To study or not to study abroad? students’ decision in perspective of motivations, barriers and attachment

Introduction

In the globalized world, studying abroad has become a trend that benefits a broad range of stakeholders. Specifically, the main benefits are felt by employers (Doležalová, 2013; Grafton, 2020; Kalousková & Vojtěch, 2008; Van Mol, 2017), universities, and the students themselves (Braskamp et al., 2009; Nyaupane et al., 2011; Simmons, 2014; Yi, 2001). The value of studying abroad can be seen in the numerous government-funded international study programs, like ERASMUS and ERASMUS+ (European Commission, 2020), or CEEPUS and AKTION (MŠMT, 2020), while the multiple benefits of undertaking international study are advertised on various internet websites (e.g. EDUroute s.r.o, 2019; KamPoMaturite, 2017).

International research has focused on the factors influencing students’ decisions to study abroad. Particular interest has been paid to the motivations for studying abroad (Emanoil, 1999; Krzaklewska, 2008; Schroth & McCormack, 2000), the barriers reducing access to opportunities abroad (Gordon et al., 2014; Henthorne et al., 2001), and the interplay between these factors (Sánchez et al., 2006). The above-mentioned studies describe the most common internal and external motivators and inhibitors underpinning decisions to study abroad. Furthermore, they provide insights into how study abroad can be facilitated, namely for universities and governments, and the role of the labor market in this. In the Czech Republic, this question is under-investigated, with only a few studies having focused on this topic (e.g. Kudlová, 2014). More knowledge is required of the motivators and barriers to studying abroad, both in terms of mapping and understanding the specifics of central European contexts, but also in aiding authorities seeking to support students’ intentions.

In recent years, studies have focused on personality and how it affects decisions to study abroad (e.g. Oka et al., 2018; Relyea et al., 2008; Rynearson et al., 2018; Schnusenberg et al., 2012). The results of these could help educators increase the number of students deciding to study abroad by tailoring international study programs to reflect students’ needs (Li et al., 2013). Moreover, conclusions to personality are bringing insight into the background of some motivators and barriers (Oka et al., 2018). Thereafter, acknowledgment of personality in the decision-making about studying abroad can be utilized by the university career and counseling centers in their work with low motivated students. In spite of the above, international research on the role of personality has been rare, and especially in the central European region where is still in its infancy.

Given the limited existing knowledge, the present study explores and compares motivators and barriers in two groups of students: students who decide to study abroad, and those who decide against studying abroad. Furthermore, the study investigates the personality characteristics of the students in these two groups. We focus on attachment theory, as a growing interpretational framework for researching the experiences and behaviors of adolescents (e.g. Moghadam et al., 2016; Prosen & Smrtnik Vitulić, 2018; Seitlová et al., 2015) and adults (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Theory

Method

Procedure

Data was gathered via online procedures, from January to March 2017. The test battery was disseminated officially and unofficially. Respondents were contacted through an official e-mail from FF UP and this e-mail was sent only to students who had been on a study trip abroad. Unofficially, the questionnaires were shared via the Palacký University Facebook group. Participants were given information about the research aims, their right to withdraw at any point, and anonymity. The first page of the survey stated that completion of the questionnaire constituted proof of participants’ informed consent to take part in the study. Further information with a reference to the research was published in the Notices for Students on the Palacký University Department of Psychology website.

Instruments

The motivations and barriers for studying abroad were measured using two open-ended questions: What attracted you to studying abroad, and What discouraged you from studying abroad. There was no limit on the number of reasons they could provide in their answers.

