Educational “success” of Asian Americans: An indigenous perspective

JOURNAL OF APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY l&329-343

(1994)

Educational “Success” of Asian Americans: An Indigenous Perspective UICHOL KIM MARIA B.J. CHUN University of Hawaii

INTRODUCTION

Asian Americans1 in the United States have been labeled “model minorities” in recent years (Bell, 1985; Kitano & Sue, 1973). On standardized tests Asian Americans achieve consistently higher scores on mathematics tests compared to the overall national average (e.g., 521 compared to 476 in 1987,530 compared to 474 in 1991, Scholastic Aptitude Test). Although they have traditionally scored lower on the verbal section, the difference is gradually disappearing (405 compared to 430 in 1987,411 to 422 in 1991, Scholastic Aptitude Test). The College Board reported that Asian Americans outperform all other students in high school grade point average, 3.25 compared to 3.08 (cited in Sue & Okazaki, 1990). Superior achievement levels of Asian Americans in mathematics, grade point averages in high school, and graduation rates (high school and university) have been reviewed by Hsia (1988). In addition to Asian Americans, in comparative studies of mathematics achievements, Stevenson and colleagues (Stevenson, Azuma, & Hakuta, 1986; Stevenson & Lee, 1990) found that Asian nationals (i.e., Chinese, Japanese) score significantly higher than Euro Americans on a standardized test. This pattern of results suggests that the superior performance of Asians and Asian Americans could be related to biological, cultural, or acculturative factors. This article outlines cultural and acculturative perspectives that provide insight into the educational “success” of Asian Americans. The biological interpretation has been reviewed by other researchers (e.g., Lynn, 1987, 1991; Sue & Okazaki, 1990,199l) and is not discussed here. The first part

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Department of Psychology, and the College of Social Sciences, University of Hawaii. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Uichol Kim, Department of Psychology, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, 156-756, Korea. IAsian Americans represent an extremely divcrsc group. Because it is inappropriate to talk about Asian Americans as a collective entity, the authors decided to focus on three East Asian cultures that share the Confucian and Buddhist hcritagc (i.e., China, Japan, and Korea). For convenience, East Asian Americans will be referred to as Asian Americans.

329

330

KIM AND CHUN

of this article reviews the cross-cultural variation on individualism and collectivism as they relate to motivation and achievement. The second part of this article provides an acculturative perspective that examines the interaction between the Asian Americans and the larger society (i.e., the United States). Although the collective orientation of Asian Americans assists in their initial adaptation, this orientation is in conflict with an individualistic emphasis prevalent in the United States. This section reviews Asian Americans’ attempts to adapt to an acculturation context that is often hostile and discriminatory.

CULTURAL

PERSPECTIVE

Hofstede (1980), in an international study of values, found an important bipolar dimension of cultural variation called individualism and collectivism. According to Hofstede, individualistic societies emphasize “I” consciousness, autonomy, emotional independence, individual initiative, right to privacy, autonomy, pleasure seeking, financial security, need for specific friendship, and universalism. The United States, Canada, Britain, and Western European countries were found to be high in individualism. Collectivistic societies, on the other hand, stress “we” consciousness, collective identity, emotional dependence, group solidarity, sharing, duties and obligations, need for stable and predetermined friendship, group decision, and particularism (Hofstede, 1980). Asian countries were found to be high in collectivism. At the psychological level, Markus and Kitayama (1991) similarly proposed the independent view and interdependent view of the self that parallel individualism and collectivism at the cultural level. Individuals who uphold the independent view of self are described as being “egocentric, separate, autonomous, idiocentric, and self-contained” (p. 226). Interdependent individuals are considered to be “sociocentric, holistic, collective, allocentric, ensembled, constitutive, contextualist, and relational” (p. 227). In the area of motivation, Markus and Kitayama (1991) pointed out that most theories of motivation affirm the individualistic bias by focusing on factors that are internal to individuals (e.g., the motive to enhance one’s self-esteem, to gain maximum rewards, to avoid cognitive conflict, or to theories develself-actualize). Yu and Yang (1994) noted that motivation oped in the United States, especially McClleland’s (1961) achievement motivation theory, affirm the individualistic bias. Within McClleland’s model, the goal, incentive values of the goal, standard of excellence, evaluations of one’s efforts, and results of one’s efforts are defined by the individual. Similarly, conceptual linkages across the domains of culture, socialization, personality, and society arc based on individualistic assumptions.

