Assessing changes in mood state in university students following short-term study abroad.

Short-term study-abroad (STSA) programs provide a more accessible alternative for students who would otherwise not consider engaging in academic activities overseas. Though improvements in the levels of intercultural sensitivity and general academic aspects attained by STSA programs have been previously examined, much less is known regarding the impact such programs have in the mood of students. Here, we examined changes in mood state associated with participation in an STSA program in a group of Japanese university students. Mood states were assessed using the Profile of Mood States (POMS), the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS), and the Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-6). Results indicated that the POMS mean scores of Vigor-Activity and SWLS peaked at the time immediately following participation in the STSA program; moreover, the same scores were found to be at comparable levels even one month after the end of the program. These results indicate that participation in STSA programs can positively influence the mood state of university students, suggesting that the benefits associated with participation in such programs extend beyond typically reported improvements in the academic domain.

Introduction

Though the multifaceted benefits of participation in study-abroad programs are well documented [1], the percentage of Japanese students engaging in international academic programs remains low at approximately 1% [2]. Results from a survey sponsored by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology conducted in 2017 [3] revealed that parents who enjoy a higher socioeconomic status (i.e., income and level of education) are more likely to consider the possibility of sending their children to study abroad (55%) than lower socioeconomic status counterparts (26%), suggesting that for Japanese students, access to financial resources can act as a primary deterrent for participation in SA programs. To counter that low take-up, universities in Japan have developed a variety of study-abroad programs [4] to increase the number of domestic students gaining international academic experience by targeting subgroups of the student population that are less likely, or more reluctant, to seek international experience during their university years. Such efforts are believed to help foster more “globalized” academic environments, which are thought to be an important prerequisite for prospective domestic and international students [5, 6]. To help students overcome the barriers that may prevent their participation in short-term study abroad (STSA) programs, universities have resorted to different strategies, such as minimizing language requirements or offering access to financial support. (According to the nomenclature guideline provided by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, programs that last from 1 week to three months should be denominated ‘short-term’, whereas programs that last from 6 months to two years should be denominated ‘long-term’ (https://tobitate.mext.go.jp/univ/planguide/)).

It is generally reported that long-term study-abroad programs, lasting one semester or more, bring greater benefits than STSA programs [7]. However, because STSA programs provide a more accessible and affordable alternative than long-term programs, they should not be overlooked, as they target a subgroup of the student population that would otherwise not engage in any type of international academic activity. Chieffo et al. [8] have noted that most of the more recent study abroad (SA) programs have a short-term character. As a result of this trend, most universities in Japan now offer STSA programs as part of their official curricula. Contrarily to the belief that programs of longer duration always generate better outcomes, a few studies have provided evidence that that is not necessarily the case. For instance, a recent study examined the effects of length of stay (LoS) in the pragmatic competence of Chinese students who underwent SA programs of three different durations, i.e., 9 months, 20 months, and 38 months [9]. Results revealed that the number of indirect request strategies produced by the SA students (a measure of pragmatic competence) that were highly similar to those produced by native speakers was not related to the LoS, indicating that even in the domain of second-language acquisition, outcomes do not necessarily intensify with longer LoS.

The benefits associated with SA programs have been measured in various ways, including both intercultural sensitivity [6] and desire to attend graduate school [7], which are relevant aspects in the context of international education. Most naturally, SA programs have historically been an intense object of study in the field of applied linguistics. That is primarily because experiencing a foreign language being spoken by native speakers in their socio-cultural settings or witnessing English being used as a lingua franca in real-life contexts amounts to an ’immersion-like’ learning experience [10] that is expected to be much more effective than classroom-based approaches for second-language acquisition. Sanz et al. [10] and Freed [11] comprehensively explored these issues, focusing not only on purely linguistic factors, such as language accuracy (proficiency), syntactic and semantic processing, but also on broader aspects of communicating in a foreign language, such as sociolinguistic competence, pragmatic competence, and discourse strategy, which clearly benefit more saliently from participation in SA programs.

Assessing the long-term impact of international study, Yokota et al. [12] reported that students who participated in SA programs, compared with those who did not, adapted better to new and different cultural environments. Notably, this positive outcome was associated not only with advanced language or technical skills but also with fundamental competences of emotional intelligence and socialization, leaving students with an overall progressive outlook on life.

Other studies have shown positive effects in how participants of STSA programs perceive themselves in a globalized context after obtaining international experience. Using large-scale surveys, Chieffo et al. [13] reported that students who took part in a five-week STSA exchange program had higher levels of self-assessed “global awareness” when compared with students who only took classes about intercultural understanding in their country of origin. Kurt et al. [14] assessed notions associated with global consciousness among students undertaking a three- to four-week STSA program, at three time-points, before, during and after the program. Results indicated that a student’s self-assessed acquired practical knowledge about the world was significantly enhanced upon completion of the program.

Few studies have examined the value of more time-limited exchange programs, such as those lasting only one week [7, 15], and how such programs compare with those of longer duration. However, given the poor take-up of international study by Japanese students [16], and the increasing costs of study-abroad programs, a full investigation of the effects of time-limited STSA programs appears warranted. Moreover, though there is little doubt that SA programs can have a positive impact in improving intercultural sensitivity and helping students develop their second-language skills, it is necessary to attend to the possibility that, at the same time, there could be potential downsides resulting directly from participation in such activities.

One important question concerns how the mood of students evolve through time, both during and after their study abroad experience. For instance, it has been reported that it is not uncommon for long-term SA students to experience some form of “cultural shock” in the country of destiny [17]. In addition, long-term SA students may experience a reverse culture shock upon returning to their countries of origin [18-20], as they re-encounter peers who they perceive as unable to share the newly acquired perspectives cultivated during the time spent living in a distinct cultural and linguistic context. These phenomena have been conceptualized in the past as the U-curve [21] and W-curve [22] models of cross-cultural adaptation. However, empirical data do not always support these models [23-25]; that being so, they should be regarded as "a heuristic device to provoke discussion about acculturation", as argued by Gray et al. [26]. Indeed, the notions of “culture shock/reverse culture shock” can only explain a small fraction of the changes in mood state experienced by students who have studied abroad [26]. Directly examining how STSA can affect mood will provide new insights about this important aspect of SA programs, and help highlight potential differences that may exist between effects induced by STSA programs, compared to more traditional long-term SA programs. This will have important practical implications when preparing students who plan to participate in study abroad programs.

Overall, previous reports highlight the point that SA programs may not benefit everyone, all the time. Students may face unique hardships abroad that could negatively influence their mood in the immediate and medium terms. Therefore, it is crucial to accurately assess the extent to which the mood of SA program participants is affected by their experiences overseas. That question becomes especially relevant for SA programs of short duration, since improvements in access are likely to attract a more diverse body of students. A better understanding of how such programs can influence the mood of participants will provide a solid basis upon which STSA programs can be expanded and improved to benefit participating students more fully.

Our goal in this paper was to examine changes in the mood state of individuals participating in a one-week STSA program. We employed metrics that are typically applied in experimental psychology (see Methods for details), but which have thus far been less favored in the field of SA research [27, 28]. To examine the impact on the mood state of students participating in the one-week STSA program, data collection was performed at two time-points before and two time-points after their time abroad.

