Exploring Perceived Risk and Risk Reduction Strategies in the Pursuit ...

662980 research-article2016

JSIXXX10.1177/1028315316662980Journal of Studies in International EducationLam et al.

Article

Exploring Perceived Risk and Risk Reduction Strategies in the Pursuit of Higher Education Abroad: A Case of International Students in Malaysia

Journal of Studies in International Education 1–22 © 2016 European Association for International Education Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1028315316662980 jsi.sagepub.com

Jason M. S. Lam1, David Yoon Kin Tong1, and Ahmad Azmi M. Ariffin2

Abstract While past studies have merely focused on perceived risks that influence how students select the destination of international education best suited to their needs, research on perceived risk regarding post-purchase behavior remains limited. This study attempts to extend and redefine the perceived risk paradigm by uncovering the underlying elements of perceived risk among international students who are studying in Malaysian universities. Furthermore, it seeks to explore how demographic factors and risk reduction strategies can be applied to the perception of risk. Results for a sample group of 515 international students reveal that there are seven dimensions of perceived risk. Of all demographic factors tested, only place of residence (while studying in Malaysia) was found to influence perceived risk. Seeking information from the relevant authorities, proper savings plans, well organized study schedules, and advice from family members or peers are considered important to reduce students’ perceptions of risk. This implies that perceived risk theory could also be applied to the higher education context in the post-purchase behavior.

1Multimedia 2Universiti

University, Malacca, Malaysia Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia

Corresponding Author: Jason M. S. Lam, Faculty of Business, Multimedia University, Old Ayer Keroh Road, Bukit Beruang County, Historic Malacca City, Malacca, West Malaysia. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com by guest on August 19, 2016

2

Journal of Studies in International Education

Keywords perceived risk, Malaysia, higher education, international students, post-purchase behavior

Perceived Risk The study of perceived risk has been widely investigated in many fields. In the literature on higher education, the concept of risk perception has garnered more interest of late; however, research thus far has covered a limited scope. According to Maringe and Carter (2007), deciding on where to study overseas is an action that involves high risk. Besides comprehending the motivational aspects for studying in a host country, which is commonly discussed in higher education–related literature (e.g., Bhati, Lee, & Kairon, 2014; Lam, Ariffin, & Ahmad, 2011; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002), Maringe and Carter argued that it is important to study the negative perceptions such as fears and anxieties among international students. A study conducted by Basha, Sweeney, and Soutar (2015) explored the effects of country-of-origin and higher education mode of delivery toward students’ risk perceptions when selecting an international university. However, both examples were conducted merely from a qualitative standpoint, while the holistic conceptualization of perceived risk still remains a gray area (Mun, 2014).

Research Issues and Objectives The study of perceived risk in post-purchasing behavior continues to be neglected despite its clear effect on future behavioral intentions (Sweeney, Soutar, & Mazzarol, 2008). This issue is supported by the statement: “Despite its [perceived risk] central role in consumer decision-making, the impact of risk perceptions on relationship functioning is still unclear” (Paulssen, Roulet, & Wilke, 2014, p. 965). In tourism-related literature, researchers have exhibited that there are elements of perceived risk at four stages in travel consumption: pre-choice of destination, pre-departure, on-travel, and after-travel (Jonas & Mansfeld, 2015). If risk conceptualization is perceived to be important in post-purchase behavior, does perceived risk theory therefore apply within the higher education context? Although critics such as Kim, Qu, and Kim (2009) posited that evaluation of the perceived risk at the post-purchase stage is redundant as consumers have already assessed the “consequences” of purchasing decisions, the nature of higher education service is different. Unlike other service sectors, the education process spans a relatively long-term basis of at least 3 years. In other words, consumers (students) are likely to perceive new risks that may affect their overall study experience and future behavioral intention during their stay in the host country. For instance, a first-year student who has an unsatisfactory academic experience will have a different perception of risk related to the university. Thus, he/she may change his/her academic program or switch to another university due to the negative impression. Hence, as Maringe and Carter (2007, p. 472) suggested, perceived risk study should be extended since


3

Lam et al.

“perceptions of risks and anxieties associated with making an overseas study decision and for those already studying here, their post-purchase experience” is important as it influences the individual’s seeming prospect that he/she would engage in a specific behavior and future perception. In spite of the indisputable significance of risk perception in students’ choice of pursuing education abroad, till date, there are no official processes in the higher education–related research deliberating the perceived risk following pre-buying behavior. Although there is existing research on perceived risk, much of the literature is derived from qualitative studies (e.g., Basha et al., 2015, Maringe & Carter, 2007). Even fewer studies have been conducted within the Malaysian context (e.g., Alavi & Mansor, 2011; Lam, Tong, & Ariffin, 2015; Naeeni et al., 2015; Talebloo & Basri, 2015). In this article, three research objectives will be derived: (a) exploring the underlying causes of perceived risk among international students; (b) investigating the influences of demographic factors toward perceived risk; and (c) enquiring about the co-relation between perceived risk and risk reduction strategies.

Literature Review Perceived Risk Theory Bauer (1960) was the first to present the phrase “perceived risk.” He contended that risk is part of any buying behavior where any act by a customer would lead to outcomes that he/she would not be able to foresee with any measure of conviction. In other words, perceived risk not only affects buying behavior but it is also the “during consumption” experience that influences the overall perceived value (Sweeney et al., 2008). According to Mitchell (1999), perceived risk is a subjectively determined anticipation of a damage or loss. As per S. Cunningham (1967, p. 37), perceived risk can be defined on the basis of two closely related constituents: “ . . . the amount that would be lost (e.g., that which is at stake) if the consequences of an act were not favourable, and the individual’s subjective feeling of certainty that the consequences will be unfavourable . . . ” The perceived risk theory offers insights for understanding consumer behavior processes (L. F. Cunningham, Gerlach, Harper, & Young, 2005; Moutinho, 1987; Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992). The theory indicates that risk has several dimensions, encompassing physical, financial, performance, psychological, social, and scheduling loss (Jacoby & Kaplan, 1972; Roselius, 1971). However, this study believes that risk perception is not equally influential among international students. Li and Kaye (1998) posited that the study of international students is not in a standardized group. The underlying causes for their perceived risk are too varied, and therefore one should study the various concerns observed by students of different factions based on several categories (e.g., age, nationality, gender, study areas, and the educational qualification they are looking for). Exploring the risk perceptions from different demographic profiles will assist policy makers to tap into the students’ psyche, addressing their concerns more specifically and from different angles (Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992).


