A resilience-based and meaning-oriented model of acculturation: A sample of mainland Chinese postgraduate students in Hong Kong

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 592– 603

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

j ourna l ho me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i j in t re l

A resilience-based and meaning-oriented model of acculturation: Asample of mainland Chinese postgraduate students in Hong Kong�

Jia-Yan PanDepartment of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Hongkong, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Accepted 6 February 2011

Keywords:AcculturationResilienceChinese international studentsMeaning

a b s t r a c t

Traditional acculturation research has focused mainly on acculturative stress and its neg-ative consequences on the mental health of migrants. However, there has recently been asubstantial paradigm shift in acculturation research from a psychopathological perspectiveto a resilience framework, which focuses on positive adaptation outcomes and their con-tributing protective factors. The purpose of this study was to investigate how to improvethe emotional well-being of migrants by developing and testing a resilience model ofacculturation using mainland Chinese postgraduate students in Hong Kong as the sam-ple. A total of 400 mainland Chinese students were recruited from six universities in HongKong through a cross-sectional survey. A resilience-based and meaning-oriented model ofacculturation was developed for Chinese students by path analysis and structural equationmodeling. Threat appraisal and sense-making coping partially mediated the relationshipbetween acculturative hassles and negative affect. The effect of acculturative hassles onpositive affect was mediated by two pathways: the first was mediated by threat appraisal,sense-making coping, and negative affect; the second was mediated by meaning-in-life.The findings suggest that acculturative hassles and threat appraisal are significant risk fac-tors and that sense-making coping and meaning-in-life are important protective factors forpsychological adjustment in cross-cultural adaptation.

© 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

1.1. A research paradigm shift in acculturation research: from a psychopathological perspective to a resilience framework

Traditional acculturation research has focused mainly on adjustment problems and the psychopathological consequencesof the acculturation experience on mental health, such as depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation (e.g., Hovey & King, 1996;Ying & Liese, 1991). However, resilience research over the past three decades has demonstrated that a subgroup of the high-risk population can develop and maintain normal and healthy psychological functioning with no sign of psychopathology.Recent acculturation research has also indicated that some migrants may experience resilience in the process of cross-cultural adaptation (Bhugra, 2004). Resilience research represents a significant research paradigm shift in the health-relatedfields, from focusing on risk factors or problems to emphasizing the strengths, resources, and competencies of individualsfrom a positive perspective (Michaud, 2006).

Following this paradigm shift, there are two directions for applying the resilience framework in acculturation research.The first direction is to identify positive adaptation outcomes in the process of acculturation. Acculturation experiences

� This paper was adapted from the author’s PhD dissertation.

E-mail address: [email protected]

0147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.009

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.009

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01471767

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.009

J.-Y. Pan / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 592– 603 593

may sometimes enhance mental health (Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987). Burgeoning recent evidence has suggested thatthe majority of international students settle successfully and develop positive aspects of psychological well-being (e.g.,positive emotions and life satisfaction) in spite of the considerable difficulties and emotional troubles that they experiencein the host society (e.g., Gao & Liu, 1998; Lee & Chen, 2005). The most frequently reported positive emotions experiencedby international students are happiness (e.g., Abramovitch, Schreier, & Koren, 2000) and satisfaction (e.g., Abadi, 2000). Itwould be promising to focus on positive adaptation outcomes rather than exclusively concentrating on psychopathologicalconsequences in acculturation research.

The second direction is to identify significant protective factors and to investigate the protective mechanisms of how thesefactors work to promote positive adaptation outcomes in the face of various acculturative stressors experienced by migrants.Protective factors are those factors that ameliorate or reduce the potentially negative effects of the risk factors (Henderson &Milstein, 2003). Positive acculturative adaptation outcomes depend on a variety of individual and environmental protectivefactors, among which meaning-making and finding meaning-in-life are central to the process of resilience in acculturation(Ehrensaft & Tousignant, 2006). In addition, cognitive appraisal also plays an important role in the stressor–outcome rela-tionship (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In the following sections, the concepts of sense-making coping, meaning-in-life andcognitive appraisal as well as their relationships with emotional outcomes are reviewed.

1.2. Sense-making coping and emotion

People tend to ascribe different meanings to different negative situations. Cognitive reframing of an adverse or stressfulsituation from a negative perspective to a positive perspective is the critical nature of meaning-focused coping (Folkman& Moskowitz, 2000). As a dimension of meaning-focused coping, sense-making refers to the cognitive coping strategy ofdeveloping an understanding or explanation of an adverse event and its implications (Davis, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Larson,1998). Therefore, sense-making coping can be understood as the development of a subjective understanding of a negativelife experience during the coping process. Sense-making often involves benign explanation or comprehension of negativelife experiences (Holand, Currier, & Neimeyer, 2006). In the case of acculturation, migrants try to make sense of variousadjustment problems and harsh conditions to survive in the host society. For example, Chinese international students inSingapore managed to understand the new academic environment in a positive way through such methods as appreciationof a good opportunity to study abroad and accommodating themselves to new ways of learning (McClure, 2007). Chineseimmigrants from mainland China have also reported having some positive beliefs about their resettlement difficulties inHong Kong, such as seeing the difficulties as a natural process in adaptation, which takes time before the situation improves(Wong, 2002), and enduring the hardship for the sake of their children (He, 2003).

Empirical evidence has demonstrated a close relationship between sense-making coping and psychological adaptationoutcomes. Finding positive meaning in negative life events through sense-making was associated with better coping, morepositive emotions, and increased life satisfaction (Mykletun, 1985; Thompson, 1985). In a study of international students,Ward, Leong, and Kennedy (1998) found that the coping strategies of acceptance, positive reinterpretation, and growthpredicted lower levels of stress, which in turn predicted fewer depressive symptoms. Chataway and Berry (1989) found thatChinese students in Canada who engaged in more positive thinking were more satisfied with their coping abilities. In contrast,failure to find a reasonable sense or understanding of negative life events predicts negative emotional adaptation outcomes,such as complicated grief symptomatology (Currier, Holland, & Neimeyer, 2006) and psychological distress in bereavementadjustment (Schmidt, Holsteinl, Christensen, & Boivin, 2005). In the Chinese community, it has been demonstrated thatstronger endorsement of positive Chinese beliefs about adversity was negatively correlated with anxiety and depressionand positively correlated with life satisfaction, whereas stronger endorsement of negative beliefs was positively associatedwith anxiety and depression and negatively associated with life satisfaction (Shek, 2004). It appears that sense-makingcoping helps people experience positive emotions in negative or stressful situations by finding positive meaning in thesituation and that the inability to make sense of adverse life circumstances is associated with negative emotional outcomes.

