Life Satisfaction of International Students: (How) Do Study Demands, Institutional, and Individual Resources Matter?

Abstract

International students are an important group at German higher education institutions. Yet few studies have considered the psychosocial situation of these students. The present study combines the study demands-resources model (SD-R model) and the acculturation framework to adapt the former to the specific situation of international students, and examines the effects of study demands, institutional resources, individual resources (acculturation orientations, i.e., affective and cognitive orientations towards the home and host country), stress, and engagement on their life satisfaction as one indicator of well-being. We used cross-sectional survey data from 503 international students across more than 20 higher education institutions. Latent structural equation models showed that lower study demands were associated with lower stress and higher student engagement, which in turn predicted greater life satisfaction. Although higher institutional resources also related to increased engagement and, thus, higher life satisfaction, they were unexpectedly linked to increased stress, which was in turn associated with lower life satisfaction. Additionally, the expected positive effect of affective host country orientation on life satisfaction, mediated through perceived stress and engagement, was confirmed. The consideration of acculturation orientations in the SD-R model helps to understand the specific conditions of well-being amongst international students in Germany.

1. Introduction

With increasing globalization, more students are pursuing education abroad, making international students a substantial and growing population at higher education institutions worldwide. In Germany, for instance, they represent 13% of the student body (DAAD & DZHW, 2025), but similar trends are observed in many other countries (e.g., Institute of International Education, 2023). Whilst the majority of international students in Germany (i.e., 93%, DAAD & DZHW, 2025) intend to obtain a degree at their host institutions (i.e., degree mobility), others only spend a portion of their studies at a foreign university to earn academic credits (i.e., credit mobility). The present study focuses on international degree mobility. Yet, irrespective of students’ intentions to obtain a degree abroad, the benefits of international student mobility are vast and transformative. Many international students choose to study in countries renowned for their prestigious institutions and specialized programs, which may not be available in their home countries (Sawir, 2013; Wilkins & Huisman, 2011). This exposure to top-tier education equips them with knowledge and skills that can set them apart in their future careers (Beerkens et al., 2016; Lörz & Krawietz, 2011) and may provide the chance to achieve foreign language fluency (Davidson & Lecik, 2010; Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2015). Beyond academics, immersing themselves in a new culture allows students to broaden their perspectives, to develop cross-cultural communication skills (Tarrant, 2010; Zimmermann et al., 2021b), and to deepen their understanding of global issues, making them more informed global citizens and better equipped to contribute to international discussions and to reduce discrimination (Sparkman et al., 2016). International students often gain confidence and self-reliance as they manage new challenges, such as adapting to a different educational system or overcoming language barriers (Larcombe et al., 2023; Petersdotter et al., 2017). They also benefit from their international experience in terms of personal maturation (Zimmermann et al., 2021c) and by the development of personality characteristics that promote their job market success, such as proactive personality (Zimmermann et al., 2024). Finally, by connecting with peers, professors, and professionals from around the world, they create a diverse network that can open doors to future career opportunities and international collaborations (Atalar, 2020; Sawir, 2013).

International student mobility also brings benefits for higher education institutions, as international students contribute to cultural diversity on campuses, which enriches the educational experience for the entire academic community (Knight, 2012; Sawir, 2013). They also significantly contribute to the economies of host countries through tuition fees, living expenses, and future contributions as skilled professionals (Levent, 2016; Ortiz et al., 2015). Universities that effectively support international students can enhance their reputation and competitiveness on the global stage (Sawir, 2013).

However, despite the significant presence of international students and the importance of international student mobility for the students themselves and for the universities, there is a striking lack of research on their mental health and well-being, including their life satisfaction as one important aspect. The experience of studying abroad offers international students unique opportunities for personal and academic growth, but it also presents significant challenges (Zimmermann et al., 2021a). As these students adapt to new cultural, social, and academic environments, their life satisfaction can be deeply impacted. Life satisfaction is a crucial cognitive indicator of mental health and well-being, encompassing various dimensions of an individual’s life, including academic, social, and personal domains (Diener et al., 1985). Understanding and addressing the life satisfaction of international students is crucial as it is linked to their academic performance and future contributions as professionals (Antaramian & Lee, 2017; Rode et al., 2005) and it ensures that universities can provide inclusive environments, where all students—regardless of their background—can thrive (Chong, 2015).

