. Watson / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 106–110

4. Discussion

The current study was conducted to better understand the differ- ences in predictors of achievement motivation between U.S. and inter- national undergraduate students. Identifying predictors of achievement motivation is important because they are significant fac- tors critical to students' academic success, life satisfaction, and college satisfaction; as well as important predictors of student retention (Oladipo, Adenaike, Adejumo, & Ojewumi, 2013).

The definition of achievement is culturally variable, and motives be- hind individual success can differ depending on cultural background, family values, and world views. The U.S. is the leading country in the world hosting more international students than other countries. The di- versity of international students provide economical, educational, cul- tural, and intellectual advantages to the U.S. education system and society as a whole. International students contributed over 30 billion dollars to the U.S. economy in 2014 (IIE, 2015). Their cultural, individu- al, and educational differences bring an international perspective to the classroom. In addition, students' intercultural interaction with society reveals positive outcomes in terms of multiculturalism. On the other hand, this situation might change under certain conditions when they try to adapt to the new culture and education system. Educators need to be aware of how international students view success and motivation, and not interpret their students' situations from the cultural worldview of their host country.

Our results showed U.S. students reported slightly higher levels of achievement motivation than international students. However, the small effect size limited the generalization of this result for other group of international students who study in other universities and geo- graphical regions. In addition, Achievement motivation has been a cul- tural variable motivating and pushing students toward achievement that tends to change from culture to culture (Maehr, 2008; Trumbull & Rothstein-Fisch, 2011). Similarly, cultural and individual differences affect achievement motivation (Otsuka & Smith, 2005). Even individ- uals' beliefs about achievement motivation who are belong to same cul- ture could differentiate from each other. Subsequently, the differences between U.S. and international students can be a consequence of their beliefs about achievement and motivation.

Our study showed locus of control, academic stress, and life satisfac- tion was a significant predictor of achievement motivation, explaining an overall 18% of variance, respectively. Personality differences and the way college students assess their strengths are significant factors influencing their achievement. Some students believe that reinforce- ment is dependent on their capacities, behaviors, or attributes, while others believe that reinforcement is dependent on the control of power- ful others, destiny, luck, or chance (Dollinger, 2000; Gifford, Briceno-Perriott, & Mianzo, 2006). Students' personality and individual differences do not only show up in terms of capacities and behaviors, there are also differences and similarities in respect to academic stress and satisfaction with life. For example, life satisfaction represents the positive side of human behavior (Diener, 2000). Moreover, it has been seen as an important factor of happiness (Diener, Lucas, & Oishi, 2002). There are different factors affecting life satisfaction, such as stress, social connectedness, and locus of control, etc. (Coccia & Darling, 2014; Dave et al., 2011). By simplifying and by linking these variables, locus of control and life satisfaction seemingly explain achievement motivation. Surprisingly, the predicting models were not different for both U.S. and international undergraduate students. The similarities between U.S. and international students may be explained with the readiness level of international students. Said differently, inter- national students are more able to review the places they can go, the universities they can apply, and the resources they can reach than be- fore as a result of developed technological devices and web systems. For example, in a recent study Fritz, Chin, and DeMarinis (2008) found there was no significant difference between international and North American students' levels of stressors, anxiety, acculturation, and

adjustment. This indicated that international students were knowledge- able about and prepared for the cultural and educational system they would attend.

A number of issues limit the present findings. The study employed a convenience sample of international and U.S. students enrolled in un- dergraduate courses at a regional public four-year university in South Texas. Therefore, the results of the study can be generalized only to in- ternational and U.S. undergraduate students. Graduate students were not included in the study sample. Additionally, results cannot be gener- alized to international and U.S. students studying in other countries be- cause the educational systems, culture, and experiences of students in different countries would be different. Although the sample provided diversity in participants according to demographic characteristics such as sex, age, and country of origin, the international student sample contained an overrepresentation of persons from Saudi Arabia, China, and Vietnam; limiting the generalizability of results among internation- al students. Moreover, the two groups compared in the study had differ- ent numbers of participants in them. The unequal sample sizes led to comparative statistics being evaluated across an unbalanced design, limiting the generalizability and statistical power of the study.