1.3. Meaning-in-life and emotion

A person’s main concern is to seek meaning-in-life (Frankl, 1971). A person with a high level of meaning-in-life believesthat his/her life is significant, purposeful, and comprehensible (Steger & Frazier, 2005). Thus, meaning-in-life is goal-orientedand purpose-driven. The acculturation experience provides new freedom for people to engage in a quest for meaning-in-life (Wong, 2007). Making life meaningful and setting life goals are major contributing factors for the survival of Chineseimmigrants in their host countries (Wu et al., 2006).

Empirical research has consistently demonstrated that attainment of meaning-in-life is positively related to positivedimensions of psychological well-being, such as positive emotions and life satisfaction (e.g., Chamberlain & Zika, 1988;Mascaro & Rosen, 2005; Zika & Chamberlain, 1987). Zika and Chamberlain (1987) found that, among various personalvariables (i.e., locus of control, assertiveness, and meaning-in-life), meaning-in-life was the most consistent predictor ofpositive affect and life satisfaction among college students. In addition, meaning-in-life partially mediated the link betweenperceived stress and life satisfaction (Wallace & Lahti, 2004), and offset the deleterious impact of traumatic life events ondepressive symptoms (Krause, 2007). These findings suggest that meaning-in-life may be a key to positive affect and maycontribute to a happier and more satisfying life.

594 J.-Y. Pan / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 592– 603

In contrast, the lack of meaning-in-life is a significant predictor of anxiety, depression, depressive symptoms, psycho-logical distress and general negative affect among various groups of populations (e.g., Mascaro & Rosen, 2005; Shek, 1992).Konstam et al. (2003) found that lack of meaning-in-life predicted 30.8% of the total variance of negative affect for caregiversof patients with Parkinson’s disease. Moreover, loss of meaning-in-life mediates the relationship between physical and socialfunctioning impairments and psychological distress among cancer survivors (Jim & Andersen, 2007).

1.4. Sense-making coping and meaning-in-life

Meaning can be understood at two levels: the global meaning and the situational meaning (Park & Folkman, 1997).Global meaning is concerned with more generalized meaning about one’s basic goals and fundamental assumptions, andexpectations about the world. Life goals and purpose are critical components of global meaning (Park & Folkman, 1997).The pursuit of goals gives rise to a sense of purpose and meaningfulness for one’s life. In this sense, meaning-in-life can beincluded in the global level of meaning (Wong, Reker, & Peacock, 2006). Situational meaning results from finding meaning ina specific situation or experience, which is congruent with one’s global meaning system (Park & Folkman, 1997). From thisperspective, sense-making can be understood as individuals’ attempts to discover the situational meaning of the currentadverse event within their existing framework of global meaning. When a negative life event occurs to a person, the cognitivereappraisal process may decrease the threatening aspects of the event and increase the event’s positive aspects by eithermodifying the situational meaning to make it consistent with preexisting global meanings of beliefs and goals or by changingrelevant global meanings of beliefs and goals to accommodate the event (Park & Folkman, 1997). In both cases, the processof meaning-making transforms people’s emotional experiences from negative to positive (O’Connor, 2002).

1.5. Cognitive appraisal and emotion

Cognitive appraisal accounts for 22% of the variation in mental health outcomes in terms of emotional and psychosomaticsymptoms (Punamaki, 1986). Threat and challenge appraisal are two types of stressfulness appraisal that determine whetheran encounter is stressful for a person or not (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Threat appraisal involves an evaluation of whethera person’s coping resources and abilities are inadequate to cope with the stressful event (Mak, Blewilt, & Heaven, 2004). Incontrast, challenge appraisal is the perception that potential danger does not exceed one’s perceived abilities and resourcesto cope with a stressor (Tomaka, Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993).

Empirical studies have confirmed that high threat appraisal is associated with various types of negative emotions, suchas depression, anxiety, loneliness, and distress (e.g., Mak & Neil, 2006; Skinner & Brewer, 2002). For example, Skinner andBrewer (2002) found that threat appraisal was associated with lower coping expectancies, which in turn were associated withhigh levels of anxiety. In acculturation research, Mak and Neil (2006) reported that threat appraisal of social interactions withlocals exerted a stronger positive effect on depressive symptoms than actual amount of contact. On the contrary, challengeappraisal is related to positive emotional outcomes, such as eagerness, excitement, exhilaration, confidence, happiness andpride (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Research suggests that challenge appraisal of examinationstress could lead to positive emotions, such as pride and happiness (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985).

1.6. Theoretical framework, objective and hypotheses of the study

The resilience framework demonstrates the interactive relationship between risk and protective factors on positive adap-tation outcomes (e.g., Masten, 2001). Specifically, the negative impact of a risk factor is reduced by a set of protective factorsthat promote positive adaptation outcomes in adverse circumstances (e.g., Masten & Reed, 2002). Using the resilience frame-work, this study identifies risk factors as acculturative hassles experienced by migrants in the host society and their threatappraisals of these hassles. Positive outcome is conceptualized as a person’s emotional well-being in terms of positive andnegative affect. According to Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional model of stress and coping and Berry’s (2006) modelof acculturative stress, cognitive appraisal and coping are two significant mediators in the stressor–outcome relationship.Furthermore, Park and Folkman (1997) integrated meaning in the context of stress and coping, which distinguished twolevels of meaning, that is, situational meaning and global meaning. Thus, protective factors in this study include challengeappraisal, sense-making coping and meaning in life.

A resilience framework for acculturation research was developed from the literature review to connect the conceptsin the study (see Fig. 1). Specifically, when facing risk factor of various acculturative hassles, migrants may judge the per-sonal relevance and significance of the encounter to themselves, and determine its stressfulness using threat and challengeappraisal. When the acculturative hassles are appraised to be stressful, the coping process of sense-making will be initiated.Being able to make sense of the hassles is related to positive affect, whereas failure to do so is associated with negativeaffect. The attainment of meaning-in-life is also related to positive affect, whereas failure to find meaning-in-life is linkedto negative affect. Sense-making coping and meaning-in-life may have a reciprocal relationship.