To complement the existing research, the present study combines the study demands-resources model (SD-R model; Lesener et al., 2020) and the acculturation framework (Berry, 2006), using a latent structural equation model with a sample of 503 international degree-seeking students at German higher education institutions. The SD-R model is based on the job demands-resources model (JD-R model, Bakker et al., 2023; Demerouti et al., 2001), which is traditionally used in occupational settings and describes how job demands and resources available to meet those demands relate to work stress and engagement of employees. As in previous research the SD-R model has primarily been applied to examine the study experiences of domestic students, it does not sufficiently account for the specific study situation of international students. By contrast, the acculturation framework posits acculturation orientations as central determinants of migrants’ psychological adaptation in a new cultural setting which is, for example, reflected in their life satisfaction. We thus contend that the integration of acculturation orientations as individual resources of international students into the SD-R framework provides a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that impact the life satisfaction of this student group.

1.1. The Study Demands-Resources Model

The SD-R model (Lesener et al., 2020; Figure 1) is an adaptation of the JD-R model (Bakker et al., 2023; Demerouti et al., 2001), which is widely used in occupational psychology to understand how work environments impact employee well-being and performance. The SD-R model provides a framework for understanding how study demands as well as institutional and personal resources in an academic setting influence students’ stress and student engagement and, indirectly, academic and health-related outcomes, such as their life satisfaction. This model underscores the importance of providing adequate resources to international students to help them cope with the unique challenges they face.

Study demands refer to the aspects of academic life that require sustained effort (Lesener et al., 2020). These demands are the equivalent of job demands in the original JD-R model and include elements such as the following: (1) performance demands, i.e., the volume of coursework, assignments, exams, and reading material, etc., that students are expected to manage; (2) study-life balance, i.e., the ability of the student to plan various academic tasks and responsibilities, in a way that allows them to complete everything within the available time frame; and (3) time pressure, i.e., the deadlines and time constraints associated with academic tasks, which can create pressure, particularly when students are juggling multiple assignments or balancing studies with other responsibilities. In the SD-R model, the health impairment path suggests that demands are linked to the experience of stress, emotional depletion, and burnout, which can negatively affect life satisfaction (Hahn et al., 2024; Gusy et al., 2016; Lesener et al., 2020).

Stress is a common challenge for international students, who often face a variety of stressors while studying abroad. Beyond study demands, these can include financial difficulties and relationship problems (Amanvermez et al., 2023; Andrews & Wilding, 2004; Bewick et al., 2010) as well as the added pressures of adapting to a new academic system, mastering a foreign language, meeting the expectations of both their home and host countries, and discrimination (Alharbi & Smith, 2018; Smith & Khawaja, 2011). How students manage these stressors and to what extent they are balanced by institutional and individual resources is crucial to their overall experience and academic success abroad.

Institutional resources are the aspects of the academic environment that help students cope with study demands, reduce their impact, or enhance learning and engagement, leading to higher life satisfaction (Cruwys et al., 2021; Lee, 2014; Lesener et al., 2020). These are analogous to job resources in the JD-R model and include the following: (1) social support from lecturers and students, i.e., the emotional and practical assistance that students receive from their lecturers and other students and (2) decision-making autonomy, i.e., the degree of autonomy and control students have over their learning activities and decisions within the academic environment.

According to the SD-R model, access to institutional resources can inspire motivation and active participation via the motivational path, i.e., via student engagement. Student engagement is a complex concept that refers to the level of interest, enthusiasm, and dedication that students bring to their academic work (Groccia, 2018; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). Maintaining high levels of student engagement is crucial for academic success (Kuh et al., 2005). High student engagement is often associated with better academic performance, a greater sense of belonging, and higher life satisfaction (Cruwys et al., 2021; Lee, 2014).

More recent publications on the JD-R and SD-R model emphasized the importance of personal resources, i.e., psychological attributes like self-efficacy and resilience which help students to navigate academic challenges and to stay motivated (Bakker et al., 2023). Within the SD-R model framework, the available findings support the negative link between personal resources and the experience of stress or emotional exhaustion (Ghislieri et al., 2023; Hahn et al., 2021, 2024). In addition, research has already shown a positive relationship between certain personal resources, such as self-efficacy and coping, and student engagement (Martínez et al., 2019; Vizoso et al., 2018). In line with the acculturation framework (Berry, 2006) we contend that acculturation orientations are important personal resources for international students, as they can either help or hinder their ability to navigate the complexities of studying in a foreign country, thereby influencing their student engagement and (acculturative) stress.