There are a number of other ways in which our results could be de- veloped further. A mixed study would be useful to understand interna- tional and U.S. students' personal meaning of achievement motivation, academic stress, locus of control, and life satisfaction. The variables in- cluded in the study are strength-based non-cognitive factors. Therefore, a qualitative inquiry discussing how students view these factors and more importantly how they explain these factors from their cultural perspectives, can help educators and counselors create more efficient teaching and learning strategies for college students.

Our findings may be useful for college administrators, college coun- selors, and educators. By identifying predictors of achievement motiva- tion, the study can be used to understand how college students motivate themselves to success and how their satisfaction of life, aca- demic stress, and control over such situations affect their achievement motivation. One of the significant findings in the study showed interna- tional college students had lower achievement motivation than U.S. stu- dents. From the college administrators' perspective, recruiting international students to study in the U.S. is of vital importance. Howev- er, it is more significant to know how to serve them, retain them, and graduate them (Korobova & Starobin, 2015). Further research showed that one of the ways to contribute to student retention rate was to in- crease academic success (Gifford et al., 2006; Hall & Wiley Gahn, 1994; Hu & St. John, 2001). In this regard, achievement motivation could be an important contributor to students' academic success (Trumbull & Rothstein-Fisch, 2011). This study stands to promote good academic and university services at the institutional level.

Acknowledgement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agen- cies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Abel, C. F. (2002). Academic success and the international student: Research and recom- mendations. New Directions for Higher Education, 117, 13–20. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/he.42.

Ahmad, I., & Rana, S. (2012). Affectivity, achievement motivation, and academic perfor- mance in college students. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 27, 107–120.

Bakhtiarvand, F., Ahmadian, S., Delrooz, K., & Farahani, H. A. (2011). The moderating effect of achievement motivation on relationship of learning approaches and academic achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 486–488. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.093.

Carvalho, C. F., Gadzella, B. M., Henley, T. B., & Ball, S. E. (2009). Locus of control: Differ- ences among college students' stress levels. Individual Differences Research, 7, 182–187.

Chai, P. P. M., Krägeloh, C. U., Shepherd, D., & Billington, R. (2012). Stress and quality of life in international and domestic university students: Cultural differences in the use of religious coping. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 15, 265–277. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/13674676.2011.571665.

110 M.A. Karaman, J.C. Watson / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 106–110

Chavajay, P., & Skowronek, J. (2008). Aspects of acculturation stress among international students attending a university in the USA. Psychological Reports, 103, 827–835. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.103.7.827-835.

Chen, C. P. (1999). Common stressors among international college students: Research and counseling implications. Journal of College Counseling, 2, 49–65. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/j.2161-1882.1999.tb00142.x.

Coccia, C., & Darling, C. A. (2014). Having the time of their life: College student stress, dat- ing and satisfaction with life. Stress and Health, 32, 28–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ smi.2575.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.

Dave, R., Tripathi, K. N., Singh, P., & Udainiya, R. (2011). Subjective well-being, locus of control, and general self-efficacy among university students. Amity Journal of Applied Psychology, 2, 28–32.

Desa, A., Yusooff, F., & Abd Kadir, N. B. (2012). Acculturative stress among international postgraduate students at UKM. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 364–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.287.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a na- tional index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X. 55.1.34.

Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15327752jpa4901_13.

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 63–73). Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni- versity Press.

Dollinger, S. J. (2000). Locus of control and incidental learning: An application to college student success. College Student Journal, 34, 537–540.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149.

Fini, A. A. S., & Yousefzadeh, M. (2011). Survey on relationship of achievement motivation, locus of control and academic achievement in high school students of Bandar Abbas (Iran). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 866–870. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.168.

Fritz, M. V., Chin, D., & DeMarinis, V. (2008). Stressors, anxiety, acculturation and adjust- ment among international and North American students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 244–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.01.001.

Gadzella, B., & Masten, W. (2005). An analysis of the categories in the student-life stress inventory. American Journal of Psychological Research, 1, 1–10.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and refer- ence 17.0 update (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Gifford, D. D., Briceno-Perriott, J., & Mianzo, F. (2006). Locus of control: Academic achieve- ment and retention in a sample of university first-year students. Journal of College Admission, 191, 18–25.

