This study explored differences in coping styles and perceived independence between students who studied abroad versus those who took summer classes. Participants completed questionnaires measuring personality, coping, affect, mood awareness, and emotional intelligence before and after their programs. Results showed that study abroad students more frequently used positive coping strategies like reframing situations, while summer class students more often used substances to cope. Study abroad students also engaged in more religious coping. Summer class students scored higher on mood repair. The findings suggest students choose programs matching their preferred coping styles.

1. PerceivedIndependenceBeforeandAfteraStudyAbroad
Chelsea Burkholder, Southern Utah University
Introduction
The concept of study abroad programs dates back as far as higher education
itself. The first institutionally sponsored trips can be traced to the late-
nineteenth-century, where professors from eastern colleges embarked on
tours of Europe with groups of young women seeking cultural education in
their museums and cathedrals (Bowman, 1987). The modern, organized, study
abroad programs we are familiar with today began after World War I (History,
2012). Within the rich history of study abroad certain groups have been vastly
underrepresented in rates of participation – including males, ethnic
minorities, and individuals with disabilities (Dessoff, 2006). Several individual
characteristics play a role in a student’s decision to engage in a study
abroad program, such as positive attitude towards literacy, openness to
diversity and challenge, and the recognition of the importance of
understanding other cultures (Salisbury, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2010). This
study aimed to explore additional individual characteristics that may have an
effect on a student’s decision to study abroad, as well as transformational
experiences in perceived independence reported upon return from their
sojourn. Due to circumstances out of the researcher’s control, results can
only be reported on the former.
Methods
Participants: A total of 59 individuals participated in this study, but 19 sets of
incomplete data were removed from the analysis. The removal process left a
total of 40 individuals – 27 female, 11 male, and 2 unreported. Twenty-seven
participants were in the study abroad group, and 11 were in the summer class
group. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 55, with a mean age of 25, a
standard deviation of 9, and a modal age of 20.
Participants were recruited in two separate ways. Those in the Study Abroad
group were recruited through emails sent by the Global Engagement Center on
campus, while students in summer classes were recruited through their
respective professors who agreed to participate in the project. Pre-data was
collected before departure in the study abroad group, and post-data upon their
return. Pre-data in the summer student group was collected in the first week
of classes, and post-data in the last week. All participants were recruited
from Southern Utah University. No incentives were given for participation in this
research.
Materials/Procedures: All materials and instructions were delivered using
Qualtrics, a popular online research tool. After reading a welcome and
introduction to the study, participants were asked to create a unique code
combining their birth month, first and last letters of their mother’s maiden
name, and year of birth. This code would be used to match pre- and post- data
sets. Participants were asked to complete seven measures, each with a unique
set of instructions, followed by relevant demographic questions. These
measures were the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (Cattell, Eber, &
Tatsuoka, 1970), the Self-Reliance Counter-Dependence ( = .29, Quick, Joplin,
Nelson, & Quick, 1992) and Overdependence scales ( = .60, Quick et al., 1992),
the COPE Inventory ( between .47 and .98 for each subscale, Carver, Scheier,
& Weintraub 1989), the Affect Intensity Measure ( between .73 and .94 for each
subscale, Larsen & Diener, 1987), the Mood Awareness Scale ( between .76 and
.87 for each subscale, Swinkels & Giuliano, 1995), and the Trait Meta-Mood Scale
( between .69 and .84 for each subscale, Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey &
Palfai, 1994). Demographic questions included age, sex, ethnicity, major, year in
school, and whether the individual had traveled abroad in the past. Pre- and
post-questionnaires were identical in every way, with exception to the
welcome page.
Results
In tune with past research, a majority of study abroad participants were
female (67.5%) and Caucasian (80%). It was hypothesized that summer class
and study abroad groups would differ across the seven scales, which was
tested by conducting independent-samples t-tests using the experimental
condition (study abroad or summer class) as the grouping variable, and scores
on each of the seven measures as the dependent variable. Significant
differences were found on three factors of the COPE and the mood repair
component of the TMMS. The positive reinterpretation and growth coping style
resulted in t (37) = 4.21, p = .000, d = 1.38, with study abroad students utilizing
this style more often. Religious coping was also more prominent in the study
abroad group, resulting in t (36) = 2.41, p = .021, d = .80. Students in summer
classes used substances to cope more often than study abroad students, as
shown by t (11) = -2.84, p = .017, d = -1.71. The students in summer classes
also scored significantly higher on the mood repair component of the TMMS,
resulting in t (34) = -2.50, p = .017, d = -.86.
Discussion
The results seem to indicate that study abroad and summer class students
utilize different methods of coping; study abroad students more frequently
using positive reinterpretation and growth, along with religious coping, while
students in summer classes more frequently use substances in order to cope.
This is to say that study abroad students often reframe the stressor in
positive terms and use faith for support (Litman, 2006). Students in summer
classes, on the other hand, more often used alcohol or drugs to reduce
distress (Litman, 2006). One possible explanation comes from Ryan and
Twibell (2000), who state that studying abroad can be a stressful experience,
and that coping skills are necessary for success. Individuals who rely on
substances to cope with stress may be less likely to study abroad for
several reasons, including: uncertainty about where to obtain substance
overseas, and hesitancy about using substances near their professors. The
coping styles found in study abroad students are easily used both at home and
overseas. Interestingly, students in summer classes scored higher in mood
repair, indicating that these individuals attempt to maintain pleasant moods or
repair unpleasant ones (Salovey et al., 1995). There is no known theoretical
explanation for this finding. Future research should further examine the
differences in coping styles among students who choose to study abroad and
those who do not, as well as explore possible differences in components of
the TMMS.
References
Bowman, J. E. (1987). Educating American undergraduates abroad: The development of study abroad programs by
American colleges and universities. Occasional Papers on International Educational Exchange, 24.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16 PF):
In clinical, educational, industrial, and research psychology, for use with all forms of the test. Institute for
Personality and Ability Testing.
Dessoff, A. (2006). Who's not going abroad? International Educator, 15(2), 20.
History and purposes of study abroad. (2012). ASHE Higher Education Report, 38(4), 13-26. doi:10.1002/aehe.20004
Larsen, R. J. & Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: A review, Journal of
Research in Personality, 21, 1-39.
Litman, J. A. (2006). The COPE inventory: Dimensionality and relationships with approach-and avoidance-motives
and positive and negative traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(2), 273-284.
Quick, J. C., Joplin, J. R., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. D. (1992). Behavioral responses to anxiety: Self-reliance,
counterdependence, and overdependence. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 5(1), 41-54.
Ryan, M. E., & Twibell, R. S. (2000). Concerns, values, stress, coping, health and educational outcomes of college
students who studied abroad. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(4), 409-435.
Salisbury, M., Paulsen, M., & Pascarella, E. (2010). To see the world or stay at home: Applying an integrated student
choice model to explore the gender gap in the intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 51(7), 615-
640. doi:10.1007/s11162-010-9171-6
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair:
Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Emotion, Disclosure, and Health, 125-154.
Swinkels, A. & Giuliano, T. A. (1995). The measurement and conceptualization of mood awareness: Monitoring and
labeling one's mood states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(9), 934-949.