Experiences in Close Relationships – Czech (ECR-CZ; Seitl et al., 2016) is the short version of the Czech version of the ECR (Lečbych & Pospíšilíková, 2012; Brennan et al., 1998), which represents the dimensional approach to the assessment of personality-based attachment in adulthood on the level of dyadic close relations. The scale consist of 31 items measuring attachment anxiety (17 items) and attachment avoidance (14 items). Participants respond to each item on a 7-point Likert scale (from 1 = definitely disagree, to 7 = definitely agree). Internal consistency of the standard ECR and the revised version of the ECR-CZ showed reliability ranging from .86 to .87 (Seitl et al., 2016). When represented orthogonally, the dimensions of attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety form four quadrants that correspond to the four attachment styles. The current analysis uses the procedure recommended in the original ECR-CZ study (Seitl et al., 2016), where the the cut-off score is the mean + 1 standard deviation of the standard score of each dimension according to the norm sample (Střelec et al., 2017). To apply this procedure, we converted the raw scores in the current study into standard scores. Respondents whose standard score on the attachment avoidance dimension exceded T-score 60 were allocated to the avoidant style group. The same procedure was followed for the attachment anxiety dimension and anxious style. If both standard scores exceeded 60, the respondent was allocated to the disorganized style group.

Results

Attachment dimensions and the decision to study abroad

First, the descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis) were computed for the ECR-CZ measure for both groups of students. Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha scores were calculated for the reliability analysis (see Table 3).

Table 3 shows that, in general, the ECR-CZ sub-scales were normally distributed, as indicated by the skewness, and kurtosis, in both samples. Furthermore, internal consistencies were adequate in the two groups, apart from the lower alpha scores for the proximity sub-scale. Although the most recent norm parameters (Střelec et al., 2017) were used to calculate the T-scores for attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety, the T-scores for the eight sub-scales were calculated from the original sample for Czech standardization (Seitl et al., 2016).

Next, Pearson correlations were computed between all of the dimensions measured by the ECR-CZ in both groups of students (see Table 4, and Table 5).

Finally, the differences between students who had been abroad (group 1) and those who had not been abroad (group 2) were examined, using T-scores. A one-way MANOVA was computed with group (group 1 vs. group 2) as a between-subject factor, and attachment avoidance, attachment anxiety as dependent variables. It was concluded that there was no support for the first hypothesis because of non-significant differences between the two groups of students and the dependent variables, F(2,129) = 1.60, p = 0.205; Wilk’s Λ = 0.976, partial η2 = 0.024. Next, two one-way MANOVAs were computed with the same between-subject factor, but this time the dependent variables were the sub-scales of attachment avoidance (reticence, independence, detachment, and wariness), and the sub-scales of attachment anxiety (worries, assurance, rejection, and proximity). In both cases there was no support for the first hypothesis because of non-significant differences between the two groups of students and the sub-scales of attachment avoidance, F(4, 127) = 0.99, p = 0.414; Wilk’s Λ = .970, partial η2 = .030, and the sub-scales of attachment anxiety, F(4, 127) = 1.47, p = 0.216; Wilk’s Λ = .956, partial η2 = .044. Also, all the follow-up ANOVAs showed non-significant relationships.

Attachment styles and the decision to study abroad

Fisher’s exact test was conducted due to an inadequate sample size for the chi-square test of homogeneity (Cochran, 1954). The two multinomial distributions were not equal in the population, p = .023. Observed frequencies and percentages of attachment styles for students who had, and had not been abroad, are presented in Table 6.

The post hoc analysis involved pairwise comparisons using multiple Fisher’s exact tests (2 x 2) with a Bonferroni correction. Statistical significance was accepted at p < .0125. There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of students who had been abroad and had a secure attachment style compared to students who had not been abroad (n = 61, 64.9% versus n = 33, 35.1%).

Discussion

The present study had two aims. First, we set out to explore and identify the motivations and barriers to studying abroad in two groups of students (who had/had not studied abroad). Second, this study aimed at investigating differences in attachment dimensions/styles in the two groups of students.