4


Perceived Risk in Higher Education Based on the review by Solomon, Russell-Bennett, and Previte (2013) on the perception of risk in higher education studies, students’ enrollment in a higher education institution is a high involvement choice. This notion is explained by the fact that students usually purchase higher education services once in a lifetime, consume the service over a relatively long period of time (generally three to four years),and believe a degree promises future success (Moogan, 2011). The intangible nature of higher education service makes students feel wary when deciding on which country to study abroad as it is difficult for them to pre-evaluate the institution’s programs and overall study experience (Newman & Jahdi, 2009). More so, when choosing a host country or institution, students tend to be less confident in making decisions because the exact rewards of a university degree are unidentifiable early on (Ivy, 2001; Moogan, 2011). This study believes that risk perceptions are extended beyond the pre-decision, whereby the risk still exists within the minds of international students even when they have entered the host country and started their education. Maringe and Carter (2007) identified five major elements of risk as follows: (a) Financial risk: This is the most crucial and can be described with regard to massive direct outlay and the worry of being incapable of bearing the required costs. (b) Opportunity costs: This was voiced primarily by mature post-graduates who had quit senior and managerial posts for furthering their education overseas. Some of the issues which arose were lost opportunities of job promotions and pension benefits, depletion of savings because of inflationary trends, and property depreciation. This risk is related to the “time or convenience risk” in consumer behavior–related studies (Mitchell, 1999). The students worry about the loss of time (e.g., not being able to fulfill their personal advancement back in their home country and/or the time it would take to get used to their new environment) which, if avoided, could be spent doing other more important things. (c) Family or socio-cultural risk: Some mature students worry about the wellbeing of their dependants in their absence (e.g., low quality of schools for their children back in their home country, and the potential decline in family cultural heritage). Besides, the distance between the international students and their families are often unbearable to the extent where the student can feel isolated in the host country. This category of risk in higher education is related to “social risk” in the perceived risk theory. (d) Legal administrative risk: Students are worried about the lack of established procedures and frequent changes in immigration laws. These irregularities are sometimes openly restrictive and not consistent throughout the duration of their stay. This risk is a new aspect in the perceived risk model and is categorized under the “security risk” module (Harrison-Walker, 2002). (e) Academic or course risk: It covers the sensed worry of failure and the subsequent devaluing of the value of educational experience. In addition, there is the


5

Lam et al.

possibility of having to take up part-time employment so as to meet the tuition and living expenditures. This academic risk is related to “performance risk” mentioned in earlier paragraphs. Nevertheless, Maringe and Carter (2007) do not explore the psychological and physical risks involved. In the present study, “psychological risk,” a term derived from extant consumer behavior literature, is represented by the feeling of discomfort throughout the duration of the students’ stay in Malaysia. While in the host country, people encounter difficulties with accommodation, transportation, and events (Hsu & Lin, 2014; Kim et al., 2009). The time and anxiety spent trying to settle these matters are possible risk factors which may affect their academic experience. Another negative element is when the students have psychological discomfort (Sönmez & Graefe, 1998) due to their inability to adapt to the local environment (Adam, 2015; Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992). Last, international students may be exposed to physical hazards which may affect them directly or indirectly. Moreover, terrorist attacks or even local crime cases may cause students to be wary of a certain country (Adam, 2015; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998). From the academic perspective, students may worry about the physical strain due to study-related stress, especially during examination periods. Possible strains include sleep deprivation, stress/mental disorders or weight loss, and severe health threats— all of which are categorized as “physical risk.”

Risk Reduction Strategies Previous studies indicate that consumers, in general, have certain risk tolerance levels. When a consumer exceeds the tolerance level, he or she is likely to forgo the purchase of the desired brand. Alternatively, they may seek more information to buffer the impact of risk perception. Risk reduction or risk handling is a process where customers attempt to lower the hesitation or displeasure of a disappointing purchase choice (Mitchell, Davies, Moutinho, & Vassos, 1999). Risk reduction strategies can reduce the consequences of an unsatisfactory academic experience such as negative word-ofmouth, not returning to Malaysia, and not recommending the university to other people. In most cases, the consumer will attempt to lower the risk by raising the certainty or decreasing the negative impacts (Kim et al., 2009). Mitchell and Greatorex (1993) introduced generic risk reducing strategies (RRS) to fit in with most of the service industries. These strategies cover aspects such as consumer guides; advertising materials; guarantees; sales promotions; free trials; discounts; premiums; past experience; price comparison; celebrity endorsement; word-of-mouth; advice from friends, family members, or experts; and brand imaging. In tourism-related literature, Adam (2015) posited that tourists may seek advice from consulates, embassies, or local security and law enforcement agencies to avoid any unwanted risk in the host country. Furthermore, tourists are advised not to travel alone if they are unfamiliar with a specific destination. According to Mitchell et al.


6


(1999), to compensate for potential financial loss, the purchase of insurance will provide a measure of assurance. For consumers in the higher education sector, obtaining clear information on the host country and/or university is crucial. Details can be sourced via online consumer guides, education handbooks, or asking those who have prior experience in the host country (Telbis, Helgeson, & Kingsbury, 2014). Moreover, tutoring, counseling sessions, and social workshops should be organized by the university to prepare students for potential problems, enhance their understanding on host environment, and increase interaction with local students to reduce related risks (Wu, Garza, & Guzman, 2015). For added assurance, students can purchase insurance (e.g., travel insurance, life insurance) to reduce the burden of negative experiences.

