1. Introduction

In recent years, the international student population pursuing higher education abroad has grown exponentially. In 2020, over 5 million students left their home countries to study overseas (UNESCO, 2021). This trend highlights the need to examine how this unique group perceives and experiences wellbeing. Wellbeing is a complex, multidimensional concept with both objective and subjective facets (Dodge et al., 2012). Hedonic wellbeing involves feelings of pleasure and avoidance of pain, while eudaimonic wellbeing emphasizes self-realization and meaningful pursuits (Antaramian, 2017). Students often view wellbeing as a balance between these hedonic and eudaimonic elements. This balanced perspective highlights the importance of understanding students' subjective perceptions of wellbeing in order to gain critical insights into their ability to thrive. Within subjective wellbeing, cultural factors seem to play a key role, especially for international students encountering diverse worldviews while studying abroad. Understanding culturally-diverse conceptualizations of subjective wellbeing provides critical insights into international students' ability to thrive abroad. This literature review synthesizes key findings on how cultural frameworks shape international students' subjective appraisals of wellbeing, highlighting emerging research on cultural measurement biases and relativist construals. It also evaluates current methodological approaches and proposes future research directions to promote contextualized, student-centered assessments of wellbeing.

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

 

2. Defining Subjective Wellbeing

 

Subjective wellbeing (SWB) refers to an individual's cognitive and affective evaluation of their life (Diener, 2009). Unlike traditional objective indicators of wellbeing (e.g., income, health), SWB emphasizes one's holistic appraisal of perceived happiness and life satisfaction. SWB consists of three hallmarks: the presence of positive affect, the absence of negative affect, and cognitive judgments of satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Hence, SWB remains inextricably tied to individuals' values, personalities, and cultural lenses. For instance, Kuppens et al. (2008) found that one's baseline levels of SWB stem from temperament and personality traits, demonstrating the inherent subjectivity of wellbeing experiences.

 

Among international students, SWB takes on added complexities as adapting to foreign environments likely influences conceptualizations and appraisals of wellbeing (Tochkov et al., 2010). Berry (1997) outlined four acculturation strategies: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization. Tochkov et al. (2010) found students integrating both heritage and host cultures, reflecting Berry's integration strategy, reported higher SWB than those solely oriented to either culture, indicative of separation. This suggests an integration acculturation strategy, rather than separation, related to higher SWB in international students adapting to a new culture.

 

This highlights the synergistic effect of multiculturalism on SWB appraisals. Rather than abandoning their native cultural values, integrating international students are able to blend the most wellbeing-promoting elements of both their heritage and host cultures. For instance, they may uphold family obligations from their more collectivist home culture while also embracing the individual freedoms of the typically more individualist host country (Hofstede, 2001; Kashima and Abu-Rayya, 2014). According to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory, collectivist cultures emphasize family and group loyalty while individualist cultures prioritize personal autonomy. By adopting an integration strategy, international students can experience the SWB benefits of both collectivism and individualism. This cultural blending and openness to multiple cultural identities is indicative of the integration strategy found to relate to higher SWB.

​

3. The Influence of Cultural Backgrounds on Definitions of Wellbeing

 

An emerging construct called Relative Wellbeing Perception (RWP) further elucidates cultural effects on SWB (Jung et al., 2020). RWP refers to individuals’ cultural tendency to assess their wellbeing relative to salient cultural standards. For example, collectivistic, interdependent cultures emphasize social harmony; meanwhile, individualistic cultures stress personal endeavor and affect (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Consequently, students from collectivist cultures often prioritize family obligations and group belonging over individual goals, whereas individualistic students focus more on realizing personal potential and positive self-views (Fulmer et al., 2010). It is very important to be consciously aware of the cultural relativism inherent in SWB judgments. Students likely presume their appraisals reflect universal wellbeing experiences rather than culturally-bound evaluations. However, analyzing these cultural relativist effects helps reveal how having experience with multiple cultures fundamentally impacts how people construct and evaluate their SWB in ways unique to their specific contexts. The emerging focus on RWP signals a shift towards contextualized, culturally-inclusive notions of SWB.

 

A seminal study by Uchida, Norasakkunkit, and Kitayama (2004) examined cultural differences in constructions of happiness among European Americans and Japanese students. While Americans emphasized personal achievement and self-esteem, Japanese students focused on interdependence and social harmony as foundations of wellbeing. This aligns with broader cultural distinctions between individualistic and collectivistic orientations. Individualistic cultures like the United States of America emphasize personal goal attainment, whereas collectivistic cultures like Japan prioritize group cohesion and relational wellbeing (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). 

 

These divergent cultural frameworks likely shape how international students construe wellbeing while studying abroad. Students from collectivistic backgrounds may continue prioritizing social and family ties over personal endeavors, whereas individualistic students may focus more on realizing their personal potential. For example, Rice et al. (2012) found Thai international students’ wellbeing was predicted by relationship harmony, while American students valued academic achievement more. Suh and Koo (2008) discovered social but not emotional wellbeing linked to collectivistic values among Korean students. 