Guns, A., Richardson, P., & Watt, H. M. G. (2012). How do life goals and motivations of in- ternational students studying in Australia impact their achievement outcomes? Sydney: Australian Association for Research in Education, 1–17 (Retrieved from) http://www. aare.edu.au/data/publications/2012/Guns12.pdf

Hall, K. H., & Wiley Gahn, S. (1994). Predictors of success for academically dismissed stu- dents following readmission. National Academic Advising Association Journal, 14, 8–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-14.1.8.

Hu, S., & St. John, E. P. (2001). Student persistence in a public higher education system: Understanding racial and ethnic differences. Journal of Higher Education, 72, 265–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2649332.

Institute of International Education (2015). Open doors 201 fast facts. (Retrieved from) http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/Fast-Facts#. VzTZBIQrJpg

Korobova, N., & Starobin, S. S. (2015). A comparative study of student engagement, satis- faction, and academic success among international and American students. Journal of International Students, 5, 72–85.

Kosheleva, E. Y., Amarnor, A. J., & Chernobilsky, E. (2015). Stress factors among interna- tional and domestic students in Russia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 200, 460–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.096.

Li, Y., Lan, J., & Ju, C. (2015). Achievement motivation and attributional style as mediators between perfectionism and subjective well-being in Chinese university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 146–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2015.01.050.

Liao, H., Ferdenzi, A. C., & Edlin, M. (2012). Motivation, self-regulated learning efficacy, and academic achievement among international and domestic students at an urban community college: A comparison. Community College Enterprise, 18, 9–38.

Maehr, M. (2008). Culture and achievement motivation. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 917–918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207590701838162.

Martinez, P. (2001). Improving student retention and achievement: What do we know and what do we need to find out? London: Learning and Skills Development Agency, 1–16 (Retrieved from) http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4007/

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York, NY: Free Press. Misra, R., & Castillo, L. G. (2004). Academic stress among college students: Comparison of

American and international students. International Journal of Stress Management, 11, 132–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.11.2.132.

Oladipo, S. E., Adenaike, F. A., Adejumo, A. O., & Ojewumi, K. O. (2013). Psychological pre- dictors of life satisfaction among undergraduates. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 82, 292–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.263.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013). Education indicators in focus. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/ EDIF%202013–N%C2%B014%20(eng)-Final.pdf

Otsuka, S., & Smith, I. D. (2005). Educational applications of the expectancy-value model of achievement motivation in the diverse cultural contexts of the west and the east. Change: Transformations in Education, 8, 91–109.

Rosa, E. D. D., & Bernardo, A. B. I. (2013). Are two achievement goals better than one? Fil- ipino students' achievement goals, deep learning strategies and affect. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.07.005.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of rein- forcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/h0092976

Satisfaction with Life Scale (2014). Scales. (Retrieved from) http://internal.psychology. illinois.edu/~ediener/SWLS.html

Smith, R. A., & Khawaja, N. G. (2011). A review of the acculturation experiences of inter- national students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 699–713. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.08.004.

Smith, R. L., Karaman, M. A., Balkin, R. S., & Arora, S. (2016). Psychometric properties and confirmatory factor analysis of Smith Achievement Motivation Scale. (Manuscript is under review).

Story, P. A., Hart, J. W., Stasson, M. F., & Mahoney, J. M. (2009). Using a two-factor theory of achievement motivation to examine performance-based outcomes and self-regu- latory processes. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 391–395. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.023.

Strain, B. J. (1993). Locus-of-control, achievement motivation and selected variables as pre- dictors of persistence for low-achieving students. (Doctoral Dissertation). (Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses database). (UMI No. 9401003).

Struthers, C. W., Perry, R. P., & Menec, V. H. (2000). An examination of the relationship among academic stress, coping, motivation, and performance in college. Research in Higher Education, 41, 581–592.

Trumbull, E., & Rothstein-Fisch, C. (2011). The intersection of culture and achievement motivation. School Community Journal, 21, 25–53.