The objective of this study was to investigate how to improve the emotional well-being of migrants by developing andempirically testing the above resilience model of acculturation in a group of mainland Chinese postgraduate students inHong Kong.


Sense-makingcoping

Threat ap praisa lChalleng e apprai sal

Acculturative hassles

Stress or Cognitive appraisal Copin g Outc ome

Meaning-in-life

Positive affect Negative affec t

Fig. 1. A resilience framework for acculturation research.

Several hypotheses were proposed for this study:

1. Acculturative hassles have a negative effect on positive affect and a positive effect on negative affect.2. Cognitive appraisal mediates the relationship between acculturative hassles and affective outcomes.3. Sense-making coping mediates the relationship between acculturative hassles, cognitive appraisal and affective outcomes.4. Meaning-in-life has a positive effect on positive affect and a negative effect on negative affect.5. Meaning-in-life and sense-making coping have a positive reciprocal relationship.

2. Method

2.1. Procedure and sampling

Data were collected through administration of a cross-sectional survey in Hong Kong. Ethical approval was obtainedfrom the Human Research Ethics Committee for Non-Clinical Faculties at the University of Hong Kong. A web link of theonline questionnaire was sent to mainland Chinese postgraduate students by email, and an invitation letter was postedon campus that invited target students to participate in the study. Hardcopies of the questionnaire were also distributedto student residential halls. After clarifying to the students the purpose of the study and explaining the confidential andvoluntary nature of the study, their written consent was obtained. Students were asked to record their email addressesassociated with their universities on a separate sheet to avoid receiving duplicate questionnaires from the same participant.The questionnaire was administered in Chinese. A souvenir was sent to the participants who completed the questionnaire.

2.2. Sample

A total of 400 students completed the questionnaire. Two hundred and fifty-six students responded electronically,and 146 responded via hardcopy questionnaires (response rate of hardcopy questionnaires = 36.8%). Details regarding thedemographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1.

2.3. Measurements

2.3.1. Positive and Negative AffectPositive and Negative Affect were measured by the Chinese Affect Scale (CAS) (Hamid & Cheng, 1996). The Positive Affect

subscale included the following 10 items: happy, peaceful, joy, contented, excited, agreeable, comfortable, meaningful,relaxed and exuberant. The 10 items on the Negative Affect subscale were as follows: sad, tense, helpless, disappointed,frightened, bitter, insecure, exhausted, depressed and annoyed. Participants were asked to describe their feelings over thepast month. Responses ranged from “not at all” (1) to “extremely” (6). Item scores were aggregated in each subscale so thata higher score indicates a higher level of either positive affect or negative affect. Satisfactory reliability scores were reported( ̨ = .92 for positive affect and ̨ = .89 for negative affect).

2.3.2. Cognitive appraisalThreat and challenge appraisal were assessed using the threat and challenge subscales in the Stress Appraisal Measure

(SAM) (Peacock & Wong, 1990). The threat appraisal subscale included four items, such as (1) Does this situation make mefeel anxious? and (2) Will the outcome of this situation be negative? The Positive Affect subscale consisted of four questions,such as (1) Is this going to have a positive impact? and (2) To what extent can I become a stronger person because of this


Table 1Demographic characteristics of participants.

Characteristics n %

GenderMale 200 50.0Female 200 50.0

UniversityHKU 181 45.3CityU 39 9.8CUHK 94 23.5HKUST 56 14.0HKBU 19 4.8PolyU 11 2.8

Length of residence in Hong Kong (year)≤0.5 155 38.80.5–1 27 6.81–2 79 19.82–3 72 18.0>3 67 16.8

Registered programPhD 256 64.0MPhil 74 18.5Master 70 17.5

Age (year)≤23 72 18.024–30 269 67.331–35 50 12.536–40 6 1.5≤41 3 0.8

Marital statusSingle 299 74.8Married 97 24.3Others 4 1.0

ReligionNone 357 89.3Follow a religion 43 10.7

Total 400 100.0

problem? The items were translated into Chinese using Brislin’s (1970) traditional translation and back-translation approach.Participants were asked to imagine a stressful situation and then evaluate how they view this situation on a 5-point Likertscale (from “1” = “not at all” to “5” = “extremely”). Good reliability scores were reported ( ̨ = .81 for threat appraisal and ̨ = .72for challenge appraisal).

2.3.3. Meaning-in-lifeMeaning-in-life was measured using The Chinese Personal Meaning Profile (CPMP) (Lin, 2001), which consisted of 12

subscales with 87 items. Some modifications were made to exclude items with a factor loading of less than .50 (Manly, 2005)and factors with fewer than 3 items (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). Because the majority of mainland Chinese students have noreligious beliefs, the items regarding the Western Religion factor, such as “I am at peace with God”, were also excluded. Asa result, a short version of the CPMP, with 41 items and 7 factors, was formulated. The seven factors were as follows: self-development, achievement, acceptance and contentment, relationship, pursuit of purpose, family, and being close to natureand authenticity. Participants were asked to indicate the degree to which the items described the sources of a meaningful lifefor them. Each response ranged from “not at all” (1) to “a great deal” (7). The total score and subscale scores were computedby summing the item scores and dividing by the number of items in the scale or subscales. A high total score indicated ahigh level of the sense of meaningfulness experienced in one’s life, and a high factor score suggested a large contribution toa meaningful life by a particular source. The revised scale showed satisfactory reliability ( ̨ = .97).

2.3.4. Acculturative hasslesA self-developed Acculturative Hassles Scale for Chinese Students (AHSCS) (Pan, Yue, & Chan, 2010) was used to measure

acculturative hassles experienced by mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong. A total of 100 items were generated from in-depth interviews of 14 mainland Chinese graduate students. Seventeen items were chosen for the final version after expertchecking, reviewing of wording, item analyses, and factor analyses. Exploratory factor analyses suggested that 4 factors witha total of 17 items in the AHSCS: language deficiency, academic work, social interaction, and cultural differences. Participantswere asked to indicate to what degree they had experienced adjustment problems in their host society. Responses rangedfrom “not at all” (0) to “a lot” (3). The items were averaged into a single scale score with a higher score indicating a higherlevel of acculturative hassles. Satisfactory reliabilities were reported for the total score ( ̨ = .88) and for the four subscalescores (ranged from .77 to .81).