Research Method Measurement Items The majority of educational studies primarily emphasize on investigating and comprehending students’ natural behavior by utilizing two research models: positivism and antipositivism (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). Researchers believing in the former would organize the knowledge creation through the quantitative method, whereas antipositivism indicates a qualitative approach (Poni, 2014). As the study intends to scrutinize the risk aspects in the post-buying behavior where in there is an absence of reliable psychometric properties for gauging it, a mixed method approach was chosen. Gorard and Taylor (2004, p. 10) recommended the blend of quantitative and qualitative methods in studies pertaining to the social sciences and education, and tagged it “third path.” According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p. 14), this third approach is a research model in education that should be explored for new philosophical suppositions (Greene, 2008). The qualitative approach would be applied at the preliminary stage, followed by quantitative. A basic qualitative research was carried out in this study to find out more about a specific phenomenon of interest in a comprehensive manner and in context, utilizing the respondents’ verbatim by means of semi-structured one-to-one interviews and without any prior analytical presumptions. In the one-to-one interviews, a preliminary collection of categories was produced from associated measures as well as broad literature searches related to higher education (e.g., Maringe & Carter, 2007), besides tourism and consumer behavior studies (e.g., Adam, 2015; Mitchell & Greatorex, 1993). In-depth interviews were conducted to generate perceived risk items which were precise within the Malaysian setting. Interviews were held with 30 international students (15 each from a public and private university). The perceived risk items which were mentioned by more than six respondents (equivalent to 20%) were retained for further analysis. From the two sources, a total of 28 items were isolated after eliminating identical and equivalent themes. These remaining items were revised for legitimacy of the content by three academic authorities with research pursuits in higher education studies. Items rated as not representative by at least two of the reviewers was removed from the scale. This two-step deductive process ultimately resulted in a set of 23 items (Table 1). All items were gauged on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com by guest on August 19, 2016

7


Legal administrative (security) risk

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Academic (performance) risk

1 2 3

Opportunity costs (time) risk

Psychological risk

Physical risk

Social risk

Financial risk

Risk

No.

Items I worry about failing an exam which reduces my CGPA I worry about failing an exam that may affect my scholarship I worry about my academic performance which may affect my whole education experience I worry about frequent changes of international students’ visa laws I worry about restrictive regulations which are inconsistent and changeable I worry that I may not be aware of the local rules and regulations I worry about inadequate funds to finance my education in coming semesters I worry about getting value for money spent on my education I worry that I need to work part-time to support my educational goals I worry about the rising cost of living in Malaysia I worry about being lonely here I worry about my inability to care for my children at home I worry that my children may be influenced by drugs and anti-social behavior, while I am not at home I worry about getting sick without access to local medical attention I worry about getting physically hurt (crime) I worry about the physical side-effects due to academic tension (i.e., insomnia) I worry about discrimination (i.e., race, religion) while studying in Malaysia I worry about feeling uncomfortable while staying in Malaysia I worry about the unnecessary tension while studying in Malaysia I worry that I may need more time to adjust to the local environment I worry that I may miss a good job opportunity at home while studying here I worry that I may miss a good job promotion at home while studying here I worry that I may need to give up some of my interests while studying here

Table 1. Perceived Risk Measurement Items.

Panel expert judges Panel expert judges In-depth interviews In-depth interviews Panel expert judges In-depth interviews In-depth interviews Maringe and Carter (2007) Maringe and Carter (2007) In-depth interviews

Maringe and Carter (2007) Maringe and Carter (2007) In-depth interviews In-depth interviews In-depth interviews Maringe and Carter (2007) In-depth interviews Maringe and Carter (2007) Maringe and Carter (2007) Maringe and Carter (2007)

Maringe and Carter (2007) In-depth interviews In-depth interviews

Source(s)

8


Table 2. Risk Reduction Strategies. No.

Items

1 2

Strategic time management for studies A proper study revision plan (i.e., attempting past-year questions) Update myself periodically via advertising material about Malaysia/X university Keep up-to-date via international students’ handbook Consult police, consulate, or local authorities in times of doubt To organize a good savings plan to ensure adequate funding Avoid unnecessary expenditure Getting a part-time job to earn extra money Getting involved in university clubs/ associations Staying connected to family and friends at home via social networks (i.e., WhatsApp, WeChat, Facebook, etc.) Obtaining an insurance policy

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Avoid going to unknown places alone Seeking advice from family or friends when facing a problem Relying on meditation or spiritual retreats to calm the mind Giving oneself an opportunity to travel and relax

Source(s) In-depth interviews In-depth interviews Mitchell and Greatorex (1993) Mitchell and Greatorex (1993) Adam (2015) In-depth interviews In-depth interviews In-depth interviews Telbis, Helgeson, and Kingsbury (2014) Panel expert judges Mitchell, Davies, Moutinho, and Vassos (1999) Adam (2015) Mitchell and Greatorex (1993) In-depth interviews In-depth interviews

The quantitative approach would then be applied to gauge the perceived risk factors in as much illustrative and legitimate manner as possible in the large-scale survey, so that the outcomes can be applied to address the research question with the statistical fact as indicated in the positivism paradigm (Creswell, 2014; Gorard & Taylor, 2004). However, the present study does not intend to ascertain the impact perceived risk has on any higher order construct. Some of the risk reduction strategies in this study are adapted from the study of Mitchell and Greatorex (1993), considering the items were designed for service industries. They were, therefore, adaptable to the current research objectives which examine items that are pertinent to the post-purchasing stage of higher education experiences. Table 2 shows the items deployed as risk reduction strategies.


9

Lam et al.