Methods

Participants

The STSA participants consisted of 40 Japanese undergraduate students attending a Japanese university (24 males, 16 females, mean age 19.2 years old, [range 18–22], SD = 1.0). They participated in a STSA program of one week duration, called the Global Fieldwork Project (more details in section below). Students taking part in the program were enrolled in several different majors: Letters (30%); Economics (17.5%); Sociology (15%); Life Sciences (7.5%); Policy Science (7.5%); Gastronomy Management (5%); Business Administration (5%); Science and Engineering (5%); Comprehensive Psychology (2.5%); International Relations (2.5%); and Information Science and Engineering (2.5%). A total of 42.5% of participants in the STSA program were freshmen, 40% were sophomores, 15% were juniors and 2.5% were seniors. The program had two destinations, with 65% of the students conducting the fieldwork in Penang, Malaysia, and 35% conducting the fieldwork in Phnom Pen, Cambodia. Students visited the respective countries for the first time for the occasion of this STSA program. All participants had basic English speaking and writing ability but were not able to communicate in other languages spoken locally. This study was approved by the ethics and safety committee of the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology. All students provided written informed consent prior to participation in the study.

NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)

To ensure that participants of the STSA program were a representative student sample, we asked participants to rate items in the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI, [29]), and compared them with the scores given by a group of students from the same university who neither participated in the program nor spent any time overseas during the same period. Personality traits are thought to partially explain individual differences regarding emotion processes and mood (e.g., [30, 31]). Moreover, because participants in the SA program were self-selected, it was important to verify that this cohort matched well a sample of students from the same university who did not take part in the SA program. Ensuring that there were no significant intergroup differences regarding a well verified model of personality traits would minimize the chances that study results were trivially rooted on spurious confounds.

There were 38 undergraduate students (16 males, 22 females, mean age 19.4 years old, range [18-22], SD = 0.9) in the comparison group (25.6% freshmen, 74.4% sophomores). Participants in the comparison group were from the College of Life Sciences (35.9%) and the College of Pharmaceutical Sciences (46.1%). The NEO-FFI is a shortened version of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised, an implementation of an empirically validated five-factor model of human personality [32]. The FFI is one of the most extensively applied models of personality currently in use [33], describing individual differences in terms of five personality traits: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. This personality model has been examined using both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on populations of different ages and cultural backgrounds [34-36]. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the NEO-FFI items used to compute the scores in the 5 dimensions, based on data from a cohort of 659 Japanese adults (range [21-87] years old), was found to be mostly in the reliable range (Neuroticism, alpha = .83, Extraversion, alpha = 0.78, Openness, alpha = .75, Agreeableness, alpha = .68, Conscientiousness, alpha = .77). The one-week test-retest reliability of the NEO-PI-R, a superset of the NEO-FFI, based on data from a different cohort of 120 Japanese university students (range [18-22] years old), was found to be in the high range, with values between r = .84 (Neuroticism) to r = .91 (Agreeableness) [37].

Profile of Mood States (POMS)

The mood states of participants were assessed using a Japanese translation of the Profile of Mood States (Second Edition, Adult Short Form, POMS 2®, Kanekoshobo Inc., Tokyo, Japan). The POMS was designed to assess the mood states of individuals aged 13 years and older [38]. The POMS is composed of six scales: Anger-Hostility (AH), Confusion-Bewilderment (CB), Depression-Dejection (DD), Fatigue-Inertia (FI), Tension-Anxiety (TA), and Vigor-Activity (VA). Higher POMS scores indicate greater levels of the corresponding construct. Note that only the VA scale has a positive valence, while all other scales have a negative connotation. The full version of the POMS consists of a collection of 65 self-rating items that are used to assess the respondents’ feelings and emotions (e.g., “Worn-out", "Active"), allowing for a quick assessment of the respondent’s mood state. Items are scored from 0 (“Not at all”) to 4 (“Extremely”). Experimenters need to clearly specify the time period respondents should consider when evaluating the items (e.g., “Past week, including today” (employed in the current study), “Right now”). Here, we used the short version of the POMS which consists of a select 30-item subset of the full version.

An aggregate score of total mood disturbance (TMD) can be computed based on the 6 POMS scores, with greater scores indicating higher disturbance. The POMS individual scales, or the TMD score, have been employed to monitor natural changes in mood state or alterations in mood state following behavioral interventions in clinical, athletic and psychology research settings [39-41]. A few studies have employed the POMS in researching study-abroad programs (e.g. [42]). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the 6 scales, based on the responses from 397 Japanese respondents of similar age (18–29 years old) was found to be in the reliable range ([.62-.95]). The one-week test-retest reliability based on data from 22 Japanese respondents of similar age (20–29 years old) was found to be in the high range (r values in the range [.767-.915]) [43].

Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS)

The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; [44]) consists of five items developed to measures an individual’s satisfaction with life as a whole, regardless and beyond specific domains such as health and finances. Satisfaction with life is thought to be a fundamental component of the construct of hedonic subjective well-being [45]. The SWLS has been extensively applied to a variety of clinical and non-clinical populations across different cultural contexts [46, 47]. The two-month test-retest coefficient based on data from 76 students was found to be in the high range (r = 0.82) [45]. The 4-week test-retest correlation coefficient based on data collected from 49 Japanese participants was in the high range (r = .80). Internal consistency of the SWLS items based on the same sample set was found to be in the reliable range (alpha = .84) [48].

Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-6)

The Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-6) is a six-item scale used to assess the individual disposition of experiencing the emotion of gratitude, conceptualized as an affective trait reflecting one’s tendency to attend and respond to positive outcomes enabled by the actions of external actors [49]. GQ-6 scores have been found to be positively correlated with SWLS scores [50], as well as subjective scores of happiness [51] and job satisfaction [52]. The GQ-6 (Japanese version) was found to have good internal consistency reliability (alpha = .92) and good four-week test-retest reliability (r = .86), based on the data from 409 Japanese college students [53].

Global Fieldwork Project (GFP)

The GFP is a project-oriented, fieldwork-based program, structured such that students first explore possible themes of interest and concerns regarding the country they are about to visit, and then pursue those themes with the assistance of local university students (“buddies”) during the STSA period. STSA participants were recruited via an official website maintained by the university for the purpose of disseminating information about SA programs. Students obtained 2 study credits for their participation in the STSA program reported in this study. There was no English proficiency requirement (e.g., minimum TOEIC score). Applicants were required to submit an essay in Japanese about their SA goals and aspirations, which was screened by the university’s selection committee. All participants received partial financial support from an alumni association to help cover the costs involved. The STSA program began with a classroom orientation session at the end of June 2018, around the time when the spring term usually ends and the summer vacation begins.

In the initial orientation session, students were required to form groups of three to discuss possible topics of study and devise a fieldwork plan to execute during the STSA. The topics discussed were quite diverse, reflecting the variety of interests and backgrounds of the participating students. Students were encouraged to form hypotheses about various socioeconomic aspects of the country they were about to visit. Self-report data indicated that the STSA participants had none or very little experience overseas.