Negative affect

+

+

--

+

Threat appraisal

Sense-makingcoping

Meaning-in-life Positive affect

+

-

Fig. 2. An overall model of path analysis.

2.3.5. Sense-making copingSense-making coping was assessed by the self-developed Chinese Making Sense of Adversity Scale (CMSAS) (Pan, Wong,

Chan, & Chan, 2008). Twelve items examining how people make sense of adversity were developed through in-depth inter-views and item analyses. Exploratory factor analyses suggested a two-factor solution for the CMSAS: making positive senseof adversity (8 items) and making negative sense of adversity (4 items). Participants were asked to indicate how they madesense of the difficulties or stressors that they encountered while studying in the host society. Responses ranged from “totallydisagree” (1) to “totally agree” (6). Items in the subscale of making negative sense of adversity were negatively scored. Themeans for the scale items were calculated as the scale scores. A higher score indicated a greater tendency to use sense-makingcoping to handle acculturative hassles. Highly satisfactory reliabilities were recorded for the whole scale ( ̨ = .89) and thetwo subscales ( ̨ = .91 for positive sense-making and ̨ = .76 for negative sense-making).

2.4. Data analyses

The mediational model was tested using procedures suggested by Frazier, Tix, and Barron (2004). A series of path analyseswere performed to test the mediating effects of cognitive appraisal and sense-making coping in relation to acculturative has-sles and affective outcomes. First, the mediating effect of threat/challenge appraisal was tested in the relationship betweenacculturative hassles and affective outcomes. Second, the mediating effect of both threat/challenge appraisal and sense-making coping was examined in the relationship between acculturative hassles and affective outcomes. Finally, two sets ofpath analyses were conducted to examine the reciprocal relationship between meaning-in-life and sense-making coping inrelation to affective outcomes by including meaning-in-life in the second model. The analyses were conducted separatelyfor the two outcome variables of positive and negative affect. The multiple linear regressions were performed with a step-wise procedure. An overall model of path analysis was proposed and tested using structural equation modeling with theestimation method of maximum likelihood. The x2 statistics and significance values were reported for the consideration ofmodel modification. The analyses were conducted in SPSS 15.0 and LISREL 8.7.

3. Results

Acculturative hassles had a statistically significant correlation with threat appraisal (r = .46, p < .001), but not with chal-lenge appraisal (r = .07, p = .191). Therefore, challenge appraisal was not included in the following mediation analysis. On thebasis of the results of a series of path analyses, an overall model of path analysis was proposed, which is shown in Fig. 2. Thepathways with �-coefficients reaching a significant level of p < .001 or p < .01 were retained in all of the path models.

The overall path model shows that acculturative hassles influenced affective outcomes both directly and indirectly. Onthe one hand, acculturative hassles exerted a direct negative effect on positive affect and a direct positive effect on negativeaffect. On the other hand, acculturative hassles influenced affective outcomes along several indirect pathways. First, threatappraisal mediated the hassles-affect association. Second, the effects of threat appraisal on affective outcomes were mediatedby sense-making coping, which significantly reduced the negative effect of threat appraisal on positive affect and alleviatedthe positive effect on negative affect. Third, meaning-in-life mediated the positive effect of sense-making coping on positiveaffect. Sense-making coping may promote a high level of positive affect by increasing life meaning while living in a hostsociety. However, no such effect was found for negative affect. Finally, there was a reciprocal positive relationship betweensense-making coping and meaning-in-life.

The summary of model fit indices for the structural equation models are shown in Table 2. Model 1 was specified as theoverall model of path analysis (see Fig. 2). The model fit indices were not satisfactory (see Table 2). Modification indicessuggested a correlation of threat appraisal and negative affect, which would significantly improve the model fit. The modelwas re-specified. The new model (Model 2) showed a lower significant x2 value and a somewhat better fit (see Table 2).Finally, modification indices for Model 2 suggested including a path from negative affect to positive affect. The model was


Table 2Summary of model fit indices for the structural equation models.

Model df x2 RMSEA p-Value for close fit RMSEA CFI GFI SRMR IFI

1 7 100.09*** 0.183 .000 0.88 0.92 0.091 0.882 6 48.72*** 0.134 .000 0.94 0.96 0.072 0.943 5 9.23 0.046 .100 0.99 0.99 0.033 0.99

*** p < .001.


Negative affect

0.46

0.45

-0.13-0.22

0.41

Threat appraisal

Sense-makingcoping

Meaning-in-life Positive affect

0.38

-0.24

-0.31

0.27

0.68

0.78 0.73 0.79

Fig. 3. A Resilience-based and Meaning-oriented Model of Acculturation (RMMA).

re-specified in accordance with this suggestion, and the results of Model 3 revealed a great improvement of the model fitindices (see Table 2): x2 [5] = 9.23, p = .100; RMSEA = 0.046; CFI = 0.99; GFI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.033; IFI = 0.99.

Model 3 with standardized coefficients is presented in Fig. 3. Compared with Fig. 2, most of the pathways have beenconfirmed by the structural equation model (see Fig. 3). First, the indirect effects from acculturative hassles to threat appraisal( ̌ = 0.46, p < .001), from threat appraisal to sense-making coping ( ̌ = −0.22, p < .001), and from sense-making coping tonegative affect ( ̌ = −0.13, p < .001) were all significant. Second, there was a significant direct effect of acculturative hassleson negative affect ( ̌ = 0.41, p < .001). The results indicated a partial mediating effect of threat appraisal and sense-makingcoping in the relationship between acculturative hassles and negative affect. Third, meaning-in-life had a significant positiveassociation with positive affect ( ̌ = 0.38, p < 0.01). Finally, meaning-in-life had a significant positive effect on sense-makingcoping ( ̌ = 0.45, p < .001).