Sampling and Data Collection Data were collected through an extensive questionnaire survey. The respondents of this study encompassed international students from both public and private universities in Malaysia. There are today 20 public universities and more than 400 private institutions in Malaysia (e.g., private universities, foreign branch campuses, and colleges). To make a concrete comparison with public universities, only private institutions with the status of “university” were chosen for this study. The study employed quota sampling to select the samples. As the number of international students at all 20 public universities across different states in Malaysia varied substantially, it was crucial to develop a sampling framework which was similar in size to reduce incongruity in the distribution and accurately measure the results (Ariffin, 2006). Hence, only universities with a quota of 1,000 international students were chosen as this generated approximately 88.29% of the total international student enrollment in public universities (IPTA) and 79.37% for private universities (IPTS; Ministry of Higher Education, 2013). After a thorough calculation, seven public and nine private universities were selected based on the quota sampling technique. Furthermore, most of the respondents chosen for this study were first-year or second-year students, considering the final-year students would be unlikely to give relevant input on their risk perceptions of current academic experience as they were about to leave campus life. The targeted sample size was 1,000 respondents. Data were collected at university campuses, hostels, and public areas from January 2014 to September 2014. Prior to that, the questionnaire was pre-assessed to check the suitability of the research instruments and ensure clearness of purpose. Ten respondents (five each from private and public university) were engaged in this pre-assessment. Several items in the questionnaire were improved based on the input from the respondents.

Data Analysis Of the 1,000 questionnaires that were distributed, 689 were returned, and 515 copies were determined to be usable for subsequent analysis. Furthermore, 174 questionnaires were discarded due to the lack of important information and “unusual” response patterns, where the authors were in doubt of the honesty of the respondents’ feedback. Four main statistical tools were employed in the analysis, namely mean score analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), independent-sample t test, and analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Research Findings Profile of the Sample Table 3 summarizes the respondents’ demographic profiles. As the nationalities of the international students are different, it was impossible to investigate the relationship for each country; hence, this study categorizes the country according to geographical region.


10


Table 3. Profile of the Respondents. Demographic characteristics Gender 1. Male 2. Female Age 1. 18 years and below 2. 19-25 years 3. 26-32 years 4. 33-39 years 5. 40 years and above Marital status 1. Single 2. Married 3. Others Geographic region 1. Africa 2. Asia 3. Europe 4. Middle East 5. America Current education level pursued 1. Bachelors degree 2. Masters 3. Doctorate/PhD Current year of study 1. First year 2. Second year 3. Third year 4. Fourth year 5. Above fourth year Place of residence 1. On-campus 2. Off-campus Main source of funding 1. Self-funded 2. Scholarship

Frequency (n)

Percentage (%)

346 169

67.20 32.80

2 262 134 79 38

0.40 50.90 26.00 15.30 7.40

386 122 7

75.00 23.70 1.40

196 154 21 142 2

38.06 29.90 4.08 27.57 0.39

274 107 134

53.20 20.80 26.00

29 295 137 40 14

5.60 57.30 26.60 7.80 2.70

174 340

33.80 66.00

352 163

68.30 31.70

Note. Sample size (N): 515 respondents.

Reliability Test Coefficient alpha gauges the internal consistency reliability among a set of items pooled to create a single scale (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1996). This statistic mirrors the scale’s homogeneousness. Usually, reliability coefficients of 0.70 or higher


11

Lam et al.

are termed as good. However, a tolerant cut-off of 0.60 is customary in exploratory studies (Cronbach & Shavelson, 2004), as shown in the present preliminary study. For the seven factors, the alpha coefficients ranged from 0.626 to 0.995 (see Table 4). These results are deemed trustworthy in the investigative nature of the study.

Dimensions of Perceived Risk Varimax rotation was used for factor analysis. This method was tested on all 23 items of perceived risk to determine the underlying factors of perceived risk within the higher education context and was branded as Higher Education–Perceived Risk (HEPR). Seven factors with eigenvalue of greater than 1 were mined from the factor analysis. Due to low factor loadings (less than 0.50) and cross-loadings between the dimensions, three out of 23 items were excluded from the final model. All seven factors which materialized from the 19 items elucidated 81.80% of the total variance. The result of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling suitability was 0.856. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicated that the items for the measurement of perceived risk were apt for the factor analysis. All subsequent factor loadings for the items were logged between 0.714 and 0.958 as illustrated in Table 4. The first factor was tagged “security risk” and it elucidated 31.13% of the total variance. Next was “physical and tension risk” (17.20%), followed by “time and opportunity risk” (8.86%), “social risk” (7.19%), “financial risk” (6.37%), “performance risk” (5.67%), and “psychological risk” (5.37%).

Influence of Personal Factors on Perceived Risk Demographic factors (gender, place of residence, and source of funding) were tested via independent-sample t tests to ascertain the impact on perceived risk. Based on the summary in Table 5, the results of tests on gender and the source of funding (self-funded and scholarship) are insignificant. However, the results of the t test for place of residence were almost conclusive. With a mean score of 4.04, the respondents who stayed on-campus recorded a lower risk perception compared with those who stayed off-campus (slightly higher mean = 4.27). The result showed a 95% level of confidence for on-campus residents. Another set of investigation which is reflected in Table 6 comprised variance tests (ANOVA) that were conducted for examining the influence of age, marital status, geographic region, current education level, and current academic year on respondents’ risk perception. Interestingly, all stated demographic factors did not record significant showings. In other words, the difference in age levels, marital status, geographic region, current education level, and academic year did not affect the respondents’ risk perception.