EDUCATIONAL

“SUCCESS” OF ASIAN AMERICANS

331

To understand achievement motivation in collectivist cultures, Yu and Yang (1994) proposed an alternative model, the social-oriented achievement motivation. In the social-oriented achievement motivation, the goal, incentive values, standard of excellence, evaluation, and fruits of one’s efforts are defined and shared by the group (Yu & Yang, 1994). The social-oriented achievement motivation is based on the following four interrelated factors; (a) interdependence, (b) substantive goals (i.e., collective good, social harmony, and social obligations), (c) effort, and (d) compatibility of values between the home environment and the social institutions. These factors have been used to explain the phenomenal educational and economic success of East Asians (Stevenson et al., 1986; Stevenson & Lee, 1990; Yu & Yang, 1994). Interdependence

and Substantive

Goals

Researchers (e.g., Azuma, 1986; Ho, 1986; Kim & Choi, 1994) agree that two important features of the socialization practices that promote interdependence in East Asia are devotion and indulgence. Mothers in traditional and modern Confucian cultures view unselfish devotion to their children as a critical feature of their personhood and motherhood (Azuma, 1986; Ho, 1986; Kim & Choi, 1994). According to Azuma (1986), when a child is born, a mother remains close to the child to make the child feel secure, to make the boundary between herself and the child minimal, and to meet all of the child’s needs, even if this means a tremendous sacrifice on her part. This type of socialization creates a psychological bond of anrae (interdependence). Children’s strong dependency needs, both emotional and existential, are satisfied by their mother’s indulgent devotion. It is through their mother that they obtain gratification, security, and love. As they mature, their primary motive is to maintain a close relationship with their mother. They accomplish this objective by pleasing their mothers as much as they can and behaving according to their mothers’ wishes. The feeling of nnme helps children assimilate their mothers’ values and beliefs as their own. As children grow up in these cultures, they are expected to transfer such identification and loyalty from their mothers to other family members, relatives, teachers, and larger social groups (such as the company in which they work as adults). A mother’s job is to use her interdependent relationship with her child to prepare her child for adult life. She becomes a mediator between the home environment and the external environment by gradually imparting appropriate social values to her children (Azuma 1986; Ho, 1986; Kim & Choi, 1994). In East Asian cultures, the relationship between teachers and their students is seen as an extension of the mother-child relationship. The climate of school affirms maternalism, but at the same time pressures

332

KIM AND CHUN

students to strive for personal excellence and encourages students to cooperate in a group (Stevenson et al., 1986). As in the home environment, children are motivated to please the teacher and their attention is focused on the teacher. Even with a class size that is as large as 40 to 60, students are more attentive, less disruptive, and more devoted to doing their schoolwork and homework than Euro American* students (Stevenson et al., 1986; Stevenson & Lee, 1990). Yao (1985) found that Asian American parents emphasize interdependence and substantive goals. Compared to Euro American parents, Asian American parents placed greater emphasis on the value of education for their children’s success and were willing to commit significantly more resources to ensure the best possible education for their children. Although Asian American children were performing much better than Euro American children, around half of the Asian American parents felt that their children did not perform adequately, whereas all Euro American parents were pleased with their children’s performance. Asian American parents tried to assert and influence their children’s career choice, whereas Euro American parents valued their children’s personal choice. Asian American parents valued close parent-child teamwork in children’s social development, whereas the vast majority of the Euro American parents stated that their children were more influenced by their peers. Compared to Euro American parents, fewer household chores were given to children by Asian American parents. Asian American parents respected teachers more than Euro American parents did and avoided challenging the teacher’s authority. Finally, Asian American parents stressed cultural activities, private music lessons, and language school as extracurricular weekend activities, whereas Euro American parents provided a larger variety of experiences that were not only flexible, but also fun (such as shopping, going to movies, and boat repair). Schneider and Lee (1990) found, in their comparative study of Asian American and Euro American families, several factors that contributed to the education success of Asian Americans: a supportive and structured home environment (strict monitoring of children’s free time, investment in educational opportunities, intact family); parental emphasis on respect for education and expectations of high achievement: children’s strong belief that effort would be rewarded: respect for teacher’s authority, and avoidance of conflicts with peers. Slaughter-Defoe, Nakagawa, Takanishi, and Johnson (1990) found similar pattern of results in their review. Bell (1985) noted that strong, stable families, a secure environment for children, an emphasis on intergenerational mobility, and economic sup-

ZAmericans Americans.