Approximately one month after the orientation session, students traveled to Malaysia or Cambodia (the two destinations of the STSA) led by a faculty member whose role was to oversee the entire program and help the students when necessary.

During the study abroad period, their work consisted of gathering first-hand information through questionnaires and interviews with local people to test the hypotheses proposed during the orientation session. The interviews were conducted in collaboration with their “buddies”. Apart from the group-based fieldwork, the program included an introductory lecture by a local university professor, an orientation session, and a farewell party. Excluding travel time to and from the overseas destination, the total period spent abroad was six days.

Two to four weeks after their return from overseas, students were required to present their findings in front of an invited audience of fellow students and academics. As part of their presentation, they reported on whether their initial hypotheses about the socioeconomic conditions of the visited country had been confirmed or not. Through personal interviews, students also reported about their overall experience taking part in the GFP, and various other aspects regarding their experience during the STSA period.

Students in the comparison group were recruited among volunteers who took courses taught by the first author (TY) at the same university; only students with no previous SA experience were included.

Study design

During the orientation day, approximately one month prior to the scheduled departure date (Time 1, T1), participants were requested to answer the items in the POMS, SWLS, GQ-6 and NEO-FFI. To minimize demand characteristics, participants were requested to answer the items as part of their normal classroom activities. The same was true for the comparison group when completing the NEO-FFI.

Because the current study spanned no more than three months, the NEO-FFI was completed only once. The POMS, SWLS and GQ-6 were completed four times in total: (i) during the orientation day; (ii) one day before departure (T2, mid-August for the students heading to Cambodia; early September for the students heading to Malaysia); (iii) the day they arrived back in Japan (T3, end of August for students that visited Cambodia; mid-September for students that visited Malaysia); and (iv) during the final presentation session, held over a single weekend at the end of September (T4).

Statistical analysis

To detect differences between groups regarding personality traits, we employed a two-way, repeated measures analysis of variance (rm-ANOVA) with group (STSA and comparison groups) as a between-subjects factor, and the NEO-FFI traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) as within-subject factors. To detect changes in the mood of STSA participants, we employed a one-way rm-ANOVA to examine the individual components of the POMS mood state (Anger-Hostility, Confusion-Bewilderment, Depression-Dejection, Fatigue-Inertia, Tension-Anxiety, and Vigor-Activity), with time (T1, T2, T3, T4) as a within-subject factor. A similar analysis was performed using the data from the SWLS and GQ6. Degrees of freedom were adjusted using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (Mauchly’s sphericity test). All analyses were performed using SPSS version 25 (IBM, New York, USA).

Results

NEO-FFI trait differences between study-abroad and comparison groups

We first examined whether our study-abroad group differed from the comparison group on the five NEO-FFI traits. Results provided confirmatory evidence that there were no latent personality trait differences between the SA and comparison groups. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for NEO-FFI traits (F(2.289, 173.974) = 4.327, p = 0.011, Greenhouse-Geisser corrected), but no main effect of group (F(1, 76) = 2.442, p = 0.122). Moreover, there was no interaction between the NEO-FFI traits and group (F(2.289, 173.974) = 0.2401), p = 0.816). Post-hoc tests using Bonferroni correction revealed that the mean score for the NEO-FFI Extraversion trait (M = 25.78, SD = 8.63) and Agreeableness trait (M = 30.24, SD = 5.87) differed significantly (p < 0.001).

POMS

Vigor-Activity (VA) scores across time

Vigor-Activity scores changed significantly as a result of SA participation. We entered the scores of the component VA in a one-way rm-ANOVA, with time (T1, T2, T3, T4) as a within-subjects factor. The results showed a significant main effect of time (F(3, 117) = 24.078, p < 0.0001). Post-hoc tests using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons indicated that the mean VA score at time T3 (M = 13.67, SD = 4.621), collected the day after participants returned from abroad, was larger than the mean score at both time T1 (M = 9.08, SD = 4.891), T2 (M = 8.98, SD = 4.452) and T4 (M = 11.53, SD = 3.883). Furthermore, the mean score at T4 was larger than the scores collected at T1 and T2, and smaller than the score at T3. These results are shown in Fig 1A.

Fig 1

POMS scores (averages) across time. (a) Vigor-Activity (VA), (b) Confusion-Bewilderment (CB), (c) Fatigue-Inertia (FI), and (d) Tension-Anxiety (TA). T1: one month before departure overseas, T2: one day before departure, T3: the day of arrival back in Japan, and T4: 2–4 weeks after their return. The asterisk (*) indicates statistically significant pairwise differences (p < 0.05 level), corrected for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Error bars indicate one standard error.

Confusion-Bewilderment (CB), Fatigue-Inertia (FI) and Tension-Anxiety (TA) scores across time

Mean scores of the CB component were entered in a one-way rm-ANOVA, with time (T1, T2, T3, T4) as a within-subjects factor. The results showed a significant main effect of time (F(3, 117) = 4.083, p < 0.013). Post-hoc tests using Bonferroni correction indicated that the mean CB score at time T1 (M = 6.80, SD = 4.334), collected at the initial orientation session, was larger than the mean score at both time T2 (M = 5.05, SD = 3.721) and T3 (M = 5.22, SD = 3.899). These results are shown in Fig 1B.

Similarly, Fig 1C shows that there was a significant main effect of time on the FI component (F(3, 117) = 2.730, p < 0.047), with post-hoc tests using Bonferroni correction indicating that the mean FI score at time T1 (M = 7.67, SD = 4.281) was larger than the mean score at time T2 (M = 5.90, SD = 3.875).

There was also a significant main effect of time on the mean scores for the TA component (F(3, 117) = 4.954, p < 0.003). Post-hoc tests using Bonferroni correction indicated that the mean TA score at time T1 (M = 8.65, SD = 4.554) was larger than the mean score at both time T2 (M = 6.68, SD = 4.129) and T3 (M = 6.43, SD = 3.974). These results are shown in Fig 1D.

Anger-Hostility (AH) and Depression-Dejection (DD) scores across time

There was no significant difference between the mean scores across time on either the AH component (F(3, 117) = 2.505, p = 0.075) or the DD component (F(3, 117) = 1.128, p = 0.302).

Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) scores across time

Mean SWLS scores were entered in a one-way rm-ANOVA, with time (T1, T2, T3, T4) as a within-subjects factor. The results showed a significant main effect of time (F(3, 117) = 12.201, p < 0.001). Post-hoc tests revealed that the mean SWLS at T3 (M = 21.70, SD = 6.313) was greater than the mean score at both T1 (M = 18.60, SD = 6.997) and T2 (M = 19.25, SD = 6.392). Also, the mean score at T4 (M = 22.17, SD = 7.243) was greater than the scores at both T1 and T2. These results are shown pictorially in Fig 2.

Fig 2

SWLS scores (averages) across time at T1, T2, T3 and T4 (see caption for Fig 1 for details).

The asterisk (*) indicates statistically significant pairwise differences (p < 0.05 level), corrected for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Error bars indicate one standard error.

Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ6) scores across time

A one-way rm-ANOVA, with time (T1, T2, T3, T4) as a within-subjects factor, revealed a significant main effect for time on the mean scores on the Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ6) (F(3, 117) = 3.482, p < 0.018). However, post-hoc tests using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons failed to detect pairwise differences between samples collected at different time-points.

Personal interviews (qualitative data)

We conducted semi-structured interviews with all participants after they returned to Japan. Questions included in the interview were (1) “Please tell us some of your experiences during the stay overseas that you were grateful for”, and (2) “Please tell us what you would like to tell other students about your STSA experience”. Most participants reported having a much better experience than they had originally expected, e.g., some participants admitted having initially joined the STSA program mainly for the purpose of obtaining credits but realizing afterwards that the SA period was an invaluable life experience. Moreover, most participants reported that they would recommend the STSA program to fellow students, admittedly not for improving language skills but rather, e.g., “for the extraordinary experience that can be obtained through the program”. Though we were not able to detect increases in GQ-6 scores after STSA participation, most students reported feeling more grateful for the life circumstances they enjoyed in Japan, e.g., for being able to attend a private university, for being supported by their parents, for having the support of a network of good friends. All in all, these qualitative results provide additional evidence of the positive impact STSA participation can have on university students.

Discussion

In this study, we sought to examine changes in the mood of Japanese university students who took part in a short-term study-abroad (STSA) program of one week duration, in which fieldwork activities were undertaken with the help of local students (in either Cambodia or Malaysia). We first provided confirmatory evidence that students taking part in the program were a representative sample of the student population, using the NEO-Five Factor Inventory to establish that there were no significant differences in major personality traits between study-abroad participants and a comparison group drawn from across the university sector. We next employed POMS to assess the mood states of the study-abroad group, as defined by the categories Anger-Hostility, Confusion-Bewilderment, Depression-Dejection, Fatigue-Inertia, Tension-Anxiety and Vigor-Activity. Our results show that Vigor-Activity increased significantly during their stay overseas (T3), when compared with the levels observed before their departure (T2) (see Fig 1A), and generally remained high throughout the following weeks (T4).

Results from a study by Wen-Lin and Gregory (2015) showed that individual scores of the Intercultural Effectiveness Scale (IES) [54], which measures overall cultural competence and intercultural attitudes, were positively correlated with the Big-Five Personality Inventory factors [55]. More specifically, they showed that six IES factors, namely, behavioral flexibility, interaction relaxation, interactant respect, message skills, identity maintenance, and interaction management, were positively correlated with four personality factors (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness). In addition, the same study showed that the six IES factors were negatively correlated with the neuroticism factor. The absence of intergroup differences regarding personality traits in our sample would suggest that, albeit indirectly, it is not likely that there were pre-existing differences of intercultural effectiveness between SA participants and individuals in the comparison group that could explain these findings.

Other studies have reported associations between the Big Five personality dimensions (i.e., agreeableness and openness) and intent to study abroad (e.g., Nieoff et al. [56]), as well as associations between the Big Five personality dimensions (i.e., extraversion agreeableness and neuroticism) and the desire of expatriates to continue working abroad and fulfill their terms as originally planned (as opposed to terminating their terms earlier to return to their homelands) [57]. These past studies would suggest that there should be differences in the NEO-FFI scores between the SA participants and individuals in the comparison group; however, that was not the case in the current sample. We believe this discrepancy may be explained by differences in the specific circumstances revolving each one of the studies. One salient difference concerns the length of stay between the study-abroad programs. Nieoff et al. [56] examined students who were going to join a semester-long study-abroad program. In comparison, participants in the current study only committed to a one-week study-abroad program. This arguably made the STSA much more accessible to participants, i.e., the STSA program sampled from a much larger body of students than typical long-term SA programs, which resulted in SA participants being much more similar to matched individuals in the comparison group than in previous reports.

Caligiuri [57] examined the relationship between personality characteristics and the aspirations of a group of expatriates and found that the Big Five personality dimensions were associated with the will to continue living abroad. However, in their study, participants had lived in the United States for 1.8 years on average; more importantly, the mean age of participants in their sample was 40 years old. In contrast, participants in the current study were all university students aged from 18 to 22 years old, departing to a STSA program of only one week. Overall, we believe these fundamental differences make it very difficult to directly compare these studies, and likewise, apply the results from one study to predict the results of another.

Mood states, as measured by scales such as the POMS, have been shown to be enhanced using a variety of different manipulations, including meditation [58, 59], sitting isometric yoga [60], massage therapy [61], exposure to nature [62] and physical activities [63]. Here, we attribute the observed enhancements in the scores of Vigor-Activity to participation in the study-abroad program. In addition, using the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS), we showed that participation in STSA programs, even when limited to one week duration, resulted in a significant improvement in a core aspect of subjective well-being that was sustained for at least a few weeks after the students returned from overseas (see Fig 2). On the other hand, contrary to our expectations, no differences in GQ-6 scores were detected.

We conclude that STSA programs limited in duration to just one week are capable of positively impacting the affective state of students. This is of great importance when considering that short-term programs are a much more accessible alternative compared to long-term programs. As such, STSA programs are likely to provide a more feasible entry point for students who otherwise would not consider the possibility of obtaining overseas experience during their years in college. Continued validation of STSA programs using scales such as the BEVI (Beliefs, Events, Values Inventory), IDI (Intercultural Development Inventory) and GPI (Global Perspectives Inventory) (reviewed in [64]) will enable educators to construct more accurate expectations of the long-term benefits of participating in such programs.

It is important to attend to the fact that presently there are only a few studies in the literature that have specifically looked at SA programs of such a short duration. Indeed, the benefits of STSA may be limited in several respects. For example, Suzuki et al. [65] reported that the foreign language speaking proficiency of students who participated in STSA programs for about three weeks was only "slightly improved". Thus, it possible and likely that improvements in language proficiency are even less prominent, if at all, in SA programs of much shorter durations such as one week. In addition, Tarchi et al. [66] showed that there were virtually no changes in the development of intercultural competence after 3 months studying abroad, suggesting that a one-week SA is likely to have very little impact in that respect. Moreover, to more accurately assess the effective magnitude of the changes in mood observed among STSA students, future studies should track participants over longer periods of time (e.g., one year) to compare variations in affective state relative to other significant events in the school calendar (e.g., exam and holiday periods).

How do the enhancements in Vigor-Activity that were observed among the STSA students relate to the changes in mood experienced by long-term SA students? Here, SA students felt energized upon return, as indicated by the increases in Vigor-Activity (VA) scores. Furthermore, even though the VA scores decreased after one month, they were still significantly higher than the levels observed at the onset of the study. These results, combined with the fact that no significant effects were detected for the negative affect dimensions (e.g., POMS Depression-Dejection scores), and that the well-being scores (measured by SWLS) improved during STSA and remained at similar levels one month after, suggest that the SA participants did not suffer a reverse culture shock in the aftermath of the STSA, in contrast with what has been reported about long-term SA program participants. More importantly, the current results indicate that mood changes for short-term SA students may have peculiar and distinctive characteristics that need to be investigated in more details in future research.