The SD-R model underscores the importance of providing adequate institutional resources to international students to help them cope with the unique challenges they face. Yet, also supporting students’ personal resources, e.g., adaptive acculturation orientations, may be crucial in promoting their mental health and well-being.

1.2. The Acculturation Framework

Acculturation is one of the personal resources that international students can have at their disposal as they face significant cultural challenges when studying abroad (Preuß et al., 2025). It refers to the process of cultural and psychological change that occurs when individuals from different cultures come into continuous direct contact (Berry, 2006). In this process, international students develop acculturation strategies based on how they culturally orient themselves in the new cultural context. According to Berry (2006), acculturation is described by two independent dimensions—host and home orientation. While host orientation pertains to how individuals engage with and adapt to their new cultural environment, home orientation concerns how individuals maintain their connection to their culture of origin while adapting to a new environment (Berry, 2006). Each of these orientations encompasses three distinct dimensions—affective, behavioral, and cognitive—that shape how individuals experience and manage the acculturation process (Brown et al., 2013; B. S. K. Kim & Abreu, 2001). The affective host orientation refers to the emotional responses individuals develop towards the new culture, such as feelings of acceptance and integration, whilst the affective home orientation describes the emotional attachment towards the culture of origin, including a sense of belonging and value placed on cultural heritage. The behavioral host orientation involves the actions and behaviors individuals adopt to fit into the host culture, such as participating in local customs and community activities. By contrast, behavioral home orientation involves continuing cultural practices and traditions from the culture of origin, such as engaging in traditional activities and interacting with people from the same cultural background. Finally, cognitive host orientation reflects individuals’ attitudes and beliefs about adopting and maintaining the host culture, while the cognitive home orientation reflects individuals’ attitudes and beliefs on preserving and staying connected to their culture of origin.

The acculturation framework helps to explain how the process of acculturation can lead to stress or to engagement as it highlights the challenges and psychological stressors associated with adapting to a new culture, such as navigating cultural differences, language barriers, and social integration in a foreign cultural context (Berry, 2006). Previous research has shown that adopting affective, behavioral, and cognitive orientations towards the host culture helps migrants to reduce their stress level (Sam & Berry, 2010; Serrano-Sánchez et al., 2021a; Taušováa et al., 2019; Tonsing, 2014). In terms of affective, behavioral, and cognitive orientations towards the culture of origin, the results are not so clear or rather contradictory (e.g., Berry et al., 2006; Hofhuis et al., 2019; Serrano-Sánchez et al., 2021a, 2022; Taušováa et al., 2019; Tonsing, 2014). On the other hand, acculturation also plays a pivotal role in influencing international students’ student engagement. As students navigate the complexities of a new culture, their overall engagement with their academic activities can be directly affected by how they orient themselves towards their surroundings. Previous research has shown that adopting affective, behavioral, and cognitive orientations towards the host culture helps students with diverse cultural backgrounds to engage in academic contexts (e.g., Berry, 2006; Sam & Berry, 2010), while maintaining affective, behavioral, and cognitive orientations towards the culture of origin may hinder this engagement (e.g., Hofhuis et al., 2019; Serrano-Sánchez et al., 2021a, 2022).

Given the importance of acculturation orientations with regard to both stress and engagement, as described in the acculturation literature, integrating the acculturation perspective into the SD-R model offers a valuable extension for understanding international students’ study experiences, as it allows for a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and support mechanisms that shape international students’ academic experiences in culturally diverse educational environments.

1.3. The Present Study

This study combines the SD-R model and the acculturation framework to explore the indirect effects of study demands and institutional and personal resources on life satisfaction among international students in Germany. Specifically, we focus on examining both the affective and cognitive aspects of acculturation. We explore how individuals’ feelings (affective dimension) and attitudes (cognitive dimension) towards the host and home culture influence their experienced stress and engagement and, thus, indirectly, their life satisfaction.

