In this study, we hypothesized that social support has the moderation effect on the relationship between CQ and socio-cultural adjustment. Further, we also predicted that each dimension of variables has the interaction effect. Table 4.5 showed the results of hierarchical regression for moderation effect. In the Model 1, all the control variables were added into the first step. Then, the two main effect, CQ and social support, were added into Model 2. Finally, the interaction of CQ and social support was added into the Model 3. As predicted, social support positively moderated the influence of CQ on socio-cultural adjustment (β = 0.32, p
< 0.001). Their interaction term account for 10 percent (∆R2 = 0.10, ∆F = 32.31, p < 0.001) of the explained variance in socio-cultural adjustment. In Figure 4.1, as predicted, the plot of the interaction term show that CQ was related to socio-cultural adjustment for high social support. In contrast, the flat slop shows that CQ affected socio-cultural adjustment slightly for low social support received individual. Therefore, international students receive more social support will strength the relationship between CQ and socio-cultural adjustment.
45
Equally, when students receive less social support will weaken the relationship between CQ and socio-cultural adjustment. The hypothesis 2 was supported.
Table 4.4.
Result of Regression Analysis for CQ and Socio-cultural Adjustment (N=236)
Variables Model 1 Model 2
β β
Step 1: Controls
Gender -0.02 -0.03
Age 0.08 0.08
Oversea Experience 0.03 0.04
English Ability 0.34*** 0.26***
Chinese Ability 0.11+ 0.09
Step 2: Independent
CQ 0.20**
R2 0.15 0.19
Adj. R2 0.13 0.16
∆R2 0.03
F 7.99*** 8.46***
∆F 9.32**
Note. + p < .10. ,** p < .01., *** p < .001.
46
Table 4.5.
Moderating Effect of Social Support on the Relationship between CQ and Socio-cultural Adjustment (N=236)
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
β β β
Step 1: Controls
Gender -0.02 -0.10 -0.04
Age 0.08 0.12+ 0.15+
Oversea Experience 0.03 0.03 0.03
English Ability 0.34*** 0.25*** 0.27***
Chinese Ability 0.11+ 0.06 0.07
Step 2: Main effect
CQ 0.14* 0.17**
Social Support 0.21** 0.20**
Step 3: Interaction
CQ x Social Support 0.32***
R2 0.15 0.22 0.32
Adj. R2 0.13 0.20 0.30
∆R2 0.07 0.10
F 7.99*** 9.06*** 13.08***
∆F 10.10*** 32.31***
Note: + p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
47
Figure 4.1. CQ and socio-cultural adjustment by social support
In our hypotheses, we also predicted that the interaction of CQ sub-dimensions and social support sub-dimensions has the moderating effect in this study. In the Table 4.6, it shows the integration result of regression analysis for each dimension. The detail table information and the figure please check the appendix A.
The results of regression analysis and moderation figure for each dimension were fit with our hypotheses. The interaction of meta-cognitive CQ and social emotional support has the moderating effect on socio-cultural adjustment (β = 0.16, p < 0.01). The increasing amount of explained variance was on affect the socio-cultural adjustment (∆R2 = 0.03, ∆F = 7.30, p < 0.01). If international student receive more social emotional support, it will strength the relationship between meta-cognitive CQ and socio-cultural adjustment. It is fit with the hypothesis 2a in this study. The result showed that the interaction effect of meta-cognitive CQ and instrumental support has impact on socio-cultural adjustment (β = 0.13, p < 0.05). The increasing amount of explained variance was significant on the socio-cultural adjustment (∆R2 = 0.01, ∆F = 4.46, p < 0.05). When students receive more instrumental support, it will strength the relationship meta-cognitive CQ and instrumental. The hypothesis 2b was satisfied. The interaction effect of cognitive CQ and social emotional support shown the
48
significant impact on socio-cultural adjustment (β = 0.26, p < 0.001). The increasing amount of explained variance was significant on socio-cultural adjustment (∆R2 = 0.07, ∆F = 19.13, p < 0.001). The social emotional support strengthens the relationship between cognitive CQ and socio-cultural adjustment. Hypothesis 2c was supported. The interaction effect of cognitive CQ and instrumental support has significant influence on socio-cultural adjustment (β = 0.21, p < 0.001). The interaction term account for 5 percent (∆R2 = 0.05,
∆F = 13.46, p < 0.001) of the explained variance in socio-cultural adjustment. The instrumental support enhances the relationship between cognitive CQ and socio-cultural adjustment. It is satisfied with hypothesis 2d. The interaction effect of motivational CQ and social emotional support shown the significant impact on socio-cultural adjustment (β = 0.19, p < 0.01). The increasing amount of explained variance was significant on
socio-cultural adjustment (∆R2 = 0.03, ∆F = 9.44, p < 0.01). International students received more social emotional support will strengthen the relationship between motivational CQ and socio-cultural adjustment. Hypothesis 2e was supported .The table showed that the interaction effect of motivational CQ and instrumental support was significant on socio-cultural adjustment (β = 0.16, p < 0.01). The increasing amount of explained variance was significant on socio-cultural adjustment (∆R2 = 0.03, ∆F = 7.30, p < 0.01). The instrumental support strengthens the relationship between motivational CQ and socio-cultural adjustment. Hypothesis 2f was satisfied. The interaction effect of behavioral CQ and social emotional support was significant on socio-cultural adjustment (β = 0.22, p < 0.001). The increasing amount of explained variance was significant on socio-cultural adjustment (∆R2 = 0.04, ∆F = 12.78, p < 0.001). When international students receive more social emotional support, it will enhance the relationship between behavioral CQ and socio-cultural adjustment.
The result was fit with hypothesis 2g. Final, the interaction effect of behavioral CQ and instrumental support was significant on socio-cultural adjustment (β = 0.15, p < 0.05). The increasing amount of explained variance was significant on socio-cultural adjustment (∆R2 =
49
0.02, ∆F = 6.22, p < 0.05). Instrumental support has the moderating effect on the relationship between behavioral CQ and instrumental support. Hypothesis 2h was supported.
Table 4.6.
Integration Result of Regression Analysis for Moderating Effect of CQ Sub-dimensions And Social Support Sub-dimensions (N=236)
Interaction Beta Value
Meta-cognitive CQ x Social emotional support 0.16**
Meta-cognitive CQ x Instrumental support 0.13*
Cognitive CQ x Social emotional support 0.26***
Cognitive CQ x Instrumental support 0.21***
Motivational CQ x Social emotional support 0.19**
Motivational CQ x Instrumental support 0.16**
Behavioral CQ x Social emotional support 0.22***
Behavioral CQ x Instrumental support 0.15*
Note:* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
50
51