from Britain

and Western

Europe

who share individualism

arc labeled

Euro

EDUCATIONAL

“SUCCESS” OF ASIAN AMERICANS

333

port provided by parents contributed to the education success of Asian American students. Lee and Rong (1988) found that Asian American children are more likely to live in intact homes with two parents who provide security and support to their children. Although the median parental income for college-bound seniors of Asian Americans is lower than that of Euro Americans ($25,400 compared to $32,900) Asian American parents provide relatively large amounts of money to support the education of their children (Lee & Rong, 1988). Peng (1991) reported that the majority of Asian American undergraduate students relied on family sources for support more than any other ethnic group. Effort

The third important aspect of educational attainment is the emphasis on effort. In East Asian cultures, effort (an internal and controllable factor) is believed to lead to success, especially in educational attainment (Stevenson et al., 1986; Stevenson & Lee, 1990; Yu & Yang, 1994). Lebra (1976) found, in a free-association task, that over 70% of Japanese respondents (both young and old, men and women) attribute success to diligence, effort, and endurance, and only 1% to ability. Other researchers (Hess et al., 1986; Holloway, Kashiwagi, Hess, & Azuma, 1986) similarly found that Japanese mothers attribute poor performance of their children in school to a lack of effort. Euro American parents, in contrast, blame external conditions (such as the school, luck, difficulty of the task), or uncontrollable internal factors (such as ability) as significant factors in their children’s performance (Hess et al., 1986; Holloway et al., 1986). Although effort and education are valued because they lead to positive outcomes, they are also valued in themselves because they reflect an individual’s lifetime struggle to cultivate their moral character. Mizokawa and Ryckman (1990) assessed Asian American students’ causal attributions for success and failure in specific school-achievement situations. Asian American students viewed effort as an explanation of success and failure more than ability. The authors suggest that their results are consistent with the Mordkowitz and Ginsburg (1987) study, where they found Asian Americans resistant to learned helplessness. Ritter and Dornbusch (1989) similarly found that Asian Americans were more likely to attribute success in life to educational performance. Sue and Zane (1985) found that Asian American students study more hours per week than their Euro American counterparts and recent immigrants spend more hours per week studying than American-born Asian Americans. Ritter and Dornbusch (1989) found in an analysis of 7,836 high school students that Asian American males spent an average of 11.7 hours a week doing their homework, whereas Euro American males spent an average of 8.6 hours.

334

KIM AND CHUN

Compatibility White and Levine (1986) noted that in Japan, as compared to the United States, there is a greater congruence between the values emphasized in the home environment and those learned in the school environment. In the United States, individualistic values are often in conflict with a relatively rigid classroom structure, curriculum, and teacher-student relationship. In addition, students, parents, teachers, and administrators often hold different views about the meaning of success and how to attain it. This diversity of viewpoints, means, and goals is considered as the strength of liberal education and individualism. In Japan, there is a greater congruence among all parties about the goal of education and the method of achieving it. This collective agreement is a fundamental requirement of Confucian societies. White and Levine (1986) pointed out that this congruence minimizes conflicts and contradictions in the development of a child’s character, ability, and values. Hirschman and Wong (1986) suggested that successful minorities place a premium on ambition, persistence, and deferred gratification, and they exhibit a strong desire for intergenerational social mobility. DeVos (1973) stressed that the Japanese value for achievement and accomplishment, coupled with the need for affiliation, nurturance, interdependence, substantive goals, politeness, respect for parental wishes, sense of duty to community, diligence, and cleanliness are compatible with the dominant middle-class American culture. Sue and Kitano (1973) listed Japanese emphasis on hard work, family cohesion, patience, and thrift as being compatible with American values. These researchers argue that Asian values are similar to the Protestant ethic and white middle-class American values (Kitano, 1969; Nee & Sanders, 198.5; Schwartz, 1971; Sue & Kitano, 1973). The apparent surface similarity does not, however, represent congruence between the two cultural groups. The American culture emphasizes individualism and East Asian culture emphasizes collectivism and this contrasting orientation is the basis of acculturation difficulties of Asian Americans.