In addition, several new pathways emerged from the structural equation model. First, there was a negative correlationbetween acculturative hassles and meaning-in-life ( ̌ = −0.24, p < .001). Second, there was a positive correlation betweenthreat appraisal and negative affect ( ̌ = 0.27, p < .001). Finally, there was a direct pathway from negative affect to positiveaffect ( ̌ = −0.31, p < .001).

The structural equation model explained 22% of the total variance of negative affect, 32% of the total variance of positiveaffect, 27% of the total variance of sense-making coping, and 21% of the total variance of threat appraisal.

4. Discussion

The Resilience-based and Meaning-oriented Model of Acculturation (RMMA, see Fig. 3) explains the mechanisms for howrisk and protective factors interact to promote positive and negative affect in the context of acculturation. In the RMMA,acculturative hassles have both direct and indirect effects on negative affect and have an indirect effect on positive affect. Onthe one hand, acculturative hassles have a direct positive effect on negative affect. The more acculturative hassles experiencedby international students, the higher level of negative affect they experience.

On the other hand, acculturative hassles also influence affective outcomes along several indirect pathways. First, threatappraisal and sense-making coping mediate the association of acculturative hassles and negative affect. When studentsexperience less acculturative hassles, they are less likely to appraise these hassles as a threat and use more sense-makingcoping, which is associated with a lower level of negative affect. Second, the indirect effect of acculturative hassles onpositive affect operates through two pathways. One pathway is mediated by threat appraisal, sense-making coping andnegative affect. Less negative affect would increase more positive affect. The second pathway is mediated by meaning-in-life. The less acculturative hassles experienced, the more personal meaning students find in their host societies, which inturn is associated with a higher level of positive affect. Third, meaning-in-life has a positive effect on sense-making coping.If students have a high level of meaning-in-life, they are more likely to handle their acculturative hassles with sense-makingcoping. In other words, the students tend to appraise the hassles from a more positive perspective. Finally, there is a positive


association between threat appraisal and negative affect. The more threat appraisal, the higher negative affect, and viceversa.

4.1. Acculturative hassles as significant risk factors on affective outcomes during acculturation

The direct and indirect effects of acculturative hassles on affective outcomes indicate that acculturative hassles work assignificant risk factors of the emotional well-being of international students in their acculturation into the host society.

First, language deficiency is an obvious barrier to cross-cultural adaptation. Although the local language in Hong Kong isChinese (Cantonese), almost all of the courses in Hong Kong universities are taught in English, and students were required towrite their theses in English. Most of the mainland Chinese students found that they lacked English language proficiency andwere not confident in their English language skills (Chen, 1999), especially their listening and speaking skills. Host languagedeficiency has a negative impact on their emotional well-being. It is consistent with previous findings that low host languageproficiency is a major predictor of poor adjustment and mental health (e.g., Abbott, Wong, Williams, Au, & Young, 1999).

Second, international students may encounter various particular challenges in academic work. For example, Chinesestudents may find themselves lacking research skills or presentation and discussion skills, which are not emphasized inthe educational system in mainland China. Moreover, the high expectation of academic success is highly valued in Asiancontexts (Mordkowitz & Ginsburg, 1987), which may also constitute a source of academic stress for Asian students (Ang &Huan, 2006).

Third, a lack of social interaction in the host society is another risk factor of the emotional well-being of internationalstudents. One major task of migration is to establish a new social network, especially with host nationals, in the host com-munity (Lou & Chan, 1998). A new social network not only provides international students with opportunities to learn moreabout the host culture and gain practical information (Cross, 1995), but it also helps them learn and acquire specific socialskills for effective intercultural communication (Furnham & Bochner, 1982). Both of them can promote better psychologicaladjustment (Kashima & Loh, 2006).

Finally, cultural differences between the host culture and the culture of origin may cause unmet expectations towardmigration and induce the use of separation or marginalization acculturation modes, which may produce poor psychologicaladaptation outcomes (e.g., Martin, Bradford, & Rohrlich, 1995; Zheng, Sang, & Wang, 2004).

4.2. Threat appraisal as a risk factor on affective outcomes during acculturation

As a mediator of the hassles-affect relationship, threat appraisal seems to act as a significant risk factor of the emotionalwell-being of international students. The finding corroborates Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) model of stress and coping andBerry’s (2006) model of acculturative stress, in which cognitive appraisal is theorized as a mediator of the stressor–outcomerelationship. It is indicated that an emotional response to a potentially stressful acculturative hassle is not entirely determinedby the actual level of the hassle but may be partially influenced by how the individual perceives the hassle.

The mediating effect of threat appraisal may be explained by the utilization of social support under stressful life situations.People who use threat appraisal to perceive a stressor tend to seek less social support because of shame or embarrassment(Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). A lack of social support is significantly associated with ahigh level of negative affect (e.g., Jansna, Igor, & Rosanda, 2002). Social support is also crucial for positive well-being whenadjusting to an unfamiliar culture (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992). Another possible explanation is related to the use of sense-making coping when handling acculturative hassles. This study found that a high level of threat appraisal is associated witha low level of sense-making coping, which in turn is related to a high level of negative affect. This result indicates that threatappraisal may inhibit students from making sense of the acculturative hassles using a positive perspective. The inability tofind positive meaning in the hassles is associated with increased negative affect and decreased positive affect in this study.

4.3. Function of challenge appraisal

Challenge appraisal is not included in the RMMA model, which suggests that students are more likely to appraise accul-turative hassles as a threat as opposed to a challenge. However, hierarchical regression analyses showed that challengeappraisal had a significant effect on predicting positive affect ( ̌ = .183, p < .001). Although acculturative hassles may nothave a direct effect on challenge appraisal, challenge appraisal itself may act as a mediator somewhere else in the rela-tionship between threat appraisal and positive affect. By running another path analysis which included threat appraisal,challenge appraisal, sense-making coping and positive affect, it was found that there were significant pathways from threatappraisal to sense-making coping ( ̌ = −.21, t = 3.99, p < .001), then to challenge appraisal ( ̌ = .39, t = 7.79, p < .001), and thatthe latter two variables have significant positive effects on positive affect (ˇ1 = .15, t = 2.90, p < .01; ˇ2 = .15, t = 3.10, p < .01).This result indicates that sense-making coping may transform a threat appraisal into a challenge appraisal, which is not sur-prising because students are more likely to anticipate a good outcome by focusing on the positive side of their adjustmentproblems.