The findings regarding motivational themes for studying abroad indicate that Czech students are comparable to their European peers (Krzaklewska, 2008). Their academic, linguistic, cultural, and personal motivations were easily identifiable in our study as well. Focusing on students who had been abroad, our findings support Krzaklewska’s (2008) model of motivation for going abroad. For Czech students, the categories representing the two broad dimensions were: experience a different study system and professional growth (career dimension), and experience living in a foreign country and being independent (experimental dimension). Also, occurrence of linguistic motivation was in accordance with previous studies (Krzaklewska, 2008; Maiworn & Teichler, 2002; Murphy-Lejeune, 2002). However, we should stress that the prevalence of the motivational themes and sub-themes found in our investigation, are not the same as the importance of the motivations. This question should be further investigated in future studies.

Looking at the meaning attached to the motivational themes in students who had studied abroad, compared to those who had not, some specificities can be highlighted.

Qualitative differences were found in the academic and personal motivation themes. Although both groups of students mainly associated the academic theme with having experience with a foreign university system, for students who had already participated in an international mobility program, a dominant sub-theme related to professional growth was also present. Similarly, for the personal motivation theme, in addition to new experiences, personal growth (or being independent) was stressed by the group of students who had been abroad. The difference between those who had and had not been abroad could be seen in the prevalence of this sub-theme, but also in the meaning attached to it. For those who had been abroad, it was seen as an opportunity to be independent, while for those who had not studied abroad, it was mainly seen as an opportunity to learn how to be independent. These findings relate to the intrapersonal development (Braskamp et al., 2009) aspect of studying abroad. Similarly, Trudeau (2017) suggests that institutions should encourage students to study abroad, since this could be an important experience contributing to development of a secure attachment style, and being independent is related to this. We will further discuss this issue in the section on attachment styles and the decision to study abroad. Regarding the linguistic and cultural motivations, our findings suggest that these two themes were similarly perceived by both groups of students. Furthermore, these motivations for studying abroad are in accordance with some previous studies (Kudlová, 2014; Schroth & McCormack, 2000).

In investigating the barriers to studying abroad, we employed an inductive approach, and identified five key themes: financial, psychological, social, bureaucratic, and study. It should be noted that there were students, in both groups, who stated that nothing discouraged them from studying abroad (see Table 2). The main qualitative differences in the meaning attached to these themes were found in the psychological and social barriers.

Concerning the psychological barrier, both groups of students were worried about problems relating to the language barrier. However, in the group of students who had not been abroad (compared to the other group), there was a qualitatively different meaning attached to the second sub-theme—fear of the unknown. Students who had not been abroad gave a more detailed description of this sub-theme, related to feelings of helplessness, and fear of failure. Similarly, in the descriptions of the social barrier, students who had not been abroad were more concerned about potential loneliness, and being unable to make social contacts. On a qualitative level, these findings are in accordance with the study by Wang and Mallinckrodt (2006) that found that anxious individuals have difficulties in acculturation to the host culture. Our qualitative analysis suggests that students who have these fears may not decide to go abroad in the first place.

The financial, bureaucratic, and study barriers, were mainly similarly defined by both groups of students, with some more richer descriptions regarding the first two, in the group of students who have been abroad. Regarding the scholarship provided by FF UP, our results show that some students who had studied abroad thought the scholarship insufficient. The difference between the actual cost of living and the scholarship was perceived as a financial barrier. On a broader level, this is related to the motivation to study abroad. As previous studies (Krzaklewska, 2008; MØrch, 2003) have concluded, the motivation for studying abroad can be understood as a combination of a fun experience and an experience that would enable students to compete on the labor market in future. This means that there could be students who are highly academically motivated (to succeed in the labor market), but who decide not to study abroad, since the financial barrier would prevent them from experiencing the social side.

The bureaucratic and study barriers were associated with the extensive pre-trip administrative process and the non-recognition of credits on returning to the home university. These findings could be useful to the faculty administration when considering key aspects that should be improved. Providing students with better administrative support might increase the percentage participating in international mobility programs.