According to our literature review, the following hypotheses can be stated:

H1. 

Higher levels of stress are associated with lower life satisfaction among international students.

H2. 

Higher student engagement is associated with higher life satisfaction among international students.

H3. 

Higher study demands are associated with higher levels of stress (H3a) and lower student engagement (H3b).

H4. 

Higher institutional resources are associated with lower levels of stress (H4a) and higher student engagement (H4b).

H5.1. 

A higher affective orientation towards the host culture is associated with lower levels of stress (H5.1a) and higher student engagement (H5.1b).

H5.2. 

A higher cognitive orientation towards the host culture is associated with lower levels of stress (H5.2a) and higher student engagement (H5.2b).

H6. 

Study demands (H6a), institutional resources (H6b), and affective (H6c) and cognitive (H6d) orientations towards the host culture are related to higher life satisfaction via lower levels of stress.

H7. 

Study demands (H7a), institutional resources (H7b), and affective (H7c) and cognitive (H7d) orientations towards the host culture are related to higher life satisfaction via higher study engagement.

The relationships between affective and cognitive orientations towards the home culture and perceived stress, engagement, and life satisfaction were exploratively investigated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedure

International students were recruited as part of the LeBeS project (‘Structural and individual study conditions and their relevance to perceptions of stress and study behaviours among students’). The present study included 503 international students studying at higher education institutions in Germany. In line with the definition for international student status, they did not have German citizenship and obtained their university entrance qualification abroad or an equivalence of their higher education entrance qualification at a preparatory college (German: Studienkolleg) in Germany (Federal Statistical Office, 2020; OECD, 2023). Of the sample, 42.1% were female, and the participants’ ages ranged from 17 to 53 years (M_age = 25.98, SD_age = 4.20). Participants were recruited between February and March 2023 through university mailing lists, social media platforms, and international student associations. As a consequence of the decentralized recruiting strategy, in which the international offices were asked to forward the invitation email to their students, an overall response rate cannot be determined. The international students were enrolled in various higher education institutions in Germany. The vast majority of participants studied at Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg (44%), the University of Mannheim (17%), and Deggendorf Institute of Technology (11%). The most common fields of study were engineering (49.9%) and business administration (25.8%). Data collection was conducted using SoSci Survey (Leiner, 2024). Participants were invited to complete an online survey designed to assess various aspects of their academic and personal experiences. The survey was administered in both English and German to accommodate language preferences and to increase accessibility. Prior to participation, students were informed about the study’s objectives and informed consent was obtained. The survey took approximately 20–30 min to complete. This study adheres to the ethical guidelines for research involving human participants of the German Research Foundation (DFG). As the study is non-medical, no explicit approval was required from the responsible ethics committee at the Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg. Participation was voluntary, informed consent was obtained from all students electronically before beginning the survey, and they were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences.

2.2. Instruments

Psychological characteristics were assessed using well-established measurement instruments that have been effective in previous studies on the job demands-resources model (e.g., Gusy et al., 2016; Hahn et al., 2024).

Life satisfaction was measured using the German version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985; Janke & Glöckner-Rist, 2012). The five items (e.g., “I am satisfied with my life”) were answered on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicate greater life satisfaction.

The Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ; Fliege et al., 2001) was used to measure the experience of stress. The PSQ encompasses the following four dimensions: tension (i.e., “I feel tense”; demands (i.e., “I feel I am in a hurry”); worries (i.e., “I feel frustrated”); and joy (reversed subscale, i.e., “I am full of energy”). Each dimension was measured using five items rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = hardly ever to 4 = most of the time. Higher scores in the PSQ indicate higher levels of perceived stress.

Student engagement was assessed using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students (UWES-S; Gusy et al., 2016; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). This scale includes five items measuring vigor, dedication, and absorption (i.e., “I am enthusiastic about my studies”), rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. Higher scores indicate higher levels of engagement with studies.