Association of Risk Reduction Strategies on Perceived Risk The relationship between perceived risk and the following risk reduction approaches was tested via the mean score analysis. The synopsis of the outcomes is depicted in Table 7. The items were evaluated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree)


12


Table 4. Dimensions of Higher Education–Perceived Risk (HE-PR). Factor loadings

HE-PR factor/items Factor 1: “Security risk” I worry about my academic performance which may affect my whole education experience I worry about the frequent changes of international students’ visa laws I worry about restrictive regulations which are inconsistent and changeable I worry that I may not be aware of the local rules and regulations Factor 2: “Physical and tension risk” I worry about the rising cost of living in Malaysia I worry about getting sick without access to local medical attention I worry about the physical side-effects due to academic tension (i.e., insomnia) Factor 3: “Time and opportunity risk” I worry that I may miss a good job opportunity at home while studying here I worry that I may miss a good job promotion at home while studying here I worry that I may need to give up some of my interests while studying here Factor 4: “Social risk” I worry about discrimination (i.e., race, religion) while studying in Malaysia I worry that I may need more time to adjust to the local environment Factor 5: “Financial risk” I worry about inadequate funds to finance my education in coming semesters I worry about getting value for money spent on my education I worry that I need to work part-time to support my educational goals Factor 6: “Performance risk” I worry about failing an exam which reduces my CGPA I worry about failing an exam that may affect my scholarship Factor 7: “Psychological risk” I worry about feeling uncomfortable while staying in Malaysia I worry about the unnecessary tension while studying in Malaysia

Total variance Cronbach’s explained α 31.13

0.939

0.955

0.805

0.939

0.778

17.20

0.931 0.931 0.927

0.950

8.86 0.958

0.925

0.861

0.958

7.19

0.913 0.913

0.821

6.37 0.782

0.748

0.793

0.758

5.67

0.714 0.836

5.37

0.821 0.700


0.664

0.626

13

Lam et al. Table 5. Results of Independent Sample t test. Demographic factor Gender Male Female Place of residence On-campus Off-campus Source of funding Self-funded Scholarship

n

M

SE

t

Significance

346 169

4.09 4.17

1.01 0.97

−0.86 −0.87

0.639

174 341

4.04 4.27

1.07 0.95

2.36 2.46

0.014

352 163

4.17 4.00

0.97 1.06

1.86 1.80

0.063

Table 6. Results of ANOVA. Demographic factor Age Between groups Within groups Total Marital Between groups Within groups Total Geographic region Between groups Within groups Total Current education level Between groups Within groups Total Current year of study Between groups Within groups Total

Sum of squares

df

M square

F

Significance

3.624 508.357 511.982

4 510 514

0.906 0.997

0.909

0.458

3.188 508.793 511.982

2 512 514

1.594 0.994

1.604

0.202

4.664 507.317 511.982

4 510 514

1.166 0.995

1.172

0.322

2.103 509.879 511.982

2 512 514

1.052 0.996

1.056

0.349

1.364 510.618 511.982

4 510 514

0.341 1.001

0.341

0.851

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance.

to 7 (totally agree). The analyses of the robustness of the relationships were assumed on the basis of the following structure: 5.00-7.00 = “strong” association 3.00-4.99 = “moderate” association Below 3.00 = “weak” association Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com by guest on August 19, 2016

14


Table 7. Means for Risk Reduction Strategy. Label R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15

Risk reduction strategy

M

SD

Strategic time management for studies A proper study revision plan (i.e., attempting past-year questions) Update myself periodically via advertising material about Malaysia/X university Keep up-to-date via international students’ handbook Consult police, consulate, or local authorities in times of doubt To organize a good savings plan to ensure adequate funding Avoid unnecessary expenditure Getting a part-time job to earn extra money Getting involved in university clubs/associations Staying connected to family and friends at home via social networks (i.e., WhatsApp, WeChat, Facebook, etc.) Obtaining an insurance policy Avoid going to unknown places alone Seeking advice from family or friends when facing a problem Relying on meditation or spiritual retreats to calm the mind Giving oneself an opportunity to travel and relax

4.85 5.09 4.73

1.56 1.37 1.61

2.76 5.75 5.44 4.85 3.53 4.67 4.85

1.71 1.31 1.17 1.31 1.59 1.68 1.57

4.35 4.89 5.39 4.96 4.72

1.71 1.54 1.36 1.44 1.36

Strong association. The highest mean score in the risk reduction strategy was 5.75 on a 7-point scale, which indicated a “strong” link between R5—“consult police, consulate, or local authorities”—and perceived risk. This was followed by the resultant means of 5.44 (R6), 5.39 (R13), and 5.09 (R2). In other words, sufficient saving, advice from family members or friends, and a proper study revision plan are seen to be key risk reduction strategies which addressed issues pertaining to security, finance, psychology, and performance. Moderate association. Table 7 clearly shows that all risk reduction approaches are mostly associated with mediocre association towards risk perception. Students believe that meditation or spiritual retreats can reduce their fear and anxieties (M = 4.96). To avoid unforeseen circumstances, they would not go to unfamiliar places alone (M = 4.89). Three risk reduction strategies which recorded similar mean scores of 4.85 were proper time management, avoidance of unnecessary spending, and frequent contact with family and friends at home via social networks. Respondents were also receptive toward updating themselves regularly through relevant advertising materials to reduce any uncertainties about the host country and/or university. Students also regarded the opportunity to travel (M = 4.72) and joining a campus club or association (M = 4.62) as viable means of easing tension and increasing their social network, thereby reducing risk perceptions. Obtaining suitable insurance was also deemed moderately essential. Notably, all risk reduction strategies with “moderate” associations were above the pointer of 4.0, with the exception of getting a part-time job, which only recorded a score of 3.53.


15

Lam et al.

Weak association. Only one risk reduction strategy recorded a weak association toward perceived risk. Students were of the opinion that updating themselves via international students’ handbook would not affect their risk perception with regard to their on-going academic experience. The mean score was 2.76. Of the 15 risk reduction strategies that were surveyed, only one was associated with a weak response, indicating that risk reduction strategies are sound methods of reducing risk perceptions in post-purchase behavior.

