Has excess epidemic prevention changed Chinese students' willingness to study abroad: three rounds of the same volume survey based on the new "push-pull" theory

China is a major sender of international students and shifts in Chinese students’ willingness to study abroad affect global higher education. COVID-19 disrupted international mobility through border closures, visa limits, and campus shutdowns, causing a sharp decline in outgoing Chinese students since 2020. Unlike many countries, China maintained strict prevention measures (lockdowns, travel restrictions, campus closures, prolonged online learning), potentially altering perceptions of overseas risks and domestic opportunities. Some evidence suggests a rebound in international mobility elsewhere as vaccination spreads, while in China strict policies sustained high public concern and parent influence, possibly further suppressing willingness to study abroad. This paper asks: To what extent has COVID-19, under strong policy guidance, changed Chinese students’ willingness to study abroad across early, middle, and late pandemic stages? Has the pandemic generated a new push-pull framework for student mobility? To address these questions, the authors ran three same-volume surveys (2020–2022) to dynamically present trends and propose an updated push-pull model that incorporates pandemic-related factors.

Traditional push-pull theory explains migration via outflow push and inflow pull factors, later refined by Lee to include intervening obstacles and personal factors and to recognize both push and pull within origin and destination. For international students, pull factors of developed destinations include high-quality education, opportunities, research infrastructure, and immigration prospects; push factors include limited opportunities and quality at origin, instability, and costs. In China, massification, exam pressures, and perceived value-added of foreign degrees historically pushed students abroad, while economic growth improved affordability. Recent work emphasizes students’ perceptions of push-pull factors and motives including reputation, employability, language/cultural gains, and social networks. COVID-19 reprioritized health and safety, heightened geopolitical tensions, and may have reshaped factor weights. Existing studies note reduced willingness among Chinese students post-COVID-19, though some argue impacts are temporary. This paper enriches push-pull theory by integrating pandemic-specific variables (e.g., worries about overseas epidemic severity; recognition of China’s epidemic prevention success) and by distinguishing four domains: study abroad pull/push and domestic pull/push, alongside mediating personal/family characteristics.

Design and data: Three rounds of the "Survey of Undergraduate/Master/Doctoral/Postdoctoral Students' Willingness and Choice of Studying Abroad under COVID-19" were administered in Mainland China: Round 1 (Nov–Dec 2020), Round 2 (Nov–Dec 2021), Round 3 (Nov–Dec 2022). Sampling combined stratified targeting of universities across eastern/central/western regions with snowball distribution via university gatekeepers; both online and paper questionnaires were used. A total of 13,191 responses were collected from 270+ universities; after rigorous quality screening (time thresholds, straight-lining, abnormal values, manual checks), 12,248 valid cases remained. Due to ethics (no personal identifiers), panels could not be tracked individually across rounds; studying abroad included Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, and foreign countries, while studying in China meant Mainland China. Sample summaries: Overall valid N=12,248; 68.01% male; 13.37% from 985, 15.11% from 211, 71.52% ordinary universities; 80.73% undergraduates, 16.27% masters, 2.69% doctoral, 0.31% postdoctoral; diverse home locations and parental education levels; 19.97% had been overseas; 23.82% had parents with overseas experience; 18.77% had relatives/friends abroad. By round: valid counts were 1,980 (2020), 8,281 (2021), 1,987 (2022). Measures: The questionnaire operationalized push and pull at both destination (study abroad) and origin (domestic) levels across 11 scale items: study abroad pull (academic, economic, cultural, social gains), study abroad push (academic, economic, cultural, political difficulties), domestic pull (academic, economic, cultural attractiveness), domestic push (expected difficulties at home). Responses used a 6-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 6=strongly agree). Reliability was high for 10 items (alphas >0.93), with one item acceptable (alpha=0.6235). KMO values ranged ~0.783–0.958 with Bartlett’s tests p<0.000, indicating good construct validity. Mediators included demographics (gender, age, university type/level, student type), family background (home location, parental education/occupation, income), and experiences (overseas exposure, relatives/friends abroad). Outcomes captured willingness change post-COVID-19, destination preferences, responses under different admission scenarios (domestic and overseas tiers), and willingness conditional on offers at varying university levels. Analysis: Logistic regression models examined willingness to study abroad before and after COVID-19, with control variables and sets of push-pull predictors. Additional pandemic-related predictors included worries about the overseas epidemic and recognition of China’s epidemic prevention success. Multicollinearity was acceptable (VIF<10), models passed F-tests, and fits were reported (R²).