Overall, the psychological impact of studying abroad must be considered from different perspectives to be appreciated in its entirety. As Gray et al. have pointed out, when considering adaptation and adjustment during reentry, the strength of personal factors and situational factors must be considered in a holistic manner. Cultural distance (i.e., differences between one’s own culture and the culture in the local of destination) and the degree of immersiveness in the host country’s culture are also thought to cause difficulties in re-entry adjustment [26]. The current findings showing that the STSA program had little (negative) effect upon reentry may provide new insights for understanding why negative effects of reentry occur in long-term SA. A clear understanding of mood effects elicited by participation in SA programs will guide the development of educational content for prospective participants, to better orient them about the potential pitfalls in advance, and help them put in effect strategies to effectively cope with changes in mood state upon return.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

28 May 2021

PONE-D-21-12484

Assessing changes in mood state in university students following short-term study abroad

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yamanaka

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

You should address all the suggestions made by Reviewer 1, in particular those regarding the method and discussion sections.

Please submit your revised manuscript by June 27th. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Berta Schnettler

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: PONE-D-21-12484

This manuscript explores a topic of increasing interest in the study abroad literature, the outcomes of short-term study abroad (STSA) programs. Few well-designed empirical studies and even fewer with participants from outside North American and Europe have addressed this issue. However, I believe several concerns would need to be addressed prior to publication, most importantly dealing with the rationale for measuring mood. These are detailed below.

Introduction

• The authors state that alternative study abroad (SA) programs in Japan have been developed to target subgroups of students less likely to participate in traditional SA. Could the authors elaborate on the nature of these subgroups? For example, in the literature from North American, the students underrepresented in SA tend to be first generation students and Student of Color.

• A critical missing component of the Introduction is some discussion of the value of investigating mood as an outcome of STSA (other than the fact that it has not been done before). What is the purpose of demonstrating changes in these affective states and what would study abroad researchers or practitioners do with this knowledge?

Methods

• Regarding self -selection into the Global Fieldwork Project, please indicate how participants (those who attended the STSA and the controls) were recruited and whether there were any explicit benefits to participation in the program.

• Please explain the rationale behind testing the SA participants and controls for pre-existing differences on the NEO-FFI. Perhaps the logic is that FFM traits (such as Extraversion and Neuroticism) would be correlated with mood? Also, if the purpose of the NEO-FFI assessment is to “ensure that the participants of the STSA program were a representative student sample” and rule out differences linked to self-selection, it may be more relevant to identify pre-existing differences in indices of cultural competence or intercultural attitudes.

• For readers unfamiliar with the POMS, please provide some information on the nature of each of the subscales including, if possible, sample items. The authors state that the POMS allows for “a quick assessment of transient, fluctuating feelings, as well as enduring affective states.” Is it the case that each of the subscales utilized assess both transient and enduring affect? If so, how should we interpret the results of this assessment?

• Please provide reliability coefficients for each of the measures and evidence that any of the scales developed and standardized on Western samples are appropriate for use with Japanese students.

Results

• In terms of the NEO-FFI results, it seems odd that there are not pre-existing differences in the FFM traits that have been consistently associated with study abroad intent and participation in the literature (see, for example Caligiuri, 2000; Niehoff et al., 2017). Why might that be?

Discussion

• What should readers conclude about the finding that a bump in Vigor or subjective well-being may follow STSA. Most study abroad professionals will report that students return from their sojourn excited and energized, and then often “crash” when they learn that their friends and family have little understanding or interest in their experiences or other adjustment challenges occur. What are the implications of this finding? Is it possible to interpret the change in mood as indicating some similarity between STSA and programs of a longer duration?

References

Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The Big Five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate's desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00194.x

Niehoff, E., Petersdotter, L., & Freund, P. A. (2017). International sojourn experience and personality development: Selection and socialization effects of studying abroad and the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 112, 55- 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.043

Reviewer #2: The paper discusses the effect of short-term study abroad.

In introduction, the authors distinguished long-term study abroad from short term study abroad. However, it would be useful to explicitly define how long is long-term SA? How long is short term SA?

P2. Paragraph 2. The authors reviewed a few studies in different aspects. It would be good to mention some linguistic studies on SA, particularly those explicitly stating short-term SA benefits vs. long-term SA benefits. For example:

Ren, Wei. 2019. Pragmatic development of Chinese during study abroad: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 137-149.

Sanz, Cristina & Alfonso Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice. New York: Routledge.

Participants. What are the age ranges of the participants? Had they had SA experience before taking part in the study?

Findings. In addition to the inferential statistic results, it would be better if the authors could also provide some descriptive results.

Discussion. Since the study investigated students’ SA for only 1 week, the short term SA may lead to un-development in some aspects, for example GQ-6. The possibility of short-term SA limitation should be discussed.

Reviewer #3: The study was carried out robustly and presented in an intelligible manner. It would benefit from providing more information about the participants in terms of whether or not they had previous experience abroad or with the countries mentioned.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-12484_reviewer (1).pdf

Click here for additional data file.

16 Sep 2021

---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---

COMMENTS FROM/REPLIES TO REVIEWER #1

---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---

Reviewer #1: PONE-D-21-12484

This manuscript explores a topic of increasing interest in the study abroad literature, the outcomes of short-term study abroad (STSA) programs. Few well-designed empirical studies and even fewer with participants from outside North American and Europe have addressed this issue. However, I believe several concerns would need to be addressed prior to publication, most importantly dealing with the rationale for measuring mood. These are detailed below.

Introduction

• The authors state that alternative study abroad (SA) programs in Japan have been developed to target subgroups of students less likely to participate in traditional SA. Could the authors elaborate on the nature of these subgroups? For example, in the literature from North American, the students underrepresented in SA tend to be first generation students and Student of Color.

Thank you for requesting this clarification. According to a survey sponsored by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology*, one of the main determinants of whether or not a student will have the opportunity to study abroad happens to be the Socio-Economic Status (SES) of the parents (the SES is a composite score based on family income and the parents’ level of education).

Results from that survey showed that 55% of the parents in the highest SES stratum, who have children attending elementary school or junior high school, entertain the possibility of sending their children to study abroad in the future. However, for parents in the lowest SES stratum, that number drops to 26%. This clearly suggests that whether university students in Japan will have an opportunity to pursue academic activities overseas seems to depend primarily on the economic status of their parents, an unsurprising fact given the costs involved with participating in a long-term SA program. On the other hand, because the requirements (financial and otherwise) for joining short-term SA programs are much less demanding in comparison, the decision of whether to participate in a STSA program is likely to be much less influenced by the parents’ SES. We added this new information to the Introduction.

* Unfortunately, we were not able to find an English translation of the above-mentioned survey. Details of the survey (in Japanese), conducted in 2017, can be found in the URLs below: https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/112/shiryo/attach/1381166.htm

https://www.nier.go.jp/17chousa/pdf/17hogosha_factorial_experiment.pdf

• A critical missing component of the Introduction is some discussion of the value of investigating mood as an outcome of STSA (other than the fact that it has not been done before). What is the purpose of demonstrating changes in these affective states and what would study abroad researchers or practitioners do with this knowledge?