ACCULTURATION

AND

ADAPTATION

Acculturation is defined as culture change that results from continuous firsthand contact between two distinct cultural groups (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936). Although changes can occur in both groups, one group comes to dominate the other and exert greater cultural influence (Berry, 1980). The dominant group (i.e., Euro Americans) provides a context of emphasizing a particular set of values, skills, and norms. The dominant group articulates what is tolerable, acceptable, and desirable in a particular acculturation context. Members of an acculturating group (i.e.,

EDUCATIONAL

“SUCCESS” OF ASIAN AMERICANS

335

Asian Americans) under such conditions can adjust, adapt, reject, or attempt to change the given conditions. Researchers note that Asian Americans found their niche in the United States by emphasizing education attainment and becoming involved in small businesses (Bell, 1985; Bonacich, 1973; Lee & Rong, 1988; Light, 1972). They have utilized their collective heritage of family solidarity, individual striving, and communal sharing to adapt to American society. For Asian Americans, education serves as a vehicle for social mobility and social acceptance. Hirschman and Wong (1986) pointed out that “education was a channel for the social mobility of Asians, partly because they were frozen out of some sectors of the economy” (p. 23). Researchers (Hsia, 1988; Onoda, 1976; Sue & Zane, 1985) have documented that Asian American students who profess limited proficiency in English and who desire social mobility seek careers in natural and applied sciences. Schneider and Lee (1990) found that Asian American parents report experiencing serious job discrimination due to their ethnicity and clearly recognized structural barriers in the job market. These parents encourage education as a vehicle to overcome these barriers. Hirschman and Wong (1986) pointed out that Asian Americans’ emphasis on collectivity and hierarchical role structures are not fully consistent with white, middle-class values, which emphasize individualism and egalitarianism. Suzuki (1977) similarly noted that “Asian cultural values, emphasizing restraint of strong feelings, obedience, dependence upon the family, and formality in interpersonal relations, are being exhibited by these students” and that “these values are in sharp contrast to Western emphasis on spontaneity, assertiveness, and informality” (p. 35). Schwartz (1971) observed that many elements of traditional Chinese and Japanese values, such as the emphasis on collective rather than individual action and respect for authority, are incompatible with middle-class American values. Educators claim that collectivist values are inconsistent with the liberal emphasis in autonomy, freedom of choice, and self- determination in institutions of higher learning. Takagi (1990) listed prominent universities (such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, the University of CaliforniaBerkeley, and the University of California-Los Angeles) that are accused of discriminating against Asian Americans. At Brown University, officials conceded that Asian Americans had been “treated unfairly” and similarly at Stanford, officials acknowledged that possible “unconscious bias” has affected the admission rate of Asian Americans (Takagi, 1990). In 1989, the UC-Berkeley chancellor publicly apologized for “disadvantaging” Asian Americans in the admissions process (Takagi, 1990). Since 1988, Harvard and UCLA have been under federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Education for their admission practices (Takagi, 1990).

336

KIM AND CHUN

Bell (1985) noted that the admissions problem comes down to a problem of clashing cultural standards. Asian American applicants were not admitted to these institutions because they were seen as narrowly focused in natural and applied sciences, and perceived to be dull, homogeneous, and different from university alumni. Bunzel and Au (1987) questioned such subjective assessment of Asian Americans by investigating 30,000 Asian American and Euro American high school students. Although Asian American students participated in sports and artistic activities slightly less than Euro American students, the difference was not significant. In intellectual activities, such as honorary clubs, school newspapers, and subject-matter clubs, Asian Americans participated more than Euro Americans. Their data do not support the common stereotype that Asian Americans have significantly lower rates of participation in extracurricular activities than do Euro Americans. Asian Americans are also perceived to be low on social conscience, creativity, compassion, intellectual curiosity, and personal integrity, but these stereotypes reflect ethnic stereotyping and are not based on any sound empirical evidence (Bunzel & Au, 1987). Bunzel and Au (1987) pointed out that no admissions officer produced any conclusive evidence of significant character and personality differences between Asian American and Euro American applicants. Limiting Asian Americans in the name of diversity inaccurately assumes the homogeneity of Asian Americans ( i.e., “they all look and behave alike”). Asian Americans are also criticized for being interested only in science and technical fields and lacking an appreciation for a well-rounded liberal education. Bunzel and Au (1987) correctly pointed out that preoccupation with modern science and technology is the product of Western culture, not Asian culture. In Confucian tradition, a well-rounded scholar was central to Asian society centuries before the discovery of the Renaissance man and liberal arts education in Europe and in the United States. Asian Americans select these fields because they are the paths of least resistance and discrimination. Evaluations in these fields are more objective than social sciences and humanities, providing Asian Americans greater access to these fields. Narrow career choices of Asian Americans are due in large part to the existence of psychological, social, and institutional discrimination.