To assess perceived study demands, the following three scales were used: performance demands, study-life balance, and time pressure. All of the scales used a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). The performance demands scale (adapted from Hillebrecht, 2019) consists of three items that describe the cognitive evaluation of the level of demands in the study program (i.e., “The volume of the course content is fine with me”, reversed item). The five items of the study-life balance scale (adapted from Hillebrecht, 2019) assess the extent to which the study program is organizationally and temporally compatible with private life (i.e., “I can manage the amount of time required for my studies in a normal week quite easily”, inverted item). Finally, the three items of the time pressure scale (Gusy et al., 2016; Gusy & Lohmann, 2011) describe whether there are time constraints in completing study-related tasks (i.e., “I don’t have enough time to prepare for and follow up on the lectures and seminars I attend”). Higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived study demands.

Perceived institutional resources were measured using the following three scales: social support from lecturers, social support from students, and decision-making autonomy. All of the scales used a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). The social support from the lecturers’ scale and the social support from the students’ scale (Gusy et al., 2016; Gusy & Lohmann, 2011) measure how much students perceive emotional and academic support from their lecturers (i.e., “My lecturers advise me on problems related to my studies”) and from their peers (i.e., “If I would like to discuss questions related to my studies I find fellow students and they give me their time and listen to me carefully”), respectively. The scale of decision-making autonomy (Grützmacher et al., 2018) evaluates the degree of autonomy and control individuals feel they have in their academic environment (i.e., “The parameters of my study program allow me to organize my studies myself”). Higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived institutional resources.

Finally, acculturation orientations as individual resources were assessed using four different scales. Drawing on items proposed by Phinney (1992) and used in the NEPS (2013), four items measured affective orientations towards the host culture (e.g., “I feel a close connection with German culture”) and four items measured affective orientations towards the home culture (e.g., “I feel a close connection with my home culture”). Additionally, following Demes and Geeraert (2014), four items assessed cognitive orientations towards the host culture (e.g., “It is important to me to have German friends in Germany”) and four items assessed cognitive orientations towards the home culture (e.g., “It is important to me to have friends from my home country in Germany”). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Higher scores indicate stronger affective or cognitive orientations towards the host or home culture, respectively.

2.3. Analytical Strategy

The descriptive data analysis was conducted using SPSS Version 29 (IBM Corp, 2023). To test the hypothesized relationships among life satisfaction, perceived stress, academic engagement, study demands, institutional, and individual resources, data were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM; Figure 2), maximum likelihood estimators, and the bootstrap method (bootstrap = 5000) with the lavaan R package (0.6.16; Rosseel, 2012). SEM allows for the examination of complex relationships between observed and latent variables, providing a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing life satisfaction among international students. Each variable in the SEM was modeled as a latent construct, with the questionnaire items serving as its indicators. While first-order measurement models were used for the unidimensional constructs of life satisfaction, student engagement, and the different aspects of acculturation, second-order models were defined for the multidimensional construct of stress (encompassing the four dimensions of tension, demands, worries, and joy), perceived study demands (encompassing the dimensions of performance demands, study-life balance, and time pressure), and institutional resources (encompassing the dimensions of social support from lecturers and students and decision-making autonomy).

Item parcels were used to simplify the measurement models for all constructs or construct dimensions that endorsed more than five items, i.e., the dimensions of stress and the construct of student engagement. The single factor method (Landis et al., 2000) was employed to determine these parcels. First, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for the stress dimensions tension, demand, worry, and joy as well as for student engagement that required all items of the respective dimensions to load on a single factor. Item parcels were created based on the factor loadings of the single-factor models. To ensure balanced parcels, items were assigned to the parcels according to the item-to-construct method (Little et al., 2002). In the structural equation model, tension, demand, worry, joy, and student engagement were each represented using two parcels. Participants’ gender and age were controlled in the analysis.

To assess model fit, common fit indices such as CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR were used. For CFI and TLI, values > .90 and >.95, respectively, and for RMSEA and SRMR, values < .05 and <.08, respectively, indicate acceptable or good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). For accessibility, all input files related to the main analyses as well as Supplementary Materials are available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/2xpbc/?view_only=d3ad3ca3a0b743a19b8609541454f3d2, accessed on 23 May 2025.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Analyses

Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alphas) of the scales, and bivariate correlations between the study variables are displayed in

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and bivariate correlations.

		M (SD)	α	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1	Life satisfaction	4.37 (1.35)	.87
2	Stress	2.52 (0.56)	.91	−.51 ***
3	Engagement	2.82 (0.61)	.80	.43 ***	−.28 ***
4	Performance demands	2.08 (0.65)	.80	−.35 ***	.37 ***	−.47 ***
5	Study-life balance	2.38 (0.64)	.84	−.38 ***	.44 ***	−.42 ***	.54 ***
6	Time pressure	2.56 (0.75)	.78	−.20 ***	.46 ***	−.14 **	.39 ***	.47 ***
7	Teacher support	2.93 (0.67)	.81	.20 ***	−.20 ***	.36 ***	−.39 ***	−.16 ***	−.40 ***
8	Student support	2.75 (0.72)	.77	.21 ***	−.18 ***	.32 ***	−.29 ***	−.11 *	−.32 ***	.41 ***
9	Decision-making autonomy	2.84 (0.68)	.81	.23 ***	−.23 ***	.39 ***	−.46 ***	−.17 ***	−.47 ***	.50 ***	.31 ***
10	Affective HOST	3.12 (0.84)	.88	.29 ***	−.29 ***	.29 ***	−.21 ***	−.06	−.22 ***	.15 **	.20 ***	.14 **
11	Cognitive HOST	3.92 (0.77)	.78	.09 *	−.10 *	.21 ***	−.13 **	.00	−.13 **	.06	.10 *	.06	.46 ***
12	Affective HOME	3.36 (0.98)	.89	.09	−.03	.12 *	−.11 *	.06	−.14 **	.07	.15 **	.05	−.04	.11 *
13	Cognitive HOME	2.89 (0.88)	.78	.02	.01	.05	.00	.06	−.10 *	−.04	.06	.05	−.07	.13 **	.59 ***

Note: HOST = orientation towards the host culture; HOME = orientation towards the culture of origin. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

.

3.2. Structural Equation Modeling

The fit indices indicated an adequate to good fit of the model to the data: χ²(1321) = 2538.134, p < .001, CFI = .901, TLI = .892; RMSEA = .043, SRMR = .055.

Table 2. Global results of the structural equation model.

	β		p
Life Satisfaction
Stress	−.46	**	<.001
Engagement	.38	**	<.001
Gender (male)	−.15	**	<.001
Age	−.02		.570
Stress
Study demands	.82	**	<.001
Institutional resources	.37	*	.027
Affective HOST	−.23	**	.002
Cognitive HOST	.11		.141
Affective HOME	−.04		.698
Cognitive HOME	.07		.484
Gender (male)	−.06		.235
Age	.08		.067
Engagement
Study demands	−.35	**	.004
Institutional resources	.30	*	.014
Affective HOST	.15	*	.022
Cognitive HOST	.08		.275
Affective HOME	.03		.709
Cognitive HOME	.03		.760
Gender (male)	.03		.530
Age	.08		.119
Study demands
Gender (male)	−.13	*	.013
Age	−.03		.589
Institutional resources
Gender (male)	.03		.565
Age	−.02		.685
Affective HOST
Gender (male)	.09		.071
Age	−.18	**	.001
Cognitive HOST
Gender (male)	.16	**	.002
Age	.04		.412
Affective HOME
Gender (male)	−.03		.489
Age	−.08		.105
Cognitive HOME
Gender (male)	.11	*	.031
Age	.09		.071

Note: Variables in italics indicate outcome variables in the structural model with predictors and coefficients listed below each heading. HOST = orientation towards the host culture; HOME = orientation towards the culture of origin. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

shows the results of the SEM, and Figure 3 provides a summary of the significant results.

Considering the direct effects, as expected, perceived stress was negatively related to life satisfaction (β = −.46, p < .001), while academic engagement was positively associated with life satisfaction (β = .38, p < .001). Higher study demands were significantly associated with higher perceived stress (β = .82, p < .001) and lower academic engagement (β = −.35, p = .002). Surprisingly, higher institutional resources were significantly associated with higher perceived stress (β = .37, p = .008). As expected, they were also positively associated with student engagement (β = .30, p = .007). A higher affective orientation towards the host country was significantly associated with lower perceived stress (β = −.23, p = .001) and higher academic engagement (β = .15, p = .018). No other associations were found between the cognitive orientation towards the host country or the affective and cognitive orientation towards the culture of origin and perceived stress or academic engagement. Male students showed lower life satisfaction (β = −.15, p < .001), perceived fewer study demands (β = −.13, p = .013), and showed a higher level in the cognitive dimension of both the orientation towards the host culture (β = .16, p = .002) and the orientation towards the home culture (β = .11, p = .030). Older students showed a lower affective orientation towards the home culture (β = −.18, p < .001).

We tested the significance of the indirect effects using 5000 bootstrapped samples. The negative indirect effect of study demands on life satisfaction via perceived stress (β = −.38, p < .001, CI ranged from −.52 to −.24) and via academic engagement (β = −.13, p = .007, CI ranged from −.22 to −.04) were significant. The indirect effects of institutional resources on life satisfaction via perceived stress (β = −.17, p = .025, CI ranged from −.31 to −.03) and via academic engagement (β = .12, p = .034, CI ranged from .01 to .22) were also significant. Finally, the positive indirect effects of affective host country orientation on life satisfaction via perceived stress (β = .11, p = .004, CI ranged from .04 to .18) and via academic engagement (β = .06, p = .047, CI ranged from .01 to .11) were also significant.

4. Discussion

The present study combined the study demands-resources model (SD-R model; Lesener et al., 2020) and the acculturation framework (Berry, 2006) to explore the determinants of life satisfaction among international students in Germany. Specifically, we examined how study demands, institutional resources, and individual resources, i.e., individuals’ feelings (affective dimension) and attitudes (cognitive dimension) towards the host and home culture, influenced perceived stress and engagement and how these related to life satisfaction.

In line with the core assumptions of the SD-R model, both the health impairment path and the motivational path to life satisfaction were confirmed. These results are in line with (meta-analytic) findings of earlier studies on the dual processes of health impairment and motivation (Bakker et al., 2023; Bakker & Mostert, 2024; Lesener et al., 2018, 2020). They also approve the validity of the SD-R model for the assessment of the determinants of life satisfaction amongst international students. Yet, with regard to the cross-lagged paths between perceived study demands and student engagement as well as between perceived institutional resources and perceived stress, not all findings confirmed the model propositions. In particular, we unexpectedly identified a positive association between perceived institutional resources (i.e., lecturer and student support as well as decision-making autonomy) and perceived stress amongst international students. This suggests that these institutional resources do not serve their intended function to reduce stress amongst international students. On the contrary, they aggravate their perceived stress. This finding bears important theoretical and practical implications. On the one hand, it suggests that a core proposition of the SD-R model that was confirmed in both samples of traditional (Lesener et al., 2018) and non-traditional students (Pumpe & Jonkmann, 2025), does not apply to the specific group of international students. This might signal a mismatch between the resources that are provided by higher education institutions and the (study) conditions that account for the stress experiences of international students. Previous findings emphasized the importance of socio-cultural adaptation challenges for the longitudinal prediction of study satisfaction and drop-out intentions of international students in Germany (Zimmermann et al., 2021a). Hence, institutional resources, such as lecturer and student support as well as decision-making autonomy, might not suffice to address international students’ specific challenges in the socio-cultural domain. On the other hand, the investigated support measures, in particular decision-making autonomy, may not serve the needs of all students to the same extent. For example, decision-making autonomy was approved as a core resource for distance education students who are well acquainted with the German education system. However, these students frequently need to simultaneously handle study demands alongside demands from other life domains, such as work and family obligations (Pumpe & Jonkmann, 2025). As a consequence, the provision of autonomy may help these students to integrate study demands into their other life obligations and, thus, reduce their perceived stress. By contrast, it might confront international students who are not well acquainted with the German educational system with additional challenges of organizing their study obligations whilst considering nontransparent study regulations. This assumption was corroborated by additional analyses based on an analogous path model that is only different from the model described above in the modeling of the institutional support scale. In this additional exploratory model, we did not specify institutional support as a second-order factor but included its three dimensions (lecturer support, students support, and decision-making autonomy) as independent latent constructs (see Table S1 in the Supplemental Materials). The additional analysis confirmed the described positive relationship between decision-making autonomy and stress amongst international students (β = .18, p = .032), while effects of the other two constructs were not significant (lecturer support: β = .07, p = .328; student support: β = .04, p = .524). These findings support our assumption that international students might tend to feel overwhelmed and stressed out by increased decision-making autonomy. To conclude, the unexpected finding that the investigated institutional resources seem to increase international students experiences of stress suggests that in a globalized educational context, higher education institutions need to carefully consider and expand their support structures in order to ensure their intended effects in different student groups. However, further research considering the heterogeneity of the international student body, e.g., in terms of their gender, academic and cultural background (Preuß et al., 2025), is essential to more precisely describe the perceptions and effects of distinct institutional support measures in this student group.