4.4. Sense-making coping as a protective factor during acculturation

This study found that sense-making coping mediates the effects of threat appraisal of acculturative hassles on affectiveoutcomes, which suggests that sense-making coping acts as a protective factor of affective adaptation during acculturation.Threat appraisal and sense-making coping may be critical pathways to psychological adjustment to acculturative hassles.

The mediating effect of sense-making coping on improving emotional well-being may be explained by the operationalmechanisms of cognitive coping strategy, which operate by influencing the appraisal process in two phases: primaryappraisal of threat and challenge and secondary appraisal of coping. First, cognitive coping strategy may change a threatappraisal to a challenge appraisal through focusing on the possibilities for mastery or growth from a stressful encounter(Folkman & Lazarus, 1990). The meaning-making process may decrease the threatening aspects of an adverse event by mod-ifying the situational meaning of the event (Park & Folkman, 1997). By emphasizing the positive aspects of a situation (e.g.,sense-making coping), a person is able to perceive a stressor as less harmful and shift his/her focus to the potential gainsinherent in the situation.

Second, cognitive coping strategy may facilitate problem-focused coping. Sense-making coping enables a person toappraise a negative situation from a positive perspective thereby creating more positive expectations about the futureor outcome. Positive expectations of success when solving a problem may encourage individuals to continue their problem-solving efforts (Smith, 2006). A high correlation between positive reappraisal and problem-focused coping has been observedin the literature (e.g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1985), suggesting that positive reappraisal may facilitate problem-focused coping,or vice versa (Folkman et al., 1986). Active problem-focused coping is an effective coping strategy that reduces the negativeimpact of various acculturative stressors on the mental health of migrant groups during cross-cultural adaptation (e.g., Noh& Kaspar, 2003).

4.5. Differential effects of meaning-in-life on affective outcomes

The impact of meaning-in-life on affective outcomes differs in the RMMA. Meaning-in-life shows a substantial protectiveeffect on positive affect but exerts no such effect on negative affect. This corroborates the prior conclusion that meaning-in-life relates more strongly to the positive dimensions of well-being (e.g., positive affect and life satisfaction) than to thenegative dimensions (e.g., negative affect and psychological distress) (Zika & Chamberlain, 1992). Thus, it seems that thegeneration of positive affect during acculturation may be related to whether students can live a meaningful life in their hostsociety, whereas negative affect may be associated with how students appraise and cope with acculturative hassles.

The substantial positive effect of meaning-in-life on positive affect may be explained by examining how meaning-in-lifeand its functions have been theorized. Recker and Wong (1988) suggested three components of personal meaning (i.e.,meaning-in-life): cognitive, motivational, and affective components. The motivational component is determined by one’svalue system and offers a sense of purpose and meaning to one’s existence (Reker & Wong, 1988). As a result, the experience ofmeaning-in-life is contingent upon fulfilling four psychological needs: purpose, value, efficacy, and self-worth (Baumeister,1991). When one is making satisfactory progress toward valued goals and feels that life is purposeful, then positive affectwill emerge as a sign of those positive experiences (King, Hicks, Krull, & Gaiso, 2006). A sense of meaningfulness can alsofacilitate a variety of strategies to make oneself feel good rather than bad (Baumeister, 1991). In addition, meaning-in-lifecan provide inner calm and composure as well as enhance the belief that life is unconditionally worth living, even under themost difficult circumstances (Lukas, 1998). This study provides some empirical evidence to support the theorized functionof the affective component of meaning: that positive emotion is an inevitable byproduct of living a meaningful life (Wong,1998).

4.6. Positive effect of meaning-in-life on sense-making coping

This study found that meaning-in-life has a strong positive effect on sense-making coping, suggesting that if studentshave a high sense of the meaningfulness of their lives, they are more likely to appraise their acculturative hassles from a morepositive perspective. This finding provides empirical support for the theory that the way people make sense of an adverse lifeexperience is largely dependent on the most abstract and generalized level of global meaning (Park & Folkman, 1997). Forinternational students, their ability to find positive meaning from the acculturative hassles by sense-making coping greatlydepends on whether they can find, from a variety of sources, that their lives in the host society are meaningful. This conclusioncorroborates Park and Folkman’s (1997) model of global and situational meaning, in which situational meaning of a specificevent and global meaning should be consistent with each other. If these two types of meaning are not consistent, people willexperience distress and attempt to alleviate this distress by changing either situational meaning or global meaning througha meaning-making process.

4.7. Theoretical and practical implications of this study

This study has significant theoretical implications for acculturation research. As argued by Smith (2006), researcherscannot continue to use a psychopathological paradigm that has limited value for understanding and increasing individual’sstrengths and resilience to adversity. The present study is an attempt to apply the resilience framework to acculturation


research by investigating the way in which protective factors work to mitigate the negative consequences of acculturativehassles on affective outcomes during cross-cultural adaptation. The adoption of a resilience framework can contribute to ourunderstanding of how migrants strive and develop the strength to become psychologically healthy in a new environment. Inparticular, this study stresses the important roles of cognitive appraisal and meaning in developing resilience in the contextof acculturation. This study also provides empirical support for Berry’s (2006) theoretical model of acculturative stress, inwhich cognitive appraisal determines the coping strategy and the subsequent stress response to an acculturative stressor.However, this study extends Berry’s model by integrating meaning as a factor in cross-cultural adaptation. Acculturationresearch would benefit from investigating how migrants find positive meaning in the adjustment problems they experiencein a host culture. In addition, research examining meaning-in-life may offer a valuable contribution toward our understandingof the factors that influence mental health, particularly positive dimensions of mental health such as positive affect.

This study also provides some practical implications for resilience-based intervention for international students. Thereare two approaches for resilience-based intervention: to reduce the level of risk factors and to enhance the protective factors(Masten & Reed, 2002). For international students, one method of improving their emotional well-being is to reduce therisk factor of acculturative hassles by broadening their social network, facilitating their academic work, promoting culturallearning to reduce cultural differences, and reducing threat appraisal toward these particular hassles. Another method isto enhance the protective factors that promote resilience by operationalizing these factors in clinical intervention settings.For example, counselors may enhance the sense-making coping skills of international students by cognitively reframingthe acculturative hassles to be viewed from a positive perspective. It is also important to promote life education amonginternational students to help them live a meaningful life in their host society.