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSION

The educational success of Asian Americans can be attributed to their emphasis on effort, discipline, industriousness, frugality, a willingness to make sacrifices, and respect for authorities. Strong support from the family and ethnic communities has also contributed to their success. Psychological, social, and institutional discrimination are considered barriers that

EDUCATIONAL “SUCCESS” OF ASIAN AMERICANS

337

could be cleared through persistence and hard work. Asian American students, however, must deal with an ironic dilemma: They are taught the values of industriousness, meritocracy, and the American dream, but they simultaneously realize that societal discrimination does not allow them equal access to opportunities and rewards. The greatest discrimination occurs in the fields of social sciences and humanities, where evaluations are subjective and where English fluency is essential. As such, they choose a path of least resistance, a career in medical and applied sciences, where their performance could be evaluated more objectively, and that allows them to participate as equal partners. They, however, experience discrimination due to their narrow career choices and their perceived lack of emphasis on social and altruistic activities especially in prestigious universities. The dilemma that confronts Asian Americans reflects a larger societal crisis confronting the United States. Although the United States spends more money per student than any other advanced nation for primary and high school education, Americans students are among the lowest achievers. Asian Americans are, however, an exception to this trend. Ingredients underlying the educational success of Asian Americans are not mysterious factors hidden under the veil of culture and accessible only to Asians and Asian Americans. Factors such as the emphasis on effort, industriousness, delay of gratification, supportive family environment, and compatible school environment have been identified as key reasons why Asian and Asian American students excel in school. These factors existed previously in the larger society and they contributed to educational and economic success. If one unveils the cultural expression, the underlying ingredients mentioned have previously existed in the American educational system. The American education system and society are experiencing a crisis because many of these ingredients have been lost. To punish Asian American students because they are overachievers or attribute their success to some mysterious cultural or racial factors is an exercise in societal regression. The challenge is not to punish Asian American students for their success, but to learn about them and from them. The diversity and energy that Asian American students (and also other ethnic groups) bring to the United States should be considered as assets and as potentials. The experience of Asian Americans should serve as a lesson to rediscover American values, goals, and direction.

REFERENCES Azuma,H. (1986).Why

study child development in Japan. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Childdevelopmentand education in Japan (pp. 3-11). New York: W.H. Freeman. Bell, D.A. (1985). The triumph of Asian-Americans. New Republic, 193, 24-31.

KIM AND CHUN

338 Berry,

J.W. (1980).

Social

and cultural

change.

In Hundbook

of cross-urlrrrral psychology;

Vol. 5. Socintpsyct~ology (pp. ). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bonacich, E. (1973). A theory of middlemen minorities. Sociologicnl Reviebv, 38, 583-594. Bunzel, J.H., & Au, J.K.D. (1987). Diversity or discrimination? Asian Americans in college. DeVos, Hess,

Public Interest, 49-62. G.A. (1973). Socialirarion for achievement: Essays on the cutrurnl psychology of the Japanese. Berkeley: University of California Press. R., (1986). Family influence on school readiness and achievcmcnt in Japan and the United States: An overview of a longitudinal study. In H.W. Stcvcnson. H. Azuma. &

K. Hakuta (Eds.), Ctritd developrnenr nerd educoriorl irr Jopnrr (pp. 201-216). New York: W.H. Freeman. Hirschman, C., & Wong, M.G. (1986). The extraordinary educational attainment of AsianAmericans:

A search

for historical

evidence

and explanations.

Socinl Forces, 65(l),

l-27. Ho, D.Y.F. (1986). Chinese patterns of socialization: A critical review. In M.H. Bond (Ed.), Thepsychology ofthe Chinesepeople (pp. ). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s comequences: Interrlntionnl differences in bvork-r&red v&es. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Holloway, S.D., Kashiwagi, K., Hess, R.D., & Azuma, H. (1986). Causal attributions by Japanese and American mothers and children about performance in mathematics. In~erna~ionnt Jourml of Psychology, 2I, 269-286. Hsia, J. (1988). Asinn Americrrrls in higher educoGo!I oud tvork. Hillsdalc, NJ: Erlbaum. Kim, U., & Choi, S.C. (1994). Individualism, collectivism. and child devclopmcnt: A Korean perspective. In P. Greenficld, & R.R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cfr[clrrtr/ rools of minorif): child development, (pp. 227-258). Hillsdalc, NJ: Erlbaum. H.H.L. (1969). Japanese Americnnst The evolurion ofsubculnrrr. Englcwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kitano, H.H.L., & Sue, S. (1973). The model minorities. Jolrnznl of Social Issues, ZY, l-9. Lebra, T.S. (1976). Japnnesepotrerns of behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Lee, E.S., & Rang, X.L. (1988). The educational and economic achievcmcnt of Asian AmcriKitano,