Thank you for raising this important point. We more clearly developed the rationale as for why we focused on assessing mood changes associated with a short-term SA in the Introduction. We hope the motivation behind our study is much clearer in the revised manuscript.

Methods

• Regarding self -selection into the Global Fieldwork Project, please indicate how participants (those who attended the STSA and the controls) were recruited and whether there were any explicit benefits to participation in the program.

Thank you for directing our attention to important details that were missing in the original manuscript. Study participants were recruited via an official website maintained by the university for the purpose of disseminating information about various study abroad programs. Students obtained 2 study credits for their participation in the STSA program reported in this study. There was no English proficiency requirement (e.g., minimum TOEIC score). Applicants were required to submit an essay in Japanese about their SA goals to the university, which was screened by the university’s selection committee. All participants received partial financial support provided by an alumni association to help cover the costs involved. Students in the comparison group were recruited among volunteers who took courses taught by the first author (TY) at the same university; students with study abroad experience were excluded. This information was added to the revised manuscript.

• Please explain the rationale behind testing the SA participants and controls for pre-existing differences on the NEO-FFI. Perhaps the logic is that FFM traits (such as Extraversion and Neuroticism) would be correlated with mood? Also, if the purpose of the NEO-FFI assessment is to “ensure that the participants of the STSA program were a representative student sample” and rule out differences linked to self-selection, it may be more relevant to identify pre-existing differences in indices of cultural competence or intercultural attitudes.

Thank you for asking for this clarification. Personality traits are thought explain in part many individual differences regarding emotion processes and mood (e.g., Erbas et al., 2014; Dwan et al., 2017). As you correctly inferred, one of the reasons why we tested for differences in personality traits (as measured using the widely adopted NEO-FFI dimensions) between the SA participants and matched participants in the comparison group was to ensure that there were no significant intergroup differences, at the most basic level, that could end up becoming confounds to the main experimental manipulation results. We were glad to be able to confirm that both groups did not differ with respect to their scores across the 5 NEO-FFI dimensions in any significant way.

Another concern we had, as you correctly pointed out, was the self-selected nature of the individuals in the SA group. Could it be that the students who actively decided to pursue SA were distinct in some way, compared to non-SA students? Failing to detect significant differences concerning the NEO-FFI increased our confidence that the SA participants were indeed a representative sample of the more general student population.

We did not collect data directly related to potential pre-existing differences regarding cultural competence or intercultural attitudes. However, results from a study by Wen-Lin and Gregory (2015) showed that individual scores of the Intercultural Effectiveness Scale (IES), a metric of overall cultural competence and intercultural attitudes (Portalla and Chen, 2010), were positive correlated with factors of the Big-Five Personality Inventory, which assess the same personality constructs as the NEO-FFI. More specifically, they showed that six IES factors, namely, behavioral flexibility, interaction relaxation, interactant respect, message skills, identity maintenance, and interaction management, were correlated positively with four factors, namely, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness. In addition, the same study showed that the six IES factors were negatively correlated with neuroticism. The absence of intergroup differences regarding personality traits in our sample suggests, albeit indirectly, that it is not likely that there were pre-existing differences of intercultural effectiveness between the SA participants and individuals in the comparison group. All in all, because SA participants and comparison participants were well matched for personality traits, we do not think there were significant discrepancies in terms of cultural competence and/or intercultural attitudes that could have affected our main results.

We updated the revised manuscript with the information above.

Erbas, Y., Ceulemans, E., Pe, M. L., Koval, P., and Kuppens, P.. Negative emotion differentiation: Its personality and well-being correlates and a comparison of different assessment methods. Cognition & Emotion. 28:7, 1196-1213. 2014.

Dwan, T., Ownsworth, T., Donovan, C., and Lo, A. H. Y.. Reliability of the NEO Five Factor Inventory short form for assessing personality after stroke. International Psychogeriatrics. 29:7, 1157-1168. 2017.

Portalla, T., & Chen, G.-M. The development and validation of the intercultural effectiveness scale. Intercultural Communication Studies. 2010; 19(3): 21-37.

Wen-Lin W, Gregory SC. The role of personality and intercultural effectiveness towards study abroad academic social activities. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology. 2015;4(4): 13-27.

• For readers unfamiliar with the POMS, please provide some information on the nature of each of the subscales including, if possible, sample items. The authors state that the POMS allows for “a quick assessment of transient, fluctuating feelings, as well as enduring affective states.” Is it the case that each of the subscales utilized assess both transient and enduring affect? If so, how should we interpret the results of this assessment?

Thank you for this suggestion. In the original manuscript, we stated that POMS can assess “transient, fluctuating feelings, as well as enduring affective states” without describing more precisely how the target periods of time are actually defined, which would of course change the meaning of “transient” and “enduring.” We corrected that imprecision in the revised manuscript. In fact, when administering the test, the experimenter has to clearly specify the period of time respondents should consider when evaluating the items in the POMS; default options are “Past week, including today” and “Right now”. The experimenter also has the choice of freely customizing the target period. That leeway allows one to test for transient states OR enduring states, though arguably not both, at the same time.

In the current study, the target period of time respondents had to consider was “Past week, including today”. We added these clarifications in the revised version of the manuscript (Methods; POMS section).

The full POMS contains 65 items (adjectives) that describe six different dimensions of mood: Anger-Hostility (AH), Confusion-Bewilderment (CB), Depression-Dejection (DD), Fatigue-Inertia (FI), Tension-Anxiety (TA), and Vigor-Activity (VA). In this study, though, we used the short version of the POMS which has a subset of select 30 out of the 65 items, e.g., ‘(I feel) Angry 0: not at all, 4: extremely’ (one of the Anger-Hostility items), ‘(I feel) Worn out 0: not at all, 4: extremely’ (one of the Fatigue-Inertia items), ‘(I feel) Tense 0: not at all, 4: extremely’ (one of the Tension-Anxiety items). As stated above, participants were asked to evaluate the items with respect to the previous week, which was a suitable period of time to compare changes in mood before and after participation in the STSA program.

• Please provide reliability coefficients for each of the measures and evidence that any of the scales developed and standardized on Western samples are appropriate for use with Japanese students.

Thank you for requesting this clarification. We used the Japanese versions of the NEO-FFI, POMS, SWLS and GQ-6. The reliability coefficients (test-retest r and Cronbach’s alpha) for each one of the measures based on data collected from Japanese participants are: (1) for NEO-FFI, r = [.84 - .91], α = [.68 - .83], (2) for POMS, r = [.767 - .915], α = [.62 - .95] , (3) for SWLS, r = 0.80, α = 0.84, and (4) for GQ-6, r = 0.92 , α = 0.86.

We added the information above, together with relevant references, in the Methods section of the revised manuscript.

Results

• In terms of the NEO-FFI results, it seems odd that there are not pre-existing differences in the FFM traits that have been consistently associated with study abroad intent and participation in the literature (see, for example Caligiuri, 2000; Niehoff et al., 2017). Why might that be?

Thank you for this comment. Although some studies have shown associations between some of the Big Five personality dimensions (i.e., agreeableness and openness) and students’ study abroad intent (e.g., Nieoff et al, 2017), and between some of the Big Five personality dimensions (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism) and the desire of expatriates to fulfill their terms overseas (as opposed to returning early) (Caligiuri, 2000), we were not able to detect differences regarding the Big Five personality dimensions between the STSA and the comparison groups.