4.8. Limitations of this study

The results of this study should be interpreted bearing in mind certain limitations. First, the present study employed across-sectional survey rather than a longitudinal research design to collect data. Therefore, causal relationships among thevariables were undeterminable. Second, non-random sampling was used, which may limit the representativeness of thesample with regard to the total population and the generalizability of these findings. Third, like all mediational models, itis likely that other alternative models would also be consistent with the data we collected (Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998).Finally, two self-developed scales (i.e., the Acculturative Hassles Scale for Chinese Students and the Chinese Making Sense ofAdversity Scale) were administered in this study. The psychometric properties of these two scales should be further testedin future research.

References

Abadi, J. M. (2000). Satisfaction with Oklahoma State University among selected groups of international students. Dissertation Abstracts International: SectionA: Humanities and Social Sciences, 60(8-A), 2821.

Abbott, M. W., Wong, S., Williams, M., Au, M., & Young, W. (1999). Chinese migrants’ mental health and adjustment to life in New Zealand. Australian andNew Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 33, 13–18.

Abramovitch, H., Schreier, A., & Koren, N. (2000). American medical students in Israel: Stress and coping—a follow up study. Medical Education, 34, 890–896.Ang, R. P., & Huan, V. S. (2006). Academic expectation stress inventory: Development, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 66(3), 522–539.Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meaning of life. New York: Guilford Press.Berry, J. W. (2006). Stress perspectives on acculturation. In D. L. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 43–57).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491–511.Bhugra, D. (2004). Migration and mental health. Acta Psychiatric Scandinavica, 109, 243–258.Chamberlain, K., & Zika, S. (1988). Religiosity, life meaning and wellbeing: Some relationships in a sample of women. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, 27(3), 411–420.Chataway, C. J., & Berry, J. W. (1989). Acculturation experiences, appraisal, coping and adaptation: A comparison of Hong Kong Chinese, French and English

students in Canada. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21(4), 295–301.Chen, C. P. (1999). Common stressors among international college students: Research and counseling implication. Journal of College Counseling, 2, 49–65.Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress in cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26(6), 673–697.Currier, J. M, Holland, J. M., & Neimeyer, R. A. (2006). Sense-making, grief, and the experience of violent loss: Toward a mediational model. Death Studies,

30(5), 403–428.Davis, C. G., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Larson, J. (1998). Making sense of loss and benefiting from the experience: Two construals of meaning. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 561–574.Ehrensaft, E., & Tousignant, M. (2006). Immigration and resilience. In D. L. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp.

469–483). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3),

286–299.Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 150–170.Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Coping and emotion. In N. L. Stein, B. Leventhal, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Psychological and biological approaches to emotion

(pp. 311–332). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping and

encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992–1003.Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and other side of coping. American Psychologists, 55(6), 647–654.Frankl, V. E. (1971). Man’s search for meaning. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

51(1), 115–134.


Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulties in foreign culture: An empirical analysis of cultural shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact: Studiesin cross-cultural interactions (pp. 161–198). Oxford: Pergamon.

Gao, M. C. F., & Liu, X. (1998). From student to citizen: A survey of students from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Australia. International Migration,36(1), 27–48.

Hamid, P. N., & Cheng, S. T. (1996). The development and validation of an index of emotional disposition and mood state: The Chinese Affect Scale. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 56, 995–1014.

He, X. S. (2003). Dynamics of social networks: The personal experiences of female immigrants in their first year of resettlement in Hong Kong. UnpublishedPh.D. thesis, The University of Hong Kong.

Henderson, N., & Milstein, M. M. (2003). Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students and educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.Holand, J. M., Currier, J. M., & Neimeyer, R. A. (2006). Meaning reconstruction in the first two years of bereavement: The role of sense-making and benefit-

finding. OMEGA, 53(3), 175–191.Hovey, J. D., & King, C. A. (1996). Acculturative stress, depression, and suicidal ideation among immigrant and second generation Latino adolescents. Journal

of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1183–1192.Jansna, H. K, Igor, K., & Rosanda, P. (2002). Relations among social support, coping, and negative affect in hospitalized and nonhospitalized cancer patients.

Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 20(2), 45–63.Jim, H. S., & Andersen, B. L. (2007). Meaning-in-life mediates the relationship between social and physical functioning and distress in cancer survivors.

British Journal of Health Psychology, 12, 363–381.Kashima, E. S., & Loh, E. (2006). International students’ acculturation: Effects of international, conational, and local ties and need for closure. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 471–485.Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social

psychology (pp. 233–265). New York: Oxford University Press.King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J. L., & Gaiso, A. K. D. (2006). Positive affect and the experiences of meaning-in-life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

90(1), 179–196.Konstam, V., Holmes, W., Wilczenski, F., Baliga, S., Lester, J., & Priest, R. (2003). Meaning in the lives of caregivers of individuals with Parkinson’s disease.

Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 10(1), 17–25.Krause, N. (2007). Evaluating the stress-buffering function of meaning-in-life among older people. Journal of Aging and Health, 19(5), 792–812.Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company Inc.Lee, F. W. L., & Chen, T. K. K. (2005). Service needs of young new arrivals from mainland China to Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and

Development, 15(2), 55–74.Lin, A. (2001). Exploring sources of life meaning among Chinese. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Trinity Western University, Langley, Canada.Lou, V., & Chan, C. (1998). Stress and social adaptation of immigrant adolescents from mainland china: A cultural cooperative model. In J. Chan (Ed.),

Psychological adaptation of children and youth newly arrived in Hong Kong from mainland China: Research, theory and practice (pp. 145–158). Hong Kong:Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare Association Social Service Centre.

Lukas, E. (1998). The meaning of life and the goals in life for chronically ill people. In P. T. P. Wong, & P. S. Fry (Eds.), Handbook of personal meaning: Theory,research, and applications (pp. 307–316). Hillsdale, NJ: Elbaum.

Mak, A. S., Blewilt, K., & Heaven, C. L. (2004). Gender and personality influences in adolescent threat and challenge appraisals and depressive symptoms.Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1483–1496.