 

While research has revealed broad differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultural frameworks, it is important to recognize that culture intersects with other identity aspects like gender, ethnicity, and class to shape wellbeing experiences. Much of the current literature compares Western and Eastern cultural values at a generalized level, without examining how factors like gender and socioeconomic status interact with cultural influences. For example, the common cultural comparisons between individualism and collectivism fail to capture the distinct gendered experiences within cultures. Confucian patriarchal notions in many Asian countries exert tremendous pressure on women to uphold family honor and fulfill caretaking roles (Zhang and Jung, 2015). Adhering to these traditional gender norms likely impacts Asian female students' wellbeing differently than their male peers, despite sharing the same broad cultural background. Furthermore, socioeconomic status creates additional layers of complexity. International students from upper classes may have more resources to handle acculturative stresses compared to working-class students. Moreover, ethnic minorities within a culture may have vastly different wellbeing perspectives than the majority group owing to issues such as racism, colorism, and xenophobia. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

While broad cultural patterns have been illuminated, there remains a need for more nuanced analysis of how various social identities and power structures interact with cultural values to shape international students' subjective wellbeing. Paying greater attention to intersectionality can reveal a fuller, contextualized understanding of how culture and other identity factors converge to influence diverse students' ability to thrive. This will require looking beyond simplistic cultural binaries to capture lived experiences in their richness and complexity.

 

4. Navigating Cultural Transitions

 

International education inherently involves undergoing major life changes and disruptions as students transition to new cultural environments. Consequently, a growing body of research has examined how studying abroad may impact subjective wellbeing (SWB). Zhang and Goodson (2011) synthesized 38 studies and found mixed evidence on whether studying overseas enhances or diminishes wellbeing. While some studies concluded acculturative stresses decrease SWB, others found traits like openness can improve it. This highlights the complexity of assessing wellbeing amidst cultural transitions.

 

Specifically, international students often experience homesickness and integration challenges that heighten negative moods (Sawir et al., 2008). However, developing social support networks can generate positive effects over time (Du and Wei, 2015). Regarding life satisfaction, international students may be less satisfied than domestic students initially, but their satisfaction often increases with cultural adjustment (Cemalcilar & Falbo, 2008). Therefore, cultural transitions may temporarily reduce SWB, but students are able to adapt, leading to improvements in SWB.

 

Studying abroad involves dynamically integrating heritage and newly-acquired cultural frameworks, which uniquely shapes SWB perceptions. Students selectively adopt a host country’s cultural practices that support their wellbeing whilst retaining supportive values native to their heritage culture (Kashima and Abu-Rayya, 2014). Blending the most wellbeing-promoting aspects of both cultures seems optimal. However, discrepancies across cultural values can also challenge SWB. Therefore, students must actively foster a coherent cultural identity that harmonizes diverse influences (Zhang and Jung, 2015). Overall, intentionally navigating cultural transitions appears critical for maintaining SWB when studying abroad.

 

5. Current Methods in Research on Subjective Wellbeing 

 

Existing SWB measures, developed primarily in Western contexts, fail to capture culturally diverse construals of wellbeing. Scales that are used to measure common wellbeing emphasize personal emotions, life satisfaction, and self-esteem (Diener et al., 1985). Such individualistic framings often poorly resonate with collectivistic students (Datu and Valdez, 2021). Consequently, international students from non-Western backgrounds tend to score lower on standard SWB measures, as the scales emphasize constructs not salient in their native cultures (Jung et al., 2020).

 

Therefore, valid assessment of SWB among diverse students requires developing culturally-sensitive tools that incorporate cultural perspectives. For instance, incorporating items about family ties and group belongingness could better capture interdependent notions of SWB among collectivistic students (Datu and Valdez, 2021). Overall, prevailing SWB measures demonstrate a Western ethnocentric bias that obscures understanding multicultural students' wellbeing. 

 

A multifaceted range of quantitative and qualitative approaches have been utilized to assess subjective wellbeing (SWB) among international students. Quantitative tools like standardized scales, experience sampling methods (ESM), and surveys enable nomothetic comparisons across cultural groups but often lack nuance regarding idiographic experiences (Jung et al., 2020). For instance, while generalized scales provide holistic SWB snapshots, they overlook cultural differences. ESM, a method that captures dynamic data  in natural environment (Conner et al., 2009), burdens student with  intensive real-time surveys (Rice et al., 2012).

​

6. Conclusion

​

This review reveals the complex interplay between culture and subjective wellbeing among international students. Findings demonstrate the need to move beyond simplistic cultural distinctions and consider intersectional and relativist perspectives. Significant research gaps remain regarding in-depth, contextualized inquiry into students' lived experiences. More student-centered assessment using qualitative, longitudinal methods is critical for holistic understanding. 

 

Additionally, findings highlight important practical implications. Students may not perceive the need for wellbeing support if it conflicts with cultural constructs of wellbeing focused on social harmony versus individual affect. Their threshold for seeking help may also be higher if they feel support is only warranted at severe distress levels. Consequently, institutions must improve cultural sensitivity and accessibility of wellbeing services. Outreach should frame support in culturally-inclusive terms focused on overall thriving versus absence of illness. 

 

In summary, this review contributes vital insights about interpreting wellbeing amidst globalized education. However, fully supporting international students requires ongoing research and practice illuminating multidimensional cultural influences. Only through contextualized, student-centered orientations can education systems nurture environments where diverse learners can holistically flourish. This review marks an important step in that collaborative journey across scholars and practitioners worldwide.