Our findings regarding the identified motivations and barriers could prove useful to other researchers as well. As this is the one of the first studies investigating this issue in the Czech Republic, it raises questions that should be answered in future studies. First, the findings should be replicated using a larger and more representative sample. One main limitation in our investigation was the predominance of women in the sample. Furthermore, some of the motivation themes identified may overlap. For example, the bureaucratic and study barriers identified in our study might constitute a higher administrative category. Moreover, loneliness could be defined as both a social and a psychological phenomenon. In this regard, Krzaklewska (2008) points out that studying in a different academic system can be both academically and culturally motivating. Nonetheless, the results of this investigation could be used as guidelines for future factor-analytic studies concerning development of instrument(s) for measuring motivations and barriers to studying abroad.

The results concerning the differences in the attachment dimensions in the two groups of students did not confirm our expectations, neither on the dimensions as a whole nor on the individual sub-scales. Respondents in both groups reported similar attachment personality features, and this conclusion also flows from the results on the motivational themes and barriers that were identified as being the same, on a general level, in both groups. However, the results concerning differences in attachment styles between the two groups of students supported our second hypothesis: that students who had been abroad had a higher proportion of the secure attachment style than those who had not. The findings are in line with the theoretical expectations based on the concept of attachment functions (Ainsworth et al., 1978). As Adamovová and Halama (2009) note, difficulty establishing a safe haven, and especially a secure base, result in the persistent activation of attachment and fear systems. Activation of those systems discourages individuals from studying abroad because it prevents them from benefiting from exploration system in physical as well as social space. The consequences are also apparent from the analysis of the sub-themes of motivations and barriers to studying abroad. Students in Group 2 frequently referred to feelings typical of activated attachment and fear systems. However, the design of the current study did not enable us to consider data about feelings and experiencing of students in group 1 in relation to their attachment individual differences during their stay abroad. This limitation means we were not able to analyze exploration system difficulties beyond making the decision to study abroad. This should be considered in future research. Furthermore, our results on the attachment styles should be approached with caution due to the contradictory findings in the attachment dimensions. Even though Fisher’s exact test led to some interesting and meaningful conclusions about styles (Prosen & Smrtnik Vitulić, 2018) that fit the conclusions about motivation and barriers to study abroad, it should be considered only in the meaning of higher clinical severity of attachment values in group 2. The results show that students who had not been abroad crossed borders of one standard deviation in attachment dimensions more frequently than students who had been abroad. The conclusions have particular clinical relevance for a staff of academic career centers, who consider individual student cases. Statistical significance on attachment dimensions should be tested again on a larger sample because higher means of attachment dimensions in group 2, as well as some trends in ANOVAs, seem to be promising in that direction.

Our findings should be useful for faculty administrations, in terms of promoting the study abroad programs as a possibility for personal development, and more importantly, provide the possibility of attachment related short/long-term counseling in the university career center, prior to taking this step.

Finally, a well-known phenomenon in the attachment literature is the dependency paradox, that is, the acceptance of close relationship partner’s in the time of the need is in fact related to being less dependent, and more autonomous in functioning and self-sufficiency (Feeney, 2007). As the results on the barriers show, there was a bureaucratic barrier related to low satisfaction with communication with study abroad coordinators, and indeed the whole process. This is certainly a key aspect that should be improved, and one that relates to attachment theory. Providing students with a responsive attachment figure should enable them to be more confident, autonomous, and engage in exploration more effectively (Feeney, 2007), and help them take the decision to study abroad.

Conclusion

The present study has identified key themes regarding motivations and barriers to studying abroad in a sample of Czech students, who had, and had not studied abroad. The findings are compared with previous international studies that focused on similar issues. More importantly, we conducted a qualitative comparison of the motivational and barrier themes identified in the two groups of students. Furthermore, the second goal of this study was to explore differences in attachment between the two groups of students. We have shown that students who had been abroad had a higher proportion of the secure attachment style than the other group. The qualitative and quantitative findings provide ideas for faculty administrations seeking to increase the number of students participating in international mobility programs.