Mak, A. S., & Neil, A. L. (2006). How does social contact with locals impact on mental health: Chinese background international students in Australia. In S.Tse, M. E. Hoque, K. Rasanathan, M. Chatterji, R. Wee, S. Garg, & Y. Ratnasabapsthy (Eds.), Prevention, protection and promotion: Proceedings of the secondinternational Asian health and wellbeing conference November 13–14, (pp. 124–132). Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland.

Mallinckrodt, B., & Leong, F. T. (1992). International graduate students, stress, and social support. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 71–78.Manly, B. F. J. (2005). Multivariate statistical methods: A primer. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Martin, J. N., Bradford, L., & Rohrlich, B. (1995). Comparing predeparture expectations and post-sojourn reports: A longitudinal study of U.S. Students abroad.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(1), 87–110.Mascaro, N., & Rosen, D. H. (2005). Existential meaning’s role in the enhancement of hope and prevention of depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality,

73(4), 985–1013.Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238.Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. G. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology. New York: Oxford

University Press.McClure, J. W. (2007). International graduates’ cross-cultural adjustment: Experiences, coping strategies, and suggested programmatic responses. Teaching

in Higher Education, 12(2), 199–217.Michaud, P. A. (2006). Adolescents and risks: Why not change our paradigm? Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 481–483.Mordkowitz, E. R., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1987). Early academic socialization of successful Asian American college students. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory

of Comparative Human Cognition, 9, 85–91.Mykletun, R. J. (1985). Work stress and satisfaction of comprehensive school teachers: An interview study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,

29(2), 57–71.Noh, S., & Kaspar, V. (2003). Perceived discrimination and depression: Moderating effects of coping, acculturation, and ethnic support. American Journal of

Public Health, 93(2), 232–238.O’Connor, M. F. (2002). Making meaning of life events: Theory, evidence, and research directions for an alternative model. OMEGA, 46(1), 51–75.Pan, J. Y., Wong, D. F. K., Chan, K. S., & Chan, C. L. W. (2008). Development and validation of the Chinese Making Sense of Adversity Scale (CMSAS): Using

acculturative stressor as an example. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(5), 479–486.Pan, J. Y., Yue, X. D., & Chan, C. L. W. (2010). Development and validation of the Acculturative Hassles Scale for Chinese Students (AHSCS): An example of

Mainland Chinese university students in Hong Kong. Psychologia, 53(3), 163–178.Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of General Psychology, 1(2), 115–144.Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. P. (1990). The Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM): A multidimensional approach to cognitive appraisal. Stress Medicine, 6, 227–236.Punamaki, R. L. (1986). Stress among Palestinian women under military occupation: Women’s appraisal of stressors, their coping modes, and their mental

health. International Journal of Psychology, 21, 445–462.Reker, G. T., & Wong, P. T. P. (1988). Aging as an individual process: Toward a theory of personal meaning. In J. E. Birren, & V. L. Bengston (Eds.), Emergent

theories of aging (pp. 214–246). New York: Springer.Schmidt, L., Holsteinl, B. E., Christensen, U., & Boivin, J. (2005). Communication and coping as predictors of fertility problem stress: Cohort study of 816

participants who did not achieve a delivery after 12 months of fertility treatment. Human Reproduction, 20(11), 3248–3256.Shek, D. T. (2004). Chinese cultural beliefs about adversity: Its relationship to psychological well-being, school adjustment and problem behaviour in Hong

Kong adolescents with and without economic disadvantage. Childhood, 11(1), 63–80.Shek, D. T. L. (1992). Meaning-in-life and psychological well-being: An empirical study using the Chinese version of the purpose in life questionnaire. The

Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153(2), 185–200.Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (2002). The dynamics of threat and challenge appraisals prior to stressful achievement events. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 83(3), 678–692.Smith, E. J. (2006). The strength-based counseling model. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(1), 13–79.Steger, M. F., & Frazier, P. (2005). Meaning-in-life: One link in the chain from religiousness to well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 574–582.


Thompson, S. C. (1985). Finding positive meaning in a stressful event and coping. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6(4), 279–295.Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R. M., & Leitten, C. L. (1993). Subjective, psychological, and behavioral effects of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 248–260.Wallace, K., & Lahti, E. (2004). Spirituality as a mediator of the relation between perceived stress and life satisfaction. The Gerontologist, 44(1), 567.Ward, C., Leong, C. H., & Kennedy, A. (1998). Self construals, stress, coping and adjustment during cross-cultural transition. In Paper presented at the annual

conference of the Society of Australasian Social Psychologists Christchurch, New Zealand.Wong, D. F. K. (2002). Stage-specific and cultural-specific coping strategies used by mainland Chinese immigrants during resettlement in Hong Kong: A

qualitative analysis. Social Work in Health Care, 35(1/2), 479–499.Wong, L. F. (2007). From atheists to evangelicals: The Christian conversion experiences of mainland Chinese intellectuals in the united states of America.

Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(1-A), 219.Wong, P. T. P. (1998). Meaning-centered counseling. In P. T. P. Wong, & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research

and clinical applications (pp. 395–436). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Wong, P. T. P., Reker, G. T., & Peacock, E. J. (2006). A resource-congruence model of coping and the development of the coping schema inventory. In P. T. P.

Wong, & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 223–286). New York/London: Springer.Wu, P. L., Terry, L. L., Shih, S., & Huang, C. H. (2006). Individual and family resilience: Resources for surviving stress in immigrant families.

http://cc.shu.edu.tw/∼e62/NewSiteData/20061007Conference/uploadpapers/Pei-li-Wu—paper.pdf (accessible on December 20, 2007)Ying, Y. W., & Liese, L. H. (1991). Emotional well-being of Taiwan students in the U.S.: An examination of pre-to post-arrival differential. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 15(3), 345–366.Zheng, X., Sang, D., & Wang, L. (2004). Acculturation and subjective well-being of Chinese students in Australia. Journal of Happiness, 5, 57–72.Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1987). Relations of hassles and personality to subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 155–162.Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1992). On the relation between meaning-in-life and psychological well-being. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 133–145.

Documents

A resilience-based and meaning-oriented model of acculturation: A sample of mainland Chinese postgraduate students in Hong Kong