- Overall decline in willingness: Before COVID-19, 2,606 respondents were willing to study abroad; after the outbreak, this fell to 1,506 (−40.14%). Parental support dropped from 1,186 to 551 (−53.45%). Across the three rounds, reduction rates in students’ willingness were 42.42% (2020), 44.51% (2021), and 36.59% (2022); parental support reductions were 54.19%, 55.31%, and 52.32%. - Reasons for changing plans (among those who changed): worries about overseas epidemic (86.93%); concerns about online courses’ learning quality (69.44%); restrictions on entry/visas/flights (67.98%); lack of family support (66.08%); worries about hostility towards Asian students (62.88%); delayed enrollment or class suspensions abroad (62.87%); reduced family income (38.63%). - Push-pull mechanisms pre-COVID-19: Study abroad pull and domestic push were positively associated with willingness; study abroad push and domestic pull were negatively associated. Gains from studying abroad—cultural, academic, social—were significant positive predictors; cultural and academic difficulties were significant negatives; domestic academic attractiveness was a significant negative; domestic expected difficulty was a significant positive. Economic and political difficulties abroad were not significant before COVID-19. - Push-pull mechanisms post-COVID-19: Study abroad pull remained positive (cultural, academic, economic gains significant; social gain not significant). Study abroad push strengthened: cultural, academic, and political difficulties became significant negative predictors; worries about the overseas epidemic was an additional significant negative. Domestic pull strengthened as a negative: cultural, academic, and economic attractiveness were significant negatives; recognition of China’s success in epidemic prevention emerged as a new significant domestic pull factor (negative association with overseas willingness). Domestic push (expected difficulties at home) showed a strengthened positive association with willingness to go abroad. - Changes in factor weights (pre vs post): Positive effects of study abroad pull weakened overall (cultural and social gains weakened strongly; academic and economic gains slightly strengthened). Negative effects of study abroad push strengthened (cultural, academic, and political difficulties). Negative effects of domestic pull strengthened (cultural and economic attractiveness moved from insignificant to significant; academic attractiveness strengthened). Positive effects of domestic push slightly strengthened. Pandemic-specific variables (overseas epidemic worries, recognition of China’s prevention success) became new components in the push-pull model. - Destination preferences: The attractiveness and ranking of traditional destinations (United States, United Kingdom, Australia; also Japan and South Korea) declined notably, especially the U.S. In contrast, some Asian destinations and regions with closer ties to China saw increased attractiveness (e.g., Hong Kong, Macao, Russia, Malaysia, neighboring Asian countries). Destination choice became more geographically proximate and politically aligned. - Admission scenario choices: If admitted to global top-100 overseas universities, the largest share would apply for deferred admission, with similar shares still going abroad or transferring to Mainland universities. For offers in the 100–200 or >200 bands, most would transfer to Mainland universities; as overseas rank decreases, studying abroad and deferment decline sharply while transferring domestically rises. For domestic offers, top-10 and 985/211 universities showed high and increased attractiveness; ordinary universities also gained slightly. - Return intentions: Strong desire to return to China post-graduation, regardless of whether domestic work/life/economic conditions were better, equal, or worse than overseas, aligning with perceptions of safety and policy guidance during the pandemic. - Temporal dynamics across three rounds (2020→2022): The positive effect of study abroad pull became more evident by later rounds; the negative association of study abroad push with willingness diminished from 2020 to 2022; the negative association of domestic pull weakened; the positive association of domestic push became significant. The importance of the epidemic as a decision factor declined in salience: mean concern scores shifted from 5.372 (2020, rank 1) to 5.358 (2021, rank 2) to 5.081 (2022, rank 8), with 2022 attention focused more on academic quality, admission requirements, and costs.

Findings demonstrate that COVID-19 significantly altered the mechanisms shaping Chinese students’ overseas study decisions, answering the research questions by showing both the degree and direction of change across stages. Health and safety concerns, political tensions, and policy guidance reweighted push-pull factors, adding pandemic-specific elements as new determinants. Strict domestic prevention and strong public messaging initially redirected intentions toward staying in China, enhancing domestic universities’ pull—even as elite overseas institutions retained some appeal. Over time, with vaccine rollout abroad and epidemic fatigue domestically, students’ fear of the epidemic waned, academic/economic rationales regained prominence, and willingness to study abroad modestly rebounded, though not to pre-pandemic levels. Destination preferences shifted toward nearby and politically friendlier regions (e.g., Hong Kong, Macao, parts of Asia, Russia) while the attractiveness of the U.S., U.K., and Australia declined. The study underscores theoretical significance by updating push-pull theory with epidemic-related variables and by clarifying how cultural/social gains diminished whereas academic/economic motives persisted. Practically, it signals to destination countries relying on Chinese enrollments (e.g., Australia, U.S., U.K.) to anticipate volatility and to develop contingency strategies; it also suggests Chinese HEIs can leverage increased domestic attractiveness and pursue regional partnerships. The broader context of anti-globalization and regionalization implies strengthening intra-Asian cooperation and preparing policies to manage increased domestic enrollment and graduate employment pressure.

The study contributes three main conclusions. First, COVID-19 reshaped the push-pull model: study abroad pull and domestic push positively relate to willingness, while study abroad push and domestic pull are negative; pandemic-specific elements—overseas epidemic worries and recognition of China’s prevention success—became new determinants. Cultural and social gains weakened, while academic and economic gains remained salient; cultural, academic, and political difficulties abroad strengthened. Second, under strict policy guidance, Chinese students’ willingness to study abroad declined substantially, domestic universities grew more attractive (especially top-tier), and preferences shifted from traditional Western destinations to nearby Asian regions and countries with friendlier political stances; intentions to return to China after graduation increased. Third, excess epidemic prevention reduced willingness in early/mid stages but, as fatigue and acceptance grew, contributed to a modest rebound in willingness in the latest period. The push-pull balance remains dynamic as the pandemic context evolves.

The study used cross-sectional self-reports with pre/post comparisons embedded in the questionnaire, which cannot perfectly capture true pre-pandemic baselines for the same individuals. Ethical constraints (no personal identifiers) prevented tracking identical respondents across rounds. Survey scales, though reliable and valid, may be affected by respondent fatigue. Future research should implement longitudinal follow-ups on baseline cohorts and incorporate qualitative interviews and mixed methods to deepen causal understanding and mitigate survey-only limitations.