The study situation of international students is not only characterized by the common academic and social challenges associated with higher education but also endorses stressors related to the adaptation to a new academic system, mastering a foreign language, meeting the expectations of both their home and host countries, and the experience of discrimination (Alharbi & Smith, 2018; Smith & Khawaja, 2011). In the present study, the specific study situation of international students is addressed by the integration of students acculturation orientations into the SD-R model. The acculturation framework suggests that individual acculturation strategies based on individuals’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral orientations towards their host and their home countries are essential in explaining their acculturation experiences, e.g., in terms of perceived stress and engagement (Berry, 2006). Overall, previous research emphasized the adaptive functions of host orientations but was inconclusive regarding the role of home orientations (e.g., Hofhuis et al., 2019; Sam & Berry, 2010; Serrano-Sánchez et al., 2021a, 2022; Taušováa et al., 2019; Tonsing, 2014). The present findings are in line with this pattern of results, as international students’ affective orientation towards the host country was confirmed as an individual resource to reduce their stress and to promote their engagement. Yet, against expectations, no effects of the cognitive host orientation were secured. On the one hand, this finding corroborates the importance of a differentiated conceptualization of acculturation orientations (Arends-Tóth et al., 2006; Y. Y. Kim, 2006; Ward & Geeraert, 2016), as cognitive and affective aspects of the host orientation did not align in their functions for student stress and engagement. On the other hand, it emphasizes the need for further research on the specific functions of affective, cognitive, and behavioral host and home acculturation orientations as well as their correlations and interplay over time. For example, a previous study unrevealed different developmental patterns of cognitive and behavioral dimensions of acculturation orientations and showed their cross-lagged longitudinal interplay and distinct relations to individual characteristics such as multicultural self-efficacy (Serrano-Sánchez et al., 2021b). Yet further research is needed to more cohesively understand these dynamics, in particular in relation to indicators of international students’ mental health and well-being.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

While it provides important insights, the present study implies some limitations that need to be considered in the interpretation of the results and the inference of practical implications. First, the analyses relied on cross-sectional data, which limits the possibilities of causal inferences. Second, all constructs were operationalized via self-report measures that might be subject to different kinds of biases, such as socially desirable responding or inaccurate reports, due to biased memories and perceptions. This may also give rise to concerns on theoretical overlap, in particular between (perceived) study demands and stress, which might have contributed to the strong association between both constructs (β = .82, p < .001). In this regard, the inclusion of objective indicators (e.g., the frequency of assessments as an indicator of study demands) or behavioral measures (e.g., on interactions with lecturers and students as well as on behavioral acculturation orientations) provides desirable amendments for future research. Finally, the present sample is not restricted to but dominated by international students from one specific higher education institution in Germany. As previous studies emphasized the importance of contextual conditions with regard to the associations described in the SD-R model (Hahn et al., 2024) as well as for the assessment of the outcomes of distinct acculturation strategies (Ward & Geeraert, 2016), the transferability of the present results to other samples, institutional, and cultural contexts warrants further exploration. A more comprehensive analysis of the specific characteristics of both the international students (e.g., with regard to their demographic characteristics and further individual resources such as student resilience and (intercultural) competencies) as well as the acculturating contexts (e.g., in terms of cultural differences between the students home and host countries; Cao & Meng, 2022) may help in gaining a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between individual, academic, and cultural determinants of international students’ life satisfaction and further indicators of their mental health and well-being.

5. Conclusions

Despite the described limitations, the present study contributed to the literature on the processes of student well-being and mental health as it adapted the established SD-R model to the specific group of international students. It thus added to the scarce literature on the psychosocial situation of this student group at German higher education institutions (Zimmermann & Serrano-Sánchez, 2023). We hope that the present study inspires further research in order to more thoroughly consider the demographic and cultural heterogeneity amongst students at German higher education institutions in scientific research, as well as regarding the implementation of educational structures and practices.