cans. Elementary School Jomxoi, 88, 545-559. I.H. (1972). Business and welfare among Chinese, Japancsc, and blacks. In I.H. Light (Ed.), Ethnic enterprise in America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lynn, R. (1987). The intelligence of Mongoloids: A psychometric evolutionary and ncurological theory. Personnliry and Individurd Differences, 8, 813-844. Lynn, R. (1991). Educational achicvcmcnts of Asian-Americans. Americnjr t’sycho/ogis/, 46, Light,

Markus,

875-876. H., & Kitayama,

S. (1991). Culture

and self: Implications

for cognition,

motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. McCllcland, D.C. (1961). The nchieving society. New York: Free Press. Mizokawa, D.T., & Ryckman, D.B. (1990). Attributions of academic success comparison

of six Asian-American

ethnic

groups.

emotion.

and failure:

and

A

Journal of Cross-Clrtruml I’syctrol-

ogy, 21, 434451. Mordkowitz, E.R., & Ginsburg, H.P. (1987). Early academic socialization of successful Asian-American college students. Qlmrlerty Nebvslerter of the Lnbornrory .for Conpararive Human Cogniriotr, 9, 85-91. V., & Sanders, J. (1985). The road to parity: Dctcrminants of the socioeconomic achievements of Asian Americans. Ettrjric mtd Rocinl Studies, 8(l). 75-93. Onoda, L. (1976). Personality characteristics and attitudes toward achicvcmcnt among mainland high-achieving and undcrachicving Jap;lncsc-Amcricnn Sansci. Jor,r/frrt of Edlrcolionnl Psychology, 68, 15 l-1 56.

Nee,

EDUCATIONAL

“SUCCESS” OF ASIAN AMERICANS

339

Peng, S.S. (1991). Attainment of status of Asian Americans in higher education. In R. Endo, V. Chattergy, S. Chou, & N. Tsuchida (Eds.), Contemporaryperspectives on Asian and Pacific American education (pp. ). South El Monte, CA: Pacific Asia Press. Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M.J. (1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152. Ritter. P.L., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1989, March). Ethnic variafion in family influences on academic achievement. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, San Francisco. Schneider, B., & Lee, Y. (1990). A model for academic success: The school and home environment of East Asian students. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 21,358-377. Schwartz, A.J. (1971). The culturally advantaged: A study of Japanese-American pupils. Sociology and Social Research, 55, 341-353. Slaughter-Defoe, D.T., Nakagawa, K., Takanishi, R., & Johnson, D.J. (1990). Toward cultural/ecological perspectives on schooling and achievement in Africanand AsianAmerican children. Child Development, 61, 363-383. Stevenson, H., Azuma, H., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1986). Child development artd education in Japan. New York: W.H. Freeman. Stevenson, H., Kc Lee, S.Y. (1990). Context of achievement: A study of American, Chinese, and Japanese children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 55 (l-2, Serial No. 221). Sue, S., & Kitano, H.H.L. (1973). Stereotypes as a measure of success. Journal of Social Issues, 29,83-98. Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913-920. Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1991). Explanation for Asian-American educational achicvcments: A reply. American Psychologist, 46, 878-880. Sue, S., & Zane, N.W.S. (1985). Academic achievement and sociocmotional adjustment among Chinese university students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 570-579. Suzuki, B.H. (1977). Education and the socialization of Asian Americans: A revisionist analysis of the ‘model minority’ thesis. Amerasia Journal, 4, 23-51. Takagi, D.Y. (1990). From discrimination to affirmative action: Facts in the Asian American admissions controversy. Social Problems, 37, 578-592. Vernon, P.E. (1982). The abilities and achievements of Orientals in North America. New York: Academic Press. White, M.I., & Levine, R.A. (1986). What is an li ko (Good child)? In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child developmerrt and edtrcatiort irt Japan (pp. 55-62). New York: W.H. Freeman. Yao, E.L. (1985). A comparison of family characteristics of Asian-American and AngloAmerican high achievers. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 26, 198-207. Yu, A.B., & Yang, KS. (1994). The nature of achievement motivation in collcctivistic societies. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, SC. Choi, C. Kagitcibasi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications, (pp. 239-250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.