This discrepancy may be explained by differences in length of the study abroad programs involved. Nieoff et al. (2017) examined students who were going to join a semester-long study abroad. In comparison, the STSA program in the current study lasted only one week. This arguably made the STSA more accessible to a larger cohort of students, which in turn resulted in the fact that SA participants were highly similar to students in the comparison group (as indicated by the lack of significant differences vis-a-vis personality traits between the two groups). Caligiuri (2000) examined the relationship between personality characteristics and the aspirations of a group of expatriates under a framework based on the theory of evolutionary personality psychology. In their study, participants had lived in the United States for 1.8 years on average; more importantly, the mean age of participants in their sample was 40 years old. In contrast, in our study, participants were all university students aged from 18 to 22 years old; moreover, the duration of the STSA was only one week. We believe these differences make it very difficult to directly compare these studies, and likewise, apply the results from one study to predict the results of another. We added these arguments to the Discussion section.

Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The Big Five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate's desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744- 6570.2000.tb00194.x

Niehoff, E., Petersdotter, L., & Freund, P. A. (2017). International sojourn experience and personality development: Selection and socialization effects of studying abroad and the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 112, 55- 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.043

Discussion

• What should readers conclude about the finding that a bump in Vigor or subjective well-being may follow STSA. Most study abroad professionals will report that students return from their sojourn excited and energized, and then often “crash” when they learn that their friends and family have little understanding or interest in their experiences or other adjustment challenges occur. What are the implications of this finding? Is it possible to interpret the change in mood as indicating some similarity between STSA and programs of a longer duration?

References

Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The Big Five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate's desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744- 6570.2000.tb00194.x

Niehoff, E., Petersdotter, L., & Freund, P. A. (2017). International sojourn experience and personality development: Selection and socialization effects of studying abroad and the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 112, 55- 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.043

Thank you for providing us with this insight. This is an issue at the very core of the motivation underlying the current study, namely, the need to address the methodological gap regarding how the mood of STSA participants change during and after a period of time in a distinct cultural and linguistic setting.

In the Introduction of the revised manuscript, we allude to Lysgaard's U-curve Adjustment Hypothesis theory, which distinguishes 4 different periods that (long-term) SA students may go through during the SA period. Crucially, what the current results suggest is that the experience of STSA students seems to be quite different to what long-term students normally undergo; our data indicate that after a (short) period overseas, students come back energized (as indicated by higher levels of Vigor-Activity). Furthermore, even after one month, the VA scores are still higher than the levels observed at the onset of the study.

Even though the current results still need to be independently replicated before broader generalizations are made, we believe that, most importantly, they indicate that changes in mood experienced by STSA students may have unique and distinct characteristics that need and deserve to be investigated in their own right.

---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---

COMMENTS FROM/REPLIES TO REVIEWER #2

---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---

Reviewer #2: The paper discusses the effect of short-term study abroad.

In introduction, the authors distinguished long-term study abroad from short term study abroad. However, it would be useful to explicitly define how long is long-term SA? How long is short term SA?

Thank you for requesting this clarification. According to the nomenclature guideline provided by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology*, (1) programs that last from 1 week to three months should be denominated ‘short-term’, whereas (2) programs that last from 6 months to two years should be denominated ‘long-term’.

*Site about studying overseas from the Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (in Japanese):

https://tobitate.mext.go.jp/univ/planguide/

P2. Paragraph 2. The authors reviewed a few studies in different aspects. It would be good to mention some linguistic studies on SA, particularly those explicitly stating short-term SA benefits vs. long-term SA benefits. For example: Ren, Wei. 2019. Pragmatic development of Chinese during study abroad: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 137-149.

Sanz, Cristina & Alfonso Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice. New York: Routledge.

Thank you very much for this suggestion. We now refer to SA linguistic studies in the Introduction of the revised manuscript, with some references (including the ones you suggested).

Participants. What are the age ranges of the participants? Had they had SA experience before taking part in the study?

Thank you very much for this inquiry. For some reason, this very important piece of information was missing in the original manuscript. The mean age of the SA participants was 19.2 years old (SD = 1.0, range [18-22]), whereas the mean age of the students in the comparison group was 19.4 years old (SD = 0.9, range [18-22]). SA participants visited the respective countries for the first time at the occasion of the STSA. Students had basic English speaking and writing skills but were not able to communicate in other languages spoken locally. Self-reports indicated that participants had none or very little experience overseas. We added all the above information in the Methods section.

Findings. In addition to the inferential statistic results, it would be better if the authors could also provide some descriptive results.

Thank you very much for this suggestion. After much deliberation, we decided not to include additional descriptive statistics regarding the collected measures (other than the already included means and SDs) because we thought the added details would not necessarily lead to a better understanding of the results of the current study. Rather, we opted to add a qualitative description of the reports obtained from semi-structured interviews conducted with all participants after they returned to Japan. We think those reports do help provide some important insights about the potential positive impact STSA participation can have in the mood at large of university students.

Questions included in the interview were (1) “please tell us some experiences that you were grateful for during the stay”, and (2) “please tell us what you would like to tell other students about your experience overseas”. Most participants reported having a much better experience than they had originally expected, e.g., some participants admitted having joined the STSA program mainly for the purpose of obtaining credits but realizing afterwards that they had had an invaluable life experience. Moreover, most participants reported that they would recommend the STSA program to fellow students, admittedly not for improving language skills but rather, e.g., “for the extraordinary experience that can be obtained through the program”. Though we were not able to detect increases in GQ-6 scores (which measures trait gratitude orientation) after participation in the STSA, most students reported feeling more grateful for their life situations in Japan, e.g., for being able to attend a private university, for being supported by their parents, for having the support of a network of good friends. We believe these qualitative results provide additional evidence of the positive impact STSA participation can have on the mood at large of university students and shall be explored further in future studies.

This information was added in a new section in the revised manuscript.

Discussion. Since the study investigated students’ SA for only 1 week, the short term SA may lead to un-development in some aspects, for example GQ-6. The possibility of short-term SA limitation should be discussed.

Thank you very much for this comment. We discuss some further limitations of STSA in the Discussion section, with some additional references. We hope that will provide a broader perspective of the potential benefits as well as the limitations of STSA programs.

---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---

COMMENTS FROM/REPLIES TO REVIEWER #3

---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---

Reviewer #3: The study was carried out robustly and presented in an intelligible manner. It would benefit from providing more information about the participants in terms of whether or not they had previous experience abroad or with the countries mentioned.

Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. All participants visited the respective destination countries for the first time at the occasion of the STSA. Though they were not able to communicate using any of the languages spoken locally, they could at a basic level speak and write in English. Self-reports indicated that STSA students had none or very little experience overseas. This information was added to the Methods section of the revised manuscript.

We hope all your questions and concerns were properly addressed in the revised manuscript. Thank you very much for your time and effort in improving our paper. We look forward to hearing from you.