Discussion Dimensions of HE-PR On the basis of the observations, it was shown that international students had their risk perception in post-buying behavior that is typified by seven key dimensions of perceived risk, known as the HE-PR scale. Ideally, this means that the perceived risk theory that initially involved six dimensions could also be applied to the higher education context in the post-buying behavior. These are listed according to rank as follows: 1. Security risk: In this study, the dimension of “security risk” is made up of two sectors (e.g., academic and legal security), whereby students perceived that poor academic performance would mar his or her educational experience. They worry about the “legal risk” of residing in Malaysia: the frequent changes of international students’ visa laws, unpredictable restrictive regulations (government and university policies), and the issuance of new rules and regulations by local authorities without prior announcement and proper awareness. Generally, research shows that pupils take security into account during preconsumption (Maringe & Carter, 2007) and during their study experience. However, their sense of security becomes more overriding when they experience the “actual” environment, as shown in the outcomes. 2. Physical and tension risk: This is a new finding compared with the previous risk perception studies in higher education. Students are mainly worried about insufficient access to proper medical services. They worry about illness caused by poor environmental hygiene (Kim et al., 2009). It is also interesting to note that academic tensions and the rising costs of living can also lead to physical risks. This is due to the pressure to perform (e.g., assignment deadlines and examinations) and changes in economic conditions, particularly in 2015, when the Malaysian federal government implemented the Goods and Services Tax (The Star Online, 2014). The inflation of products and services mean extra expenditure for students whereby they can just look for essential commodities, interesting offers, and extend their finances resourcefully (Suthakar, 2016). 3. Time and opportunity risk: This concern was voiced primarily by mature postgraduates. Concerns raised in this grouping included missing out on job promotion opportunities, loss of pension scheme, loss of savings because of


16

4.

5.

6.

7.

Journal of Studies in International Education inflation, and the weakening of property prices. This risk is related to the “time or convenience risk” as detailed in consumer behavior studies (Mitchell, 1999). Social risk: In this study, respondents indicated that they were wary of discrimination. Brux and Fry (2010) posited that students who studied abroad often feared oppression due to racism. They worry about being stereotyped by the locals based on their differences in culture, lifestyle, religion, and beliefs (Lee & Rice, 2007). The time needed to adjust with the Malaysian society, understand the local culture, learn the language, or adapt to Malaysian lifestyle is also a major fear, as the failure to do so could result in the student being “rejected” by the community and encountering loneliness throughout his/her academic stay. Psychological risk: Students worry about discomfort and unnecessary tension throughout their academic stay in Malaysia. In the prior research, Maringe and Carter (2007) deliberate the risk constituents from a fiscal, legal, social, performance, and opportunity context, but not from a psychological standpoint. However, mainstream studies on tourism do explore the negative impact of unsavory travel experiences and the resulting psychological discomfort (Kim et al., 2009; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998) and post-traumatic stress (Wang, 2015). Similarly, from a higher education context, students who experience academic tension and discomfort due to different cultures and lifestyles would endure mental stress and, if not treated properly, could lead to a decline into depression. Past studies reveal that these psychological consequences are factors contributing to suicides (Jarrell, Dennis, Jackson, & Kenney, 2008). Performance risk: It comprises a perceived fright of failure and the probability of devaluating the worth of the educational experience. Students may fear being unable to perform well in his or her studies, which would then affect his or her scholarship grants from the home government or other institutions. However, the observation of past studies that students who worried about their academic performance due to the need to work part-time (Maringe & Carter, 2007) is dissimilar with the current findings. Financial risk: This is the most important factor at the pre-purchase stages (e.g., Özoğlu, Gür, & Coşkun, 2015; Sherry, Thomas, & Chui, 2010; Telbis et al., 2014). Interestingly, the present study proposes that a deeper insight into post-purchase behavior identifies security risk as a major factor. Nevertheless, “financial risk” is indeed crucial for evaluating direct costs versus gained value. The students claimed that for their first and second years, they had sufficient funds to support their studies; however, their final year was a struggle once they had exhausted their savings and had to cover their expenses by getting a part-time job. Some students also worried about not getting good value for the money invested in their education. Students who are not supported by their home government and are self-funded always face the stress of covering both the tuition fees and the cost of living, especially recently with the increased inflation in Malaysia (The Star Online, 2015).


17

Lam et al.

Personal Factors and Perceived Risk Remarkably, none of the personal factors posed a significant influence over risk perception among students, except the place of residence. Although gender was not established as the determinant of perceived risk, Li and Kaye (1998) found that female pupils were expected to experience anxiety more frequently than males. In other management and marketing studies, females were found to depend on information to reduce uncertainties and to avoid purchasing undesirable products or services (Karatepe, 2011; Ladhari & Leclerc, 2013). As the study was based on unequal gender composition (male 67.20% and female 32.80%), future research should be conducted to better understand the role of gender in perceived risk. Although “financial risk” is considered as one of the main elements of worry for students during the pre-purchase period, the source of funding did not empirically influence the risk perception in this post-purchase behavior study. International students are not permitted to work full-time in Malaysia while studying but they can work part-time, no more than 20 hr a week (Ministry of Higher Education, 2010). For students who are studying in public universities, there are numerous cyclical research opportunities, such as research officers and lab assistants. Furthermore, based on anecdotal evidence, some students make use of their subject knowledge to conduct their own private tuition classes for primary and secondary school children—teaching English, Mathematics, and Arts. Those that possess language skills opt to proofread research theses or academic assignments for a fee. To prove this, however, more indepth studies should be conducted so as to confirm the current findings as per the Talebloo and Basri (2015) study which touched on the financial fears of international students in Malaysia. Point to note is that students’ place of residence cast a significant impact on students’ risk perception, and is an important factor when selecting an overseas university (pre-purchase behavior). Lloyd’s (2003) report states that students worry about not being able to secure suitable accommodation upon arrival in a host country. This study extends the concept by positing that the worry does not end once they have settled down in a suitable residence as each location poses different threats and resultant risks. In a qualitative study conducted by Lee and Rice (2007), international students studying in America worry about physical attacks both on and off-campus. Age group and marital status did not cast a significant influence upon risk perception in this study. This is contrary to the findings of Li and Kaye (1998) who state that age has a marginal effect on feelings of fear and anxiety among Asian students during their academic experience in the United Kingdom. Although the current study does not explicitly prove any significant influence of geographic region upon risk perception, previous studies have found that students from different countries or regions are subject to different risk perception levels. For example, Lee and Rice (2007) reported that Asian students experienced more difficulty compared with students from Western countries. Furthermore, in the study by Basha et al. (2015), the country of origin contributed significantly to perceived risk.


18


Last, the students’ current education level (bachelor’s degree, master’s, or doctorate) and current year of study did not influence their risk perception. However, Talebloo and Basri (2015) revealed that postgraduate students in Malaysia faced more challenges in their academic journey. More in-depth studies with a larger sample size should be carried out to investigate demographic aspects like age groups, marital status, gender, funding source, academic level, and year of stay, as these would offer a clearer explanation of international students’ behavior.

Risk Reduction Strategies Due to word limit constraints, the authors of this study focused solely on the risk reduction strategies which figure strongly in perceived risk. It is evident that students utilize different kinds of risk reduction strategies to prevent and reduce potential fear and anxiety while studying in Malaysia. The majority of students believe that seeking advice from police, consulate, or local authorities will reduce their concerns and offer more reliable information for safety while in the host country. This statement indirectly confirms that information regarding safety status of foreigners is not only useful in the travel market where tourists seek advice from the relevant authorities (Adam, 2015; Michalko, 2004) but also relevant for international students. When students perceive risk in any situation, they resort to gathering more information, either through the international office established in their universities, by visiting their respective embassies or government agencies, or through the immigration department and neighboring police stations. This reduces the anxiety arising from the lack of security, which is the main risk perceived by international students studying in Malaysia. The Malaysian government should organize more dialogues with relevant groups such as embassy personnel, university representatives, education agents, and students to gather data pertaining to perceived risk. Wu et al. (2015) claimed that such diplomatic efforts in setting up talks, seminars, and any other platform would open up direct experience sharing from the students without the “screening” from third parties. However, front-desk officers in the universities who deal with the students should be well trained to provide professional services and offer the latest information (Özoğlu et al., 2015). In terms of security, the effects of criminal behavior can be reduced by issuing sufficient warnings to foreigners or through increased police patrolling in housing areas off-campus. Michalko (2004) suggested that the police and relevant agencies should promote more awareness of prevalent dangers via leaflets printed in several languages as well as also inform of the ways to avoid criminal occurrences and report to the police in the case of unwanted incidents. Furthermore, the use of other strategies such as signing up for a proper savings plan, well organized study management, and taking advice from family members or friends are useful tools for reducing financial, performance, and psychological risk. Students who manage their savings well along with the steady income of a part-time job will face less financial worry. Meanwhile, students should schedule their time to balance between study and play. They should avoid procrastination in their studies and prioritize on their weaker subjects. Neither should supersede another as a balanced


19

Lam et al.

time management would benefit their overall academic experience. As local news editor once said, “Life is about getting our priorities right so that we still have time to savour a cuppa” (Soo, 2015).

Drawbacks and Recommendations for Future Research Because of the exploratory form, an oversimplification of the findings is consequential; however, the study lays a strong basis for further work. Repeating the research in other tertiary establishments like universities, academies, and colleges which have considerable number of international students would be a valued reflection toward the generalizability of the populace and to corroborate the present findings by utilizing advanced structural analysis. Furthermore, this study can be separated into two different scenarios, for example, the pre-purchase behavior and post-purchase behavior, to determine risk perception processes and to make comparisons on risk between two different time periods within the context of international higher education destinations. Only then it could validate that security risk would be the key risk factor in the post-buying academic experience as against the pre-buying period where fiscal risk is the most critical one. Last, a comparative study between risk perception among international students studying in Malaysia and other source countries which are thriving as international education hubs, such as Singapore, Australia, and China, would be useful as risk perceptions are subjective and vary between low and high cultural locations. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Multimedia University’s research funding (IP150034).

References Adam, I. (2015). Backpackers’ risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies in Ghana. Tourism Management, 49, 99-108. Alavi, M., & Mansor, S. M. S. (2011).Categories of problems among international students in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1581-1587. Ariffin, A. A. M. (2006). A study on destination preferences for corporate meetings (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Basha, N. K., Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. (2015).Effects of country and delivery mode on perceived risk in international higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 25, 171-203. Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behaviour as risk taking. In R. S. Hancock (Ed.), Dynamic marketing for a changing world (pp. 389-398). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.


20


Bhati, A., Lee, D., & Kairon, H. S. (2014). Underlining factors in deciding to pursue Australian higher education in Singapore: An international students’ perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1064-1067. Brux, J. M., & Fry, B. (2010). Multicultural students in study abroad: Their interests, their issues, and their constraints. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 508-527. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cronbach, L. J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 391-418. Cunningham, L. F., Gerlach, J. H., Harper, M. D., & Young, C. E. (2005). Perceived risk and the consumer buying process: Internet airline reservations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16, 357-372. Cunningham, S. (1967). The major dimensions of perceived risk. In D. Cox (Ed.), Risk taking and information handling in consumer behaviour (pp. 82-108). Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (1996). Research methods in the social sciences (5th ed.). London, England: St. Martin’s Press. Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Education. Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 7-22. Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2002). If you build it, will they come? Barriers to international e-marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10, 12-21. Hsu, T. H., & Lin, L. Z. (2014). Using fuzzy preference method for group package tour based on the risk perception. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23, 299-323. Ivy, J. (2001). Higher education institution image: A correspondence analysis approach. International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 276-282. Jacoby, J., & Kaplan, L. B. (1972).The components of perceived risk. Advances in Consumer Research, 3, 382-383. Jarrell, C., Dennis, R., Jackson, M., & Kenney, C. A. (2008). Academic and student affairs issues: Post hurricane Katrina. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 235-250. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. Jonas, A., & Mansfeld, Y. (2015). Exploring the interplay between the use of risk-related information, risk perception formation, and the stages of travel product consumption. Current Issues in Tourism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13683500.2015.1024104 Karatepe, O. M. (2011). Service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 12, 278-300. Kim, L. H., Qu, H., & Kim, D. J. (2009). A study of perceived risk and risk reduction of purchasing air-tickets online. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26, 203-224. Ladhari, R., & Leclerc, A. (2013). Building loyalty with online financial services customers: Is there a gender difference? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20, 560-569. Lam, J. M. S., Ariffin, A. A. M., & Ahmad, A. H. (2011). Edutourism: Exploring the push-pull factors in selecting a university. International Journal of Business and Society, 12, 63-78.


21

Lam et al.

Lam, J. M. S., Tong, Y. K. D., & Ariffin, A. A. M. (2015). Perceived risk as a moderator in higher education (HE) destination choice. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 9(17), 71-76. Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53, 381-409. Li, R. Y., & Kaye, M. (1998).Understanding overseas students’ concerns and problems. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 20, 41-50. Lloyd, N. (2003). A research study exploring the attitudes and experiences of international students enrolled in the Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics at the University of Western Australia. Unpublished manuscript, The Equity and Diversity Office, University of Western Australia, Perth. Maringe, F., & Carter, S. (2007). International students’ motivations for studying in UK HE: Insights into the choice and decision making of African students. International Journal of Educational Management, 21, 459-475. Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2002). “Push-pull” factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16, 82-90. Michalko, G. (2004). Tourism eclipsed by crime: The vulnerability of foreign tourists in Hungary. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15, 159-172. Ministry of Higher Education. (2010). Guidebook for international students studying in Malaysia. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Author. Ministry of Higher Education. (2013). Kemasukan, enrolmen dan graduan IPTA dan IPTS yang menawarkan pengajian kepada pelajar antarabangsa bagi tahun 2011 dan 2012 [Admission, enrollment and graduation in IPTA and IPTS that offer courses to international students for 2011 and 2012] (Planning and Research Division Statistic Report). Putrajaya, Malaysia: Planning and Research Division. Mitchell, V. W. (1999). Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models. European Journal of Marketing, 33, 163-195. Mitchell, V. W., Davies, F., Moutinho, L., & Vassos, V. (1999). Using neural networks to understand service risk in the holiday product. Journal of Business Research, 46, 167-180. Mitchell, V. W., & Greatorex, M. (1993). Risk perception and reduction in the purchase of consumer services. Service Industries Journal, 13, 179-200. Moogan, Y. J. (2011). Can a higher education institution’s marketing strategy improve the student-institution match? International Journal of Educational Management, 25, 570-589. Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of Marketing, 21(10), 5-44. Mun, Y. Y. (2014). An examination of the relationships among perceived risk, perceived knowledge and student college search behaviour (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego, CA. Naeeni, N. V., Mahmud, Z., Salleh, A. B. M., Amat, S., Maros, M., & Morgan, M. M. (2015). Psycho-educational support groups and international university student adjustment in Malaysia: A qualitative inquiry. Australasian Journal of Social Science, 1, 20-38. Newman, S., & Jahdi, K. (2009).Marketisation of education: Marketing, rhetoric and reality. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33, 1-11. Özoğlu, M., Gür, B. S., & Coşkun, İ. (2015). Factors influencing international students’ choice to study in Turkey and challenges they experience in Turkey. Research in Comparative & International Education, 10, 223-237. Paulssen, M., Roulet, R., & Wilke, S. (2014). Risk as moderator of the trust-loyalty relationship. European Journal of Marketing, 48, 964-981.


22


Poni, M. (2014). Research paradigms in education. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(1), 407-413. Roehl, W. S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1992). Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 17-26. Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing, 35(1), 56-61. Sherry, M., Thomas, P., & Chui, W. H. (2010). International students: A vulnerable student population. Higher Education, 60, 33-46. Solomon, M., Russell-Bennett, R., & Previte, J. (2013). Consumer behaviour (3rd ed.). New South Wales, Australia: Pearson. Sönmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 25, 112-144. Soo, E. J. (2015, September 6). Every moment counts. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com. my/opinion/columnists/sunday-starters/2015/09/06/every-moment-counts/ The Star Online. (2014, November 29). The true cost of living. Retrieved from http://www. thestar.com.my/Business/Business-News/2014/11/29/The-true-cost-of-living-Subsidiesregime-has-distorted-market-pricing/?style=biz The Star Online. (2015, April 22). Malaysia’s inflation rate in March up nearly 1%. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/Business/Business-News/2015/04/22/Malaysia-inflationrate-in-March-up-nearly-1pct/?style=biz Suthakar, K. (2016, January 17). Struggling to stretch the Ringgit. Retrieved from http://www. thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/01/16/struggling-to-stretch-the-ringgit-with-the-weakening-ringgit-and-price-increases-people-are-forced-t/ Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Mazzarol, T. (2008). Factors influencing word of mouth effectiveness: Receiver perspectives. European Journal of Marketing, 42, 344-364. Talebloo, B., & Basri, R. (2015). Multicultural benefits and challenges for international students during period of their study: Case study in Malaysia. Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology, 4, 42-51. Telbis, N. M., Helgeson, L., & Kingsbury, C. (2014). International students’ confidence and academic success. Journal of International Students, 4, 330-341. Wang, H. Y. (2015). Determinants hindering the intention of tourists to visit disaster-hit destinations. Current Issues in Tourism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13683500.2015.1062471 Wu, H. P., Garza, E., & Guzman, N. (2015). International student’s challenge and adjustment to college. Education Research International, 2015, 1-9.

Author Biographies Jason M. S. Lam is a doctorate student at the Multimedia University, Malacca campus. His research interests are in the area of higher education and tourism marketing. This manuscript submission is part of his doctoral thesis requirement. David Yoon Kin Tong is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Business, Multimedia University, Malacca, Malaysia. He had more than 25 years’ working experience in various industries including manufacturing and service sectors. His research interests are human resource, innovation, marketing, and environmental management. Ahmad Azmi M. Ariffin is an associate professor of marketing at Graduate School of Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi. His research interests are in the areas of tourism and hospitality service marketing, as well as tourist behavior.