With very best wishes,

T. Yamanaka, on behalf of the authors.

Submitted filename: Reply_to_Reviewers_Comments_PLOS_ONE_v3_20210730.docx

Click here for additional data file.

26 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-12484R1Assessing changes in mood state in university students following short-term study abroadPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yamanaka

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

You should consider the new suggestions from Reviewer 1 and also incorporate the descriptive statistics requested by Reviewer 2.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Berta Schnettler

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Although I appreciate the authors’ careful attention to each aspect of the reviewers’ comments, I remain concerned about the rationale for studying mood in STSA. In their revision, the authors have added a discussion of Lysgaard’s U-curve hypotheses (in the Introduction and the Discussion sections) as central to their rationale. Yet, empirical research has not supported the U-curve hypothesis (see, for example, Chien, 2016; Gray & Savicki, 2015). As I read the revision, I found myself still wondering about the possible significance and implications of the authors’ findings on STSA participants’ elevated mood. The statement in the Discussion indicating that “This is important because short-term programs are a more accessible alternative to long term…” still didn’t answer my question. Then, in the last paragraph of the manuscript, the authors make a fascinating comment – “[these findings] suggest that the SA participants did not suffer a reverse culture shock in the aftermath of the STSA, in contrast with what has been reported about long-term SA program participants.” It seems to me that this latter point is the more significant contribution of this study. If, in fact, STSA programs are characterized by less severe re-entry shock than their longer counterparts, this information could contribute to our understanding of why re-entry shock occurs and may shape the content of pre-departure and in-country orientation for STSA participants. To my knowledge, re-entry shock in STSA is a topic that has received little attention in terms of empirical investigations. I suggest one more revision in which any reference to the U-curve is removed and emphasis is placed on the issue of re-entry shock (as indicated by the assessment of mood). I believe that doing so could significantly strengthen this contribution to the study abroad literature.

Chien, Y.-Y. G. (2016). After six decades: Applying the U-curve hypothesis to the adjustment of international postgraduate students. Journal of Research in International Education, 15(1), 32-51. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1475240916639398

Gray, K. M., & Savicki, V. (2015). Study abroad reentry: Behavior, affect, and cultural distance. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 26, 264-278. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v26i1.370

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed most of my concerns and the revised paper is much clearer. Although the author refused to provide descriptive statistics, I am fine with that as long as the editor and the journal don't require that. The paper will contribute to the field of SA and I recommend it for publication.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

25 Nov 2021

---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---

COMMENTS FROM/REPLIES TO REVIEWER #1

---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---

Reviewer #1:

Although I appreciate the authors’ careful attention to each aspect of the reviewers’ comments, I remain concerned about the rationale for studying mood in STSA. In their revision, the authors have added a discussion of Lysgaard’s U-curve hypotheses (in the Introduction and the Discussion sections) as central to their rationale. Yet, empirical research has not supported the U-curve hypothesis (see, for example, Chien, 2016; Gray & Savicki, 2015). As I read the revision, I found myself still wondering about the possible significance and implications of the authors’ findings on STSA participants’ elevated mood. The statement in the Discussion indicating that “This is important because short-term programs are a more accessible alternative to long term…” still didn’t answer my question. Then, in the last paragraph of the manuscript, the authors make a fascinating comment – “[these findings] suggest that the SA participants did not suffer a reverse culture shock in the aftermath of the STSA, in contrast with what has been reported about long-term SA program participants.” It seems to me that this latter point is the more significant contribution of this study. If, in fact, STSA programs are characterized by less severe re-entry shock than their longer counterparts, this information could contribute to our understanding of why re-entry shock occurs and may shape the content of pre-departure and in-country orientation for STSA participants. To my knowledge, re-entry shock in STSA is a topic that has received little attention in terms of empirical investigations. I suggest one more revision in which any reference to the U-curve is removed and emphasis is placed on the issue of re-entry shock (as indicated by the assessment of mood). I believe that doing so could significantly strengthen this contribution to the study abroad literature.

Chien, Y.-Y. G. (2016). After six decades: Applying the U-curve hypothesis to the adjustment of international postgraduate students. Journal of Research in International Education, 15(1), 32-51. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1475240916639398

Gray, K. M., & Savicki, V. (2015). Study abroad reentry: Behavior, affect, and cultural distance. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 26, 264-278. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v26i1.370

We thank the Reviewer for the useful suggestions made for improving our manuscript. As requested, we have now added arguments and supporting material about reverse culture shock after STSA, both in the Introduction and Discussion. Additionally, we now cite the empirical evidence that does not support Lysgaard’s U-curve hypotheses in the Introduction, and reference to the U-curve has been removed from the Discussion. In addition to citing Chien (2016) and Gray et al (2015), three other references were added to the manuscript. References added are as follows:

[22] Gullahorn JT, Gullahorn JE. An Extension of the U-Curve Hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues. 1963;19(3):33-47.

→ Cited in the 7th paragraph of "Introduction".

[23] Ward C, Okura Y, Kennedy A, Kojima T. The U-Curve on trial: A longitudinal study of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during the Cross-Cultural transition. Cross-cultural transition. 1998.

→ Cited in the 7th paragraph of "Introduction".

[24] Chien Y-YG. After six decades: Applying the U-curve hypothesis to the adjustment of international postgraduate students. Journal of Research in International Education. 2016;15(1):32-51.

→ Cited in the 7th paragraph of "Introduction".

[25] Martin JN, Harrell T. Intercultural reentry of students and professionals: theory and practice. In Handbook of Intercultural Training. Publications Inc. 2004. p. 309-336

→ Cited in the 7th paragraph of "Introduction".

[26] Gray KM, Savicki V. Study Abroad Reentry: Behavior, Affect, and Cultural Distance. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad. 2015 ;26(1).

→ Cited in the 7th paragraph of "Introduction".

→ Cited in the 9th paragraph of "Discussion".

We hope all your suggestions and concerns were properly addressed in the revised manuscript. Thank you very much for your time and effort in improving our paper.

---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---

COMMENTS FROM/REPLIES TO REVIEWER #2

---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed most of my concerns and the revised paper is much clearer. Although the author refused to provide descriptive statistics, I am fine with that as long as the editor and the journal don't require that. The paper will contribute to the field of SA and I recommend it for publication.

Thank you for recommending our manuscript for publication in PLOS ONE. Note that all raw data is provided, and in the main text we have reported rigorous and appropriate statistical analyses of all results, which we believe are in line with Journal policy.

--***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---

MINOR CORRECTIONS

--***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---

A minor correction was made to the name of ethics committee. Plus we now make it explicit that ‘written’ informed consent was obtained prior to participation in the study.

Submitted filename: Reply_to_Reviewers_Comments_PONE-D-21-12484R1_24 Nov 2021.docx

Click here for additional data file.

10 Dec 2021

Assessing changes in mood state in university students following short-term study abroad

PONE-D-21-12484R2

Dear Dr. Yamanaka,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Berta Schnettler

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors addressed all my comments and the revised version now reads much clearer. Therefore, I am happy to recommend it for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

14 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-12484R2

Assessing changes in mood state in university students following short-term study abroad

Dear Dr. Yamanaka:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Berta Schnettler

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE